The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-01-3122943 MINUTES OF THE 919° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 31, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 919" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra Walter, Clerk -Typist II; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the dale of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2005 4 1-02-2 3 MID AMERICA SHOWS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 11-02-23 submitted by Mid America Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchants Association consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions from Thursday, May 4, 2006, through Sunday, May 14, 2006, inclusive, on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 2. 22944 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 12, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time and the legal description from the previous petition is acceptable." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 5, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchant's Association consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions from May 4, 2006, through May 14, 2006, on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Weyer in the Southeast X of Section 2. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated December 19, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Livonia Mall Merchant's Association for the carnival at Livonia Mall located at 29500 Seven Mile Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted as they appear to be the same as last year." The letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 13, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 30, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. Is there anything you'd like to add? James Wegerly, Vice President of Mid America Shows, Inc., 3041 Serenity, Oakland, Michigan 48363. Good evening. I have accompanying me this evening Miss Bobby Gelman, the Assistant Manager of Livonia Mall. I'm here, once again, as we do every year, to request permission to conduct a carnival at the Livonia Mall sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchant's Association. 22945 Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: On the 60 feet across the front, what is the first thing you put across the front? Mr. Wegerly: The first thing? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Wegerly: There are rides. Mr. Alanskas: I mean are they big tall rides? It looks like every year there's taller rides in the front and it looks so close to the street. Mr. Wegerly: We try to stagger a tall ride and then a shorter ride so there's kind of a variety as it goes along, but they are set back 60 feel from the nghtof-way, which is actually even further in from Seven Mile. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I'll ask the same question I ask every year. We got a report from the Police Department. Apparently, we had no problems oulthere lastyear. Everything worked oulfine. Mr. Wegerly: Good. Mr. LaPine: And if I remember right, we had a discussion last year on the number of sanitary facilities that you're going to set up out there. I think we asked for five or six. How many will you have there? Mr Wegerly: We will have six portable toilets as we always do, and they're serviced everyday. Mr. LaPine: I count the days you're going to be there as 11. Weren't you there for two weeks Iasi year? Mr. Wegerly: No. Well, actually, I mean we start setting up on a Monday, so I guess you could say we were there almost two weeks if you count the setup lime. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So the actual days you're open are Thursday, May 4, through Sunday, May 14. Mr. Wegerly: Yes. Its identical to Iasi year. Yes, sir. 22946 Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one in the audience coming forward, a motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi: I want to welcome you back. Mr. Wegerly: Thank you. It's good to be here. Mr. Piercecchi: How many years has Livonia Mall had this carnival? Mr. Wegerly: It's been quite a few years now. I'm going to defer to Bobby. Do you recall? Mr. Piercecchi: Fifteen years? Mr. Wegerly: She's saying five years. I think its more than that. I think 9's about seven or eight really. Mr. Piercecchi: Welcome back. Mr. Wegerly: Thank you. On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-09-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2006, on Peiifion 200571-02-23 submitted by Mid America Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchants Association consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions from Thursday, May 4, 2006, through Sunday, May 14, 2006, inclusive, on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200511-02-23 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Mid America Shows, Inc., which are May 4, 2006, through May 14, 2006, inclusive; 2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as illustrated on the site plan submitted with this request; 3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the 22947 carnival shall be located at least 60 feel distant from the Seven Mile Road right-of-way line; 4. That all trucks and other transportation equipment shall be parked or stored within the northwesterly portion of the Livonia Mall parking lot, but no closer than 100 feel from the west properly line abutting the Ziegler Place site or 250 feet from the south property line abutting Hunters Brook Condominiums; 5. That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., including motors on any refrigeration trucks; 6. That there shall be no living quarters at the location of the stored trucks; 7. That adequate access to nearest local hydrants be provided for firefighting and that adequate access be provided for medical units and personnel; 8. That adequate security shall be provided to insure a safe and orderly event; 9. That temporary fences/barricades shall be placed along north, east and west perimeters to prevent pedestrians/children from walking or running into traffic areas; and 10. That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter dated November 7, 2005, from James K. Wegerly, Vice President of Mid America Shows, Inc., which have been approved by the Police Department. Subjectlolhe preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies 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; 2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not impede access to the Livonia Mall; and 22948 4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#2 PETITION 200542-0224 FLEMINGS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 12-02-24, submitted by Flemings/Great Lakes -1, Limited Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service free-standing restaurant at 17400 Haggerty Road located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Before we proceed with this item, I am going to recuse myself. I am an employee of SchoolcmR College and SchoolcmR owns the property on which this restaurant will open. So to avoid any appearance of impropriety, I'll be turning over the gavel to Mr. Alanskas. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will the Secretary please note that Mr. Walsh stepped down at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 22, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time and the legal description referencing Unit 10 is acceptable. Detention facilities for this site are being provided in the overall project detention basin in accordance with Wayne County's standards." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 21, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 114 of Section 7. We have 22949 no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ardrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 16, 2006, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with the proposal by Flemings/Great Lakes Partnership in regards to the Flemings Restaurant located at 18600 Haggerty Road. It appears that the sidewalk and parking area are at the same elevation. If this is true, they must install parking blocks between the parking area and the sidewalk." The letter is signed by David W. Sludt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 12, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 19, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Alanskas: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us about this fantastic project? Stephen D. Binder, Nelsen Architects, Inc., 905 Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. We're the primary architects for the Fleming's Prime Steakhouses. We do approximately 10 of these per year. As of right now, I think there's probably about 25 across the United States. For all of you that don't know about Fleming's, it's basically an upscale steakhouse and wine bar. It's not only just a steakhouse. They provide a variety of different foods like poultry, seafood and some of the finest wine available. The basic layout of our building is basically three main spaces — main dining area, private dining area and then we have a separate bar and patio. If we can get to the elevations. The elevations are mainly comprised of stucco finish. What we basically specify is a two coal stucco system that is fiber reinforced. Then on lop of that it has an elastomeric finish. The fiber reinforcement prevents it from cracking. Its a very strong product, and the elaslomeric finish is basically like a waterproofing system. It's an excellent product. I want to make a comment about the signage. The signage that is shown on the south elevation, it's not actually on the building. Its behind a storefront, approximately three feet behind the storefront. I don't think that's actually considered signage. The other signage that is shown on the southwest comer, that basically complies, I think, with the city ordinance if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, on that building, what kind of signage are you referring to for the one that's not on the building? 22950 Mr. Binder: That's illuminated signage. Its on the south elevation. It's behind that glass storefront. It's approximately three feet behind the storefront Mr. Alanskas: Mark, that would still be signage wouldn't it with our ordinance? Mr. Taormina: We're going to let the Inspection Department make that call. We have a provision that allows for a certain amount of window signage. If they determine that qualifies as window signage, then it may very well be that what's proposed on the other portion of the building is in conformance with the ordinance. Either way, I don't think it's a significant issue. Mr. Alanskas: If you will recall on our two Walgreen stores, they wanted to put that glass front at the top also with signage, and we dd not allow that because we determined that it was signage. Mr. Binder: I do have a materials board here. I would just like to pass around for you to see what the exterior materials will look like, if I can do that. Mr. Alanskas: You can. It's kind of Tale but go ahead. Mr. Piercecchi: In reference to your signage, I understand that you are changing that to 69 each from 130? Mr. Alanskas: Dan, let's go into that after, okay? Let him finish first. Mr. Binder: On our materials board there, you will see that we have mahogany wood that basically encompasses the south elevation underneath the canopy. It's a very rich mahogany wood. You'll also see our typical awning fabrics. We do have lettering on the awnings that says "prime steakhouse and wine bar." Then also, you'll also see the spandrel glass that we incorporate in our window systems on the south elevation. Then also there are samples of the metal panel systems that we use. The bronze color that you see is basically used to cover up the mechanical equipment. You'll see it encompassing the top of the building around the perimeter. And then the champagne color metal panels you'll see on the south elevation there at the entry. Then you'll also see examples of our typical fixtures that we use, one being a custom made copper fixture. We use two of them on the entry facade there on either side of the entry doors. Mr. Alanskas: Are you through, sir? Mr. Binder: Yes. 22951 Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Dan, you wanted to ask about signage? Mr. Piercecchi: Well, I just wanted to know, have you really locked in on signage or is that still a moving target with how many square feet you're going to use here and there? Mr. Binder: Well, we've pretty much decided. We're kind of locked in but I mean its still, you know, up for debate, I guess. Mr. Piercecchi: We always like to see conforming signage because beyond that, you know you can gel additional. Personally, I don't think any of us have any objection to that, but it will require that you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals if you have a greater number or a greater size. Mr. Binder: Okay. Mr. Piercecchi: Ijust wanted to know if you were locked in on that because you'll have anotherslep. Mr. Binder: We would like to avoid a variance if at all possible. Robert D. Wneman, SchoolcraR Commons, LLC, 9100 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200, Southfield, MI 48034. Mr. Piercecchi, similar to the other restaurants that we have at College Park, and I apologize Steve is a little bit out of the loop on this, but we've been working with Fleming's to try to strike a balance between what this City's criteria is versus what they're looking to achieve. So the likelihood is that we will go to the next step, seek a variance from the ZBA, similar to what we did for Mitchell's and Bravo as well as Claddaugh. Mr. Piercecchi: I don't know this gentleman. Its the first time we've had the pleasure to meet him so I wanted to lel him know that if it doesn't conform, it doesn't mean you can't have it, but you have to go to another level, which is the Zoning Board of Appeals. That's why I asked the question. Mr. Morrow: I support what Mr. Piercecchi is saying but I've come up with a little bit different angle. Because of the sign being behind the glass by roughly three feet, it will be a call by the Inspection Department. And should they deem it as a sign, I'm not troubled with them going to the ZBA. It's very possible that they will not count it as a sign but as a window sign, as Mr. Taormina indicated. Also, I come from the standpoint because of the location of the facility within the park. Its not on any major mile road. It's well set back. It's used primarily just for the people 22952 within the park to find the establishment. So that's where I'm coming from. Mr. Alanskas: Yes, the signage in our approving resolution #11 addresses all that. Mr. La Pine: I'll talk a little about the sign too. The sign is going to be behind glass. Is the glass going to be blue like it is on that sample sheet? Mr. Binder: No. It's clear vision glass. Mr. La Pine: How will the sign be seen from the road? Is it lit? Mr. Binder: Yes, ilwill be illuminated signage. Mr. La Pine: Is it a neon sign? Mr. Binder: It's not neon, no. Mr. La Pine: But it will be It up and you'll be able to see itfrom the street? Mr. Binder: Correct. Mr. La Pine: You mentioned that you have 25 of these throughout the country. Do you have any in Michigan? Mr. Binder: No, we don't. Mr. La Pine: Are all the ones across the country constructed out of the same materials as we have here? If I went from this town to California, I would see the same thing? Mr. Binder: Pretty much so. I think we've had two in the past that have been constructed of brick, but for the most part, all stucco. Mr. La Pine: Is there a reason why you didn't consider brick at this location? Mr. Binder: Well, I mean, it's just a typical Flemings. It's basically our trade dress and we kind of want to keep that. Mr. La Pine: The only reason I brought that up is all the other restaurants in there except one are brick. One other question I have. I notice in the restaurant, you have two areas. One is the eating area and one is private. Is that strictly for parties or do you use that if you're real busy and you need that area, you can use that area for seating. Is that correct? 22953 Mr. Binder: Right. If its not booked up, but we have it open for main dining. Mr. LaPine: It can be open for main dining. One other question is about your parking because there's always been a problem with parking for all those restaurants. Is there going to be valet parking here? Mr. Binder: We typically have valet parking. You may want to answer that. Mr. Wineman: Yes. The answer to the question is yes. There will be valet parking. Thal triangular piece toward the lett hand lop portion of the screen, that's the intended valet parking area. Mr. LaPine: Okay, because that's the other question I was going to ask if you said you had valet parking. One thing about valet parking that I think I object to is the fad that at Mitchell's and others, they use the parking spots closest to building for the valet, and people dont want to pay for valet — I usually use valet — but they want to park as close as they can so they don't have to walk. You're paying to have the guy bring your car and parking for valet should be farther away in my opinion. I'm just curious if that is what you're going to do. Thank you. Mr. Shane Just to clear up the sign issue, what you're saying is that it will be internally It but not neon. Is that correct? Mr. Binder: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: In regards to Mr. LaPine again, can we make sure that we have the valet parking — that they park the cars way in the back instead of up front because that's an important thing that Bill brought up. Mr. Wineman: Well, certainly with regard to parking, I think its the intention of Flemings to, at a minimum, have the employees park as far away as possible. They don't want to inconvenience the patrons. Valet, there's got to be a little bit more of a balance given the amount of time it lakes the valet parker to go and get the car and bring it back, etc. So again, we felt ideally in that triangle piece that was probably the most well located place for valet parking to occur. Mr. Alanskas: How do you make sure that the employees do park back there, especially in the wintertime, because if it's bad weather, they want to get inside as quick as possible and to heck with the patrons. 22954 Mr. Wineman: Not being the operator, I'm speaking maybe out of tum a bit, but I would think that's something that's near and dear to their hearts. I mean they don't want their employees parking in a patron's parking spot, and it's probably pretty easy to monitor from the standpoint of when they're arriving. Again, this is a dinner only establishment. When they're arriving, it's earlier in the afternoon so that the manager of the restaurant could monitor where everybody is parking. Mr. Alanskas: Well, you know what some businesses do is, they give their employees slickers to put on their windshield for parking, and then if they're not parked where they belong, if a police car comes by and sees that sticker, they get a ticket. That might be something that you might consider. Question number two, in regards to your patio, are you going to have outside speakers? Mr. Binder: We will have outside speakers. They'll be at a certain decibel level. They will be very low. Low music, its not going to be loud music, just background. Mr. Alanskas: The going decibel, I believe, is 85 decibels for an outside speaker, and we have to make sure that you really adhere to that because we dont want a bunch of noise on these speakers. Mr. Binder: Okay. That's no problem. Mr. LaPine: I'm glad Mr. Alanskas brought up the speakers because I did have that marked down as one of the things I wanted to ask. What are your speakers used for? Is it for music outside or to call people in that their tables are ready? Why do you need the speakers? Mr. Binder: On the patio, you're talking about? Mr. LaPine: On the patio area? Mr. Binder: You're talking about ... Mr. LaPine: I'm talking about the speakers outside, period. I don't know where they're going to be. I want to know what their use is for. What do you need them for? Mr. Binder: Its just basically kind of like a background type music. They play classical background music. I don't know. Mr. LaPine: I understand. I've been places where they had outside speakers where people were wailing for tables. "Mr. Jones, 22955 your table is ready." I'm just curious why we need the outside speakers. If it's going to be for music, I guess that's all right. Mr. Binder: Its just background music. Mr. La Pine: Is the same music played inside the restaurant? Mr. Binder: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #01-10-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2006, on Petition 2005-12-02-24, submitted by Flemings/Great Lakes -1, Limited Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service free-standing restaurant at 17400 Haggerty Road located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-12-02-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan prepared by Nelsen Architects, Inc., dated November, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by J. Eppink Partners, Inc., with a submission dale of November 28, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the South and East Building Elevations Plan and the North and West Building Elevations Plan prepared by Nelsen Architects, Inc., both dated January 11, 2006, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 22956 6. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 294, including 262 interior seats and 32 exterior patio seats; 7. That the dumpsler enclosure shall be constructed of CMU units with a stucco exterior finish to match the building and shall have metal gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all times; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 9. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and shall not exceed a maximum height of 20 feel above grade; 10. That all parking spaces shall be double striped; 11. That wall signage shall be limited to the signs portrayed on the Building Elevation Plans, subject to any variance that may be needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining thereto. Any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 12. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 13. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulation contained in the correspondence dated January 16, 2006, from the Traffic Bureau; 14. That sound levels of any outdoor speakers shall be kept to a reasonable minimum so as to not become objectionable; 15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for the building permits. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies 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; 22957 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion? Mr. La Pine: Yes, I have one question for Mr. Taormina. On the awnings, Mark, where they have the wording like "wine bar' and "steakhouse;' is that considered signage at this point? Mr. Taormina: We will probably use the same standard that we used with the other three restaurants, and that is to limit the height of the lettering to four inches if they have no objection to that. It worked out well before and would provide for consistent signage within the complex. Mr. La Pine: That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: And I have one other question. Will this restaurant be taking reservations? Mr. Binder: Yes, they will. Mr. Alanskas: Okay, fine. Mr. La Pine: I understand you're not open for lunch. Its strictly a dinner operation? Mr. Binder: Yes. Approximately, I think it's 5:00 to 10:00. Mr. Alanskas: Will the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Smiley, LaPine, Pieroecchi, Morrow, Alanskas NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Walsh ABSENT: None Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Will the Secretary please show that Mr. Walsh returned at 8:10 p.m. 22958 YI=l,4Ei$=9=kIYOle] i! K1X;75 PZYbA,�3H N=1 =1:1 y_1 NCO Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 12-02-25, submitted by Agree Realty Corp. Limited Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct a commercial building (Walgreen's) with a drive thru pharmacy at 17001 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Mallory Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning oflhe surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 3, 2006, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time and the legal description is correct. The description for the waiver use area is shown below. The drive approach to Six Mile Road will require a permit from Wayne County and detention facilities will be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 21, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building (Walgreen's) with a drive-thru pharmacy on property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Mallory Drive and Six Mile Road in the Northeast X of Section 18. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: If subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. Currently, the location of the hydrant is too close to the Fire Department connection." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 16, 2006, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with the proposal by Agree Realty Corp in regards to the Walgreen's located at 17001 Newburgh Road. The only concern is that they post a Wrong way' or similar sign at the exit of the double lane drive thru to stop treffic from entering this one way area." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 12, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your 22959 request of December 19, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Future building Retail A needs to be shifted one foot to the south or Walgreen's building needs to be shifted one foot to the north, or a combination, so that the two drive thm lanes in between the buildings have the required width of 12 feet minimum or 24 feet for both. (2) This plan as proposed will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of wall signs and excessive square footage. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. In connection with the letter from the Inspection Department, the petitioners revised plans do address the issues that were listed in the letter. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: Going back to the beginning, I notice the parcel that's owned by the City, but is yet being developed by this petitioner, is in a C-2 classification. My question is, would it be productive at a later dale to rezone that to a Public Land classification and remove the C-2 zoning from that parcel? Mr. Taormina: I think that would be in order at some point in the future. That's cored. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: We will go to the petitioner. Good evening, Mr. Amann. Bryan Amann, Brashear Tangora Gallagher Creighton & Amann LLP, 355 N. Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan 48187. Good evening. We're prepared to answer any questions you might have. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Amann, when you first came in here for the rezoning, we had long discussions. Al least on three or four occasions, you mentioned to us there was going to be Walgreens and a bank there. We found out just recently that now we're looking at the possibility of a retail store there. Is that correct? Mr. Amann: Your ieslalement of the facts are correct. It's our desire and intent, as we expressed at the first meeting, to actually get a bank to occupy the space. The way to describe that use is retail space. The conditions we think, as they're read as the recommendation for approval, would suggest that since you have only before you tonight really the only specific use of the Walgreens, that we would understand and agree that before we had any particular use for the rest of that site, that would have to 22960 come back to this Planning Commission for a review. It's still our desire and intent to get a bank for the balance of that parcel. Mr. La Pine: Well, I'm glad to hear that. The other question I have, according to the new plans that we have, the Walgreens is going to be around 15,000 square feet. When you came to us, you told us the Walgreens stores are anywhere from 11,000 to 13,000 square feel, and then the bank was going to be 3,000 to 3,200 square feel. Now, I don't have a problem with Walgreens, but I do have a problem with the retail store. If it's going to be 5,000 square feet, it's possible that we could have three or four tenants if you don't get a bank or if you don't gel a credit union or something like that. That bothers me because, quite frankly, I stated at the beginning of the meeting when we had the rezoning, that I wasn't in favor of rezoning the property. I thought OS should stay the way it is, but Mr. Morrow convinced me that this was a good deal because we're going from OS, to C-2 down to G7, and I bought it. But I'm not happy to have retail there because right across the street on the northeast corner, we okayed some C-2 over there, and I don't think we need any more strip malls. All I hear around town as I talk to different people, we don't need any more strip malls. Strip malls are all over town. They're empty, and I'm not in favor of another strip mall. Period. Mr. Amann: And we understand that. In fad, I think we hear and our prospective tenants and users hear the same comments. It wouldn't be a surprise that if when we get back to you, particularly if it's a bank, that the pad is going to look more something like a 4,100 square foot pad. What we've put on the plan tonight is essentially a potential envelope as the maximum that you could see. But clearly it's our desire and understanding that before we came back to you, before we did anything, that we'd have to come back to you with the specific use and the size thereof. What you see tonight, though, is the potential maximum envelope that could be there. If it's a bank, then most of those are typically between 3,600 and 4,100 square feet in size. Also with the comments we had regarding the other foot needed for each drive lhru, we tried to move and shrink those down. So we certainly understand that and we also hear from the marketplace side in terms of the desire to not have necessarily strip mall kinds of uses, and that's why we've been trying to seek so hard to try to actually line up a bank deal because there seems to be growing demand, surprising to most people, for more and more bank uses. But that's what you have in terms of the maximum potential envelope there. We're not asking you to necessarily approve that envelope tonight or anything. We're really only looking at the Walgreens 22961 recognizing that the balance of that parcel would have to come back to you at a subsequent meeting for the size and the use. Mr. LaPine: Well, I'm glad to hear you clarify that because it really upset me when I heard that we're not going to get the bank there, and I can understand there may be some problems, but I'm not really in favor of a strip mall there or three or four stores because if we do gel a strip mall . then it was mentioned at the study session something about a restaurant maybe going in there, which doesn't sit well with me. The problem I have with these strip malls, we gel the same stuff. We'll gel a telephone store, a pizza store. We get the same stuff. It's to the point now where we're over -saturated with strip malls with the same types of stores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Basically, I just want to reinforce what Mr. LaPine said, particularly because he's going to pin the rose on me. We realize that is a speculative building. We're only looking at a pad tonight at best, and that this body is looking for a single tenant, hopefully. We think it's a prime piece of property. So we expect you to endeavor to kind of go along with what we were expecting to begin with, although there can be no guarantees. So when you come back before us to develop that site, just bear those things in mind of what we're looking for. Mr. Amann: And we share your interest. We really do. We share your interests clearly from an owners perspective. If we can deal with one prospective tenant per se for the entire parcel, then we're all at the same better position as well. We understand that and those words will be well taken. We were at the City Council when Commissioner LaPine showed and expressed his concern about that. We certainly look note of that and understood the severity of the concern. It's not been lost. Mr. Morrow: And the only other question I've got at this time is the city - owned property that you'll be developing. What is the time frame on that? Will that be developed concurrent with the Walgreens? Mr. Amann: Correct. It will be part of the unified construction of the Walgreens site. I spoke with the City Attorney yesterday who said he had various issues with the potential proposed development agreement we had relating to that and had recommended some revisions. And I said, we're agreeable to whatever revisions you might have, but the desire is to develop than in one fell swoop in terms of that park feature in the corner there. And then this property will support that through a perpetual easement agreement for its maintenance. And 22962 because the Mayor and the Administration made it very clear to us, they interested in more amenities like this, but in light of the current pressures on budgetary concerns that we should not try to build something that is going to put more budget pressure on the city. So it's the intent and the purpose of this agreement to forever burden this properly with the maintenance of that corner as well as a gittlo the city. Mr. Morrow: I just want to be sure that the development of that parcel was not lied to the development of the future pad. Mr. Amann: No, it will be done in the first phase. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, as you can see, the Planning Commission, and I'm sure the City Council loo, has much concern about what that satellite building will be used for. When you came here last time, I don't want to repeal what Bill said, but you did say one particular type of building would go in there. And we wondered why it was going to be 5,100 square feet. It wasn't just a proposed building. I started doing some of the math here, and its going to be very small if there's not one tenant. Inasmuch as we have this concern about the satellite structure, would you accept deleting that from your current plan and take it up later on as a satellite development? Mr. Amann: All we're asking you to look at tonight, essentially, as part of the overall incorporation of the plan, is showing what the potential pad is. I think we're in agreement. I think essentially if we were to leave tonight with the approval we would hope to get, it would not be that it allows any particular use or configuration of that envelope. That envelope is being shown as pretty much a conceptual potential envelope, and nothing you do here tonight would be approving any particular use or structure on that. We would have to come back to you for either of that. So we don't view it as necessarily included for those purposes. I think maybe then it's fair to say it's considered deleted as it relates to the particular envelope and those kinds of things. But I think we felt bound to show how it integrates into the entire site from a conceptual perspective, and then what we would hope to come back to you the fitting in with the confines of that envelope or lesser thereof. Mr. Piercecchi: But if we approve that envelope as a G7, we really have no control over what goes in there providing it meets the city ordinances. Mr. Amann: Except by stipulation. We're stipulating to come back to you as to the use and configuration of the site as part of this approval. 22963 Its important for us to have the C-1. The zoning that has been recommended for it is G7. That's at the City Council pursuant to your recommendation. So when we go to them with the site plan, all we would have then is that the balance of the site would have to be developed pursuant to C-1 requirements. But on this recommendation that we're seeking tonight, we are willing to stipulate as part of the approval that we're not entitled to any particular use of that site or configuration of the building unless we come back to you for the particular use and the configuration. So I think we give you that control. Mr. Piercecchi: What kind of input will we have? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, we will have site plan approval. We've already approved and moved on to the Council the rezoning. Mr. Piercecchi: I know, but a little bit of credibility has been lost here because, as our colleague here pointed out, a bank has been mentioned four or five times in our minutes. Mr. Amann: And our picture, there's no question. Even our elevation at that time, and we show it tonight what we expect it to be a potential drive lhm for that bank. I mean we expected and we still hope for it to be that, but what we're saying is, and we're not asking you to rely on credibility or to rely on faith. We're saying, we expect as part of any approval to come back to you as to any particular use, whether it's consistent with C-1 or not, to come back to you as the use and the actual configuration of the building. Mr. Piercecchi: We'll have site plan approval, but that doesn't mean we can dictate what goes in there. We can't control businesses. I would feel much better, maybe I speak for myself only, but if that satellite building was taken off those plans and we negotiated that at another dale. Mr. Amann: It's always great when the client gives me something I should have thought of in the first place. This is being proposed to be developed pursuant to a development agreement. That may be the exact kind of thing that would be appropriate to put in the development agreement so that you have that comfort level that although it has C-1 zoning for the whole thing, that the exact use and the nature of the use and the configuration of the use has to be yet done to the subject of your approval at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Since we're trying to do this by agreement, it gives you certain contractual abilities that you otherwise wouldn't have. So we would have no objection to that. 22964 Mr. Piercecchi: In effect what you're telling me, we could have a contractual agreement? Mr. Amann: Yes, we proposed that to you so that could be a term as part of that contract. Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you. Ms. Smiley: My question is about Walgreens. Would that be similar in size to the one at Six Mile and Farmington? Mr. Amann: It's very dose, like within five or len percent. They're all right around 14,000, 13,900, 14,200 in that range. Yes, very similar. Mr. Shane: I have a site plan question. Mr. Amann: A site plan question! Okay. What the heck. Mr. Shane: What time of the day would the dumpsler be apt to service that area? Mr. Amann: I try to handle all softball and puff questions. Anything tougher than that, I hand to the client. So I'm going to defer to Mr. Dave Prueler. Mr. Shane: I'll tell you why I asked the question, and that is, if it happens during business hours, then you have a conflict with traffic coming south. The only way they can gel there is to go north on that road, and that's why I was asking. Mr. Amann: We noticed that in the design. Although you attempt by contract to control your hours of dumpsler operation, we're not dealing with necessarily the highest denominator of operator. So we try to control that by hourly agreement, but that doesn't mean they're not going to show up at noon when you expect them to be there at 6:00 a.m. It impacts our business more than anybody else. Do you have anything beyond that at all? David Pmeter, Agree Realty Corp., 31850 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. 1 do. Two comments. Walgreens requires all deliveries, all trucks, dumpslers, whatever that may be, between 8 and 5. Number two is in terms of dumpsler removal - one time perweek. Mr. Shane: Al what time? Mr. Pmeter: I don't know the time it would be there. 22965 Mr. Amann: It's a one time a week ... Mr. Pmeler: All I know is that it's only one time per week to satisfy the load of lhaldumpster. Mr. Shane: Hopefully it doesn't come at a time when there's people stacked up to go through the drive thru. Mr. Amann: We'll find out very quickly from customer complaints. Mr. Alanskas: When I was a young man, which was many moons ago, my parents always taught me that the word "if' was and is the biggest word in the dictionary. What concerns me is, I agree with Dan, if we approve this, you can come back at a later date and say, well, you know we said we'd try to get this and try to gel that, but all we can do is gel three or four different businesses in here. I, as one commissioner, am really concerned. I just can't see approving that. I can see approving just Walgreens and not even have the other part in this structure. To me, it's very alarming because we said one thing for sure and it didn't turn out that way, and that's what I, as one person, like somebody else voted on it, we were under that assumption that there was going to be one business in that building, and now you made that building bigger, which tells me that you want to put ... you need it bigger to put more than one business in there. I, as one commissioner, just cannot go with this. Thank you. Mr. Shane: The contractual agreement that you mentioned, at what point in time would you be drawing up this agreement? Mr. Amann: The agreement has already been drafted. Its in front of your city attorney now. What I would recommend is that we add the provision that I described tonight as part of the revisions the city attorney has recommended on other issues. We spoke at some length yesterday, and he said they have a few revisions he wants to recommend. I said we're agreeable to any of those, but my recommendation would be, and this agreement is intended to go with the site plan application to the Council. It's a simultaneous thing, which not only provides for the site plan, but provides for the maintenance and the installation of all the corner improvements. And so, the thinking is in that agreement we would specifically provide so that even Commissioner Alanskas concern's about whether there's one or two uses in there, it gives the Planning Commission the discretion to really enforce that concern at the appropriate time. The benefit to us is that if we have at lead the zoning in place, a prospective 22966 user, a bank or whatever, even if it's just one user, we can say, listen, ifs just a matter of site plan. Ifs not the entitlement to a use per se. It's going to be the physical layout and those kinds of things. From a prospective tenant's view, it's a lot more comforting and a lot easier in that regard. But I think we can work out for you specific language in that agreement to resolve those concerns. Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, when the time comes, having heard that, I think I'm gang to be in the position to maybe offer a tabling resolution until we see this contractual agreement, which would hopefully become a part of this resolution. Its just my feelings at this point. Mr. Walsh: We'll keep that in mind. Mr. Amann: For one quick response. It was submitted simultaneously with the Iasi submission of these things. We've always intended to move forward in that bank, particularly because there are extraordinary features about this as it relates to the comer and other items. So that agreement is before your city attorney and is being reviewed. It's been with him for a few weeks at lead. Mr. Morrow: What I hear tonight, for all intents and purposes, he has already verbally, as part of the public hearing, removed that from the site plan. He's further going to back it up by working with the city attorney to actually put it in wrlfing. So now we have a verbal commitment as part of this public record, backed up with something contractually, so I'm not troubled with that drawing on there. That's where I'm coming from. I don't think I could support a tabling resolution with that in mind. Mr. LaPine: I want to ask Mark a question. Lets assume at some point that we can't agree on that comer, the out lot we'll call it at this point. Can we rezone that back to Offices Services? Mr. Taormina: As long as there is no stipulation, tern or condition provided contractually in the agreement that Mr. Amann is referring to. We've tried to address the Commission's concern in the prepared resolution, Condition 16, and I think we could probably revise that somewhat to not only refer the site plan back to the Commission for its review, but also include language that would give this body more authority relative to the intended use and the tenant configuration. Mr. Amann: If I can follow up to that. Under the revisions to the state law last year, under the statutory change to the city Zoning Enabling Acts, this agreement can now, in fact, say, and we're glad to 22967 offer up that language, that this site plan will be constructed pursuant to your understanding with the attempt to have this envelope with one use and that if for some reason the balance of this site, we don't come to you and get your approval on whatever that is, then the underlining zoning for that portion of it can then be rescinded back to the OS. I mean that's what stale law now says. The development agreement proposed to you can have a lens providing for that so that you don't have to have that concern, but you have the underlining zoning, therefore you got us. It can, in fad, by effectively not having a site plan approved by you and a use approved by you, can lake away the underlining zoning for that portion. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Amann is correct. I'll point out, however, that the statutory amendment that he's referring to was part of the zoning enabling legislation. So it's really something that would be embodied in a zoning agreement between the city and the developer as part of the rezoning of the property, not attached as a condition of the waiver use. So our discussion here really is probably more relevant in the context of the zoning petition that is before the City Council and would be addressed simultaneously with this site plan as it moves forward. Mr. Walsh: I've intentionally allowed some of this discussion because we all have to make our decisions tonight as we vote, but I wanted to get a lot of this into the record because the Council is still looking at your zoning petition. Mr. Amann: Correct. And we would expect them to be handled simultaneously, so I think we have no objection to that being tied essentially. Mr. LaPine: My point is, if it reached the point where you can't gel a single tenant in there and you find a small office, a tax office, a tenant that could use a small office of 4,500 square feet, I'd be in favor of that. At that point, we would rezone the property to Offices Services and we're home free. Mr. Alanskas: One thing I dont understand is, you just stated earlier that our Law Department has had this new provision for three weeks. Mr. Amann: Our proposed draft ofthe agreement, right. Mr. Alanskas: For three weeks they've had it, and yet at our study there was nothing brought up about that at all from your people. 22968 Mr. Amann: I wasn't there, but I've had communicaton with departments and staff. I don't know if this issue as it relates to that was brought up per se in terms of relating to the development agreement. We've been proposed this all along. Mr. Alanskas: If that was brought to my attention at our study, I might have a different aspect on this. Thank you. Mr. Shane: If I understood you correctly, Mark, that development agreement would be part of the zoning process and not this waiver use process. Mr. Taormina: It could be. Again, the city does not currently have a mechanism by which it can effectuate a zoning agreement. We had this discussion at previous meetings and it was pretty much determined, at lead by this body, that it was not something that we wanted to embark upon at this time. Here we have a very unique situation given the fact that this property lies adjacent to city -owned land, and they're proposing to make these improvements, which so far have been mel with quite a bit of support. I don't know that ultimately the agreement that Council is willing to enter into would be done under the statute that was referred to. It might actually be something separate as it relates strictly to the city -owned property, but as I understand Mr. Amann, he wants it somehow lied to the site plan. Mr. Amann: Under the revised stale law, we have the ability to volunteer to you that as a condition of an agreement, and so we would certainly tender that offer. It used to be that prior to the change of laws, the subject of such a contract would be rendered illegal. The law has now been changed to say that municipalities are allowed to do this, and so that you can effectively connect the zoning and a site plan as part of a unified process. So we come to you and volunteer that. Mr. Shane: The reason I was asking, I was trying to figure out when and if we would see that agreement, at this level or at City Council? Mr. Amann: I'm not sure about your own process. Typically, though, under your Charter, Council is the one that has the ability to review and enter into agreements. Mr. Shane: I understand. They will approve the waiver use but we like to always have all the facts before us before we send it on, and that's where I was coming from. It would be nice to see at least a draft of that agreement as part of this, so we could at least refer to it in Condition 16 or whatever. 22969 Mr. Amann: Just for your edification, I used essentially as a form the same agreement we used most recently on the Consignment Outlet at the old Ethan Allen location on Middlebelt Road as a form your Council is familiar with and similar to the last two or three units we've done here as well. But the form, that's what it is, obviously substance and the names were changed, and we're protecting the innocent that way. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, ilwas #01-11-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2006, on Petition 2005-12-02-25, submitted by Agree Realty Corp. Limited Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct a commercial building (Walgreen's) with a drive thru pharmacy at 17001 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Mallory Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-12-02- 25 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -0.1 prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, dated January 31, 2006, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, dated January 31, 2006, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet SP -2.0 prepared by Rogvoy Architects, dated January 31, 2006, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 22970 6. That brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face flinch brick and precast masonry unit systems shall meet ASTM 216 standards; 7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 8. That the walls of the trash enclosure shall be constructed of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and with steel gates which, when not in use, shal be closed at all times; 9. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway; 10. Thatall parking spaces shall be double striped; 11. That the traffic lanes serving the drive -up facilities shall each be at least 12 feet in width; 12. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this petition, and ground signage shall conform to the Zoning Ordinance regulations pertaining to single business uses. Any additional signage, either freestanding or wall mounted, shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 13. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 14. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulation contained in the correspondence dated December 21, 2005, from the Fire Marshal; 15. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulation contained in the correspondence dated January 16, 2006, from the Traffic Bureau; 16. That more detailed plans for the second proposed retail building (identified on the Site Plan as "Permissible Build Area Retail A") including the intended use and tenant configuration shall be submitted to the Planning 22971 Commission and City Council as an amendment to the waiver use, and shall include, but not be limited to, exterior building elevation plans; 17. That this waiver use approval shall be contingent upon the developer making improvements to the city -owned parcel in conjunction with the development of the commercial property, subject to City Council approval of the final plans and development agreement; 18. That a fully detailed landscape plan for the adjacent City owned parcel shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City Council; and 19. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of the application for the building permits. Subjecllo the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies 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; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: I'd like to delete Condition 16 because I think we discussed that for all intents and purposes. The proposed retail building is off the site. Mr. La Pine: Is that all of Condifionl6 you're eliminati ng? Mr. Morrow: The future building that is not being handled here tonight. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the motion incorporates all the things that we talked to as it relates to deleting that portion of the site that's not being presented here 22972 tonight, and it will have to come back to us for our consideration at that time. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: If I may offer an alternative to Condition 16, which I believe addresses your concern, rather than just delete or omit reference to future Retail A, which would be more specific in terms of its requirement to come back before this body. So I would offer the following language if it's okay, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: Yes, please do. Mr. Taormina: That more detailed plans for the second proposed retail building (identified on the Site Plan as "Permissible Build Area Retail A") including the intended use and tenant configuration shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council as an amendment to the waiver use, and shall include, but not be limited to, exterior building elevation plans. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Morrow, is that acceptable? Mr. Morrow: I wanted to make sure we had the language that we are striving to come up with as a consensus of the Commission. So I approve that. Mr. Walsh: The motion made by Mr. Morrow would then stand as amended subject to a second. Ms. Smiley: I'll second it. Mr. Walsh: We have a second by Mrs. Smiley, and now discussion. Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: Just one question. I agree with the language you put in, but are we saying that he can come in with more than one tenant? Mr. Taormina: That would be subject to your approval as amended to this waiver use. Mr. LaPine: So if he came in with three tenants and we didnt want three tenants or two or whatever, we can deny it. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that would be the intent here. Mr. LaPine: That would be the intent. Okay. That's fine with me. 22973 Mr. Piercecchi: Do I understand what we're talking about here? For all practical purposes, that satellite building is not a part of this approval. Correct? We're not approving that. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Piercecchi: This is a potential site there. Its like it doesn't exist. Mr. Morrow: Its like the rezoning matter. We don't know. Mr. Piercecchi: Could I suggest this type of additional reason? Let's say a contract agreement, somebody can put it in different language, be submitted for approval prior to the action of this Board's proceedings become official, which means in about a week . . We've got a week, right, for our proceedings that they get submitted through the ... Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, we're not certain at this point if I understand Mr. Taormina. I'm fairly certain we don't have the contractual right. This body doesn't have the right to enter that contract. It would be a Council item. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, we realize that, but at least we could see what can be submitted to the Council. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Morrow? Mr. Piercecchi: I think Mr. Shane has the right idea. Even if we're not the final word, we are a major link in the proceedings. Everything basically goes through us first. Whether our decisions become finalized is another ballgame, but we are a recommending body. This gentlemen is willing to give us a contractual agreement. I don't see why we don't lake it and apply it. Mr. Morrow: I guess what I want to say is that I'm comfortable with the motion as we've massaged Condition 16. If the Chair feels we can vole it, and if it goes up or down, we'll find out. I'm not really interested in a contractual agreement at this time. I'm comfortable with that area being deleted and it will come back to us. Anytime we rezone a piece of property, we're really not sure what we're going to get when it comes back. This will not be the first time that people have not come forward with what we thought we were going to gel. The petitioner has demonstrated a full measure of trying to cooperate with us, and he knows exactly where we're coming from. Should he come back with a strip mall, he knows that he will likely gel a denial as it moves 22974 Mr.Piercecchi: That'sfne. Idon't want to keep this thing going all night Mr. La Pine: Just one thing. You know, in some ways I agree with Mr. Piercecchi that if there is some way that can be incorporated into the motion, the other item that Mr. Taormina is suggesting, and replacing Condition 16, 1 would like to see it happen. But if it doesn't happen, I'll vole for the proposal as it was. I don't think he's off base here. Mr. Alanskas: Just one thing. I have nothing against Walgreens going in that corner, but if I had a site plan tonight that showed a Walgreens and no other building at this lime, it would be so much easier to say yes. forward to City Council. I dont know what more I can say other than that. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi. Mr. Piercecchi: I share the logic. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Shane has asked for the floor and then we will return to you. Mr. Piercecchi: I don't quite understand the motion. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Shane has the floor. Mr. Shane: I'm safisfied with Mr. Morrow's explanation after Mr. Taormina suggested that change to Condition 16. Essentially, that's what we're looking for. Contractual agreement or not, this is sort of an agreement that you have in front of you that the whole thing comes back, we look at the use, we look at the site plan and so forth, which is what we were driving at anyway. Mr. Amann: Maybe the easiest way, we kind of think of this in residential projects, not necessarily in small projects, but maybe the easiest way to think about it is exactly what you're saying. You're kind of doing phase one tonight. Phase two would be the balance of it. Mr. Shane: Now, Iwouldn'lmind seeing that agreement sometime. Mr. Amann: We will send it to you tomorrow. Mr. Shane: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi? Mr.Piercecchi: That'sfne. Idon't want to keep this thing going all night Mr. La Pine: Just one thing. You know, in some ways I agree with Mr. Piercecchi that if there is some way that can be incorporated into the motion, the other item that Mr. Taormina is suggesting, and replacing Condition 16, 1 would like to see it happen. But if it doesn't happen, I'll vole for the proposal as it was. I don't think he's off base here. Mr. Alanskas: Just one thing. I have nothing against Walgreens going in that corner, but if I had a site plan tonight that showed a Walgreens and no other building at this lime, it would be so much easier to say yes. 22975 Mr. Amann: Effectively, that's all I'm asking you to do, phase one. Mr. Walsh: I'd just like to stale my opinion and then we'll move on to a vote. I think we're in a difficult economy. What we're operating with at present is an empty commercial building that was a bank at one time. Somebody vacated that facility, and it has remained dormant for quite a while. I'm fine with the commercial application that has been requested in the form of a pharmacy. I'd like to see a bank. I'm not going to repeal all the things that you've heard, but the economy moves. We have empty offices and we have empty commercial space. My intention individually is to do everything I can do to spur economic development in the City, but you certainly have the benefit of our comments for the future, and I really do appreciate your cooperation this evening. Thank you. Will the Secretary please call the roll. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Smiley, LaPine, Shane, Walsh NAYES: Alanskas, Pieroecchi ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#4 PETITION 2005-12-02-26 DANCING ELF Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 12-02-26 submitted by Dancing Elf Enterprises requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Dancing Elf Coffee Shop) in the Civic Center Plaza shopping center, on properly located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Fairlane Road in the Northeast % of Section 21. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first Rem is from the Engineering Division, dated January 4, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no 22976 objections to the proposal at this time and then; is no additional right-of-way required. The following description should be used for the waiver use area." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 4, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited service restaurant on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Fairtane Road in the Northeast X of Section 21. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 11, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Dancing Elf Coffee Shop located at 33723 Five Mile Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 12, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 3, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) As this is a change in use, this entire space will be required to meet the current barrier free/accessible code, including entry doors. (2) It appears that this site has lost and not replaced much of the landscaping installed per their original site plan. Specifically, the parking islands and the west property line should be replanted and irrigated to plan, unless the Commission and/or Council wish to amend the original plan. (3) In the southwest comer of the site is a wooden dumpster enclosure in full disrepair and two dumpsters and a grease bin sitting exposed. Provision should be made for all necessary dumpsters to be stored inside proper dumpster enclosures. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: Mark, would the people who are going to lease this particular restaurant be responsible for the parking lot and landscaping or is that something that the owner of the mall .... Mr. Taormina: Its not likely the burden would fall entirely on a single tenant. Those type of common area maintenance charges would depend on the lease agreement. We have notified the owner of the Inspection Department's report and hopefully that person is here this evening and can respond specifically to your question. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. 22977 Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, ma'am. Diane McAllister, Dancing Elf Enterprises, 19801 Fry Road, Northville, Michigan 48167. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add? Ms. McAllister: I'm very excited about this venture, and I hope to really help the community at this site. I think its going to be a great benefit to the City of Livonia. Mr. Alanskas: Is this your first adventure in the restaurant business or do you have other restaurants? Ms. McAllister: This is my first, sir. Mr. Alanskas: This is your first one. Well, I'll tell you. Ms. McAllister: I would call it a coffee shop more than I would a restaurant, but there will be food there. Mr. Alanskas: I really wish you well. Ms. McAllister. I appreciate that. Mr. Alanskas: You'll to have to sell an awful lot of coffee and donuts. Ms. McAllister: Well, I think we're going to do okay. Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have sandwiches there also or just coffee and donuts? Ms. McAllister: Al this time, I'm planning on a very simple lunch menu. Just some fresh soups and some wraps, but my focus is going to be on the specialty coffee. Mr. LaPine: I was out at the site looking at it. Most of my questions are going to be addressed to the owner of the property, but I have a question. Where you are located at the center, you're really off from the two main streets. We had a couple restaurants that came here not too long ago on Eight Mile and Farmington Road, two young men that opened two separate restaurants. I told him at the time, the location is terrible for you because you're set so far back off the road. There's not enough traffic in the center to generate enough business to keep you going. Unfortunately, the one guy has gone out of business and the other one is on the verge of going out of business. My worry for 22978 you ... I'm going to vole for your proposal but I want you to understand you're not going to get a free standing sign out on the highway. The only signage you're going to have is on your building, which is not going to be legible from the two main roads. I hope you understand that because you're going to have a lough row to hoe to keep your business going. I hope you're extremely successful and you start expanding, but I just want you to know that its going to be a lough thing for you to do. Ms. McAllister: I appreciate that. I've got a lot of ideas on how to make this work. I've got a lot of faith. I've got a lot of support. I don't think I'll lel you down. Mr. LaPine: Well, not lel me down. Ms. McAllister: I'm not going to lel myself down. Mr. LaPine: I dont want you to go in there and invest a lot of money and you find out inside of a year's time it didn't work out. Ms. McAllister: I've got some experience behind me so I think I'm in good shape. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Good. Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine, did you have questions for the property owner or do you want to come back to that? Mr. LaPine: Whenever the property owner comes up. Mr. Shane: I was just curious. Where did the name, Dancing Elf, come from? Ms. McAllister: I thought you look care of that, Mr. Nowak? Its kind of a personal thing. It represents kind of my persona. The shop is going to be a place of a lot of good energy, a lot of high spirit and a place where people are going to be able to really enjoy community. Its really basically just a synopsis of who I am. I'm a dancer and I'm an entertainer and I love coffee. So there you go. You'll have to come in and maybe you'll know more about it. Mr. Alanskas: When I first saw that name, I thought we were looking at a dancing studio. I too went out there. There's a huge monument sign in front that shows all the businesses that are in that center. So you will have some visibility on Five Mile Road. 22979 Ms. McAllister: Yes, and I've got a really good marketing plan. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for Ms. McAllister? If not, we'll go to the landlord. If the landlord is in the audience, please step forward. Good evening. Roselyn Perri, Farbman Group, 28400 Northwestern Highway, 4" Floor, Southfield, Michigan 48034. Good evening. Mr. La Pine: The first question I have, behind the building, you have one dumpster that's in a wooded enclosure that's tom down. There's nothing there. I don't know how you got a wood one. Under the ordinance, it's supposed to be masonry. Then there's four other dumpslers behind that building. There's one down at the far end. There's a grease pit. There's a dumpster. There's two other dumpslers more or less in the center. They all should be enclosed in masonry enclosures. Are you intending to fix that? And secondly, the parking lot behind the building is in terrible shape. There are big ruts in it and holes. It looks like in some spots you did do some patching. It really needs a whole new job back there. Its in terrible shape. And then on the west property line, there are no shrubs at all. It's looks like nothing has been done back there since the day the building was built. Do you have underground sprinklers back there? Was any shrubbery back there watered? Are you going to replace all that shrubbery or what are your plans? Ms. Perri: Well, I'd like to address one at a time. I will address the dumpster enclosures first. You're absolutely right. Its way beyond its life expectancy. They do need replacing. I have spoken with the owners. We're taking proposals right now. I had hoped to bring them with me tonight but was unfortunately not able to get them in time. So will build the proper enclosures for the five trash bins that are back there, including the grease bin. As far as the landscaping goes, I'm not quite sure when you're saying the west border of the property. Is that behind the center when you go around the center behind Peking Buffet? That way? Mr. La Pine: Right. Exactly right. Ms. Perri: I think that shrubbery, to the best of my knowledge, was actually planted by the property owner behind us or next b us. I don't think that was actually part of the center. Mr. LaPine: I don't think so. There's a cyclone fence that goes along there and that would be the property line. I'm talking about on your side of that cyclone fence. Al one time, I've got to believe that 22980 the City required landscaping in there. And it doesn't look like there's anything now. There's bumper blocks around there which are all cracked and falling apart. The main parking lot needs some repairs too. Ms. Perri: The main parking lot was repaired this year. We do have it in the budget to repair the rear alleyway, if you will, this coming Spring. Mr. LaPine: You say that was repaired in 2005? Ms. Pam Yes. There were three or four skin patches made and the holes were filled and whole lot was seal coated and striped. Mr. LaPine: It was seal coated. It wasn't replaced or anything. Ms. Perri: There were skin patches over the bad areas. Mr. LaPine: I realize there are some patches there, but there are still some big holes in it. You go out there and take a look at it. Drive through the whole parking lot and you'll see what I'm talking about. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, do you have any thought on that property line issue? Mr. Taormina: Well, Mr. Nowak and I were just reviewing the original approved site plan, and it did call for the planting of vibumum shrubs in the area between the westerly service drive and the west property line. As to how many of those shrubs exist today, I think that was what was referenced in the Inspection Department's letter, the fact that some of these shrubs are missing and would have to be replaced in order to bring the site back into compliance with the original approved site plan. Not only shrubs along this west property line are missing, but some of the plantings that were shown within these landscaped islands in the front parking lot. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions? Ms. Pam Could I address the parking islands? Mr. Walsh: Yes. If you willl, that will be great. Ms. Peri: Thank you. The parking islands had trees in them. They had ash trees and they're all dead, so they've been removed. It did leave them bare but there is no irrigation in the parking islands or in the rear on the west border of the building, so it makes it 22981 very difficult to plant. Mature shrubs have a better chance of making it than new plantings. They die very quickly if they don't get a lot of water. It's difficult to water if you don't have a sprinkler system. We would like to see the original plan. We don't have the original plan for landscaping. We do have plans for landscaping improvements in the front and on the side that borders the Livonia Public School easement. So we do have plans for landscaping there, but we didn't have pla ns in the rear. I guess I would like to see what we'd be able to do there. Mr. Alanskas: You say you have plans for additional landscaping. How is that going to be watered? Ms. Perri: There is irrigation on the front berms. Mr. Alanskas: On the front berm, but as far as the fences, there isn't any, Ms. Perri: No, there isn't. Mr. Alanskas: If you're going to put landscaping in there, new shrubs, how do you gel water to them? Ms. Pam Probably we're looking to replace trees and larger trees that had to be removed due to disease. So we're hoping we have some volunteers from the Bench Pub that will go out and water every day until they take root. That's the plan. Mr. Alanskas: You know now that's an impossibility. Mr. Taormina, I think that's a great idea that we would give the petitioner the original site plan for landscaping so you can see what has to be done to be brought up to the original site plan. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: There is one other item from the Inspection Department that told us that as this is a change in use, the entire space, but they mean the entire building, shall be required to meet the barrier free accessible codes, including all entry doors. Mr. Taormina, is that something that they are going to be required to do? Mr. Taormina: I think the barrier free issues are specific to the improvements for this tenant space, not the entire complex. We'd have to clarify that with ... Mr. LaPine: I think he says including entry doors. I think he's talking about the whole building. When I was out there, I didn't notice loo many ramps. How long has that center been there? Do we know? It goes back quite a few years. 22982 Mr. Taormina: Well, the dale on the plan here has been cut off. I would estimate1985. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-12-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2006, on Petition 2005-12-02-26 submitted by Dancing Elf Enterprises requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Dancing Elf Coffee Shop) in the Civic Center Plaza shopping center, on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Fairlane Road in the Northeast ''/ of Section 21, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200512-02- 26 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than 25 seats; 2. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition; 3. That no LED Iighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed; and 5. That the site issues as listed in the correspondence dated January 12, 2006, from the Inspection Department shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies 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; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 22983 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Morrow: I would like to gel a time frame. If this should be approved at City Council, when do you plan on opening up? Mr. Walsh: Ms. McAlister, she stepped out. I don't think she came back in. Do you know by chance when she intends to open? Robert Nichol: As soon as she can. That's the intent. They're actually working with contractors at the moment to finish the build-oul space. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Mr. Morrow: I encourage all of the members of our vast television audience to slop by and visit the Dancing Elf and give them a good sendoff. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. Ms. McAlister, Mr. Morrow just encouraged our listening audience to visit your shop. Ms. McAlister: I'm looking forward to it. Mr. Taormina: I want to point something out loo. We have media from all over the world slaying in Livonia right now, so you never know what's going to be recorded tomorrow. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#5 PETITION 200542-02-27 3 GENERATIONS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 12-02-27 submitted by 3 Generations requesting waiver use approval to operate a second hand store (consignment shop) in the Civic Center Plaza shopping center, on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Faidane Road in the Northeast % of Section 21. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? 22984 Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 4, 2006, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time and there is no additional right-of-way required. The following legal description should be used for the waiver use area." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 4, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a second hand store on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Fairtane Road in the Northeast X of Section 21. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 11, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with 3 Generation Consignment Shop located at 33849 Five Mile Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 12, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 3, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) It appears that this site has lost and not replaced much of the landscaping installed per their original site plan, specifically the parking islands, and the west property line should be replanted and irrigated to plan, unless the Commission and/or Council wish to amend the original plan. (2) In the southwest corner of the site is a wooden dumpster enclosure in full disrepair and two dumpsters and a grease bin sitting exposed. Provision should be made for all necessary dumpsters to be stored inside proper dumpster enclosures. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Gail Murdock, 3 Generations, 16618 Surrey, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add? Ms. Murdock: We plan on having a really nice consignment store where we do furniture. We'll have accessories and just a family-owned business. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? 22985 Mr. Alanskas: Will you be having used mattresses there? Ms. Murdock: No, sir. Mr. Alanskas: Your notes say you will have reconditioned merchandise. What do you mean by reconditioned? Ms. Murdock: If something is broken, we repair it or we finish a table, bring it back to how it was. Mr. Alanskas: How do you police as far as what you allow to be put on consignment as far as condition or cleanliness? Ms. Murdock: It will have to be in good shape. Extremely. Mr. Alanskas: Soil would be at your discretion to say yes or no? Ms. Murdock: Yes. Mr. Shane: There are a number of consignment shops in the city at the moment. I'm wondering what might be unique about yours that would set you apart from the rest. In other words, are you selling the same merchandise others are? Ms. Murdock: Well, I've taken classes in decorating and painting, and I feel I will be displaying my stuff better than theirs. There are a few shops in Northville that I really like and there's one in Milford. I just have a flair for decorating. Mr. Shane: My only concern is that we're getting so many of these, I'm just wondering how many do we need. I know there's one across the street that sells used clothing. Ms. Murdock: Right. She has clothing. I'm not going to have any clothing. Mr. Shane: We did another one on Plymouth Road, one on Middlebell Road. I know they're larger and a Iitfle different, but one wonders when enough is enough. Ms. Murdock: Like the Walgreens? Mr. Shane: Yeah, like the Walgreens. Mr. La Pine: Unfortunately, I voted against the last two consignments that came into the city, but I have a couple questions. This is a very small store, which means you can't have loo much merchandise. Where are you going to store your merchandise? 22986 Where is it going to be delivered, by the back door or front door? How long do you keep the merchandise before you dump d? Can you give me some of the background on how you're going to handle those types ofthings? Ms Murdock: We will be storing in our back room but we wont have an over abundance. Most of it will be out on the floor. We're going to have a lot of shelving to put things on. We should have a good turnover. Mr. LaPine: The storage area is only 40 feet. The merchandise that people bring for consignment, will they bring it in through the back door? How does it gel there? Dotheybringit? Ms. Murdock: Through the back door. Mr. LaPine: If you gel two or three sofas and chairs and dinette sets and kitchen sets, it doesn't give you loo much room for storage in the back. Your display area is only 800 square feel, which isn't very much when you have a lot of things stored. I'm just wondering if you have a location that is large enough for what you want to do, quite frankly. Ms. Murdock: I think it's large enough. It seems to be quite roomy. We're going to have a lot of bookshelves to display things, a lot of display units. Mr. LaPine: How long of a lease are you going to gel on the building? Ms. Murdock: Three years. Also, we only keep merchandise for 60 days and then the people have to pick it back up. Mr. LaPine: What if they don't pick d up? Ms. Murdock: Then we'll donate it to charities. Mr. Alanskas: The only problem I have with these consignment shops is, say you want to put a couch and sofa in there. To your viewpoint, its in pretty good condition, but the City has no way of policing what you're taking in, how clean it is. I hale to say it, if there's any bugs in the merchandise. I mean we have no way of policing this. Its up to your discretion. They say, yes, she's going to do this; yes, she's doing to do that. But like we've said here, we've got already one on Plymouth Road. Have you been to the one on Plymouth Road? Ms. Murdock: Yes, I have. 22987 Mr. Alanskas: Its a nice clean little store. They do I guess a pretty good business. Of course, the Salvation Army is entirely different, but they have used merchandise also, and we have no way of policing that, what they take in. So it's very, very difficult to say, yes, lets put another store in our city. Thank you. Ms. Murdock: I will be real picky with what I lake. I am trying to have it upscale. There's a store in Northville, Home to Home. Its a very nice store. I go in there all the time. There's tons of customers. People look at it as like a treasure hunt. lbu're trying to find what nobody else has. There's a lot of people that like going to those stores. Mr. Morrow: The one you just mentioned in Northville, tow does that size compare to yours? Ms. Murdock: Its about the same size. Mr. Morrow: That's about the only trouble thing I have. That size store is not going to make a big impact on the city. I guess I'm more concerned about viability than I am about the impact it would have on the city. By that I mean the turnover, the merchandise. Its a fairly large lease you're getting into, three years, if it doesn't work out. I know you cant comment. Those are just my thoughts. Ms. Murdock: Right. Ms. Smiley: Are you looking more to antiques or furniture that you yourself will refinish? Ms. Murdock: Some antiques, and we are refinishing. We're going to auctions. There's an auction house in Plymouth every Saturday night and they have a lot of nice hard wood, mahogany furniture, bedroom sets, china cabinets, curio cabinets. It's very nice. Ms. Smiley: I guess I would have to echo what the group's been saying about resale shops. They're just maybe getting a bad cop, but it seems like things that people are . . like used and in bad shape, I guess, is more what I'm seeing or feeling from that. And pu know you have a lot of stiff competition. That one in the Ethan Allen store is huge. Ms. Murdock: Right, and he's overpriced. Ms. Smiley: Okay. We'll, there you go. All right. That's didn't come from me. Ms. Murdock: And to all of them. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion is in order. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2006, on Petition 2005-12-02-27, submitted by 3 Generations requesting waiver use approval to operate a second hand store (consignment shop) in the Civic Center Plaza shopping center, on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Fairlane Road in the Northeast ''/ of Section 21, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-12-02-27 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; 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; 5. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate that the facility 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. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? 22989 Mr. Morrow: I'm going to vole no. When I came in, I really wasn't in favor of it, but as I said in my remarks that the impact on the city will not be that significant. Its a fairly small operation. We have entrepreneurs that are willing to risk their capital and invest time. Based on those two criteria, that's the reason. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, Piercecchi NAYES: Shane, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh: THE MOTION FAILS. We will be seeking another motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #01-13-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2006, on Pefifion 2005-12-02-27, submitted by 3 Generations iequesling waiver use approval to operate a second hand store (consignment shop) in the Civic Center Plaza shopping center, on properly located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Fairlane Road in the Northeast % of Section 21, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-12-02-27 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the area utilized for the sales and display of merchandise shall be in accordance with the floor plan submitted with this request; 2. That there shall be no outdoor sales, storage or display of merchandise; 3. That there shall be no display of merchandise in windows; 4. That used clothing and electronic goods sales are restricted and are not a part of this approval; 5. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefifion; 6. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 22990 7. That the site issues as listed in the correspondence dated January 12, 2006, from the Inspection Department shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction; and 8. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the occupancy and zoning compliance permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies 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; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: I just wanted to say coming in I was opposed to it loo because I think there's more than enough consignments, but I'm seeing this more as a specialty shop, and I wish you well. Ms. Murdock: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: I share the comments that Mr. Morrow and Ms. Smiley made. I was nervous. I thought you did a nice job in your presentation, and I'm going to wish you good luck in the future should this pass. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Morrow, Shane, Walsh NAYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Piercecchi ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 22991 ITEM#6 PETITION 2005-12-08-26 CHURCHILL MANOR Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 12-08-26, submitted by Soave Building Company, on behalf of Churchill Manor Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on properties located at 9213 and 9300 Newburgh Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 31. Mr. Taormina: This property is located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail. Immediately to the north of the subject property are residential parcels zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. To the north of that are the Whispering Winds Condominiums, an area zoned R-7, Multiple Family Residential. To the south is the Livonia Career Center properly as well as the Holy Spinl Episcopal Church, which is zoned RUF. To the east across Newburgh Road is Churchill High School and to the west residential homes as part of the Forest Oaks Subdivision. The petitioners request this evening is to develop a site condominium project known as Churchill Manor Site Condominiums. The property is in the process of being rezoned from PL, Public Lands, and RUF to R-1, One Family Residential. The Planning Commission on October 11, 2005, recommended approval of the rezoning, and the City Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning on November 30, 2005. Second Reading and a Roll Call Vole are to be scheduled for consideration at the time the site plan is presented to the Council for action. The proposed single family condominium project would consist of a total of 31 lots. All 31 home sites would have frontage and access to a new proposed public street that would have a right -0f --way width of 60 -feet. The proposed new street would extend approximately 960 feel west from Newburgh Road and then turn north for another 130 feet where it would terminate at the north property line. This stub road would allow for a future extension of the street to the undeveloped parcels to the north. The adjacent northerly parcels are currently in the process of being rezoned to R7, One Family Residential. There is a conceptual plan that was submitted in connection with that petition that shows how the two developments would link and forth a single loop road. The R-1 district regulations require a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feel per lot with a minimum width of 60 feel, and minimum depth of 120 feel. All the proposed condominium lots within this development meet or exceed the R-1 district standards. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that any lot that has a side yard abutting a major thoroughfare shall be 22992 increased in width by 30 feel. Lot 31 on this plan, which contains a side yard along Newburgh, would be 90 feet in width and conforms to this standard. There is also a 26 fool wide easement shown along the rear Lots 4 through 9. This easement is for the purpose of providing an underground storm water detention system. The lots along the south side of the proposed streets are all 156 feet in depth. So they have excessive depth allowing for this easement area for the purposes of complying with the county's storm water regulations. The Master Deed and bylaws submitted wth this petition specify the minimum size of the homes. For ranches that would be 1,450 square feel. For multi -story units that would be 1,750 square feel. All dwellings will have two -car attached garages. The first floor of each unit would be brick on all four sides. The total amount of brick would be not less than 80% for the ranches and 55% for the two-story dwellings. Brick used in construction would be full face four inch brick and any chimneys constructed with these units would also contain brick. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated January 17, 2006, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. Sixty feet of right-of-way for Newburgh Road should be dedicated with this petition and the legal description should be adjusted accordingly. Detention facilities mill be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance as indicated on the plan. The petitioner's engineer should verify with Mr. Hill of the Engineering Division that the runoff from this site is in accordance with the restrictions noted in a previous agreement between the Cities of Westland and Livonia." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 6, 2006, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium development on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is dead�ended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane. (2) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (3) Fire lane(s) in fire apparatus turnaround shall be 22993 marked with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having junsdiction. Please provide this office with a copy of the revised site plan." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 16, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Churchill Manor Site Condominiums located at 93005213 Newburgh Road. The plans 1 have are not to scale, and some of the measurements are of concem. (1) Sidewalks must be 5 feet wide. (2) The width of the street does not appear to allow for parking on both sides of the street with ample clearance for moving vehicular traffic. (3) Do these condominiums have parking garages on the property? 1 would like to have the opportunity to review a to scale blueprint prior to your approval." The letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 16, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 3, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The recreational open space area has not been provided. This may be waived by Council by super majority. (2) Units 4 thru 9 will need to be flagged as not being allowed any structures in the rear yard, including attached wood decks due to the underground storm water storage system. No units may have accessory or other out buildings per Article VII, 1(d) of the use restrictions. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner, Mr. Soave. Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Thank you very much. I'll answer your questions. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, that little center isla nd that is facing Lots 14, 13 and 17, how wide is that? Mr. Soave: It's typically about 8 to 12 feel in width and about 16 feel in length. Mr. Alanskas: When that subdivision is done, who is suppose to maintain that? Mr. Soave: The homeowners association will maintain that. Mr. Alanskas: Because you know, I've always found that every time after about two or three years, whatever is planted there is dead. 22994 Wouldn't it be feasible to give us more room for a fire truck if we didn't have that island there and had the lane open for both front and back for a fire truck to get in there? Mr. Soave: That's no problem. We can lake it off and pave whatever that island is. Mr. Alanskas: Because the width of the driveway facing Lot 17 looks a little narrow, I figured if we didn't have that little island there, we'd have a lot more room for traffic to go through there. Thank you. Mr. Soave: I agree and it's a good idea. Mr. Piercecchi: Good evening, Mr. Soave. Mr. Soave: Good evening, sir. How are you doing? Mr. Piercecchi: I was wondering if it's a typographical error because you have 55% brick for the two-story building and 80% for the one story. I'm referring to page 8 of Article VII of the Master Deed where you specify the 55/80. Generally, where it's permitted with style and construction, to gel the brick up to 65% because it adds a little bit. Any problem with that? Mr. Soave: Well, Mr. Piercecchi, we're trying to keep with what's in the area. Most of the homes on Stonehouse and Lamont are sided homes. We're trying to stay with what's in the area and we're trying to keep the prices about $270,000 - $275,000. This would add to the cost of the homes. So we're trying to keep the price where it's more affordable so we can sell it. Mr. Piercecchi: The prepared resolution is going to slate 55%. What is the actual cost of a square fool of brick? Mr. Soave: The actual cost is about $1,500 perlhousand. Mr. Piercecchi: $1,500? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Piercecchi: $1,500 per thousand. How many square feel would that be to add 10% more? Mr. Soave: How many square feet? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. 22995 Mr. Soave: That would be ... for 10% more to bring it up to 65%. Okay, we'll go with 65%. Mr. Piercecchi: Pardon me? Mr. Soave: We'll go with 65% Mr. Pieroecchi: Oh, you will go with it? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. Mr. Morrow: How do the homes you're proposing compare to the ones that are already built in the area? Mr. Soave: I'm sorry, sir? Mr. Morrow: Are you homes comparable to the ones that are already built in the area or is there a little more added to the brick work and just the home itself? Mr. Soave: Well, in the area you're talking about fireplaces. We're going to have brick fireplaces. Like Mr. Pieroecchi said, he wants 65% brick. We're going to provide them with that, plus other things that we normally do to the house. Mr. Morrow: So would you say your homes are a little bit more expensive than say the ones that were built there from the building materials and the things that go into the house? Mr. Soave: Right. Those ones were built about 10 — 12 years ago if I'm not mistaken. Mr. Morrow: In other words, we're not going backwards; we're going forward? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thanks. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: I'd like to address a couple of the issues that were pointed out in the departmental correspondence, the first being the question of the width of the road that was raised by the Traffic Bureau. The plans do provide for a pavement cross section. This actually addresses the issue of the sidewalk and the road. That 22996 pavement cross section on the plan indicates that the road width from curb -to -curb would be 31 feet. That is in compliance with the city's standards for public residential streets, and it will allow for parking on both sides of the street as well as through traffic. In addition, the plan shows five foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the right-of-way. And then the letter from the Inspection Department raises concern relative to the placement of structures in the rear yard for those units adjacent to the proposed stonnwaler management easement. As I pointed out, those lots are excessive in depth. They are approximately 156 feet deep. The slonnwaler management area only takes up the rear yard area, roughly 26 to 30 feel. That leaves a substantial area for the building envelope, both for the house as well as for any attached accessory structures such as decks or patios. So I don't see that as really being a problem for those five or six lots. Mr. Walsh: Very good. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Shane: Mr. Soave, do you know which lots will be developed by the school district? Mr. Soave: Probably the first five. We're not exactly sure yet. Either the first five on the south side or the first five on the other side. We haven't negotiated that yet. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Soave, at one time, you and Mr. Schafer were working together with that property that he owns to the north of you. Are you still working together to develop this project together or has that gone by the wayside? Mr. Soave: I don't think we ever did. He has his development and I have mine. Mr. La Pine: He told me that you and him were talking about do we want to make sure the two subdivisions are compatible. I don't want all the houses to be the same, but I mean compatible. And he said you and him were working and it might be a possibility that one of you would develop them all. Is that still in the works or is it gone? Mr. Soave: No, I haven't spoke to Mr. Schafer in about a month. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? 22997 Tom Kasmier, 9228 Stonehouse, Livonia. I was at the previous meetings and I thought I understood these were going to be single family dwellings. Mr. Walsh: They are. Mr. Kasmier: But they're still condominiums? Mr. Walsh: The laws changed some time ago. The developers are able to develop under a condominium act as opposed to a platted residential area. But at the end of the day... Mr. Kasmier: Its just language? Mr. Walsh: Exactly. Mr. Kasmier: Okay. Now, my neighbors and myself would like to keep those Career Center lots up near Newburgh Road because that's going to be a five year project and that just makes it nicer for us. And the only other thing, it would be nice if they made that lot line on the south side, maybe put some shrubs up there or one fence that's all uniform, just for a better appearance, because there's an athletic field there. There's a couple soccer fields. There was a baseball diamond. That will be gone. If they could just make that attractive by either putting a fence that's all the same all the way down that line or else plant some shrubbery or anything to make it look nice and natural, if possible. Mr. Walsh: I apologize. Is that the south line? Mr. Kasmier: That would be the south side, yes. Everything below that, the Career Center is a little further down, but there's a huge athletic field there that is used all the time by the kids, and there's two soccer fields. Like I said, there was a baseball diamond. But if they could make that attractive, or even better yet, have a no fence agreement instead of getting us a variety of fences that go all the way down there. To me that's not very pleasing to the eye. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Soave, any comments? You may agree or disagree. Mr. Soave: As far as no fence, that's possible. Yes, we can do that. And as far as the baseball diamond, the School Board wants that baseball diamond demolished. They want grass instead of the diamond. Its my understanding that nobody uses that diamond anymore. 22998 Mr. Kasmier: Well, they do. I live right behind here. I watch them all the time, but that's not that big of a deal. If they want to put grass in there and take that down, the soccer fields are used more. But if they could just make that back lot line look as nice as possible, thatwould please the neighborhood. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other comments? Ms. Smiley: I though Mark had a question or comment. Mr. Taormina: Regarding the fence, that is something that can be embodied within the Master Deed and bylaws. His Building And Use Restrictions can contain language that would either prohibit a fence or would require that it all be of a particular style, whatever is determined to be appropriate for that area. So that's probably something he is willing to do. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina is suggesting some flexibility might be built into your bylaws that the homeowners association could then work with so its a uniform fence or it's no fence. Mr. Soave: Okay. This is on the west side of the properly? Mr. Walsh: The south side. Mr. Soave: On the south side. Mr. Taormina: It's not something that he would necessarily have to construct, but its something that would serve as a guide to the homeowners who do choose to install a fence along the rear of their properties, that it be of a particular size or style. Mr. Soave: That's no problem. We could accommodate that. We can do that. Mr. Walsh: What we've done here, sir, is we asked him to incorporate that into his bylaws so that it's uniform, and we will pass that in our records tonight assuming that its a positive vole, and he will make those changes before it gels to the Council. A motion would be in order. Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, the following approving conditions are subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Tentatively, that requirement will be fulfilled with the development of Lot 9400 north of the subject properly, which is all currently owned the city. I just thought I'd mention that. 22999 On a motion by Pieroecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-14-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-12-08-26, submitted by Soave Building Company, on behalf of Churchill Manor Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on properties located at 9213 and 9300 Newburgh Road in the Southeast I/ of Section 31, be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the following conditions: 1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tifle 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, except for the fact the following shall be incorporated: - That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story dwellings; - That all exterior chimneys shall be brick; 2. That streeflights and sidewalks shall be installed throughout the development to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department; 3. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; 4. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water detention/retention and ouflet facilities, and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owner's property prorata and place said charges 23000 on their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are not paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia; 5. That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 6. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. C-01 dated December 19, 2005, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That should this site condominium project be develop before, and not in concurrence with, the properties to the north, a 'T' turnaround, as approved by both the Engineering Department and Fire Department, shall be installed at the north end of the proposed road 8. That only a conforming entrance marker is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated January 17, 2006: 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated January 6, 2006: 12. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; 13. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to Artide XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development; and 14. That the center island of the cul-de-sac shall be removed. 23001 Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: To the maker of the motion, could we also add that the center island that faces Lots 13 and 14 will be removed to give more room for the fire trucks to gel through? Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. You want that where? Mr. Alanskas: The center island on the site plan to be removed. Mr. Piercecchi: All right. Okay. Mr. Walsh: We have agreement by the maker and supporter. Mr. Piercecchi: Is that okay Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: That's fine. Mr. Morrow: I concur with Mr. Alanskas. I just want to be sure that doesn't create any kind of a traffic flow problem with that removed. Mr. Soave: That's a big enough eyebrow. We did the same thing at Livonia Manor. We look the center island out and we paved it so everybody is happy with it. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to ask that question. You have experience with that so it should be an issue. Mr. Soave: Th at shouldn't be an issue. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Good. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #7 PETITION 200540-06-03 PARKING SPACES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 10-06-03, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.09 of Article II, Definitions, and Section 18.37 of Article XVIII, Supplementary Regulations, of Zoning 23002 Ordinance #543, as amended, so as to reduce the minimum parking space size for designated employee parking spaces. Mr. Walsh: This item needs to be removed from the table. Do I have a motion? On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-15-2006 RESOLVED, that tie City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Pefifion 2005-10-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.09 of Article 11, Definitions, and Section 18.37 of Article XVIII, Supplementary Regulations, of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, so as to reduce the minimum parking space size for designated employee parking spaces, be removed from the table. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: In response to the comments received at the prior public hearing and working sessions when this item was discussed, we have revised the language. We've made some additional changes to the definition of parking space. Under the current version of the proposed text amendment, the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council, would have the authority at the time of site plan review to reduce the size of up to 90 percent of the required number of off-street parking spaces for general and professional office centers, but not including medical centers. The reduced size would be 9 feet in width by 20 feel in depth. Currently, the ordinance requires that all off-street parking spaces have dimensions of 10 feel by 20 feel. The new standard would only apply in the case of office buildings that contain a minimum gross floor area of 15,000 square feel and where it is demonstrated that the smaller parking stalls would be used primarily for the employees of the office center. It was also suggested that the allowable number of reduced parking spaces be exclusive of the required number of handicap parking spaces, which has been incorporated into the latest draft of the amendment. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mark? Mr. Piercecchi: How does that work out? If we look at a piece of property and it can have 100 spaces that are 10' x 20', we say now that 90 percent of these can be 9' x 20'. Correct? That's what we're 23003 talking about here. But the barrier parking, is that included in that 90 percent? Mr. Taormina: We provided an example of how we would make the calculation. That's included in the staff analysis. If you want to refer to that, we took an example of a building with 25,000 square feet. The total required parking would 100 spaces. The first thing we would do is subtract out four spaces that are required to be barrier free, and then calculate the 90 percent based m the remaining number of spaces. In this case, 86 spaces would be allowed to be reduced to the 9 fool standard and then the remaining 10 spaces would have to be 10' x 20' to accommodate customers and visitors. So you would have, in effect, 100 total parking spaces, 10 spaces would be the 10 foot standard, 86 would be the 9 fool standard, and then 4 would be barrier free. There would actually be four additional spaces that are greater than 10 feet in width. Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't see that calculation. Mr. Taormina: So slightly more than 10 percent under that example would be 10 feel or greater in width. Mr. Piercecchi: If we got a professional office building, we're going to be guaranteed that every 10 will be of the normal 10' x 20'. Do you think we should add in here or do you think it's redundant to have these areas marked like guests or that to make sure that we have the 10' x 20', so the people going in and out of these spots won't bang the guy next door? That's why we want the 10 foot. Mr. Taormina: If you look at the proposed language amendment, the very last sentence, and to paraphrase that, it states, and shall be clearly marked and situated in close proximity to the building entrance or entrances. So I think we've addressed that in the proposed language amendment. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Well, unfortunately, I didn't read the new language here. Mr. Morrow: If I'm reading this correctly, it gives us latitude up to 90 percent. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Morrow: But we can fall short of that depending on the demands of the building area. That gives us the flexibility to approve it within those bounds. Mr. Taormina: That is the intent. Correct. 23004 Mr. La Pine: Just to get clanfcalion in my mind, let's assume a developer comes in and wants to build a 15,000 square foot building, and he calculates his parking to be all 10' x 20'. So his building has to be a certain size, maybe a little smaller, because he wants all his parking 10' x 20'. On the other hand, if he calculates it by 9' x 20', he can build a larger building. My problem is, if the developer has enough properly to give us all 10' x 20's, we should gel 10' x 20's. How can we incorporate that in such a way that a developer is not going to take advantage of it and build a larger building because he can gel 9' x 20' parking spaces? And the second problem I have with this, if you're in an office building and you have 20 spaces 10' x 20', employees who have a large SUV, if he sees an empty 10' x 20', he's going to park in the 10' x20'. I'm not really happy about this. I'd like to keep the 10' x 20' and lel them go to the ZBA and get the variance if they really have a hardship that they can't build the building they want to build. The thing that worries me is, a developer is a developer. If they can get another couple hundred square feel in the building as rental space, theyre going to use it. I like what you've done up to this point, but those two things bother me. I must be honest with you. Mr. Piercecchi: Mark, hopefully, this doesn't change the maximum footprints, does it, for the PO which is 20 percent now and the OS, which if I remember right, is 35 peroenl? Mr. Taormina: Any provisions that we have in the ordinance related to maximum grounds coverage would not be changed as a result of this ordinance. Mr. Piercecchi: I didn t think so. Mr. Taormina: And to address Mr. LaPine's concern, it is not the intent of this ordinance to necessarily encourage a higher yield for developments that fall under this provision of the ordinance, but it would be possible. If its really the desire of this body to not allow that to be a side effect of this ordinance, then it should not be adopted. Mr. Piercecchi: How can we stop that? Mr. Taormina: It would provide for a more efficient use of the land in that regard. So to the extent that they can lessen the area required for parking, it could very well mean a slight increase in the yield as far as office space. 23005 Mr. Shane: Remember one thing, and that is, that this allows up to. So it seems to me if we didn't like the extra square footage, we don't have to approve it. Mr. Taormina: Also bear in mind that ... Mr. Piercecchi: Well, if they've got a lot with so many square feel, they're only allowed a footprint that's 20 percent of that for a building, right? Mr. Taormina: That is another cap that is placed on the property for those districts that have that provision in the ordinance. But also bear in mind that as the building increases, so does the number of parking spaces. So I don't know that this would result in any substantial increase in the size of buildings. Maybe on very large properties you might see a bit of a difference, but I think for smaller office developments, you're really not going to see a significant change in the site plan as a result of allowing this change. Again, much of the control here is discretionary on your part and the City Council's part. Mr. Piercecchi: Originally, I had that problem. That they would build an over- size until I started to study all the different types of structures that we build here in Livonia, and they all indicate a footprint of a percentage of the lot for the maximum footprint. Then I said, well, it can't be any bigger than it normally would be, so I gave that up as a concern. But now you indicate that perhaps they could stretch is beyond the 20%? Mr. Taormina: No, not without seeking the appropriate relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Piercecchi: They have that privilege now. Mr. Taormina: Right. Exactly. This wouldn't change that. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, okay. Mr. Walsh: There being no members in the audience, we'll go to a motion. Mr. Alanskas: I'm satisfied with the work that the Law Department and the Planning Department did on this, and I think it will not be an issue in regards to them trying to get bigger buildings. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #01-16-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 31, 2005, on Petition 2005-10-06-03 submitted by the City Planning 23006 Commission, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.09 of Article II, Definitions, and Section 18.37 of Article XVIII, Supplementary Regulations, of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, so as to reduce the minimum parking space size for designated employee parking spaces, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200570-06- 03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment will bring the city's panting requirements for general and professional office uses in line with the standards used in most nearby communities; 2. That the proposed language amendment will allow the Planning Commission and City Council to review the issue of panting space size on a case by case basis at the time of site plan review; 3. That the proposed language amendment will help streamline the review process for those developments that qualify for smaller parking spaces; and 4. That the proposed language amendment will provide for the more efficient use of land in a manner that will not have any adverse affects upon the community. Mr. Wals h: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Morrow: I'd like to compliment the staff on the nice work they did on this particular item. Mr. Walsh: I agree. Ms. Smiley: They are consistently wonderful. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Morrow, Shane, Piercecchi, Smiley, Walsh NAYES: LaPine ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 23007 ITEM#8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 978' Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 918"' Regular Meeting held on January 17, 2006. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-17-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 918" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2006, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resoluton resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resoluton adopted. On a moton duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 919" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 31, 2006, was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman