Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-05-29MINUTES OF THE 945° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 29, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 945r 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: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: William La Pine 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 tonighfs 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 len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-04-08-08 TISEO ARCHITECTS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-04- 08-08 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc., on behalf of Eight Mile Place, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant building and obtain preliminary approval for a drug store and bank branch with drive-thm operations on properties located at 33215, 33239 and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside Road, located on the south side of Eight May 29, 2007 24041 Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3. Mr. Taormina: This site is located in the Northwest'''/ of Section 3 which is the square mile that is bordered by Eight Mile Road to the north, Farmington Road to the west, Seven Mile Road to the south and Merriman Road to the east. This petition involves the redevelopment of several configuous parcels that are located at the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads. This site includes the parcel occupied by the existing Valero Gas Station right at the southeast corner of Farmington and Eight Mile Roads, as well as the Village Green Florist and two abutting parcels that are located to the east and south and are under the same ownership. Both the gas station and the florist buildings would be removed as part of this pefifion. The legal description includes part of Lots 10 and 11, and Lots 12 through 16 and Lot 18 of Folker's Farmington Road Acres Subdivision. The zoning of all of the properties is G2, General Business. The combined land area is approximately 4 acres and includes 150 feel of frontage on Farmington and approximately 590 feet of frontage along Eight Mile. In addition, there is 130 feet of frontage on the west side of Shadyside Road. The proposed Eight Mile Place shopping center would include a total of three new buildings. The westerly most building is identified on this plan as a drug store. It would contain a gross floor area of 14,500 square feel. The next building, which is the center building, is idenfified on the plan as a branch bank. It would total 4,000 square feet, and then the easterly building, identified as Retail C, totals 7,000 square feet. This would be a multi - tenant retail building located on the easterly edge of the property. Both the proposed drug store and the bank show drive-thru operations which will require waiver use approvals and are the subject of related petitions on tonight's agenda. All three buildings would have relatively equal setbacks from 8 Mile Road, approximately 80 feel. The drug store is setback approximately 195 feel east of Farmington Road, and Retail 'C' has a zero setback from the adjoining vacant parcel to the east, which is 87 feel wide. There would be three driveways - two off Eight Mile. The first one is located approximately 170 feel east of the intersection just west of the drug store. The second driveway off Eight Mile would be located between the branch bank building and the retail building, and then the third driveway would be located off Farmington Road about 115 feet south of the intersection. This is in the same approximate location as the exisfing driveway at the gas station. Parking for all three buildings was considered on the basis that all the spaces would be common and shared. As you can see, most of the parking would be provided along a single drive aisle that extends from May 29, 2007 24042 east to vest across the entire front of the development. The required overall number of parking spaces is 143, and this site plan provides a total of 144 spaces. So it is conforming with the ordinance. In terms of sight lighting, a detail was provided that shows all the parking lot lights would not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, there are enclosed dumpsters shown along the rear of the multi -tenant building, as well as on the east side of the proposed drug store. No dumpster is needed for the bank building. Another significant aspect of this proposal is the stormwater management plan. This would be located at the southerly portion of the site and includes a detention basin as well as a min garden. The detention pond is located at the easterly end adjacent to Shadyside, while the rain garden is the larger area of the two areas, and that's about 6,700 square feet. It's located just west of the proposed detention basin. The rain garden is basically a bio -retention area. It's a shallow area that operates by collecting runoff and storing it, and permits it to be filtered and slowly absorbed into the soil. So it's not as deep as the detention basin, and it's heavily landscaped. It receives most of its water through sheet flow across the parking lot whereas a detention area would receive the majority of the parking lot runoff via underground piping. A landscape plan was submitted with this petition. It provides considerable detail relative to the types of plant materials. There is a wide variety of trees, shrubs and flowers that are proposed not only within the detention area and the proposed bio -retention or rain garden area, but also throughout this site. A significant feature along Eight Mile Road is a 10 foot wide planting strip. This area would be planted with a variety of trees, as well as shrubs and flowers. They are also showing circular modular garden walls that would range from 16 inches in height to 28 inches in height. In addition, there is a corner feature right at the intersection of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads. There would be a planting bed provided as well as a berm and a decorative concrete plaza. That plaza would also include some pedestal seating that would be provided around it and additional modular circular garden walls. I do have a photograph of those garden walls to give you a better idea of what they will look like. This is another detail of the landscaping plan along Eight Mile Road. It provides a variety of shrubs and trees between the area of the sidewalk and the parking lot. In terms of the architecture, this is a rendering of the proposed drug store. You'll note that all three buildings contain very similar features. They are all flat -roof designs and generally the same height, about 21 to 22 feet. The exterior building materials consist primarily of brick on the lower two-thirds of the structure, as well as precast concrete panels that would make up the upper portion of the facade. It terms of the details, you'll see that this also includes louvered May 29, 2007 24043 metal canopies above each of the windows and entrance doors. In addition there are metal panel screens on the rooftops that would be used to shield the mechanical equipment from view. These are the other two sides of the proposed drug store. This would be the front and rear elevation of the proposed multi - tenant retail building. That's the back side and the east elevation of the retail building. This would be the proposed bank. You can see it contains many of the same features as the other two buildings, types ofmalerials, canopies. This also has a canopy above the drive-lhm lanes. These are the other two elevations for the bank. We also have floor plans provided for each of the buildings. This is a photograph of a similar type of louvered canopy that they would use above the doors and windows. This is the taller version of the garden wall that they're proposing, somewhere around 28 inches in height. The lower ones would be about 16 inches in height. They still have yet to determine the color for these walls, but this gives you an idea of what they would look like. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 3, 2007, which reads as folows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention facilities have been shown and will be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. This section of Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Road Commission for Oakland County and the drive approaches will require approval from them. The legal description as shown on the plans at this time for the entire site is correct and no additional right-of-way is required. A lot combination and split may be required for this development. Our records indicate that the current addresses for the development are 33215, 33239 and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside, but may be changed if the property is split." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2007, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a drug store, branch bank, and multi -tenant retail building on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations (1) If subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an onaite hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) May 29, 2007 24044 Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (5) Any curves or comers shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (6) Please provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for review." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 23, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by Useo Architects, Inc. for Eight Mile Place, located at the southeast comer of 8 Mile and Farmington Roads. We would request that they be required to post STOP signs at the three points of egress onto the main roads. These signs must conform to the requirements of size and reFlectivity as stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." The letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 1, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This review was completed as though A, B 8 C are on separate properties with acceptable cross access and parking agreements. (2) We would recommend that the Commission and/or Council consider the effects of leaving lot 17 (87.12 x 221.37) out of this plan. It would seem to make sense to address this issue now as additional driveways onto Eight Mile Road or Shadyside Avenue could be problematical. (3) This has been reviewed as though the right-of-way sidewalks are new. (4) Any existing trash or debris in the rear garden area needs to be removed. (5) This plan does not reference the existing buildings on site. They will need building and plumbing permits in order to be demolished. (6) Retail C as an altemate is a waiver use. The traffic lane for the drive up window does not appear to be the required 12 feet wide. (7) Although Retail C building plans would be reviewed at time of plan review by this Department, should the project move forward, the following items are mentioned to assist in preplanning: (a) Tenant spaces that have an occupant load of employees and customers greater than 15 require separate facilities for men and women. As drawn, mercantile uses would not be in compliance. (b) Facilities must be accessible to the public. Depending on the interior finish, the location as drawn may not be acceptable. It is unacceptable to locate restrooms in a storage area or other area not generally available to the public. This Department has May 29, 2007 24045 no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Adkison, Need & Allen, PLLC, dated May 22, 2007, which reads as follows: "Our office represents ALAR, LLC, the owner of property immediately south of the proposed new development on the SE corner of 8 Mile Road and Farmington Road in Livonia. Thanks for speaking with me this morning. In advance of your study session with the Planning Commission this evening, 1 wanted to confirm my client's position on the items we discussed and mention a couple of more that we did not discuss this morning. (1) My client is concerned that the required landscape plantings in connection with this project not have the effect of obscuring the ALAR building from traffic on Farmington Road. (2) My client is concerned that delivery truck and other traffic will use the ALAR property as a cut through to the proposed new development. For this reason we are requesting that the Planning Commission require a 2 foot high brick wall be constructed to prevent cutthrough traffic. (3) My client is concerned that increased sheet -flow storm water will come from the development parcel and enter the ALAR property. The low brick wall we have suggested above will prevent this from occurring. (4) My client is concemed that delivery trucks will damage the transformer on the ALAR property line. (5) My client is concemed about use of the existing storm sewer and the possibility that Flow from the proposed development may adversely affect the ability of the system to adequately drain the ALAR property. 1 have also mentioned that survey stakes on the property line between the ALAR property and the subject property appear to my client to inaccurately place the boundary line between the two properties. A surveyor has been retained to review this matter and 1 will advise you of his findings. 1 expect to attend the Planning Commission meeting where this plan will be considered. 1 appreciate your assistance in addressing the concerns raised. 171 give you a call tomorrow to see how the study session went." The letter is signed by Phillip G. Adkison. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Wilshaw: One question to Mr. Taormina. The retention basin on the plan does not appear to have any barrier around it or anything of that nature. Is there any need to have protection around that water area? Mr. Taormina: There will not be a requirement to fence it as long as the side slopes are 1 on 6 or more gradual. Anything steeper than that requires fencing per Wayne County requirements. (looked at that today and its pretty close. There's a note on the plan May 29, 2007 24046 relative to the treatment of the slopes greater than 1 on 4. While I don't think its their intent, it would be my recommendation that those side slopes be kept to at lead 1 on 6. Mr.Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 think we've covered everything here tonight. I believe that we've addressed most of the comments that were addressed at the study session. I'm here to answer any kind of administrative questions that you have. Kimberly Lapinski from my office will answer any design questions. We did bring a color board if you'd like to see it, and some of the other boards are also mounted. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: Al the study session, one of our commissioners who is not here tonight requested brick pavers in lieu of concrete on the plaza at the corner of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads. Mr. Tiseo: If that's the pleasure of the Commission, we could go that route. We prefer the concrete because we think it has a longer lasting appearance than the pavers. They have a tendency to not stay level. Mr. Morrow: Well, I guess I'm going to champion my thought. We put them in a lot of different spots. I don't argue with what you're saying, but I would like to see pavers there. Mr. Tiseo: Again, if that's the pleasure of the commission, we'll gladly comply with that. Mr. Morrow: And secondly, has there been a change to the elevations since we last mel? Is it illustrated up here? Mr. Tiseo: Yes, it has, and Kimberly can address that. Kimberly Lapinski, Project Manager, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. What we did with the elevations, we look into consideration all the comments that were given at the study session. What we did, as you can see from the drug store elevations, it's also representative on the other three buildings, is we picked a few spots along the prominent elevations facing Eight Mile Road and Farmington May 29, 2007 24047 Road, what we did to give them some relief was to extend it out another four inches. What this did was it gave more depth and relief to the building elevations, a little bit more visual interest while still maintaining the original concept of emphasizing the horizontal to keep the mass scale down. Mr. Morrow: Those are the perpendicular ones. Could you point that out? Ms. Lapinski: Right here, this comes out, this area. You can see by the shadow lines here. This part would come out here and then this part here as well as the entrance. Mr. Morrow: So there's some relief in there? Ms. Lapinski: Yes. Mr. Morrow: And those vertical lines going up, are they brick? Ms. Lapinski: Yes. That's actually the relief. This section of brick - what we're doing is laking the building and moving it out. Mr. Morrow: Its not brick or anything. Ms. Lapinski: No, that's just the shadow effect. Mr. Morrow: That's the only change? Ms. Lapinski: On the drugstore, yes. And then we made similar changes to the bank and the retail space as well. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: I have a question on Retail C. Is that the west elevation, Mark, or east? I think we went through this at the study session but maybe for the audience, the reason there's not a window or a thing on there is that for the future you may build onto that? Mr. Tiseo: Its actually a code requirement. Its at the lot line. You can't have an opening in a fire wall. It's required to be a fire wall. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I do appreciate the improvements to the building. That is what we talked about, addressing some relief. I do like that. I do have a question. Is the brick a panel brick system or is that regular single bricks? May 29, 2007 24048 Ms. Lapinski: It's modular bricks. It's a full four -inch brick. As you can see, there are two different colors. The one on the bottom would be the darker color represented in the renderings. On the top, the same four inch modular would be the lighter color represented. Mr. Wilshaw: And the piece in the middle represents the top? Ms. Lapinski: That will represent the precast cell that splits the darker and lighter brick as well as the precast panels at the top of the buildings. Mr. Wilshaw: I do appreciate bringing those sample boards here so we can see that. I do have a question. There was an issue raised by the neighbor to the south, the ALAR property, regarding access between your site and theirs, and there was discussion about possibly having a banner or small wall to separate that. Has that been addressed? Ms. Lapinski: Yes. We show a metal guardrail there. We didn't think a wall was necessary and we thought it would take a lot more abuse. So we proposed a metal guardrail to keep any cross access traffic of out there. If you look down to the south, there's an existing metal guardrail, and we would be proposing to match that. Mr. Wilshaw: I see. It looks good. I spoke to Mr. Taormina about the need for the retention basin to have guardrail around it. As Mr. Taormina indicated, as long as we keep a slope of 6 to 1 or greater, we can avoid that. Can that be done? Ms. Lapinski: Yes. That is our inlenfion. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. And the other question is about the site lighting. I know the plan does address some site lighting. I assume those are going to be shielded lights that will not stray into any neighboring properties? Ms. Lapinski: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Good. That's all I have for now. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Its not really a question, but if you could just comment on the wall to the south that borders the residential. I think that's a concrete wall there. Can you explain that a little bit? Ms. Lapinski: That's existing. Mr. Morrow: That is existing? May 29, 2007 24049 Ms. Lapinski: Yes. We're just keeping it. Mr. Morrow: Does it need repair? Ms. Lapinski: I believe it's in excellent shape. Mr. Morrow: Okay. So if it's in excellent shape, it will remain that way. If it needs some care, you'll lake care of it. Ms. Lapinski: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Adrlana Liberatore, 7030 Commerce Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48324. I'm the neighbor to the south. I have some pictures over here. For some reason, they tell a whole lot of story, which is hard to visualize without being aware. I have some plans that are color coded that address the issues that I'd like to pass out so you can better understand what is taking place over there. Mr. Walsh: Sure. If you'll just hand them to Marge, she'll pass them along to us. Ms. Liberatore: The ones in the folder are duplicate sets so that more than one person can look at them. Mr. Walsh: We can share if that's necessary. I'm going to allow you to walk us through this, but this is an awful lot of material. If you can describe what you're trying to do, that would be good. Ms. Liberatore: If you look at the plan that I gave you, which is a copy from Mr. Tiseo, I color coded it. First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity and I'm looking for some help here. If you look at the pictures that have green next to them, they address what is existing there now as far as the obstruction in relation to the building. If we can maintain that, that would be absolutely totally super. I have some green marked next to the building. And the issue over there, I'm concerned about the root structure of the trees that might be planted there since I don't know. I would hate to have the root system undermine the foundations that have been there since 1980. It's fairly simple. So I don't know what recommendation you would have with that. If anything can be suggested that would be deeply appreciated. The one that's color coded yellow and if you go in the back of the building, May 29, 2007 24050 there's some yellow lines over there. The elevations appear to be slightly higher than mine, and so I don't see where the water is going to go other than downhill. So if something could be addressed there, that would be great. The drive thru, if you look at the color coded orange, that would designate what would happen to the drive from Farmington Road and how they would access their property. The blue line that shows on the print would be the traffic flow that their customers and semi -trucks would follow. I'm not sure what the requirements are and I'm a little confused. On the one side it's 35 feet and then its reduced to 25 feel. Where its 25 feel, it also has a canopy where customers pick up their supplies, so I'm not sure how good that is. I have a purple in the back of the building. If you look on the picture, that shows in relation to my building the safely issue that I have. People that come in and out of that building are five feet away from cars. Okay? I'm not sure that a guardrail is quite appropriate over there. There is a small pink dot that shows the transformer that I'm so concerned about because this being Michigan, and you're making that comer, I would hate to have somebody slip and run right into that. So that really is ... the rest of them, you know, if I can gel some relief, that would be great. But the really two major issues is the purple line, the safety over there, and protecting the transformer pad. There is also one more issue that came up today in relation to the survey. I had hoped to bring you a copy of d. They said I needed to file a form for a Freedom of Information Act and that would take 10 days, but I have a copy here of the notes. What happened was, back in '96, the Green Grocery was complaining that my water was causing problems in their basement. So the city made me redo the sidewalk that had been there for 20 years. So what we're faced with now is a foot of it is going to be on their properly. Okay. First of all, the surveys are off a little bit but I'm not concerned with inches. But how is that going to be addressed? Am I going to have to replace the sidewalk one more time because of other people's action or can I get some relief here? You know, maybe cul it with a saw cut or something so that I dont have to replace the sidewalk one more time. It was Inspection Department #9616151 dated 9-6-96, and it said, "redirect roof discharge water so it does not enter adjoining properties and so it reaches approved drain BOCA P.M. 1993 303.2 Zoning 543 Section 18.04. Further letter dated 10-256 from John J. Fegan, Director. Violation of the requirements of Livonia Code of Ordinance 12.12.040A and 12.12.050 of the compiled ordinance of the City of Livonia, 1993 BOCA P.M. 304.2 and ... " Mr. Walsh: We won't need the whole letter. If you could just share that with Marge. I think we can address a few of these things. In terms May 29, 2007 24051 of your drainage runoff, that will, as we indicated at the study session, be handled by the Engineering Division in accordance with Wayne County code. Wayne County requires that any development retain all the water on their properly. Ms. Liberatore: Okay. Mr. Walsh: In terms of the drive-thru traffic, as I look at the plan, with the addifion of the new barrier and the existing banner, there is not the ability for traffic to drive through the parking lot that services the existing building and the proposed buildings so that cars will be able to gel through there. The transformer protection - we've had a review and request from our Inspection Department and our Police Department and they've not made any note. They would normally make a notation if there was some safelyissue, and they've not made that. We've relied on their opinions for other clients. Ms. Liberatore: Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt, but as you can see on the pictures, its rather evident that there is going to be a problem there. Mr. Walsh: I'll leave it to my colleagues to accept your pictures in their vole and/or the Police Department and Inspection Department's review. They'll have to reach their own decision on that. Ms. Liberatore: Okay, then what about the purple pedestrian safety in the back ofthe building? What's going to be done over there? Mr. Walsh: Again, that will be up to individual voting as to whether or not that's a safety issue as you indicated or to place our trust in the Police Department and Inspection Department review of the same. Ms. Liberatore: So it would be the Police Department that would address that? Mr. Walsh: They've given us recommendations that we will incorporate into our resolutions. They did not raise that as a concern, nor did the Inspection Department. Mark? Mr. Taormina: I just want to point out that the guardrail as identified on this plan is going to extend along the area that she's referring to. Currently, the Village Florist building comes right to this properly line. Its very dose to the property line, both along the west and along the south. Then there's a sidewalk which separates the Village Florist building from her building. So this is about a five fool wide walkway that I think she's referring to in terms of her concern relative to safety. I think another issue involving drainage. But as you can see from this diagram, this guardrail May 29, 2007 24052 would be installed to separate the driveway from the sidewalk and the building, as well as along the south property line to additionally protect the existing transformer. Maybe Mr. Tiseo could provide additional information regarding that and the type of safely structure that is proposed. Ms. Liberatore: I hale to interrupt one more time ... Mr. Walsh: Just a moment. I'll let you make your point and then we'll go to Mr. Tiseo. Ms. Liberatore: Okay. I'm concerned because in the past things have happened that shouldn't have happen. The building that exists there now, which is the Green Grocery, is actually sitting on a Michigan Bell easement. When I found out and I wasn't aware before when it happened, when I saw the foundations going in, I was told it was too late to do anything about it. So I want to make sure things are properly addressed and they're not made light of because once it's done, it's done. Mr. Walsh: We understand that and we try to lake into account your comments, previously and tonight. Ms. Liberatore: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Tiseo, is there anything you want to add? Mr. Tiseo: We believe that the guardrail would be sufficient to protect pedestrians and cars and transformers. Again, its going to be very similar to the one that's already existing now on the property. It's worked fine for there. I dont see why it wouldn't work fine for this location. Mr. Morrow: Could I ask one question. Where the transformer is, you've got a vertical line and a horizontal line. Does that denote anything? Mr. Walsh: Right in front of the transformer? Mr. Morrow: Yes. The line that goes above the transformer. Mr. Walsh: One goes north and one goes east. Mr. Wilshaw: The little dashes. Mr. Morrow: Does that denote anything? May 29, 2007 24053 Mr. Tiseo: I don't believe so. You're looking at a landscaping plan. I'm sorry. If you had the architectural, it would be easier. What lines are you referring lo? Mr. Morrow: Rightthere. Mr. Tiseo Oh. Those are arrow lines. Those are arrowheads. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Well, I couldn't see the arrowhead. Mr. Tiseo: Those are the arrowheads. I'm sorry. Its new technology. That's what they show. Mr. Morrow: Okay. I can see that other line now, but it looked like some kind of a wall or something. Okay. Thank you. That cleared that up. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Good evening/ Michael Pe@eys, 20411 Shadyside. I'm the property that is directly south of the wall. I mel with the architect and I look a look at his plans. He's addressed all my concerns, and I'm quite pleased and happy with what he's showed me so far. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, may I point out one additional item? Mr. Walsh: Yes. Mr. Taormina: In response to the concerns that Ms. Liberatore indicated about obstruction, I believe she shows it on the plan as the landscape obstruction and root system. The architect did remove one tree that was located dose to her building to hopefully improve visibility to her site. That's not something that was mentioned previously, but it does reflect on the latest plans that were submitted. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Tiseo? Mr.Tiseo: To add to that remark, thank you, Mark, I forgot to mention that we contacted our landscape architect. What he did to address the concerns about visibility is that he selected plant materials that were lower in height than we had before so that it would not obstruct it. Again, the obstruction is going to be cleared away when you look at the fact that the gas station building will be gone and the pump stations will be gone. But to address the landscaping, we did use smaller materials in height. May 29, 2007 24054 Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Again, to my fellow commissioners, in the absence of any additional questions or comments, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-48-2007 RESOLVED, that the City panning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-08-08 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc., on behalf of Eight Mile Place, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant building and obtain preliminary approval for a drug store and bank branch with drive-thm operations on properties located at 33215, 33239 and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest ''/ of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. Pl dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. C-02 dated April 27, 2007, as revised, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share parking, be supplied to the City; 4. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2 both dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that brick pavers shall be used in lieu of decorative concrete in the construction of the plaza; 5. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader; 6. With the exception of the rain garden and detention area, all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding. Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; May 29, 2007 24055 7. In regards to Retail 'C' only, the Exterior Building Elevation Plan labeled "Branch Bank 'B' and Retail 'C' Elevations' dated May 21, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 9. 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; 10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out 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 the enclosure gates shall be of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 12. That the Developer shall submit for approval an ongoing mosquito control program, as approved by the Department of Public Works describing maintenance operations and larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection Department prior to the construction of the slormwater retention facility; 13. That the owner shall provide annual reports to the Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide treatments completed on the stornwater detention pond; 14. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated May 7, 2007; May 29, 2007 24056 16. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated May 23, 2007 17. As shown on the approved plans, sidewalks shall be installed along the right-of-way of this development; 18. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 19. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 20. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 21. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building peril is obtained this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: Was there another landscape plan or changes to that one, Mark, that he just referred lo? Mr. Taormina: There may be an update. I don't think that's the correct date. We're going to have to correct that based on the latest plan, and that's going to apply also to the Site Plan and the Exterior Building Elevations plans. Ms. Smiley: Yes, because we saw all those at the study session. Mr. Taormina: Yes. You're right. The dates are going to have to be updated. Mr. Walsh: So for purposes of this, we'll use the updated plans that we saw on the screens tonight. Mr. Taormina : Correct. Mr. Walsh: Is there support for the motion? ITEM #2 PETITION 2007-04-0244 TISEO - DRUGSTORE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 04-02-14 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a drugstore with a drive - up window facility at 33375 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3. Mr. Walsh: Since this is related to Item 1, 1 think we can go straight to the issue at hand. May 29, 2007 24057 Mr. Morrow: I will support that if the maker of the motion will add brick pavers to the plaza area at the corner of Farmington and Eight Mile Roads. Ms. Smiley: I'll be glad to do that. Is that a separate number? Mr. Morrow: We'll just make it a separate number. Ms. Smiley: Mark, is that okay? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that's fine. Mr. Walsh: There is a motion on the table, supported by Mr. Morrow. Is there any additional discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: I just want to make the comment that I think that this is a vast improvement over what is currently there. The Village Green Florist is not the most attractive facility that we have in the city at the moment. To remove a gas station and offer this consolidated package of three buildings that are consistent in appearance with each other and also add the pedestrian plaza at the corner, which certainly improves the aesthetics of the area, is a nice change. I would have liked to have seen Lot 17, the property directly to the east, incorporated into this development in some way, but as I understand it, the way that the property is being developed hopefully something can come of Lot 17 in the future that could tie into the Retail C building, which is right on the property line. With that, I certainly do agree that this should be supported. 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 2007-04-0244 TISEO - DRUGSTORE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 04-02-14 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a drugstore with a drive - up window facility at 33375 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3. Mr. Walsh: Since this is related to Item 1, 1 think we can go straight to the issue at hand. May 29, 2007 24058 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe 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 May 3, 2007, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention facilities have been shown and will be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. This section of Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Road Commission for Oakland County and the drive approaches will require approval from them. The legal description as shown on the plans at this time for the entire site is coned and no additional right -0f -way is required. A lot combination and split may be required for this development. Our records indicate that the current addresses for the development are 33215, 33239 and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside, but may be changed if the property is split." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a drug store, branch bank, and mufti -tenant retail building on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) If subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an onaite hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (5) Any curves or comers shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (6) Please provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for review." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 1, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) No signage has been reviewed. (2) The traffic lane at the drive -up window must be 12 feet wide. This May 29, 2007 24059 Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The fourth letter is from Adkison, Need & Allen, PLLC, dated May 22, 2007, which reads as follows: "Our office represents ALAR, LLC; the owner of property immediately south of the proposed new development on the SE comer of 8 Mile Road and Farmington Road in Livonia. Thanks for speaking with me this morning. In advance of your study session with the planning commission this evening, 1 wanted to confirm my client's position on the items we discussed and mention a couple of more that we did not discuss this morning. (1) My client is concerned that the required landscape plantings in connection with this project not have the effect of obscuring the ALAR building from traffic on Farmington Road. (2) My client is concerned that delivery truck and other traffic will use the ALAR property as a cut through to the proposed new development. For this reason we are requesting that the Planning Commission require a 2 foot high brick wall be constructed to prevent cut - through traffic. (3) My client is concerned that increased sheet - flow storm water will come from the development parcel and enter the ALAR property. The low brick wall we have suggested above will prevent this from occurring. (4) My client is concerned that delivery trucks will damage the transformer on the ALAR property line. (5) My client is concerned about use of the existing storm sewer and the possibility that flow from the proposed dvelopment may adversely affect the ability of the system to adequately drain the ALAR property. 1 have also mentioned that survey stakes on the property line between the ALAR property and the subject property appear to my client to inaccurately place the boundary line between the two properties. A surveyor has been retained to review this matter and 1 will advise you of his findings. 1 expect to attend the Planning Commission meeting where this plan will be considered. 1 appreciate your assistance in addressing the concems raised. I'll give you a call tomorrow to see how the study session went." The letter is signed by Phillip G. Adkison. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will return to Mr. Tiseo. Is there anything you'd like to add, or should we go straight to questions? Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. That covers it all. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? May 29, 2007 24050 Mr. Wilshaw: I assume signage for this drive-thru will be incorporated into the total signage package when it is delivered to us. Mr. Tiseo: That is correct. Mr.Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and a motion would be in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-49-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petition 2007-04-02-14 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a drugstore with a drive -up window facility at 33375 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest % of Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-14 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. P1 dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. C-02 dated April 27, 2007, as revised, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines the terms of how the subject property(s) would share parking, be supplied to the City; 4. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2 both dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that brick pavers shall be used in lieu of decorative concrete in the construction of the plaza; 5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan labeled "Drugstore Retail 'A' Elevations' dated May 21, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; May 29, 2007 24061 6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 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 dumpsler and transformer unit enclosures shall be constructed out 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 the enclosure gales shall be of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 9. That the traffic lane serving the drive -up service facility shall be at least twelve (12) feel in width, unless this requirement is modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 10. That all conditions imposed under the Council resolution approving Petition 2007-04-08-08, granfing site plan approval for the eight Mile Place development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this approval; 11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 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 the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 14. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. May 29, 2007 24062 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#3 PETITION 2007-04-0245 TISEO-BANK Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 04-02-15 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a bank with drive -up service facilities at 33215-33239 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3 Mr. Walsh: Again, this is related to Item 1. We've had a thorough description. Mr. Taormina, if you could go straight to the particular issue on this item. 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 May 3, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention facilities have been shown and will be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. This section of Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Road Commission for Oakland County and the drive approaches will require approval from them. The legal description as shown on the plans at this time for the entire site is craned and no additional right of way is required. A lot combination and split may be required for this development. Our records indicate that the current addresses for the development are 33215, 33239 and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside, but may be changed if the property is split." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in May 29, 2007 24063 connection with a request to construct a drug store, branch bank, and multi -tenant retail building on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations (1) If subject building(s) are 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. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (5) Any curves or corners shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (6) Please provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for review." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 1, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) All traffic lanes serving a drive -up window must be 12 feet wide. (2) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Adkison, Need & Allen, PLLC, dated May 22, 2007, which reads as follows: "Our office represents ALAR, LLC, the owner of property immediately south of the proposed new development on the SE corner of 8 Mile Road and Farmington Road in Livonia. Thanks for speaking with me this morning. In advance of your study session with the planning commission this evening, 1 wanted to confirm my client's position on the items we discussed and mention a couple of more that we did not discuss this morning. (1) My client is concerned that the required landscape plantings in connection with this project not have the effect of obscuring the ALAR building from traffic on Farmington Road. (2) My client is concerned that delivery truck and other traffic will use the ALAR property as a cut through to the proposed new development. For this reason we are requesting that the Planning Commission require a 2 foot high brick wall be constructed to prevent cut - through traffic. (3) My client is concerned that increased sheet - flow storm water will come from the development parcel and enter the ALAR property. The low brick wall we have suggested above will prevent this from occurring. (4) My client is concerned that delivery trucks will damage the transformer on the ALAR property line. (5) My client is concerned about use of May 29, 2007 24064 the existing storm sewer and the possibility that flow from the proposed development may adversely affect the ability of the system to adequately drain the ALAR property. 1 have also mentioned that survey stakes on the property line between the ALAR property and the subject property appear to my client to inaccurately place the boundary line between the two properties. A surveyor has been retained to review this matter and 1 will advise you of his findings. 1 expect to attend the Planning Commission meeting where this plan will be considered. 1 appreciate your assistance in addressing the concems mised. I'll give you a call tomorrow to see how the study session went The letter is signed by Phillip G. Adkison. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will invite Mr. Tiseo back to the podium. Any comments or straight to questions again? Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 9815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Again, Mark said it all. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: The ATM is right next to the bank, right? Mr. Tiseo: Its in the bank. You don't have an actual window used any more by tellers. That lane closest to the bank itself, that is just a night deposit as well as an ATM. It's a drive -up. Mr. Walsh: There is no window for the tellers to look through? Mr. Tiseo: I should correct myself. There is a window but not a drawer. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Very good. I understand. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make an approving resolution on one condition that all prior conditions from the previous one be read into the record with the exception that it pertains to the branch bank and not the drug store. Mr. Walsh: Are they similar in nature? Mr. Taormina: They are. We would make one change and that involves Condition 8. May 29, 2007 24065 Mr. Morrow: Conditions 5 and 8. Mr. Taormina: Actually, I think Condition 5 is still okay. We would append to the end of Condition 8, that unless this requirement is modified by a super majority vole of the City Council. What we are referring to is the requirement that all the lanes be 12 feet in width. In order for him to reduce that because that is a special requirement of the waiver use, it would require a separate resolution and approval by the Council that would modify that condition. Mr. Morrow: So if I read in Condition 8, that would take care of it? Mr. Taormina: Yes. That's correct, and what you would include is: Unless this requirement is modified by a super majority vole of the City Council. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Then that's what I'll do. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0530-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 9, 2007, on Petition 2007-04-02-15 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a bank with drive -up service facilities at 33215-33239 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-15 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. Pl dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. C-02 dated April 27, 2007, as revised, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share parking, be supplied to the City; 4. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2 both dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J. May 29, 2007 24066 Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that brick pavers shall be used in lieu of decorative concrete in the construction of the plaza; 5. In regards to Branch Bank 'B' only, the Exterior Building Elevation Plan labeled "Branch Bank 'B' and Retail 'C' Elevations" dated May 21, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 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 traffic lanes serving the cinve-up service facilities shall each be at least twelve (12) feet in width, unless this requirement is modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 9. That all conditions imposed under the Council resolution approving Petition 2007-04-08-08, granting site plan approval for the Eight Mile Place development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this approval; 10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 11. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 13. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. May 29, 2007 24067 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: So what we have is a resolution that is substantially similar. Just so the audience and the petitioner understands, Mr. Morrow, in an effort to avoid re -reading a lengthy resolution a second time, is accepting the language from the prior resolution and modifying it to this particular use and changing Condition 8 for the purposes of lane width. 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 2007-03-01-02 MASOUD SHANGO Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 03-01-02 submitted by Masoud Shango requesting to rezone property at 13820-13840 Merriman Road and 31281 Schoolcraft Road, located on the south side of Schoolcraft east of Merriman Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 26 from OS to C-2. Mr. Walsh: We need to remove this item from the table. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #0531-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2007-03-01-02 submitted by Masoud Shango requesting to rezone properly at 13820-13840 Merriman Road and 31281 Schoolcraft Road, located on the south side of Schoolcraft east of Merriman Road in the Northwest'''/ of Section 26 from OS to G2, be removed from the table. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? May 29, 2007 24068 Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 2, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. No additional right-of- way is required. The legal description does not mathematically close. We believe the last dimension should be 95.80 feet instead of 94.62." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the petitioner, Masoud Shango, dated May 29, 2007, which reads as follows: "This letter is written to further explain my reasoning for requesting this proposed change in zoning than what is set forth in the above -referenced petition. The building is vacant and it has been vacant for nearly six months. We advertised the building as available to lease as soon as we became aware that our tenant was leaving. To date there has been no interest in leasing the building for office purposes. The only interest has been for this proposed purpose of a drive thru donut shop. We believe we have made a good faith effort to again lease the property for office services. There seems to be an abundant amount of vacant office space and office buildings available in the City of Livonia and the adjoining communities. In pursuing the matter of leasing my building to this prospective tenant, we met with the City of Livonia Building and Zoning Department. There we were advised of the need to rezone the property to C- Z General Commercial. It was also explained that the City Planning Commission's Master Land Use Plan has designated the property as Commercial. In submitting this rezoning petition, it was our thought that we were doing what the Planning Commission wanted since the Planning Commission's Master Land Use Plan designates the subject property as CommerciaL Also, the prior use of the property was by an insurance agency and their use, in our opinion, may be considered quasi -commercial due to the sale of insurance policies. Another factor to be considered is the small size of the subject property. Being so small in lot area in comparison to the surrounding properties in the area, this expansion in commercial zoning should have little, if any, impact on the surrounding and neighboring properties. Also, all of these related properties are zoned Commercial or Industrial. Another point regarding the small area of the subject property is that from a practical standpoint, there is little application for industrial use. The front yard and rear yard setback requirements would leave very little buildable lot area for the an industrial building. As with offices, there seems to be an overabundant amount of vacant industrial space and buildings available in the Livonia market. In closing 1 thank you for taking the time to read this letter as I feel somewhat restricted and uncomfortable speaking in public. May 29, 2007 24069 Again, thank you for your support of my request." The letter is signed Masoud Shango, Owner. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: On the Future Land Use, is that consistent with what he's requesting? Mr. Nowak: The Future Land Use Plan designates an area in the southeast corner that's commercial, but its difficult to determine the extent of how much land area they're actually recommending for commercial use. Mr. Walsh: So the Plan doesn't specify by acreage, but it indicates that corner to be commercial. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. The Plan, as you know, is a general guide for development purposes. Its not necessarily site specific or necessarily coincides with any property bounderies. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions for staff? I understand from the petitioner who is in the audience that he does not wish to speak this evening. We can respect that and rely on his letter and any input we may receive from the public. Mr. Morrow: I guess we're going into discussion? Mr. Walsh: I have to go to the audience first. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I would prefer to have a motion on the floor before we begin discussion. Mr. Morrow: The reason I say this is because this is strictly a zoning issue. Where I may find fault with the actual site plan and waiver as presented here tonight, this could change between now and when we consider the site plan. He's giving us an idea of what he wants to do. So I know as one commissioner I'd like to just confine it to whether or not we think G2 is appropriate at that location. Mr. Walsh: An excellent comment made at the right time. Is there any further discussion or is there a motion? Calling for a motion again. May 29, 2007 24070 On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0532-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petition 2007-03-01-02 submitted by Masoud Shango requesting to rezone property at 13820-13840 Merriman Road and 31281 SchoolcraR Road, located on the south side of SchoolcraR east of Merriman Road in the Northwest % of Section 26 from OS to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-03-01- 02 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing zoning on other similarly situated properties in the vicinity of the SchoolcraR Road and Merriman Road intersection; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will not be detrimental to the surrounding land uses in the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the orderly and efficient development and use of the subject property in a manner that will be complementary to the existing development on the adjacent property to the west; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide opportunities for a greater variety of uses to serve the area as well as the City as a whole. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? I will add my comments to those of Mr. Morrow. I do agree that this is for zoning purposes. I think its the right choice, but I will withhold judgment until we see an actual site plan in terms of whether or not it's the appropriate building and design. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. May 29, 2007 24071 ITEM #5 PETITION 2007-03-02-07 NEW CAR ALTERNATIVES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 03-02-07 submitted by Stacy Services, Inc. d/b/a New Car Alternatives requesting waiver use approval to expand the operations of an existing automobile dealership to include the outdoor display, sales and service of recreational vehicles at 34715 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest %of Section 33. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe 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 April 25, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description for the waiver petition follows. An additional 27 feet of right-of- way is required adjacent to Lot 6 and should be dedicated to the Michigan Department of Transportation. The address of the three parcels is 34715, 34733 and 34803 Plymouth Road." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 26, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to expand the operations of an existing automobile dealership to include outdoor display, sales and service of recreational vehicles on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest X of Section 33. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fester, Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 8, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with New Car Alternative/Stacy Services, Inc. located at 34803 Plymouth 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 May 9, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 23, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The site plan submitted for the RV parking area shows a gate to be installed on the north side of the Petitioner's property that will allow access to an adjoining May 29, 2007 24072 property. There appears to be no cross agreement or shared easement between the Petitioner and the adjoining property owner (34801 Plymouth). The Commission and/or Council may wish to consider requiring the appropriate agreement be executed between the properties stated above and provided to the City or the removal of the gate. (2) The parking lot of this property does not appear to be property double striped per our ordinance. Barrier free spaces must also be provided and property signed, sized and marked. (3) The Commission and/or Council may wish to reiterate that previous Council resolutions prohibited parking or standing of delivery trucks and car haulers on Laurel Avenue and that all loading and unloading of vehicles shall be accomplished on premises only and not within right -0f - ways. (4) The area used for open air display must be provided with lighting during the hours that the display is closed for business. Lighting provided must beat least one watt per each square yard of display area and a maximum of one and a half watts per each square yard of display area. Lighting shall be hooded or shielded so as to be deflected frem adjacent residential property. (5) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required for electronic signs. (6) The total area and height of monument sign presented appears to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Any increase in height or area would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (7) The proposed ground sign must be located at least 10 feet frem any right -0f -way line. Existing ground sign must be removed. (8) Planning and/or Council may wish to consider what the hours of operation will be for the proposed site so as not to have any negative affects on the adjoining residential neighborhood. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Alan D. Tansk, Stacy Services, Inc. d/b/a New Car Alternatives, 34715 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. My wife is with me. She is my business partner, and we're trying to expand our business for the changing times that we're experiencing after 12 years of a lot of fun in Livonia. If there are any questions I can answer, I would be more than happy to do so. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? May 29, 2007 24073 Ms. Vartoogian: One of the things you want to include in the storage area is RVs. What type of RVs? The school bus type of RVs or are theysmaller? Mr. Tanski: RVs would consist of anything 33 feel and less. They do make them bigger than that, but our service facility wouldn't be able to service anything bigger. So we were going to be targeting the 33 fool or less in length RVs. Ms. Vartoogian: Are people going to be able to come to your store and test drive these? Mr. Tanski: There is test driving. Most people want to test drive a vehicle in the car business. I would think that at some time and point I was buying something expensive, I would want to drive it. Yes, I would encourage that. We do that with the cars that we sell now. All people want to take it for a ride before they buy. Ms. Vartoogian: My next question is, where would they exit the parking lot? Mr. Tanski: He had mentioned that there is no agreement. There is an easement, which would be produced on the north entrance between going through the donut shop. If you notice the property lines, I gave up part of my parking and my lot line to the donut shop when we had that rezoned in 2003. We made some concessions. They made some concessions to solidity that easement that goes between Plymouth Road, his parking lot and my property line. There is an agreement, which I will provide, for using that exit. That would be one of the exits. As you notice, there is also going to be an exit between the building and the property line to the north, and also one on Laurel Drive. We have a no lett turn sign. We police that heavily. We had a problem in the past with people going up and down the street, people worried about the kids playing and stuff. Its not a perfect world. We try awful hard but we have had zero complaints in the Iasi three solid years because its been a big priority not to go down the side street. Ms. Vartoogian: Do you believe that there is enough width to those lanes for perhaps a new driver to an RV to be able to drive through there? Mr. Tanski: Well, we would use discretion. If someone hasn't driven one, one of the sales associates who has experience, as myself, would take it to a place where we dont want to cause damage to the unit either. We don't want to put it at risk or the person driving it at risk. You know, there's people who come in who have never driven a stick shift car. We dont say here's the keys May 29, 2007 24074 and take off. We lake them to a secure area - usually the Burrows parking lot in Plymouth - and then we let them familiarize themselves with it. Right. It's a good point. You can't say, here you go. You have to use some discretion. Ms. Vartoogian: And my last question, how tall are the RVs typically? Mr. Tanski: RVs are around 9 feet, 11 feet would be the tallest. That's not the actual size of the cab, but sometimes they have rooftop air conditioners which would take them to the maximum. Our facility has 14 foot doors to service those. The ones over 33 feet and taller we couldn't accommodate. And of course, what we sell we're going to want to service. So we're definitely going to stay in the realm of what we can do. It makes people happier if you can sell everything you can sell, but deliver everything you've sold. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: You mentioned service. Do you do any type of service work outside the facility? Mr. Tanski: Absolutely not. None. I guess if we change a light bulb outside, I guess that would be a non -truthful statement. Mr. Morrow: Well, I think you know what I'm saying. Mr. Tanski: Yeah, nothing like an oil change. Mr. Morrow: Anything mechanical? Mr. Tanski: Absolutely not. There's OSHA. There's a lot more people watching than just you guys. So you have to accommodate. You have to have it in the proper place. It has to be properly lit. The hoist has to look the proper size. It's not a floor jack. We don't take any chances. That's not saying that we have, but when I find out about it, it's curtailed right there. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any kind of a PA system set up there? Mr. Tanski: We have had a PA system but that has been removed. It was a real touchy thing. There is no PA system outside at all. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McDermott: Could you describe the sign that you're proposing that currently doesn't fit with our requirements? May 29, 2007 24075 Mr. Tanski: I did a lot of research on this and I've taken a lot of pictures, which I haven't brought to this meeting because I didn't want to be forceful. I have a sign now on the property that uses plastic letters. It's quite antiquated. Back in the late 90's it was something we got by with. I could change the message on the sign. The problem with the sign is that the kids in the neighborhood come and put swear words and all kinds of different things. It's just aggravating as heck. So what I'm proposing is the same type of sign but that sign would be electronically controlled inside the building. I will not buy the program that would make the sign move. The sign would be changed once a day at midnight if I was that efficient. I wish I could say I was. I dont even change my phone message on my machine each day. But that would be the purpose - to eliminate and to update ourselves into the 20"' Century. The electronic sign letters would match the same size letters that I'm using now that are not digital. They are plastic shielded letters. The signage square footage is exactly the same size as the sign that I have now. We are proposing to move it on to the western side of the properly instead of right in front of the dealership for more exposure because that's where the cars are displayed. Did I answer your question good enough? I have a picture which is better than they have if you'd like to see it but it's not in color either but it gives the dimensions. But more importantly, the gas stations around town who display their gasoline prices on a digital display sign, I'm fully aware that moving parts of the sign are not legal. I am not proposing to that in any way, fashion or shape or form. What I'm just trying to do is be more efficient and have a more modem sign than what I have now. I do have a clock in my sign now, which we were going to propose keeping a digital display of time if that would be okay. A lot of people notice the sign because of the clock. I know when I was kid I would always see that clock sign at the bank, and I knew I was late under curfew. But I knew what place that bank was, the Michigan National Bank on the comer of Sheldon and Ann Arbor Roads. So that's why I wanted that effect so people could make that sign part of the community not just for my business. But hey, what time is it? Am I Tale for work? That type of thing. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: The diagram that we have of the sign currently shows a picture of a car on it. Is that something you're going to do or just have lettering? Is there going to be graphics? Mr. Tanski: That's a good question. I think that's a stationary, interchangeable piece that could be a car, it could be a motor home, it could be a person. It's not digital. It's not a lighted May 29, 2007 24076 refraction of a car. It's a solid piece that's interchangeable. So the answer to your question is, yes, but no, because it couldn't be moved unless it was physically removed. The part off to the side where it says "quality", those are the digital display parts that could change or would change. Like I had said, I would not buy, which would save quite a bit of money, not buying the computer program, and the other type of sign that would show something moving. Its quite a bit more money, and it doesn't fit in the City of Livonia, and I understand that. That's why I propose not to use it. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Currently on your site you have a handful of boats that are silting there on trailers, which is not permitted currently. Why are those there? Mr. Tanski: I didn't know they weren't permitted because they weren't for sale, but there's only one lett. Mr.Wilshaw: They're just there for storage? Mr. Tanski: One was for buying. One was the service manager's. I guess the answer to your question was yes. Now that the weather's broke, they have been moved. Mr. Wilshaw: So those were not for sale? Mr. Tanski: They were for sale. Absolutely, and we did sell one. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Tanski: We sold a little jet boat that was up there. In my other zoning, I'm not allowed a dump truck or any other type of thing on the front line. That's why I'm here today so I can display instead of keeping it out back. Mr. Wilshaw: I see. Okay. Now, you talked about servicing RVs. Are you also going to service boats and these other recreational vehicles? Mr. Tanski: My plans are to service boats and snowmobiles. I'm not going to be in the motorcycle business because of the liability to sell. It's really quite funny when somebody buys a snowmobile, they don't drive it. It's incredible. My research has showed me that the recreational vehicles - I know it's hard to believe with the cost of gasoline - last year it was up 13 percent. This year its already up 19 percent. So people are spending their money. I have a beautiful location. I cant fill it up with cars because that industry has changed, so I'm trying to keep my business in lad May 29, 2007 24077 by offering a different service to the community, and there isn't one around. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. This fence that we see that is going around your properly appears to be, from the diagram at least, something along the lines of a wrought iron type fence that's not solid. You'd be able to see through it. Is that the case? Mr. Tanski: That's correct. I was at the Ralph Thayer meetings and it's going to mirror his fence that faces the north side of Plymouth Road, a decorated brick imposed with a capping of limestone. Yes, nicely decorated, not a lattice-type ugly fence. Mr. Wilshaw: It looks attractive. The last question I have is, currently when you were parking vehicles in the back part of your area, you can use basic parking spaces to do that. With RVs, boats and other types of vehicles, they're all different sizes and shapes. How are you going to manage parking those so they don't look hodgepodge in the back? Mr. Tanski: I would only ask you to look at my previous track records why that would be a concem. We're going to have a numbering system and the car is going to be followed by a number. Each parking space will be designated to the size of that number. Of course, the smaller things would start - Mark, can you pull up the other part of the - now if you could run that cursor along the south wall, from the fence, Tel's go from east to the west. That part there is going to be our 100 row, which would be the smaller vehicles, the boats, the snowmobile-type trailers shielding them behind the building also. They could also be backed into the building side, which would still leave us 28 feet of driving ability between a 14 fool boat and a 14 foot motorcycle trailer because that's the maximum length they can be. Of course, there would be smaller ones. If they were a single place, there would be nothing larger than that. And then the motor homes would go around the border, which we would use kind of like a security thing too because when you put something around the border, nothing can drive out. It's a little bit more difficult. The lot has a camera. It has a complete video surveillance on it, which can be controlled at my house. It isn't in the best working condition because I've had some major setbacks with my software. Does that answer your question? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. So you're going to have a striped parking lot with designated spaces for the different types of vehicles. May 29, 2007 24078 Mr. Tanski: Thats correct. In the planning stages, I would ask for 90 days or 120 days to figure out the proper configurations so that if t needed to be changed, it could be changed. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I would like to see that at some point as opposed to just having t in limbo. I think even the residents that live behind there would also be curious which types of vehicles are going to be parked closest to their property. Mr. Tanski: I have spoken with the people behind, three deep each side. When I started this 12 years ago, I had some severe opposition. I don't see anybody here so I believe my track record as a responsible business owner on that street and a neighbor, because I consider myself their neighbor. I dont know if you've been by my place. My grass is green, I plant my flowers, I take pride in my building. is clean because I want it to last. So I hope I would further continue that responsibility to the city, to the neighborhood and to myself. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: You haven had to a chance to discuss any of that with the PRDA? Mr. Tanski: Who would be the PRDA? Ms. Smiley: The Plymouth Road Development Authority. Mr. Tanski: Briefly, no. I have not shared my plan with them. They are wonderful to work with by the way. Ms. Smiley: I just wondered what they thought of your plan. Mr. Tanski: I thought I would gel past you guys first. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Morrow: I would like to know the days that you'll be selling those vehicles and the hours. Mr. Tanski: I wish you hadn't asked that because right now we are open six days a week. On June 1 through September 15, we close on Saturdays but if I'm going to be in the recreational business, I believe a Saturday would be the appropriate time to view those. That's not etched in stone but I would request or I would state that I would plan on being open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on a Saturday. During the summer hours, which I'm not open now, May 29, 2007 24079 but I am open during the spring, fall and winter. That would be my plan. Mr. Morrow: Whatwould be the hours otherthan Saturday? Mr. Tanski: My hours are 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. We're closed on Sunday, and we would remain closed on Sunday. A lot of RV places are not closed on Sunday but we would be. Mr. Morrow: What activity would be going on? Obviously we've got some concerns with the residential to the south. Mat would you actually be doing in that Iotthat might cause a disturbance? Mr. Tanski: That was one of the reasons why we decided we would not represent motorcycles because they lend to be loud, especially the two cycle versions of them. I didn't want to gel involved in that because of that reason and insurance purposes. I'd like to tell you that we do everything right and perfect but its not a perfect word. Like I said earlier, I don't know exactly what would happen. Some motor homes have generators. I would feel that I would be able to lest those generators away from my neighbors directly behind us. I believe I've met every requirement or every disagreement that he has had to his favor, not to mine. So to answer your question, I would hope that I would be able to continue in that light. I can't see anything being different. I'm not going to run snowmobiles up and down the street because we're not going to do that. Mr. Morrow: Well, my concern prmarly was, Tel's say you mentioned testing a generator. Well, generally you can do that during the daytime hours. I'm more concerned about maybe 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., what type of activity would be going on there? Would it just be inspecting your RV's as opposed to taking them out? Mr. Tanski: I think the property is big enough, especially in the front. On the west side of the building, there is a little square. Mark, can you pull up that square right behind the donut shop. That square right there would be my planned, get ready, show vehicle. You know, if we were going to show a vehicle in stock, that's where we would bring it to open up the doors and pull the canopy down because if you're going to park next to each other, you can't do that. So our plan was to use that area as the selling floor basically. So we have the shield of the building to the south that I believe would knock off any type of noise. Yet, would someone run one up the back? Yep, I think I can control that by saying, "Hey, look, after 6:00 p.m. we need to be all up May 29, 2007 24080 front." Service is closed at 5:00 p.m. so there would be no need for any type of repair after that hour for that reason. And we're really good at that, and we do not have a full day Saturday service hours. That only is in the winter. Mr. Morrow: So you are aware of your neighbors to the south? Mr. Tanski: Absolutely, and I think I can say, Mark, you've been involved a lot with my neighbor. I think we've come to a great working relationship. I owned the southwest comer before Thayer's did, and that was just silting there vacant for years and years and years. So I'd like to think that I made a contribution to my street. Yes, I am aware of that and very much in play with what they feel. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Ms. Vartoogian: I have another question about the sign. What types of messages do you plan on displaying on the sign? Mr. Tanski: We've used that sign for many different opportunities and situations. I don't know if you've ever gone by there, but we have signs praying for people. Several times we do advertise specials. So your question is, I put up "fresh Florida cars" before. I try to be sparkly with my expressions, and that's what I would try to maintain. But we also use it for community events. If someone would need to post something, we're willing to do that. We have a kitchen inside the dealership. I'd invite you all to lunch because it's going full time where people come and we have meetings and we allow people to use our facility after they buy a car. Its part of the community, not just, hey, you buy a car and you're done. I would like to keep the sizzle type things going. If there is something you would not want to see, if you would tell me, I would entertain the fad if it was not right not to put it up. You know, like when school starts, we always put out .watch for the yellow school bus" We try to use the sign as a community board because I want people to look at the sign to see what's next. What is he pulling up there next? Its so important to business to be part of that, and people have come to know that sign for some sort of message. Because they call and say can you put that on the sign? Well, I can't put that on the sign but you know what I mean? Ms. Vartoogian: I have one other quick question. As far as the color scheme, I notice you have apple green and then you plan on having red letters. Have you ever considered another color for the letters? May 29, 2007 24081 Mr. Tanski: My wife hasn't gotten involved in that yet. That was my brother and I. Yeah, we were kind of bright there, but you're right. It needs to be a little bit more like maybe silver. If you saw the colored picture of it, you would go wow. Ms. Varloogian: That's it. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: This electronic sign — how would you control the brightness of the letters? Some of these can gel rather bright. Mr. Tanski: It has a dial control. There's a one through five scale, a six through seven scale, and then off the charts. That's part of your programming. I notice the gas stations are a little bright, but I notice when theyre so bright they not legible. The Madonna sign I think is very tastefully done. That's easy to read. Although theirs is moving, mine would not be moving. But that color of red and green that they're using, I think is acceptable because I've noticed the brighter you gel, the more blurred it seems to get no matter how big it is. So, yes, that would be a concern. Mr. Wilshaw: As far as the display of these recreational vehicles in the front of your building, what do you expect to see there? You're looking to expand the display of recreational vehicles. What am I going to see in the front of your building? Mr. Tanski: Mark, if you could please point to the north side of the building where the greenbelts are, that would still be all cars. My display area is going to be to the west behind the donut shop and then down that area right there will all be display. I will not display in the front of the building because of the logistics. It's light that way and it would not work. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So I'm not going to see a boat on a trailer out in the front of your building? Mr. Tanski: You will see it on the west side behind the donut shop property. You also might see one in our staging area. Mark, south, the lower south, the gate at the very back of the building. That area there where we would be delivering things to people, setting up the display. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Tanski: You're welcome. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Tanski, I just want to make certain of something. Is the Madonna sign similar to what you're proposing? May 29, 2007 24082 Mr. Tanski: No. Their block and type of sign is able to write sentences. Mine won't be able to do that because I'm not buying that program. Mine will be four block or four sentences. Mr. Walsh: When I looked at this, I had the vision of some kind of a flat screen Las Vega style. Mr. Tanski: No. Its going to be the same concept as their sign. Mr. Walsh: Okay. That's all I wanted to know. All right. Thank you. Mr. Tanski: That is cool, though. Mr. Walsh: That's what I had in my mind's eye and I appreciate the clarification. Mr. Tared Ididn't think you guys would go for that. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward then, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #0533-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petition 2007-03-02-07 submitted by Stacy Services, Inc. d/b/a New Car Alternatives requesting waiver use approval to expand the operations of an existing automobile dealership to include the outdoor display, sales and service of recreational vehicles at 34715 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest % of Section 33, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-03-02- 07 be approved subjectlolhe following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 submitted by INC Alternatives/Stacy Services, dated January 25, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the proposed new additional plant materials shown on the above -referenced Site Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3. That all landscaped areas shall be fully irrigated by means of an automatic underground sprinkler system; May 29, 2007 24083 4. That the Fence Elevation Plan marked Sheet C-2 submitted by INC Alternatives/Stacy Services, dated January 25, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; That adequate offstreet parking shall be provided which shall be sufficient to comply with the parking requirement for customers and employees as set forth in Section 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance, comprising no fewer than 37 parking spaces located in the parking areas east and south of the building, and which shall be double -striped, including the provision of barrier free spaces with proper signage, marking and configuration, and all regular spaces shall be 10 feel by 20 feel in size as required; 6. That the outdoor display of recreational equipment shall be limited to the westerly parking area as identified and designated on the above -referenced Site Plan, which is further defined as the west 174 feel of the dealership site, and shall be continually maintained in an orderly manner; 7. That there shall be no outdoor storage of dismantled, damaged or inoperable vehicles or equipment, and no outdoor storage of vehicles parts, scrap material and debris in connection with this use; 8. That adequate lighting, not exceeding 16 feel in height and properly shielded so as to be deflected away from adjacent residential property, shall be provided during the hours that the display is closed for business; 9. For safety purposes, the parking or standing of delivery trucks and car haulers on Laurel Avenue is strictly prohibited. All vehicle loading and unloading at this dealership shall be accomplished on the premises only, and not within any public rlghl-0f way; 10. That documentation of an appropriate cross access or easement agreement between the petitioner and the owner of the adjoining property to the north shall be provided to the City; otherwise, the gate leading to the property to the north shall be eliminated; 11. That the Ground Monument Sign Plan prepared by Huron Sign Co., dated March 25, 2006, with a total sign area of 30 square feet, is hereby approved, provided that the sign is placed at least 10 feet from the Plymouth Road rlghtof- May 29, 2007 24084 way, subject to a variance for the electronic message component being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any condifions pertaining thereto; 12. That the electronic sign message shall not contain any scrolling or moving messages or graphics, shall not flash, blink, contain animated graphics, or intermittenfly change, and the sign message shall not change more than one time every 24 hours; 13. That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 15. That all conditions imposed under Council Resolution #182-03, which previously granted waiver use approval to expand the subject dealership facility, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the condifions of this approval; and 16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for the Zoning Compliance Permit. 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. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? May 29, 2007 24085 Mr. Taormina: I just wanted to point out that Condition 6 of the resolution as read would limit the display area to the westerly 174 feel of the dealership site. Ms. Smiley: Not the south? Mr. Taormina: No, not the south. Let me explain the reason for that. The previously approved site plan designates the parking area on the east side of the bulding, as well as the area on the south side of the building. Those are the 37 spaces that are required under the ordinance for employees and for customers. Mr. Tanski indicated this evening some desire to utilize this area for snowmobiles. So I just want it clearly understood that the resolution as prepared would limit the display area to the westerly 174 feel, which generally coincides with this area that I'm identifying on the map, and not this area. Mr. Morrow: Perhaps it's in here. Condition 12 leads, "The electronic sign message shall not flash, blink, contain animated graphics, or intermittently change." Now, does that include moving? Mr. Walsh: I think we could add scrolling or moving if there's no objection just to be certain. Ms. Smiley: There's no objection. Mr. Morrow: Do you think it would be appropriate because the petitioner has indicated his hours of operation and service. Would that be productive to make that part of this resolution because it does back up to the residential? Ms. Smiley: Do we do that normally? Mr. Walsh: We don't normally include that, do we Mark? I'm trying to think of a time when we found something of that sort. Mr. Taormina: We could do that if you consider it to be a condition that would meet the ordinance with respect to compatibility with surrounding land uses. So I guess that's up to the Commission. As I understood it, he's open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday and Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. I don't know if that would limit his flexibility in the future if he wanted to adjust those hours slightly. It's something you might want to ask the petitioner. Mr. Morrow: And also the hours of service, when the service would close. May 29, 2007 24086 Mr. Taormina: I think this is the showroom, but the service closes at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Morrow: Would the petitioner be comfortable with including those? Mr. Walsh: A commissioner wants to add your hours to the resolution. Mr. Tanski: I have no objection. Mr. Walsh: Okay. I do want to point oul, I think that we would say that he would not operate more than that, but we want to give him the opportunity to not open on Saturday if he chooses to do so. Mr. Morrow: Well, there's some flexibility but he might have to come back. Mr. Taormina: If we're gang to add that, I need to verify that the hours of service from Monday through Friday. Is that 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 P.M.? Mr. Tanski: That's correct. Mr. Taormina: And then 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday? Mr. Tanski: Well, its really 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. They're there. We dont take customers until 9:00 a.m., but there is somebody there at 8:30 a.m. Mr. Walsh: Is the maker comfortable with that? Ms. Smiley: That's fine. Ms. Vartoogian: I don't necessarily agree with the hours. I see it as a restriction and why not if he's willing to be open . I guess I don't understand your concern about the hours of operation. They seem reasonable. They haven't had any problems in the past. Mr. Walsh: For purposes of moving this along, Mr. Morrow, what you would need to do then is make a formal motion to amend the resolution. Mr. Morrow: Like I said, I was kind of looking for direction. The only reason I brought it up is because of trying to being sympathetic to the neighbors so it's not carte blanche as far as the hours of service. If it's something that's out of the ordinary, I will not add that. Mr. Walsh: Then the motion would stand. May 29, 2007 24087 Mr. Wilshaw: A couple of questions. Speaking of the sign and the hours, it's not unusual for us to have a condition that the sign be turned off one hour after closing. Is that something that would be appropriate in this case as we talked about hours of operation? Just a generic to say that any signs that are illuminated shall be turned off one hour after closing. It seems to be fairly typical for our resolutions to have that. Mr. Tanski: Can I say something? Al nighttime your sign is more important than the daytime because it won't be seen if you shut it off at night. I guess I could shut it off at midnight. I would like to comply but I would like to be able to, when people are driving, for them to read my sign. Mr. Walsh: It's a typical point. And again, Mr. Wilshaw, I've given a lot of latitude but we have other agenda items and I'm really going to need to lighten up on our rules. So Mr. Tanski, I'm going to ask if you could please be seated. I appreciate your viewpoint, but from this point forward, if people do wish to offer an amendment I'd like them to do so that we can move forward. Mr. Wilshaw: I'll offer that amendment. Mr. Walsh: You're offering an amendment that the sign be illuminated and then turned off one hour after closing? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Is there support? Mr. Morrow: I'll support it. Mr. Walsh: We have support from Mr. Morrow. Is there any discussion on the amending motion? Seeing none, will the Secretary please call the roll? Ms. Smiley: So this is for the amending motion? Mr. Walsh: Yes, this is to amend your motion so that it would require the sign to be shut off after one hour after closing. So it's Mr. Wilshaw and Mr. Morrow. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Morrow, McDermott, Vartoogian, Walsh NAYES: Smiley ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: LaPine May 29, 2007 24088 Mr. Walsh: The motion passes, so it stands as amended. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Morrow: Does that include the movement that I mentioned? That will be part of the motion? Mr. Walsh: You had agreement from the maker and the support. Mr. Morrow: I kind of golyou off track there, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. Mr. Walsh: We're good. Are there any additional comments? I'd like to make just a few comments. I want to thank Mr. Tanta for coming here. I think you have a pretty well thought out plan. I've observed this first as a Planning Commissioner, then as a Council Member and now again as a Planning Commission. I've sal through some meetings that sometimes were uncomfortable. And I think what's a telling testament is there are no neighbors here objecting. You have sometimes to your commercial detriment made agreements that we've appreciated as a city. I think you have a good plan here pretty well thought out. I know the sign point that Mr. Wilshaw just made is a tough one, but its fairly consistent with what we've done with other businesses. Should this pass it, you'll have a chance to talk to the Council about that point. If there are no additional comments, will the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Vartoogian, McDermott, Morrow, Wilshaw, Walsh NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: LaPine 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#6 PETITION 2007-04-0241 T.G.I. FRIDAY'S Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 04-02-11 submitted by Great Lakes Dining, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C Liquor License in connection with a full service restaurant (T.G.I. Friday's) at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 6. May 29, 2007 24089 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 three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 1, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description submitted is correct and no additional right -0f -way is required. The address according to our records is 20120 Haggerty Road." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 8, 2007, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with T.G.1. Fridays Restaurant, located at 20450 Haggerty. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 9, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 27, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. There is a Class C License within 1000 feet (Uno's in Northville) and thus this Petitioner will require a waiver from Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: I just have one and that is, it doesn't make any difference if its in another city, the liquor license, or what? Mr. Taormina: We're not sure precisely how that rule applies but it is our recommendation to the Council that they waive that requirement anyway. A similar action was undertaken for an SDD license a couple years ago, so we're recommending that it be done in this case. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Greg Riley: Good evening. I represent T.G.I. Friday or Great Lakes Dining. We also have a senior GM of Operations here, Scott Franz, with me and hopefully we can answer any questions you may have. May 29, 2007 24090 Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Its pretty straight up. Seeing no questions, then I'll go to the audience? 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 Varloogian, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #0534-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petition 2007-04-02-11 submitted by Great Lakes Dining, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C Liquor License in connection with a full service restaurant (T.G.I. Friday's) at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02- 11 be approved, provided that the City Council waives the 1,000 foot separation requirement between Class C licensed establishment as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance, for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 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. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. May 29, 2007 24091 ITEM#7 PETITION 2007-04-0242 BEEF O'BRADY RESTAURANT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 04-02-12 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Beef O'Brady's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast % of Section 4. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe 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 May 5, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. No additional right of way is required. The legal description for the occupied area follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 2, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the northeast X of Section 4. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fester, Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 8, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Beef O'Brady's Family Sports Pub, located at 33523 8 Mile. 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 May 9, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 27, 2007, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Although not part of the review process, the following items are noted to give the Petitioner advance notice of items needing attention prior to our Department's actual plan review. (a) This entire space, as a change in use group, including entry doors must meet the current barrier free code. (b) The bathrooms as drawn do not meet the barrier free code. (c) The main egress aisle does not appear to maintain the required minimum 444nch width. (d) The egress door from the men's restroom appears in conflict with the women's May 29, 2007 24092 restroom egress door. (2) The rear doors of this mall should identify the tenant and/or addresses/space numbers. (3) No provision is noted for a dumpster and/or grease receptacle and appropriate enclosure. This site cumentiy has three dumpster enclosures and also another three dumpsters and two grease containers (one with much grease spilled around it) not in dumpster enclosures. The Commission and/or Council may wish to clarify what will be required. 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? Seeing none, would the petitioner please come forward? Patrick Howe, Carlin, Edwards, Brown & Howe, PLLC, 2855 Coolidge Highway, Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. 1 have with me Daryl Lombard, owner and operator of the local franchise. I'm here to answer any questions tonight. We had extensive conversation Iasi week about the operations of Beef O'Bmdy's Family Sports Pub. Ironically, this concept and the franchise is on the cover of Nations Restaurant News today. They're getting a lot of press about their marketing program, the franchise program and their efforts to involve themselves in the community as we discussed Iasi week. I'm here to answer any of your questions. I know there are a few changes discussed this week with staff regarding amusements and other things. But I'd like to Lm it over to Daryl to just briefly talk about the operations and answer any questions you have. Daryl L. Lombard, Lombard Enterprises, Inc., 23290 Halstead, #101, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335. Good evening. I dropped off one revised floor plan and also an option for the grease receptacle in light of the Inspection Departments request and concerns about the existing grease receptacles at that location. As far as the amusement games, we have specified, formalized a request per our last meeting, for a total of 13 games. Six would be arcade games in the aroade-type room, a seventh arcade game would be in the general bar area, and then there would be six boollr type mounted games located within the restaurant area. Not every booth would contain a game, obviously. Outside of that, I'd just like to reiterate my excitement about the opportunity. As you can see from the article and that, we are involved in the community and looking forward to working with the schools, various little leagues, and WMCA events within the community. Thank you, again, and any questions you have I'd be happy to answer them. May 29, 2007 24093 Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: If you'd like to speak real briefly, not that you have to be real brief, but about your restaurant and the concept of a family sports bar. It seems a little bit like an oxymoron. Mr. Lombard: Yes, absolutely. The tag line "a family sports pub" is actually being considered by the franchise for some kind of rendition to it because it does give that mixed sense of direction. I'd like to highlight a couple things, that the typical hours of business are 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Although it will require a Class C liquor license, it is beer and wine only. There is no hard liquor. It's a non-smoking facility. It does, as I mentioned, cater very directly to family and children, thus the interest in the amusement games and that sort of thing. They do a lot of partnering with schools and with, as I mentioned, little leagues and YMCAs doing student/athlete/teacher recognition, things of that nature as wel as hosting spirit nights where a percentage of that evening's sales go back to that local school or club or whatever that event might participate in. The menu, very value oriented, as I mentioned and the environment itself is very kid friendly. In addition to the video games, there would be a number of TV's, approximately 25 TV's throughout as it is a sports theme. It probably lends itself more to a truly sports family restaurant as opposed to a family sports pub that draws that negative connotation. I hope that addresses that. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: As it relates to your landlord, have you had any movement as it relates to your sign on Eight Mile? Mr. Lombard: Actually, Pal's office is currently reviewing the lease right now. As it's outlined in the lease, it's still a full slot until which point potentially a neighboring office or business went in next door. As right now, it would state that we would gel 50 percent. We are going to push to leave that at 100 percent. Under a worse case scenario, possible keep a 100 percent slot and move further down the pole sign. Mr. Morrow: You're satisfied with that? Mr. Lombard: Not entirely. I would love 100 percent period, quite frankly That's what we're pushing for. I think, as we mentioned in the meeting, because we are here and now, that hopefully we can maintain it. Mr. Morrow: Because of your setback, you know, its a viable concern. May 29, 2007 24094 Mr. Lombard: Absolutely. I'd love to have him here this evening so he could here that as well. I appreciate the support. Mr. Wilshaw: I was just comparing the previous plan that was submitted to us to the current one. I see that you have an arcade game that's sifting out in the bar area right behind one of the booths. Is there a banner or divider between that arcade game and the booth that's directly behind it? Mr. Lombard: Yes, there is. There's is a partition wall all the way across there. Those three tables that you see on the plan are actually higher tables. It would be basically at a bar height. So yes, we do have a higher partition wall there simply for the privacy of those folks that would be in that seating area just adjacent to that as well as from the game area. It kind of separates the restaurant from the bar area. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Charles Wobelstal, 427 Paragon, Troy, Michigan. I attend church at the old Apostolic Lutheran Church, which is across the street from this area where they are proposing this sports pub. I feel that a sports pubis not a Christian environment. I dont think it fits well in this area. I don't feel it is a good thing for our congregation, and I would hope that God would give you the wisdom and the foresight to decline to grant this waiver both with respect to the fact that it is called a sports pub and the following petition that comes after it for a Class C liquor license. I thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else 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 Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0535-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petition 2007-04-02-12 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Beef O'Bmdy's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-12 be approved subject to the following conditions: May 29, 2007 24095 1. That the maximum number of customer seals shall not exceed 135; 2. That the issues as listed in the correspondence dated May 9, 2007, from the Inspection Department in regard to barrier free code requirements, including entry doors and bathrooms, along with other issues relating to minimum main egress aisle width and bathroom egress door conflicts, shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction; 3. That the rear door of this unit shall identify the tenant and/or address/space number; 4. That a dumpster and/or grease receptacle shall be provided for the subject restaurant within an appropriate masonry enclosure with metal gates; 5. That only signage is compliance with Section 18.50A and 18.50K(b) is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 6. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. 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. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? May 29, 2007 24096 Mr. Wilshaw: Just a quick comment. This sounds like a nice concept. This is something new to our community. We have similar types of sports bars, but this one certainly sounds more family oriented in the fad that its a non-smoking facility and only serves beer and wine with the Class C liquor license that they're going to request in the next item. So I appreciate that. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#8 PETITION 2007-04-0243 BEEF O'BRADY CLASS C LICENSE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 04-02-13 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed full service restaurant (Beef O'Brady's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmi ngton Road and Gill Road in the Northeast % of Section 4. Mr. Walsh: I think this one is pretty self explanatory, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence for us to consider? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated May 9, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 27, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. With regards to the liquor license petition only, this Department has no objections." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent ofthe correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any comments to add from the petitioner's perspective? Daryl L. Lombard, Lombard Enterprises, Inc., 23290 Halstead, #101, Farmington Hills, MI 48335. 1 just want to add for the record this is a license that is currently in escrow in Inkster that would transfer into Livonia. The applicant would only be serving beer and wine, and it's estimated hours of operation are until about 11:00 p.m., except for a football game or something. He's not really catering to a late night crowd. That's all regarding the liquor license. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? May 29, 2007 24097 Mr. Wilshaw: Regarding the gaming devices, are there going to be any Keno gaming devices or are these strictly entertainment? Mr. Lombard: No. No Keno. Strictly arcade -type style. Again, very kid friendly much in line with the theme of the entire restaurant. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thank you. 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 McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #0536-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petifion 2007-04-02-13 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C liquor license in connection with a proposed full service restaurant (Beef O'Brady's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-13 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That this waiver use is granted for the sale of beer and wine only, for consumption on the premises, and shall not include mixed spirit drink or spirits as defined under the Michigan Liquor Control Code; and 2. That mechanical amusement devices in excess of the number permitted under Section 18.59(a)(3), which allows such devices as an accessory use to a Class C license establishment, shall require a variance from the Zoring Board of Appeals. Subject to the preceding conditions, the petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and May 29, 2007 24098 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#9 PETITION 2007-05-0246 POTBELLY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 05-02-16 submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 29579 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. 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 May 2, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. Kle have no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description to be used for the waiver use follows. No additional right-of-way is required. The address for this space will follow shortly." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebe/t Road and Milburn Avenue in the northeast X of Section 35. 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 May 17, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Potbelly Sandwich Works, located at 29579 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is May 29, 2007 24099 signed by David W. Sludt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 9, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 1, 2007, the above- eferenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The entire signage allowed for all tenants in Building J is about 151 square feet. Therefore, if 5 equal frontage tenants were in place, each would be allowed about 30 square feet. This Petitioner for one space is proposing 405 square feet of wall signage or 254 square feet over the maximum allowed for all tenants. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for this amount of signage in a regional center. Consideration should be given for the future tenants' needs also. 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: If there are no questions for the staff, we will go to the petitioner who has wailed patiently in the audience. Good evening. Diane Huntr, 300 Oxford Court, Belleville, Michigan. Hello. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the petition? Ms. Huntr: I am here to answer any questions, and also to say we are revising the signage and it will be submitted separately. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Very good. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Morrow: Just a point of information. Are you affiliated with the one on Haggerty Road? Ms. Huntr: I am. Mr. Morrow: I assume you are successful over there. Ms. Huntr: Yes. We're very happy to be over there. I actually manage 10 stores in Michigan and that store does very well for us. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Along the lines of Mr. Morrow's question, is the store here on Plymouth Road similar in nature to the one on Haggerty Road that we're used to seeing? Ms. Huntr: It is. It actually is very similar looking to the outside design shown there. I believe there's three seats less than our location on Haggerty Road. May 29, 2007 24100 Mr. Wilshaw: Some of the locations that I've been in have a loft, I guess you would call it, with a person playing music on it. Is that going to be in that location? Ms. Huntz: I'm unaware of a loft. Most of our stores do not allow for that. There is a loft at the Haggerty location; however, the musician does not actually play on lop of that loft. We have a separate stage for that. We comply with any ordinances or any requirements for that. Mr.Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. 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 McDermott, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #0537-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petition 2007-05-02-16 submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 29579 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-05-02-16 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 58; 2. That the outdoor storage of refuse shall be limited to the dumpster enclosure provided at the westerly end of the rear wall of Building "J" as shown on the approved site plan for Village Shops of Wonderland, and there shall be no additional outdoor refuse storage area anywhere else on the site in connection with this use; 3. That no wall signage is approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by tie Planning Commission and City Council; and May 29, 2007 24101 4. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. 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. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#10 PETITION 2007-04-06-01 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CUSTOM STREET SIGNS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 04-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #142-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50E of Article XVIII to allow custom street signs to be utilized in residential districts. Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution #142-07 refers to and requests that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Section 18.50E of the Zoning Ordinance to allow custom street signs to be utilized in residential districts. The Law Department has prepared the proposed language that would allow for custom street signs at the request of a Homeowner's Association. This would be subject to four specified conditions that would set forth requirements, standards and guidelines that would apply to May 29, 2007 24102 future requests for such signage. After further review and deliberation, the Law Department now believes that the approval process for custom street signs should be handled in Article 10 of the Code of Ordinances rather than as an amendment to the residential sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. That being the case, there would be no reason for the Planning Commission to continue on with respect to this petition, and therefore we are requesting that this item be withdrawn. Mr. Walsh: Okay. So we need to take a formal action. Mr. Taormina: Yes, that would be filling. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0538-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on Petition 2007-04-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #142-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50E of Article XVIII to allow custom street signs to be utilized in residential districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that this petition be withdrawn from further consideration on the basis of the Law Department's determination that the approval process for custom street signs should be handled in Article 10 of the Code of Ordinances rather than as an amendment to the residential sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. 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#11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 943rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 943rd" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 24, 2007. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #0539-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 943d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, are hereby approved. May 29, 2007 24103 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Wilshaw, Smiley, Alanskas, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: LaPine ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 945" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 29, 2007, was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman