Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-06-10MINUTES OF THE 960 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 10, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 964" 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 7:00 p.m. Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Ashley Varloogian Carol A. Smiley John Walsh Members absent: Ian Wilshaw Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The panning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating pefifion. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their 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 2008-05-01-02 GREENLAND PLAZA Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-05- 01-02 Petition 2008-05-01-02 submitted by Greenland Limited Partnership requesting to rezone the property at 16325 through 16349 Middlebell Road within the Greenland Plaza Shopping Center, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Greenland Avenue and Munger Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 14, from C-1 to C-2. June 10, 2008 24750 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 several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 20, 2008, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposed petition. There are no additional right- of-way requirements for this site. The addresses for this site are 16325 through 16349 Middlebelt Road. The legal description for the rezoning is: Lots 320 and 321 except the Easterly 27 feet thereof of Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 4, a part of the S.E. X of the N.E. X and a part of the N.E. X of the S.E X of Section 14, T. 1S., R.9E., City of Livonia as recorded in Liber 66, Page 20, Wayne County Records." The letter is signed by Robert Schron, P.E. The second letter is from Consignment Clothiers, received by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to My name is Sherry Gorman owner, of Consignment Clothiers in Northville, Michigan. We have been in business for 19 years within the same shopping center (Highland Lakes). Our lease has expired as of December 2007, which has provided me with an opportunity to explore other possible locations. 1 have always loved Livonia, having been a previous resident. Seeing the new development taking place at Plymouth Road and Middlebelt along with the exciting up coming changes being made at 7Mile and Middlebelt, has led me to this perfectly located Greenland Plaza. The highly traveled Middlebelt Road gives great versatility of the center, which attracted me to Greenland Plaza. Consignment Clothiers provides an opportunity for women to sell their upscale current, like -new fashions and accessories All items accepted for consignment are inspected by me personally. All items must be in near perfect condition and fairly priced. It is crucial to keep the store upscale. Clothing is sized and colorized, with proper signage all on uniform hangers to avoid looking like a typical resale shop. Beautiful in store displays provide our store with a boutique image. 1 encourage and invite anyone to our current location. Its fun, professional and busy.! Thank you for your consideration and time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me personally, Sherry Gorman (cell) 2485823048 or (store) 248,3474570." The letter is signed by Sherry Gorman. The next letter is from American Speedy Printing Centers, dated May 6, 2008, which reads as follows: We, the owners of American Speedy Printing at 16329 Middlebelt Road since 1982, would like to express our June 10, 2008 24751 excitement and pleasure on the prospect of Consignment Clothiers moving in next door to us. Greenland Plaza has cooperated extensively with the parties to bring into our area a new and exciting business that will certainly benefit our complex and the surrounding area. We are hopefully waiting for a positive decision from you. We truly feel the completed transaction will provide a needed uplift and a pleasurable shopping experience for Livonia residents." The letter is signed by Vickie Bosley and Beverly Bosley. The next letter is from The Plate Lady, dated May 6, 2008, which reads as follows: `My name is Nancy White, 1 am the owner of The Plate Lady located at 16347 Middlebelt, Livonia. IYe been the owner for 25 years. I'm very hopeful that Consignment Clothes will be able to move in as soon as possible, because my business has been going down hill for the past three years. It sure would help if we had some walk in traffic in our strip mall. IYe had the opportunity to talk to the owner of the Consignment Clothes shop and she seems to be very excited to come into the plaza. 1 think all of us will benefit from her moving in." The letter is signed by Nancy White. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions forlhe staff? Ms. Vartoogian: I just want to confine with the staff that with this petition, we're just reviewing the rezoning and not the particular site plan or any particular tenant, just rezoning. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Vartoogian: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Morrow? Mr. Morrow: No, that's fine. She pretty well covered it. Ms. Smiley: The Future Land Use on that area is what? Mr. Taormina: Its office. I'm sorry we don't have the Future Land Use map available for you to view, but it is designated office. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Robert R. Helber, Jr., Greenland Plaza Limited Partnership, 3773 E. Ellsworth, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108. June 10, 2008 24752 Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Mr. Helber: There are quite a few odds and ends that I'd just like to touch on. I'm the general partner. I represent the general partnership of Greenland Plaza Limited Partnership. If you have any questions or anything, I'm obviously going to answer those for you. One of the things that I guess to note over the course of the Iasi couple years, based on the current economic conditions and some of the issues that have gone on with some of our current tenants, and Mayfair Realty who was a tenant since the actually original opening of the plaza, that we're lacking both walk-in traffic for our current tenants. Sherry Gorman from Consignment Clothiers has a pretty reputable business and has a lot of tenants. I believe it will strengthen our current tenants that are there struggling in the current economic conditions. She wants to be in Livonia. She likes Livonia a lot. I've got a letter of support from other businesses in the area if I could give those to you at this point in time. Mr. Walsh: If you give them to Ms. Watson she will pass them along to us. Mr. Helber: She's looked at several other locations, and this particular location seems to work the best for her. There's just a lot of little things that go on. Ms. Goran would like to talk a little bit more about her store and give you a little bit more insight on what she does. And if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them. Mr. La Pine: You know, one of the problems we have here, you're asking for us to rezone a G7 classification down to a G2. The problem we have, once we rezone, if we do go from Gl to G2, the classification goes with the properly. My problem, and I think a number of other members of the board problem, once we rezone that properly, and let's assume ... I've been out to the location where the consignment shop is. She has a wonderful location. She has a good business. She's been there a long time. She's reputable, and I think she'll be a long-standing resident of Livona and her business, but if she goes out of business, what can go in there in place of her operation under a C-2 classification we dont want. An auto shop can go in there, a restaurant, and lot of things we're not loo keen to see go in that location. Would you be willing on your own to give us a letter? We cant do it. The Council would have to do it. If she moves out, that the classification would revert back to the G7 classification so we dont have to worry about that problem. June 10, 2008 24753 Mr. Helber: We'd like to look at it obviously. I would like to think that would be an absolute something that we could do. I don't think it's our intention necessarily to have the whole thing be 02 but you can't do partial, so I think we would be in favor of providing some kind of a letter. Mr. LaPine: You would have to make that recommendation. We can't. Mark, would he have to make that recommendation to the Council? How would that operate? Mr. Taormina: The suggestion is that he consider some type of a contract with the City relative to the use or uses that would be restricted to the site, and that's something that would be submitted to the Council for it's consideration. It would be voluntary on his part and could be accepted by the Council and adopted along with the rezoning. Mr. LaPine: I dont want Council to approve it unless we know we're going to gel the letter, the contract, that it would revert back to the G7 classification. I'm always worried about what might go in under the C-2 classification. Mr. Helber: I understand. Now, would this be something that I'd be able to sit down and talk with a couple people over here with for a couple minutes and then lake the stand in a minute here? Mr. LaPine: I think this would have to be done at the Council level. Mr. Walsh: We've done this with other petitioners. Mr. LaPine is making a suggestion for you that makes it palatable for members because of the concern for C-2 utilization. It's not the business that's coming in. Its what could come afterwards. You'll have time between now, regardless of the vole tonight, and City Council to thoroughly investigate it and then work out the details. So our proceedings don't allow you the opportunity tonight, but you're neither finally approved nor finally denied tonight You'll have the opportunity to go before the Council. Mr. Helber: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: That's all. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Helber. We appreciate it. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? June 10, 2008 24754 Mr. Helber: Ms. Gorman would. Mr. Walsh: Oh. Ms. Gorman, please. Sherry Gorman, Highland Lakes Shopping Center, 42947 W. Seven Mile Road, Northville, Michigan 48167. Hi everyone. Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me. I'm going to pass along, if I can, a couple of pictures that might give you a little bit better idea for those of you who didn't come into the store and see what kind of operation we're running. Like I said, thank pu very much for taking the time to even hear this. I know that resale kind of has the reputation of the smelly, yucky clothes, old, dated and that kind of an image, and believe you me, I fought that for 19 years. I opened the business May of '89, and its been a challenge to fight that image. I was a district manager for Meijer Thrifty Acres, the grocery store. I was over the women's department. I had 20 stores all on the east side of Michigan. My job pretty much was like a district manager. I had to make sure that the training was done and all the signage was proper and all the racks, the layout for the new stores. I was in charge of a lot. When I look this on, I wanted to make sure it was upscale and that we fought the image of a typical resale shop. So far its worked. A couple of you have been out to the store. I invite everybody out there or your wives, girlfriends to check us out because we are well loved. I do want to mention that the reason for me moving, if any of you are curious, is my lease was up in December. David Karoub is the owner of that center. He's a very nice man. I have a good business relationship with him and the City of Northville so if any of you have checked the Better Business Bureau. I think I've had one complaint in 19 years but I honestly can't remember what that was about but obviously I resolved it. I try to do everything by the book and do everything right, and I just hope that you will consider having us or rezoning it for G2 so that we can go in there. I bink we would be a great asset. I love Livonia. I bought my first house in Livonia. I love Joe's Produce, Westhorn. And what you guys are doing at Seven Mile and Middlebelt, that is so awesome and its exciting. I want to be a part of it and I just hope you give me the opportunity. But the main reason, my lease was up in December and I have to think of the future as far as, you know, my rent over there is extremely high. I can either keep throwing money away but with the economic times right now, I've got to think of the future. I recently got engaged, but I've never been married and this has been by sole income. So I'm going to continue. I'm very driven. I will continue to make it work, and it will be a success in Livonia because women love to shop and they will follow me. I have people coming from Dexter, Belleville, Rochester. I've got, and June 10, 2008 24755 if you need any of that proof backup, I've got it. I've got about almost 19,000 consigners and people wait. You should see the clothes in our store. Its really nice. So thank you again for your time. Do you have any questions for me? Mr. Morrow: I was one of the ones that did not go out to visit your store Ms. Gorman: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Because we're kind of going into a two-tier process. Our role here tonight is to recommend to the City Council whether or not C-2 is appropriate zoning for that particular area, and they will ultimately make that decision. Once that decision is made, then lt would be appropriate to go out and look at your store because you'll be aslang for a waiver of use. We want to see a use that's going to go in there. So like I say, that accounts for why I wasn't out there and what our charge is here tonight. Ms. Gorman: That's no problem. I appreciate that Mr. Morrow: I know you made a nice presentation, and I'm sure you'll run a Ms. Gorman: You weren't in favor of it, I know. Mr. LaPine: But you being there for 19 years proves to me you've got a track record. That's number one. And number two, I thought the store, considering all the merchandise you have in there and, boy, you sure have a lot of it. I'll say that. And you told me you had moved three different times. You expanded and got bigger and bigger. The only problem, like I told you, is the fad of the C-2 zoning. It was a problem for me. Ms. Gorman: Right. good business. Ms. Gorman: Thank you. It's real exciting. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before all of you. Do you have any other questions? Mr. La Pine: When I was out there, we had a long conversation. Ms. Gorman: Yes. Mr. La Pine: I was very impressed. Ms. Gorman: You're very kind. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: I told you at the time I hadn't been very kind to consignment shops. Ms. Gorman: You weren't in favor of it, I know. Mr. LaPine: But you being there for 19 years proves to me you've got a track record. That's number one. And number two, I thought the store, considering all the merchandise you have in there and, boy, you sure have a lot of it. I'll say that. And you told me you had moved three different times. You expanded and got bigger and bigger. The only problem, like I told you, is the fad of the C-2 zoning. It was a problem for me. Ms. Gorman: Right. June 10, 2008 24758 Mr. La Pine: If we can work that out, I have no problem. Also, when you told me you had 20 employees, I was shocked that you had that many people working for you. Ms. Gorman: And they've all been with me like for more than 10 years. I've got most of them in that picture on the cover. Mr. La Pine: That impressed me loo that you had employees for that long, especially with that type of operation. If they can work out the C-2 zoning, I'd be in favor oflhis. Ms. Gorman: Thank you. I appreciate that because, believe me, I fight the image of resale, always. Some of those pictures are when I first opened almost 20 years ago, May of '89, and then to this date there's a current picture. I haven't changed. I have not let my standards down and those gals have worked for me for a long time and they care about that store loo. So I'm glad that you liked it. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate your time. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Bob Helber, Sr.: I'm also a general partner to the plaza. One of the questions I had of Planning was, we thought there was some C-2 zoning in Concord Plaza right across the street from us, and I didn't see that on the map as presented saying, as a precedent for this, that there is other C-2 zoning in the area. The other thing that I wanted to ask about was, we would definitely not be opposed to working out some kind of arrangement to satisfy your concerns about C-2 going on as long as we were in a situation that if somebody were to buy the business, and its the same business, that even though the ownership changed, that the zoning would not go away under those circumstances. That would be of concern to us. Mr. Walsh: That's the nilly gritty detail the Council would gel into and that's what you would work with the Law Department on between now and the Council hearing. Mr. Helber: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: No one came forward when I called for the public to speak. So at this point the public hearing is closed, and a motion would be in order. Mr. Morrow: Prior to a motion, is there C-2 across the street? June 10, 2008 24757 Mr. Taormina: Actually, its just off this map. I believe this parcel here is split - zoned with the southerly half being zoned G2. It just doesn't show up on this particular zoning map, but its there. It's just south of here. Mr. Walsh: A motion would be in order. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by McDermott, and adopted, it was #0638-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 10, 2008, on Petition 2008-05-01-02 submitted by Greenland Limited Partnership requesting to rezone the property at 16325 through 16349 Middlebelt Road within the Greenland Plaza Shopping Center, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Greenland Avenue and Munger Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 14, from O7 to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-05-01- 02 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning would be consistent with the existing zoning on other properties along Middlebelt Road in the area between Five Mile Road and Six Mile Road; 2. That the proposed zoning district would provide opportunities for additional commercial uses to serve the area as well as the City as a whole; 3. That the proposed change of zoning would be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for the use of the subject properly in a manner that would be complementary to and consistent with the uses on other similarly situated properties along Middlebelt Road in this area. 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? June 10, 2008 24758 Mr. LaPine: Just one question if I may to Mark. Mark, when this goes to Council, will they be aware ahead of time that we're allowing the zoning as long as they can work out this agreement? Mr. Taormina: The discussion this evening will certainly be reflected in the minutes, and as part of our presentation to the Council at the public hearing, it will be noted that it is the Planning Commission's request that Council consider any voluntary offer that the petitioner makes to contract zone this property and limit the uses within the proposed zoning dassifcation. Mr. LaPine Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I'm just going to make a comment if I may. I'm going to vole against the approving resolution not because I don't have empathy for the owner and the tenant. It's only because I perceive it to be not only spot zoning but because it will be a waiver use, it's going to cause us to make another waiver, which further intensifies the C-2 zoning. From a planning standpoint, those are the reasons I cannot support it. Ms. Smiley: I'm also going to vole against it but only for those reasons that Mr. Morrow just so eloquently staled. I'm not opposed to this business at all. I'm familiar with it. Its wonderful. I'd love to have it in Livonia and just want to make sure that Council is aware of our feelings on the subject if it proceeds. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other comments? My intention is to support the motion. I take great comfort in the ability to secure ourselves with a contract. It's a new concept even for us. Some changes in the law allow us to do these things. So we don't mean to confuse you tonight by the process by the way its bifurcated. You'll gel more clarity from the Law Department and from the Council in how to approach that, but I just wish to voice my support for this along the lines of what Mr. LaPine has suggested. If there are no additional comments, then would the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McDermott, Varloogian, Walsh NAYES: Morrow, Smiley ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wilshaw Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. June 10, 2008 24759 ITEM#2 PETlTION2008-05-0243 LOWE'S Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 05-02-13 submitted by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor storage and display of store merchandise at the home improvement store proposed to be located at 13507 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcratt Road and Industrial Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 26. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly 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 16, 2008, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposed petition. There are no additional right-of-way requirements for this site. The address for this site is 13507 Middlebelt Road. The legal description attached, which is updated based on a recent survey, should be used." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 15, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a waiver use approval for outdoor storage and display of store merchandise on the property located at the above referenced address. 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) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty- three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (4) Any curves or corner of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 20, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Lowe's of Livonia outdoor display area, located at 13505-13507 Middlebelt. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The June 10, 2008 24780 letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 28, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 12, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The petitioner's building gross floor area is over -30,000 square feet. No outdoor sales, storage or display of merchandise is permitted. However, this may be waived by a super majority approval by Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Morrow: Does the staff by chance have a copy of the landscape plan we can put up? Mr.Taormina: I think one is in here. Here it is. Mr. Morrow: The reason being is these are unscreened areas, and one of the things I want to have clear in my mind here is that, because they are unscreened, they're kind of stark. I'm just trying to gel the staff input as to the planfings that appear in the landscaped area. Will they serve as sort of a barrier to not necessarily entirely screen the outdoor material but at least break it up so it doesn't appear as stark as it appears on this plan that we've seen here tonight? I know that a lot of this display is not uncommon with an operation this size, but my only goal would be to break it up so it doesn't look quite as stark. If the staff could give me their expert opinion on that, particularly the Schoolcreff location and even from the Middlebelt view. Mr. Taormina: Well, you'd obviously have a filtered view of the building, and to the extent the building would be visible from the adjacent roadways, you would likely be able to see some of the materials that are stored outside. Probably most visible would be the large area proposed in the parking lot here, which I think is identified as Area C on the plan. Secondly, the storage sheds that are proposed to be located in this vicinity, which is on the north side of the garden center in the parking lot adjacent to Schoolcreff Road. I would say that if there is an area for adjustment on this plan, it would include the placement of these sheds, possibly on the other side of the property. These plants will lake time to mature, and the backsides of the sheds would be highly visible from the road. These are also taking up some key parking spaces close to the building. So in addition to occupying those parking spaces, we're also going to see quite a bit of traffic in this area. This current plan does not reflect the June 10, 2008 24761 most recent changes to the circulation plan for the site. These drives have been moved further to the south. I think discussion should probably center in particular in this area here, that again would be the area most visible to persons driving by. You have to consider also the fad that this building is setback several hundred feet from Middlebelt Road. So the materials that are proposed to be stored along the front of the store really are not going to be loo visible, at least for people that are offsite. It will be more for the patrons that are actually entering the store will have the best opportunity to see that material. Mr. Morrow: Anything that could be done on that plan along the Schoolcraft corridor to mitigate it as much as possible, not to hide it but to break it up a little bit. As far as from Middlebelt Road, it is set back quite a ways. Some of the things that are being asked tonight, like the island, are almost landscaping in themselves with the flowers and the trees and shrubs. They are almost like landscaped items, and I'm not really worried about those but primarilyjusllhe Schoolcmft corridorlhere. Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: Mark, can you put up Area A, which is where the seasonal flowers are going to be? I guess I have a problem with that probably more than anything else on the plan. It looks like its right in the center of the parking lot. Am I correct? Mr. Taormina: This is referred to as C. This is A, this is B, this is C. Mr. LaPine: And all around it is parking. My problem is, you're going to have flowers and things like that. Pedestrians are going to be walking around there getting flowers and stuff and you have all this traffic. In my opinion, it's a very bad location to stick it. Mr. Taormina: Well, you certainly cul off access to this main aisle. Mr. LaPine: That one end you do, sure. Mr. Taormina: The way @'s diagramed here, and I'm not sure that's exactly how would be. I think that's probably a question for the petitioner as to why they would devote so many parking spaces and portions of a drive aisle for outside display in this area. I think they would have to respond to you in terms of how that access would affect the site. Mr. LaPine: From a safety standpoint, it's the wrong location for it, in my opinion, especially during the months when people are looking for flowers. They're picking up plants and putting them back down. They're running over to their car and sticking them in their car. It just doesn't seem logical to me. I'm not happy with June 10, 2008 24762 a lot of this outdoor display, but unfortunately, it's part of the operation of these types of stores. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. John Gaber, Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C., 380 North Old Woodward, Birmingham, Michigan 38009. Good evening, Planning Commission. I'm an attorney for Lowe' s. I also have with me Tom Ebels, who is Lowe's Site Development Manager, and then we have Gregg Tannar, who is our Civil Engineer with Atwell -Hicks. Thank you for the opportunity to be in front of you this evening. I just wanted to say a few general comments. Lowe's is eagerly anticipating coming to Livonia. We think this is a perfect location, both for Lowe's and the demographics and the market studies and also for the City to rehabilitate kind of a blighted area right now that has some environmental problems and turn that into an attractive, productive area. As we went through site planning and such, we provided substantial upgrades to this store to the lune of over $2 million, so we're hoping that shows through well on primarily the facade and materials of the building itself. We're coming before you with this request basically to allow Lowe's to operate as it normally does with it's standard operating procedures, which includes certain displays of merchandise on the outside of the store as has been highlighted here. That's what we're trying to accomplish. We know there are others in the city who haven't taken this approach, other retailers, but we're coming to you up front because we don't want to create any problems later on for staff or your ordinance enforcement people. We'd like to gel this resolved right here with the waiver of use that we're applying for. This is the last approval that we would need to essentially put this matter to rest and shortly begin construction of the store. So we're hopeful that you will work with us on this. The only other thing I wanted to mention was when you look at the criteria for the waiver use requirements and then also at the criteria in the ordinance, for City Council to waive some of those requirements themselves, it really focuses on a couple of areas. One is talking about safety, talking about preserving safe vehicular and pedestrian access through the site, and the other one is talking about being harmonious with the surrounding areas in the neighborhood. Taking the second one first, we certainly think that we meet that because this is a retail heavily used corridor. There's not residential around there, and we think with all the improvements to the facade and to the landscaping, that we will satisfy those requirements, and we think it will be harmonious with the area and will certainly look much better than what is currently there. Secondly, we think, and Mr. Ebels can explain this in more detail, that the circulation June 10, 2008 24763 patterns will work well. We understand just looking at that block there and the concerns that you might have, but both from a vehicular and pedestrian access standpoint, we think that this is going to work and it's been proven out in our store concept throughout the country. I'd like to turn the floor over to Mr. Ebels to comment on a couple of your concerns. Thank you. Tom Ebels, Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., 1952 McDowell Road, Suite 101, Naperville, Illinois 60563. Good evening. As John Gaber said, my name is Tom Ebels. I am the Lowe's Site Development Manager. I'd just like to add a few things to the fairly comprehensive presentation given so far by both staff and Mr. Gaber. One of the key things with outdoor display that Lowe's is concerned with is safety and circulation. You'll notice, if you can recall some of the things that Mr. Taormina mentioned in his presentation, out in front of the store in the central area there are those typically seasonal items like lawnmowers in the summer and snow blowers in the winter. Those are fairly large items that if they are required to be sold only in the store, aisles need to be shut down, forklifts need to be brought out, and it's generally just not as safe for our customers. Those heavier items are better displayed and more easily loaded up when they are out in front of the store rather than in the store. The same sort of logic applies to the large block area out in the parking lot. Typically, what we have for sale out there are bags of mulch. It actually provides better circulation when we have mulch out in that area where people can more easily load it into their cars rather than approaching the garden center and having potential conflicts with people that are out milling about on the sidewalk and in that area. The other area that is particularly important to us is underneath the lumber canopy. That's where the building materials were shown in the picture. That, again, is critical to us, and it's a critical location because those are rather heavy items. Contractors and folks like me can pull our cars up there, load up with drywall and not have any conflicts say with people exiting the front of the store or entering the front of the store. That's the reasoning behind that. The other critical area is in front of the garden center, the flowers there. That is, of course, very important to our business overall. If I could, if we could go back to the site plan, I just want to call adention to one other Rem that was approved as part of the site plan but actually falls into the outdoors. Mr. Taormina: Do you mean the landscape plan? Mr. Ebels: I think the landscape plan will show it. It should. Al the rear of the store, it may be kind of difficult to see, there are two utility trailers. Those are used for used appliances and also for June 10, 2008 24764 delivery pallets. They are critical to our operation in that they allow us to recycle those items. So delivery pallets, instead of being chopped up and thrown into a compactor, are able to be reused. Likewise, we have a national program for appliances. We take the old appliance away when we bring a new appliance to your home, and that's free of charge. Those are best stored there, and those are typically pallets and used appliances that are typically removed about once every few weeks depending on volume. I did want to call that to your attention as well. Its a fairly critical part of our operation. It is in the rear of the store and not as visible as some of these but, nevertheless, very important to us. I believe that pretty much covers everything that I have here in my notes. I'll open it up to questions if you have any. Ms. Smiley: If you were to have three or four of the same model of a John Deere riding mower, would you have just one out there and then more in stock in the back somewhere or all four of them out there? Mr. Ebels: Typically, they like to have them all out there if they can just for space inside the store. There's not a lot of extra storage space inside the actual building itself. And again, they like to have them out there loo for a safely factor. When you have a heavy product like that, it does lake a fair amount of effort to gel it out the door. Ms. Smiley: And that would be true of like all those grills. You have to have all the grills out there? Mr. Ebels: Yes. Ms. Smiley: What kind of security measures so those grills don't take off down Schoolcratl? Mr. Ebels: It does depend on the area that is determined by our store planning group, but typically they are secured. Ms. Smiley: They're not moved in and out at night? Mr. Ebels: They are not moved in and out at night. No. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McDermott: I visited the Westland Lowe's location today, so my first question is, would that be typical of the setup? I know that the locations might be a little bit different but having all the merchandise outthat I saw there. June 10, 2008 24765 Mr. Ebels: It is fairly standard. I think some of the pictures you saw there are a couple different prototypes that are shown there. So its hard to say exactly. Each of our plans is fitted to a specific prototype. This building is a wide prototype, but basically the same products are in the same area depending on the store. The one thing that is true of the 117K prototype that is shown here, the items that are out in front in the central area and also in the lumber canopy, the one important thing to remember is that those are, in fad, at least on the plan, those are under the canopy actually. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. And then my second question was along the Ii ne of Ms. Smiley's. So that represents all of the inventory of all of these items out there? Mr. Ebels: Typically. I mean its going to depend on obviously the shipment of whatever they receive, but they would like to have them all out there if they can. Mrs. McDermott The reason I'm asking those questions is when you came before us originally, I was the commissioner that asked what will be in the outdoor display area, and the answer was, a few garden items and a few sheds. So we've kind of grown from a few garden items and a few sheds to a lot. I looked and I was doing a quick estimate and there were like 24 grills, 11 sheds, 18 lawnmowers. I mean it just went on and on. I understand that you need to have some items out like you said, it's typically for the business and maybe easier for people to load, but this just looks really excessive. I know you did put a lot of work into the building and designing it and making it look nice. We would kind of like to keep that idea to keep it looking a little bit neater. So I have a little bit of a problem with the excessive amount. I don't have a problem with the concept that you need to have some of the items out, but d just seems like we have a store outside a store. Mr. Morrow: I may have missed it in pur discussion, but when we're talking about the garden tractors and snow blowers and the barbecues, looking at the plan, is that the sidewalk that is running in front of them? Is there a sidewalk there or is that some kind of striping? Mr. Ebels: It is on the plan, on the prototypical plan, it is, and as you can see in one of the photos there in the upper right, it's not always followed by all store managers, but it is on the prototypical plan. Those items are actually on the sidewalk and under the canopy. June 10, 2008 24788 Mr. Morrow: That hash mark, I can't read what it says. It is designated but it's so fine. Mr. Ebels: The hash mark, I believe that would be the loading area. Mr. Morrow: So in other words, that is striping. It is not a sidewalk. Mr. Ebels: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: So I assume that you will move those things as far back as possible so that at lead you can use that sidewalk. And is there a canopy over that area, particularly the ones I just mentioned? Mr. Ebels: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Varloogian: With the outdoor display area C, will people be able to actually complete a transaction within that area alone? Mr. Ebels: Refresh my memory on C, that's the parking lot area? Ms. Varloogian: Yes. Mr. Ebels: No. Typically, we don't have a register out there. The register is located in the garden center. Again, that would just be sort of a loading area, typically, for mulch and that sort of thing, the heavy items. Ms. Varloogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Back to C, which is my big concern. Let's assume I buy 10 bags of mulch. I have a parking lot in front of me, in back of me and a couple parking spots here. If I want to drive my car in there, how do I gel in there to load up? Now at Home Depot, you can pull up in front. You got a cart you can bring your sluff out in and load it yourself or they'll load it for you. Give me an idea of how cars will move in here because you have cars coming and going here. How is a car going to come in here and load up with mulch and stuff? How does that operate? Mr. Ebels: The area that is shown on here is just a broad general area that we would typically like to have demarcated on the plan. Exactly how that would function would be up to the store manager in terms of how much display they have out there and how they typically would use it. I think that the depiction is not very good and that typically a drive aisle is not blocked off and there is circulation around there. But again, the depiction there is simply June 10, 2008 24767 trying to depict a certain square area that is necessary and not an actual functional plan. Mr. LaPine: The problem I have is that I'm not sure how it's going to operate. If you show me you eliminated some parking spaces where a car can come in, and this is designated as a loading area and they can pull back and down here and gel out of here. I think 8's very confusing. Most people buying 10 bags of topsoil or stuff like that, they're not going to be carrying it out to their car bag by bag. You have to have some type of a loading area and I don't see anything here. I just see a sea of parking. I need to have some idea how that's going to operate. Just to say that a store manager can do what he wants, that isn't the way it has to be. We have to have some idea of how it's going to operate. Mr. Ebels: I think we can certainly provide a more functional plan. Again, I apologize for the depiction here. I don't think it's necessarily intended to represent the functional side of it. I think we can get you something with some more detail. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I have one other question. Now you have all this outside storage. Here again, you say you don't have any cash registers out there. If I want to gel somebody to talk to me about these different items, Tel's say the snow blowers. You have four, five, six different models out there. Do you have a salesperson out there or do you have to go inside the building and look for a salesperson? These large operations leave too much to the imagination if you don't actually have people at each location. Same as the storage bins. Different people have different ideas. Do you have to go inside to find a sales person? Is that what you have to do? Mr. Ebels: Yes. That's the way I've done it. You go inside to talk someone and they will, depending on the product you're trying to buy, they will go out and show you the various products. Mr. LaPine: I sure hope they have better luck than when I went out there looking for a person. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you. Al this point then, we will go out 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 would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #0639-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 10, 2008, on June 10, 2008 24768 Petition 2008-05-02-13 submitted by Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor storage and display of store merchandise at the home improvement store proposed to be located at 13507 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Schoolcrafl Road and Industrial Road in the Northeast % of Section 26, which properly is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-05-02-13 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the outdoor sales and display of merchandise shall be confined to the areas as illustrated on the Outdoor Sales Exhibit prepared by Atwell -Hicks, Inc., dated April 28, 2008; 2. That outdoor sales and display laking place on the walkway providing pedestrian access to the adjacent building and garden center shall be conducted in a manner that will insure that the walkway is suffcienfly free of obstructions at all times so as to provide safe and direct pedestrian access to and from the building and garden center; That the outdoor sales and display areas shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the prohibition of outdoor sales, storage or display of merchandise in connection with a retail sales building that contains a gross floor area of 30,000 square feel or more, as specified under Section 11.03(()(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, is waived or modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 4. That the merchandise displayed on the walkway adjacent to the building and garden center shall be limited to bedding plants and polled shrubs, as provided for under Section 11.03(L)(1)(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, except under the circumstances that a modification to allow the display on the walkway of other merchandise is granted by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 5. That the time period within which the outdoor sales and display will take place shall be limited to April 1 through October 1, as specified under Section 11.03(L)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, except under the circumstances that the time period when outdoor sales and display may take place is waived or modified by the City Council by means of a June 10, 2008 24769 separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; That the outdoor sales and display areas, except for sales and display taking place on a pedestrian walkway, shall be enclosed by a fence of a type recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, which fence shall be located on the boundaries of such sales and display areas, as specified in Section 11.03(L)(1)(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, unless this requirement is waived or modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 7. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building perils are applied for; and 8. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #07-08, which granted waiver use approval to construct a home improvement store under Petition 2007-11-0242, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this approval. Subject to the preceding conditions, this 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 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? Ms.McDermott: I just wanted to add that, unfortunately, I will not be supporting this resolution, not because I'm not excited to see Lowe's come to Livonia. I am, but I think that the display I saw tonight and then actually that I saw today out at the Westland Lowe's location is really excessive. And then my basic reasoning is that June 10, 2008 24770 we ask our gas stations who come before us to not display propane tanks and ice and rock salt and those things, so I can't justify in my mind all of this display. But again, it's not because I'm not excited to see Lowe's. Mr. LaPine: I also will vote against the proposal. I'm glad to see Lowe's come to town, but I'm not satisfied with the one area, especially the C area, where I think there's a problem with the traffic flow. Secondly, I think they are going overboard on the outside storage, and therefore I just can't approve this particular plan. Mr. Morrow: Going along with what Mr. LaPine said, when you gel to the City Council, you might want to give some thought to being a little more definitive on how that area C operates as opposed to what we see here tonight. It kind of left some of us up in the air. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions or comments? Hearing none, would the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Morrow, Varloogian, Walsh NAYES: LaPine, McDermott ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wilshaw 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 2008-05-0244 NOVICAFE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 05-02-14 submitted by Novi Cafe, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 29447 Five Mile Road within the Mid -Five Shopping Center, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 23. 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. Morrow: I suppose it should appear on there June 10, 2008 24771 Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated May 20, 2008, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposed petition. There are no additional right-of-way requirements for this site. The address for this site is 29447 Five Mile Road. The legal description for the waiver use is: A parcel of land described as beginning at a point distant S.00 deg. 23 min. 11 sec. E., 562.70 feet and Due West, 325.05 feet from the N.E. comer of Section 23, TIS., R.9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan and proceeding thence Due South 75 feet, thence Due West 40 feet, thence Due North 75 feet, thence Due East 40 feet to the point of beginning" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 15, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant at the Mid -Five Shopping Center on the property located at the above-refemnced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 20, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Cafe restaurant, located at 29441-29583 Middlebelt. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 28, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 12, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) This space must meet all current barrier free codes including front and rear entry doors. (2) Rear exit required to code (not through a kitchen or other room). Other conditions will apply for a 2 exit space. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Morrow: On the plan, I don't see a rear door as outlined by the Inspection Department. Now there is a space to put one, but it's not indicated on the plan Mr. Taormina: It's not shown. They will have to work that out at the time of plan review, but it seems that the logical place would be back in this area. Maybe that's where the current door is going to be. Mr. Morrow: I suppose it should appear on there June 10, 2008 24772 Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? We'll go to the petitioner. Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. If we could have your name and address for the record. Kenny Shukeiv, 44325 West 12 Mile Road, Novi, Michigan 48377. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation thus far? Mr. Shukeiv: Not really. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions forthe petitioner? Mr. Morrow: Is there a door existing there now? Mr. Shukeiv: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Well, we need it on the plan. Mr. Shukeiv: I will put it on the plan, for sure. I will. Mr. LaPine: I know you have a place out in Novi, butthat's strictly a carryout. Is that correct? Mr. Shukeiv: This is different. The one in Novi is a cigar cafe. People come there and smoke. It's an internet cafe. People use their computer and stuff like this. This is a completely different business. This is a restaurant; the other one is a cafe. Two entirely separate businesses. Mr. LaPine: But this is a sit-down restaurant, is it not? Mr. Shukeiv: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I thought I saw somewhere you have televisions in there loo? Mr. Shukeiv: Yes. They allowed me to. Yes. Mr. LaPine: So this is the first time you've had this type of an operation? Mr. Shukeiv: I do have one in South Beach, Florida. Mr. LaPine: Oh, South Beach, Florida. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: I have one comment. I'm looking at the menu you provided. Mr. Shukeiv: Yes. June 10, 2008 24773 Mr. Morrow: And of course you know your business, but I look at this space where you apparently prepare the meals. It seems like a very small area for that big a menu, but I'm confident you can do it. I'm just curious. I dont see a refrigerator in there. Mr. Shukeiv: We will bring a refrigerator. Mr. Morrow: I just thought it might be shown there. Mr. Shukeiv: Its not on the plan, but if you want me to put that on the plan, I will. But we will bring a refrigerator. Mr. Morrow: My larger comment was that it's a lot of food for a very small area, and I just happened to notice you call that a popcom, gas grill and another type of machine, and I was just wondering if it included a refrigerator. Mr. Shukeiv: We have to have a refrigerator. Mr. Morrow: I knew you would have one but it just struck me that you had a big menu for a relatively small area of the restaurant. That's just a comment. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Just to follow up with what Mr. Morrow said, all your food is prepared at that location. Is that correct? Mr. Shukeiv: Yes. Mr. La Pine: You don't have anything precooked and then warmed up? Mr. Shukeiv: No. Mr. La Pine: When we looked at the location, we were kind of surprised at the size of the area yodre going in. We looked at your menu and if you have 20 or 30 people at one time there, it just doesn't seem like you have the area. How many cooks will you have at one lime? Mr. Shukeiv: Probably two. From noon time until 8:00 or 9:00 at night, we will have at lead two work in the back. Yes. Mr. La Pine: What time will you open in the morning? Mr. Shukeiv: We will open at 9:00 in the morning. Mr. LaPine: Nine to what? Ten at night? Mr. Shukeiv: No. We will probably be open until 1:00 a.m. if they allow me to. June 10, 2008 24774 Mr. La Pine: 1:00 in the morning. Mr. Shukeiv: Yes. Mr. La Pine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Seeing none, thank you, sir. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, the public hearing is closed. A motion would be in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-40-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 10, 2008, on Petition 2008-05-02-14 submitted by Novi Cafe, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 29447 Five Mile Road within the Mid -Five Shopping Center, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast ''/ of Section 23, which property is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-05-02-14 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the customer seating provided in connection with the subject use shall be in accordance with the General Floor Plan prepared by T.E.S. Consultants, P.C., dated April 7, 2008; 2. That the following issues as listed in the correspondence dated May 28, 2008, from the Inspection Department shall be resolved to that departments satisfaction: - This space must meet all current barrier free codes including front and rear entry doors; - Rear exit required to code (not through a kitchen Q other room). Other conditions will apply for a two exit space; 3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; June 10, 2008 24775 4. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 5. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. 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#4 PETlTION2008-05-0245 AMERISUITES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 05-02-15 submitted by BRE/Amerisuites Properties, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C (Class B Hotel) liquor license as part of the hotel restaurant facility at 19300 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest %of Section 6. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? June 10, 2008 24776 Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 16, 2008, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposed petition. There are no additional right- of-way requirements for this site. The address for this site is 19300 Haggerty Road." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 28, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 14, 2008, the above-refsrenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This petitioner is located within 1,000 feet of another establishment with a liquor license. This requirement may be waived by Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. The next letter is from Gary M. Bloom, P.C. and Klein & Bloom, P.C., dated May 29, 2008, which reads as follows: "The undersigned is the actual owner of the historic building located at 39040 West Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan, directly contiguous to the petitioner's property. The undersigned supports the petition and expresses no objections whatsoever. If you had any additional need to contact me, feel free to do so at (734) 464- 1700." The letter is signed by Gary M. Bloom. That is the extentofthe correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will proceed to the petitioner. Goodevening. Patrick Howe, Carlin Edwards Brown & Howe, P.L.L.C., 2855 Coolidge Highway, Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. Good evening, Chairman Walsh and members of the Planning Commission. Patrick Howe, on behalf of BRE/Amerisuiles and also Hyatt Place, the operator of the hotel. Very thorough presentation. Don't have much to add. I just wanted to follow-up on the question raised at the study session meeting regarding the operations of the licensed establishment. Its sort of a neat concept that they operate what they call a gallery setting. Its very multi -functional in which you can check into the hotel, check your email, grab a cup of coffee, grab a sandwich or piece of pizza to go, and also a glass of beer or wine. So ifs a very functional setting that is not as segregated as typical hotels. With that being said, they have gallery hosts that operate the gallery. They've been trained in every different aspect of the gallery function, and there's anywhere from two to six gallery hosts that operate this area of the building depending on how busy they are. Even though they are trained in all the different aspects of checking in, serving beer and wine, they do not really bounce from one job to another. So if they're at full capacity on a Friday night, June 10, 2008 24777 they have six hosts working and they are assigned different functions throughout the gallery. At all times at which alcoholic beverages are served, there will be a manager on staff that oversees the hotel along with the gallery function. So I know there's some concern about, well, if it's busy and somebody is ordering a beer and somebody is checking, concern about serving minors or being irresponsible in the way that they're overwhelmed with checking in and also serving beer and wine. I wanted to clarify that and follow-up with any other questions you had. In terms of the waiver requirement for the spacing, we will need that from the City Council. However, given the mixed nature of this development, I think this would further that and the use of this liquor license is really just for use by hotel guests. Its beer and wine only, although they do want to reserve the right to add spirits in the future. But like I said, it's really not going to attract many visitors outside the hotel, just to complement the services of the hotel and complete the brand image nationally that you can get beer and wine at this hotel if you stay there. So with that, I'll answer any questions that you might have. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions? Mr. Lalone: Mr. Morrow and I were over there last week, and I will tell you, it's one of the nicest operations I've seen in a long time. They've done a beautiful job in their redecoration on the outside. The manager, Mrs. Bell, I think her name was, look us through the whole operation from the time a person checks in to where they can get their food and beverages, seating in the lobby. She took us in the back and showed us where the swimming pool was, the fitness rooms, took us upstairs and showed us one of the suites. I am really, really impressed with what they did there, and I don't see any problem whatsoever in the way they got the thing laid out. I think it works very functional and I don't think they're going to have any problem. I think you're going to be very, very successful there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Just to kind of tag on to what Bill said, as you alluded to earlier, one of our concerns was control. By the time we looked over the layout and talked to the manager and saw how it operated, it belayed any concern that I had that it would be a loose running operation. That would not be a concern. Also, on the side, I noticed that you were upgrading all the landscaping on the outside, which is always good to show to a planning commissioner. Okay. Thank you. June 10, 2008 24778 Mrs. McDermott I actually visited the site today. I spoke with Sandy. She's sitting in the audience if I remember your name correctly. I also had the concern initially about the layout, serving minors, getting busy, alcohol walking out of the building and all that. I spent some time speaking with her. I feel that she knows the consequences of those things happening. She described her experience working at another location, or many other locations, and employees will be trained to know that if they do that, they will actually be released from the corporation. So it helped me to go out there as well. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Any additional questons or comments? Thank you for being here this evening. 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 Vartoogan, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-41-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 10, 2008, on Petton 2008-05-02-15 submitted by BRE/Amensuiles Properties, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C (Class B Hotel) liquor license as part of the hotel restaurant facility at 19300 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 6, which property is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-05-02-15 be approved, provided that the City Council waives the 1,000 fool separaton requirement between liquor licensed establishments 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 notce of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. June 10, 2008 24779 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#5 PETITION 2008-05-06-01 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OUTDOORSTORAGE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 05-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #168-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 18.17 of Article XVIII of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance to prescribe certain standards and limitations in connection with the outdoor storage of raw and recyclable paving materials, and to confer valid nonconforming status upon such operations in existence on January 1, 2008 in M-2 zoning districts. Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution #168-07 refers to and requests that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on a proposed language amendment to Section 18.17. Section 18.17, which is entitled "Nonconforming Use; Continuance', allows, under certain circumstances, for the lawful use and continuance of land and structures, even though they don't conform to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. This proposed text amendment would recognize concrete and asphalt recycling plants and yards that are in existence as of January 1, 2008, as valid nonconforming uses and establish standards and limitations with respect to these operations in order to minimize those aspects that cause nuisances. This amendment is primarily intended for Nagle Paving Company, which is located on the west side of Levan Road between the CSX Railroad and the 496 expressway in an NL2, General Manufacturing, zoning district. Over the past 10 years, Nagle Paving has purchased additional land and expanded its paving material storage, crushing and recycling operations. In the past, the City has received complaints from neighboring property owners, mostly related to the fugitive dust that is produced from the concrete loading and crushing operations, and also on the amount of mud and dirt that gets tracked onto the adjacent public roads. By designating the facility as a valid nonconforming use, it can be restricted and regulated under the zoning ordinance, and the City gains significant additional control. As directed by the City Council, the Law Department has prepared the proposed language to amend Section 18.17 by adding a new paragraph that would make concrete and asphalt recycling plants and June 10, 2008 24780 yards currently existing as of January 1, 2008, in NL2 zoning districts a valid nonconforming use. It also lists specific regulations, such as dust control, monitoring safeguards, limits on pile heights and on-site drainage protection that must be complied with. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: Yes. I'd like to acknowledge that a letter was received from the law offices representing Nagle Paving. You did receive a copy of that letter dated June 4, 2008, signed by Ronald Denewelh. The petitioners representative will comment to these items tonight orally so I will not read the letter in its entirety. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the Planning Department? Although this comes to us from the City Council, we do have Nagle Paving in the audience. Are there any comments you'd like to make this evening? You can use either microphone. Ronald Denewelh, Deneweth, Dugan & Parfitt, P.C., 1175 West Long Lake Road, Suite 202, Troy, Michigan 48098. Im legal counsel for Nagle Paving Company. I have with me today Mike Sant, who is the President of Nagle Paving Company, Jim Oliver and Rob Nagle, who are Vice Presidents of Nagle Paving Company. Al the planning study session, I was requested by Commissioner LaPine to send a letter outlining our concerns with the proposed ordinance. I did that, and I see that you received it. I thank you very much for having it with you today. I think that members of the Commission realize that Nagle Paving has been an outstanding member of your community since 1972. Asphalt operations have been conducted on that site since approximately 1951 or 1952. In 1998 and 1999, the Economic Development division of the City helped Nagle Paving in acquiring additional CSX property so that it could expand its materials recycling operation, which it did do. This provides significant benefit to the community. It provides not only a source of reasonable cost aggregates and asphalt materials for construction in your community, but many times, the Engineering Division, when it sends out projects for bid that will allow for a considerable amount of concrete removal, will make arrangements with Nagle so those materials can be sent to Nagle and thereby reduce the cost of construction within your community. We believe that Nagle has been operating within the appropriate zoning requirements at all times, but we're willing to and we very much want to cooperate with you today. Al all times, Nagle's plant is monitored by the Stale of Michigan and the County, and it has always complied with whatever requirements are made by the County and the Stale of June 10, 2008 24781 Michigan. What happened here is a unique situation. In the past couple years, Nagle has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve its operation, and we trust that you have noticed what has been going on. Nagle has constructed a 15 foot berm in the areas that will accept it on the property and has planted approximately 50 large evergreen trees on lop of that bene. In addition, Nagle has paved all of the roads within its operation to keep down the dust. Very importantly, Nagle has purchased a street sweeping truck that it utilizes on its properly and on the adjacent roads to keep down the dust. And just recently, Nagle has purchased a snorkel truck. This is a portable truck that allows it to spray water not only on the piles of aggregate at the operation that is going on but also trucks that come in and out of the project as required. About a year ago, we sat down with the Law Department when the Law Department expressed a concern in adopting this ordinance. The Nagle Paving representatives and the Law Department agreed upon the engagement of an expert consultant to make a recommendation as to the contents of the ordinance, and that agreed upon expert with Dr. Starr Kohn. Dr. Starr Kohn issued his report. Nagle Paving Company reimbursed the City of Livonia for the cost of that report. Nagle Paving is fully willing to comply with all the requirements of that report. So what we have today are two items in the ordinance which are not contained in Dr. Kohn's report, and those are the two items with which we take exception and would request be removed from the ordinance as it is passed onto the City Council. The first item that varies from Dr. Kohn's report has to do with recycled asphalt material. Dr. Kohn recommended that the piles not exceed 45 feet. He recommended 40 to 45 feet. The ordinance as presented indicated 35 feel. Now, obviously these piles vary in size. As one pile may rise, the other one may fall, but we believe that Dr. Kohn's requirement of 40 to 45 feet is appropriate, and we believe it is overly reslnctive to hold Nagle to the 35 feel requirement. The other requirement in the ordinance is Section l(C)5. I guess we're to blame a little bit for inclusion in that item. Years ago when we were trying to come to an appropriate arrangement with the City, representatives of Nagle came up with a fixed height truck washing operation to wash the trucks. When Dr. Kohn got involved, Dr. Kohn said, no, that's going to create more problems for you and that's why he eliminated that. That was his suggestion to go to this snorkel truck, which is not part of the ordinance, which we have purchased and are using. To have a fixed truck washer would create more harm than good. It would create a mud area, a wet area, and send our trucks out wet many times, which is not recommended. This problem is more solved by the portable snorkel truck, which can move around and water the piles of the June 10, 2008 24782 operation. So that somehow found its way into the ordinance even though it's not in Dr. Kohn's report. And the last thing is that we would suggest that the City Engineer have the authority to issue a variance in the event that the City has a project that may require a temporary waiver for higher piles, but that would be subject to the City Engineer's approval. We very much want to work with the community. We very much want to all agree upon an ordinance. We all agreed on Dr. Kohn's report. We're willing to live with Dr. Kohn's report, and we would suggest that the ordinance that goes to City Council be consistent with Dr. Kohn's report and not contain those two items. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Ms. Smiley: I assume that the height, the whole point of having it taller is the volume, right? Is that what you're talking about, the piles? Mr. Deneweth: Yes, the height of the pile varies from time to time, and it's obviously important that we be able to use our property as best we possibly can and that would be the higher pile height, and we are fully agreeable to comply with what Dr. Kohn came up with. Ms. Smiley: So it would be better for your to have, let's say, two 45 fool than have three 35 foot? Mr. Deneweth: Right, we don't have the ground space to do that. Ms. Smiley: I understand. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any otherquestions? Mr. LaPine: I have a number of questions. Mr. Morrow and I were out there Iasi weekend. To be honest with you, it's the first time I really look a drive through your operation, and I just couldn't believe the type of operation you have there. But my question is, you have on the south side, where you have the evergreens, you have piles there. Then you go on the other side, and there's another big area where there are a couple other piles there. What's the difference between the two areas? Mr. Deneweth: I think Mr. Oliver could best answer that question. I'm just the lawyer. Mr. LaPine: And the other question I haw ... Mr. Deneweth: They are different types of materials. June 10, 2008 24783 Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, you mentioned at the study session that you only have one neighbor that was complaining and that was a business. Is that the one on the north side? Mr. Deneweth: No, that would be the gentlemen on the west side. Mr. LaPine: On the west side, okay. That's what I mean, on the west side. I'm just curious. We also saw you had a washer out there spraying, keeping the dust down. Mr. Deneweth: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: To be honest with you, it made more of a mess than if you left it alone. There is a lot of dust with trucks coming and going. It's a big operation. You're going to have problems. But the other question I have, just by loolting at the pile, I couldn't tell if they were 35 feet high or 50 feel high. They didn't look like they were that tall to me. I'm just curious what the two different operations are, if they are two different operations. Mr. Deneweth: Mr. Oliver is in charge of plant operations. Mr. Oliver: Good evening. Your first question? Mr. LaPine: On the south side, where the trucks come in and are loading and unloading, you've got gravel. You've got peat. You've got all kinds of stuff there. Then on the other side, on the north side of the railroad tracks, there's a couple other big piles. Are these two different operations? Mr. Oliver: Yes. I think you're referring to our asphalt plant, which is on the south side of the railroad tracks. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Oliver: That's just gravels that are used to make the asphalt materials. On the north side of the tracks, that's where the recycling operation is at, and that is the area that's in question tonight. Mr. LaPine: So on the north side where the gravel is, that looks like is in better shape than the one on the south side, in my opinion anyway. There wasn't any dust. There wasn't any operation going on right there at that time. On the other side, it was going gonzo. The big trucks were coming and going faster than we could move ourselves out of the way. How do you determine when you reach 35 feel high? June 10, 2008 24784 Mr. Oliver: At the crushing operation, the conveyor that we use to stockpile the material, the drop height of that conveyor is 30 feet. So anything above that, you can tell pretty much by that. The top of the conveyor is 30 feet, another 5 feet, you've got 35 feet. Mr. LaPine: If I understand your lawyer making the presentation, he said you could live with this 40 to 45 or can you live with the 35? Mr. Oliver: Actually, we weren't very happy with the fad that Dr. Kohn limited us to 45 feel on the asphalt pile and 35 feel on the concrete because there are limes when there is a large project in the area, like 275, and that pile, which is al the far west end of the property, was the raw concrete pile. It got up to at lead 40 feel, maybe even 45 feel in height, but that was just because of that one project. If you go there right now, the height of that pile is aboul25 feel. Mr. LaPine: That's what I was going to say. This is something that varies depending on where the concrete is coming from. Mr. Oliver: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Now explain to me one other thing. For this operation, they want you to have something that sprays the trucks. Is that at the lop and when the trucks go underneath, you spray them. Is that the way it operates? Mr. Oliver: The theory is to eliminate a plume of dust that comes from the truck when you dump the material onto the ground. Now the plume that is the big complaint is when the truck is off-loading its load on the lop of the pile. Up higher at 35 feel, when a truck is dumping up there, you have more wind. The wind speed is a little bit higher. So if the prevailing wind is out of the east going to the west, going towards the businesses to the west, the problem is the plume of dust that comes from the truck after it's dumped. So what we're trying to eliminate is that plume of dust. We can do that by shooting water into the bed of the truck as it's dumping. It eliminates the dust coming off the truck. Mr. LaPine: It makes sense. I guess I'm confused on one thing. Do these trucks drive up .... Mr. Oliver: Believe me, that's a worse case scenario when that happens. We like to dump it at the bottom of the pile close to the crusher at all limes. We try to keep that area clear. But when we have a big project that's coming in, and you can gel 20 - 30 trucks coming in a day, that area gets congested, and at one point in time, it gets unsafe. So one of the operators will point the truck June 10, 2008 24785 up to the top of the pile and at that point, the truck will be directed to dump up at top. Mr. La Pine: This may not even pertain to your operation, but we noticed that there's a little gas station in there. Is that owned by your operation? Mr. Oliver: No, its not. The properly is owned by us, but its leased to Quick Fuel. Mr. LaPine: I just wondered because I see people getting gas. I thought maybe you had discount gas. Mr. Oliver: No, I'm sorry. I wish I did. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I have a question and then a comment. I see here under #10 in our ordinance, is this cattle grate new or is that existing? Mr. Oliver: If we come to agreement, we're going to install R. Mr. Morrow: Okay, so it doesn't exist. Will that I clear up some of the tracking out of the yard? Mr. Oliver: Yes, it will definitely help. Mr. Morrow: My comment is, other than the fact that I fell dwarfed in my little car running around all those trucks, I had no idea you were busy then and it probably wasn't even a busy time. But secondly, the thing I want to comment on is that I know your request here tonight is to modify the ordinance as proposed. This thing is being studied. I guess you started back a year ago and you subsequently retained an expert in the field to make recommendations. I won't even pretend to become an expert within a week of what's good and what's bad. You folks have your concerns because the ordinance digresses from what the expert said, and I was impressed with your logic on that. However, I'm sure the City had a reason. The Law Department and the Council had a reason for putting the things in that you have concerns with. So at least as one commissioner, I would not vote to modify this as requested. I think it more appropriately, at lead in my view, should be worked out with the people that started this, the Law Department and you folks. You certainly made your case. I was impressed with it, but I don't feel I have the expertise to say yes or no. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Mr. Oliver: If I may add one comment to that? June 10, 2008 24786 Mr. Morrow: You certainly may. Mr. Oliver: The processed asphalt pile that we're requesting to be 4010 45 feet is at the easterly end of the properly. The problem we're having is with the people to the west of us. So the theory is that if we have a prevailing wind out of the east going to the west towards those buildings, this pile will help keep the dust down and from blowing across over to those properties simply because the crushed asphalt is heavier. The particles are heavier and will not blow as much as the crushed concrete will. So the theory wasn't, from what I understand from Dr. Kohn, that the wind coming out of the east will be deflected off, down and around and will not make this concrete dust in the next pile over airborne and carry over to the neighbors to the west. Mr. Morrow: Well, like I said earlier, I'm impressed with the fact that you folks know what you're doing, or as my dad used to say, they know their apples. I just wanted to lel you know it wasn't any concern about how your operation was run. It was just agreeing on what the final ordinance would say. Mr. Oliver: Okay. Ms. Smiley: This is probably more of a comment. I think I do agree with your proposed changes. The 4010 45 makes sense to me in light of the fact that you don't have room for three 35s and you've also asked for a provision to talk to the City Engineer under special circumstances for temporary variances. I don't have any problem with that either. And I think your efforts with the snorkel are good. So I dont have a problem with any of your suggested modifications. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Oliver, thank you for joining us this evening. Just in case, is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? We only have remaining petitioners. I will close the public hearing at this point. Now would be the time for a motion. On a motion by Morrow, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 10, 2008, on Petition 2008-05-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #168-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 18.17 of Article XVIII of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance to prescribe certain standards and limitations June 10, 2008 24787 in connection with the outdoor storage of raw and recyclable paving materials, and to confer valid nonconforming status upon such operations in existence on January 1, 2008 in M-2 zoning districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-05-06-01 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment makes concrete and asphalt recycing plants and yards currently existing (as of January 1, 2008) in M-2 zoning districts a valid nonconforming use; 2. That the proposed language amendment stipulates specific regulations, such as dust control, monitoring safeguards, limits on pile heights and on-site drainage protection that must be complied with; and 3. That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which, among other things, is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. Mr. Walsh: We have a resolution approving the language as submitted. Is there support? Ms. Smiley: I just have a question. That would be wdhout any of the modifications? Mr. Walsh: That is correct. Is there support for the resolution? Seeing none, the motion fails. Is there an alternative motion? Ms. Smiley: I would like to make an approving motion with the modifications that have been recommended this evening. How do I do that? Mr. Walsh: I think you can do that just as stated. Mr. Taormina will make note of that. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McDermott, and adopted, it was #66-42-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 10, 2008, on Petition 2008-05-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #168-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 18.17 of Article XVIII of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance to prescribe certain standards and Imitations in connection with the outdoor storage of raw and recyclable paving materials, and to confer valid nonconforming status upon June 10, 2008 24788 such operations in existence on January 1, 2008 in M-2 zoning districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-05-06-01, as amended, so as to incorporate the changes as recommended in the correspondence dated June 4, 2008, from the Law Offices of Denewelh, Dugan & Parfitt to the Planning Commission, be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment makes concrete and asphalt recycling plants, and yards currently existing (as of January 1, 2008) in a M-2 zoning districts a valid nonconforming use; 2. That the proposed language amendment stipulates specific regulations, such as dust control, monitoring safeguards, limits on pile heights and onsite drainage protection that must be complied with; and 3. That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which, among other things, is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. 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? Mr. Morrow: I'm going to vole against the resolution. Its not because I don't have any faith it Nagle, but its the fact that I would like to see the modification come at the City Council level, who directed us to review this. As one commissioner, I don't think I have the expertise. They must have good reasons for putting in that language, and Nagle demonstrated they have good reasons for laking it out. So I leave it at that. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments? Mr. LaPine: I'm going to vole for Ms. Smiley's motion for two reasons. Number one, the City hired a consultant to come up with what they considered should be done to alleviate the problem. He comes back with his recommendation, and now they want to change what he recommends. If they had certain ideas that they wanted to implement, why hire a consultant when they could have gone ahead and put it in the ordinance any way they wanted. I guess I feel that if the consultant tells us it's the right thing to do, I have to go along. And the other reason is that no June 10, 2008 24789 matter where that operation goes, there's always going to be trouble with dust. There's no way you can gel around it. They have been a long time taxpayer and citizen of Livonia, and I think we should lean a little backwards to try to help as much as we can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. McDermott: I just wanted to say that I'm also supporting Ms. Smiley's resolution basically for the same exact reasons that Mr. La Pine so eloquently staled. I lend to think that we need to go with the expert, the consultant, and that's my reason. Mr. Walsh: Any other comments? I would just like to note that as a fellow lawyer, Mr. Deneweth, I think you did a great job making your case here and our lawyers will have their time to defend themselves, if they wish to at the Council level. So my intention is to support the resolution on the table. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, would the secretary please call the rolh A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McDermott, LaPine, Vartoogian, Walsh NAYES: Morrow ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Wilshaw Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution with the changes you requested. ITEM#6 PETITION 2008-05-06-02 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DENTENTION PONDS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 05-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #183-08, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 18.64 of Article XVIII of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance to require slormwaler detention ponds and underground slormwaler detention facilities that are developed as part of a new residential subdivision or condominium to be located in parks, oullots or general common areas. Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution #183-08 refers to and requests that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing regarding a June 10, 2008 24790 proposed language amendment to Section 18.64 of the Zoning Ordinance which will require stonmwater detention ponds and underground stormwater storage facilities that are constructed in order to serve new residential subdivision or condominium projects to be located in private parks, outots or general common areas. This language amendment is an outgrowth of Petition 2004-05-08-10, Pallagia Site Condominiums, which is a 6 -unit development located on the north side of Joy Road, west of Wayne Road. Because of limited land area for that site, the developer elected to build the storm water detention pond in the side and rear yards of two of the lots within that development. Presently, the City has minimal standards pertaining to the design and construction of done water management systems. Instead, we rely on Wayne County for regulating and approving stone water management systems that are required for all new developments and most redevelopment projects. The issue at hand is that the County's ordinance has no restrictions or limitations as to where either open detention basins or underground detention systems must be located. The approach that will work the best for a given site depends on several factors, including cost, safety, performance, and aesthetics. However, since it is the City that is ultimately responsible for the long-term maintenance of these systems, it stands to reason that we should have greater control as to their design. Locating these facilities on private lots, whether it's an open basin or underground system, raises important concerns, such as maintaining access for maintenance purposes. Occasionally, heavy equipment may be needed, and over time, as homeowners change and improvements are made to properties, maintaining clear and unobstructed access to these basins may become problematic. This proposed language amendment would require all future stone water holding facilities and pretreatment systems that are developed as part of any new residential subdivision or condominium project be located in private parks, oullols, or general common areas within the developments they serve, and not on the privately -owned lots, units or limited common areas. A waiver of this requirement would be permitted where there is a showing that compliance would be onerous. This would only be allowed if the lot or lots have been oversized, and when adequate easements for maintenance and access from a public rightof-way have been reserved. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is no correspondence in connection with this item. June 10, 2008 24791 Mr. Walsh: Gentlemen, you're here for the next dem. Is that correct? We have no public participation. Are there any questions for the Planning Department on this item? Seeing none, a motion would be in order. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-43-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 10, 2008, on Petition 2008-05-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #183-08, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 18.64 of Article XVIII of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance to require stormwaler detention ponds and underground stormwater detention facilities that are developed as part of a new residential subdivision or condominium to be located in parks, outlots or general common areas., the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pe00on 2008-05-06-02, as amended, to clarify that these basins would be located in private parks, be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment requires all future storm water holding facilities and pretreatment systems that are developed as part of any new residential subdivision or condominium project be located in private parks, outlots, or general common areas and not on subdivision lots or limited common areas; 2. That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which, among other things, is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its ci0zens. 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? Mr. Taormina: We would like to propose some minor language corrections that would clarify that these basins would be located in private parks within the development so there is no confusion that they would be located on public land. June 10, 2008 24792 Mr. La Pine: Private parks. Okay. Mr. Walsh: Ms. Vartoogian, do you agree? Ms. Varloogian: Agree. Mr. Walsh: The resolution stands then 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 #7 PETITION 2008 -04 -SN -02 CVS PHARMACY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 04SIa02 submitted by CVS -08015 -LLC requesting approval for additional wall signage for the commeroial building (CVS Pharmacy) located at 29500 Five Mile Road, on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Hidden Lane in the Southeast'''/ of Section 14. Mr. Taormina: On March 19, 2001, CVS Pharmacy received site plan approval to construct a commeroial building on property located on the north side of Five Mile between Middlebelt and Hidden Lane. At that time, the City approved one wall sign in connection with the proposed business. This is a photograph that shows the location of the building in relationship to the surrounding area and roadways. You can see Five Mile Road is to the south and Middlebelt Road to the east. However, there are two other developed sites immediately to the east of this. The CVS site is not located directly at the corner of Middlebelt and Five Mile, but rather one parcel to the west. It does have some visibility from Middlebelt Road; however, because the frontage is on Five Mile, they are permitted one sign facing south on the front canopy or entrance to the facility. What they are proposing today is a second wall sign that would be located on the east side of the building. Permitted is one wall sign not to exceed 85 square feet. The one that exists today on the south elevation measures 52 square feel. The sign that they are proposing on the east elevation would total 34 square feet. So combined, they would have a total of 86 square feel, slightly more than what they would be permitted for a single sign on the south side of the building. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? June 10, 2008 24793 Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Brad Rhodes, SignArt, Inc., 5757 E. Cork Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49048. We're here for CVS Pharmacy. Our request as stated is to have another sign, and as staled, both signs are just a little over what is allowed for one wall sign. What has not been brought up is that CVS has, since they built this store, deeded entrance off of Middlebell. So that really technically gives them access to Middlebell and Five Mile. So they are on two streets, which if you go by the ordinance, would allow two signs. That's pretty much where we're coming in at requesting this extra sign. If you look at the photos that are presented, the front wall sign is smaller than what is allowed. You see the big blank area, and that's taken right from the comer. Visibility -wise, you can barely read the CVS Pharmacy sign on it from that distance. If you look further down in those photo packets, right there at the intersection of Five Mile and Middlebell, if you're silting at that intersection and you have one car in front of you, you cannot read the sign. You've got a blank wall and you don't know what that building is. Just other references, there are two businesses right at that intersection that are not on corners, and they do have two signs. One is the Szechuan Empire restaurant with awning and a side wall sign and Chaps Feed Store has a very large painted wall sign and then a sign on the front of the building. We just hope that you could see the need for the Department, dated May 15, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 21, 2008, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The petitioner shows two wall signs where only one wall sign with a maximum size of 85 square feet is permitted. A variance frem the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the additional wall sign. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Smiley: They are kind of blocked by McDonald's and Thrifty Florist. That would be on the east side. I just wanted to make sure I had my east and west right. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Yes, they would be blocked by McDonald's and Thrifty Florist. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Brad Rhodes, SignArt, Inc., 5757 E. Cork Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49048. We're here for CVS Pharmacy. Our request as stated is to have another sign, and as staled, both signs are just a little over what is allowed for one wall sign. What has not been brought up is that CVS has, since they built this store, deeded entrance off of Middlebell. So that really technically gives them access to Middlebell and Five Mile. So they are on two streets, which if you go by the ordinance, would allow two signs. That's pretty much where we're coming in at requesting this extra sign. If you look at the photos that are presented, the front wall sign is smaller than what is allowed. You see the big blank area, and that's taken right from the comer. Visibility -wise, you can barely read the CVS Pharmacy sign on it from that distance. If you look further down in those photo packets, right there at the intersection of Five Mile and Middlebell, if you're silting at that intersection and you have one car in front of you, you cannot read the sign. You've got a blank wall and you don't know what that building is. Just other references, there are two businesses right at that intersection that are not on corners, and they do have two signs. One is the Szechuan Empire restaurant with awning and a side wall sign and Chaps Feed Store has a very large painted wall sign and then a sign on the front of the building. We just hope that you could see the need for the June 10, 2008 24794 second sign. We have the access off of Middlebell and they do get traffic that comes through. McDonald's traffic comes through there. We'd like to be able to identify that building for CVS. Mr. LaPine: I didn't know you had an entrance off of Middlebell. Are you using the same road that McDonald's uses? Mr. Rhodes: Yes. Mr. LaPine: There's no doubt about it that you need a sign on the east side of the building. You can't see because of the McDonald's and the flower shop there. Because you are now below what you're allowed at 85 feel, with the two signs I don't have any objection to it. I think its reasonable. If you could knock it down one fool, you wouldn't have to go do the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. You would have the 85 feel. Is that cored? The two together gives them 85 square feel. Mr. Taormina: I'll reserve judgment on that. That could be the case. If this is determined to be a comer lot, they would be permitted half the allowable area of the main sign. So if they're allowed 85 square feel for the main sign and if it's determined to be a corner lot, the second sign could be 42 square feel. Mr. LaPine: That's all I have, Mr. Chair. Ms. Varloogian: I noticed from these pictures that there is a ground sign. Mr. Rhodes: There is a ground sign, not very visible. Ms. Varloogian: If this is approved, do you plan on maintaining that sign in addition to the new one? Mr. Rhodes: The ground sign? Ms. Varloogian: Yes. Mr. Rhodes: Yes. That's off from Five Mile right there. Ms. Varloogian: I'm sorry, what? Mr. Rhodes: The ground sign is right at Five Mile. It's right at the entrance off of Five Mile. You have the McDonald's directional sign there also. Ms.Varloogian: Okay. Thankyou. June 10, 2008 24795 Mr. Morrow: Yes. I concur with what Mr. LaPine said. You provided us with this picture, and I didn't pick up on this when I went out to site check it. As you're driving west on Five Mile Road, the shrubbery there pretty well negates your ground sign. So that the sign on the east elevation would help people pick if off as a CVS store. Mrs. McDermott: I was looking at the ground sign as well. The shrubbery there, is that on the Thrifty Florist properly? Mr. Rhodes: Yes, that is. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. I'm a big lover of landscape so I would like to see that stay, but it would be nice if maybe they could help you out a little and trim that down a little bit. That would be much more helpful there. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Anybody else? Are there any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. That has exhausted our audience. A motion would be in order. On a motion by McDennottt, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #0644-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008 -04 -SN -02 submitted by CVS -08015 -LLC requesting approval for additional wall signage for the commercial building (CVS Pharmacy) located at 29500 Five Mile Road, on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Hidden Lane in the Southeast % of Section 14, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by CVS-08015-0LC, as received by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fad that the overall sign area of both wall signs (existing and proposed) shall not exceed 85 square feel; 2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; and 3. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. June 10, 2008 24796 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolulion. ITEM#8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 962"" Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 962n0 Regular Meeting held on April 22, 2008. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #06-45-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 962n° Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McDermott, Morrow, Vadoogian, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: Wilshaw ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 963m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 963rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 13, 2008. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, ilwas #06-46-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 963d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 13, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, LaPine, McDermott, Vartoogian, Walsh NAYS: None June 10, 2008 24797 ABSENT: Wilshaw ABSTAIN: Morrow Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Walsh: That brings us to the conclusion of our agenda. Normally we would quickly be saying good night, Livonia, but tonight is an occasion both proud and sad. This is Bill LaPine's last meeting with us, and I would like to recognize that. He is the longest serving Planning Commissioner in the City's history. A history of great service not only to this body but to the City in general As you can tell, he continued working hard right through this meeting. Mr. LaPine, congratulations on your years of service. Mr. LaPine: Thank you very much. I don't know if I'm the longest. Mr. Morrow might be. Mr. Morrow: Bill spent a lot of time on the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I would like to augment your remarks if that's in order. Yes, Bill, I just wanted to say that I worked with you for many years. You've always done your homework. You study every petition that comes before us and when you vole either in favor or denying, you always do it for the right reasons. You do it because you honestly feel that's the best thing for our city. I guess I should also thank you for the service that you've given not only on the Planning Commission but the Zoning Board of Appeals, and also I want to comment that as you continue to drive through the city and look around you, you can certainly take satisfaction in the many contributions you made to the developments and redevelopment of this city. So again, you did a greatjob and with that I will tum it back to the Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment? Mrs. McDermott Mr. LaPine, I just want to thank you, as being one of the newer commissioners. Over the last couple years I learned quite a bit taking your lead and just learning the different terminology and how to look over the issues and petitions and to be thorough and try to remember to do what's in the best interests of the city and the residents and the petitioner. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I thank all of you for your kinds words. If I had my way, I'd still be here but that's beyond my control. I put 46 years between the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I'm proud of what I accomplished over the years. I can go through the City today and just about every big project, starting with this building and the Wonderland Shopping Center to every June 10, 2008 24798 other big project this city has ever had and been built, in some way I was involved with it either with the ZBA or the Planning Commission. It has been a privilege and a pleasure. If I'm not dead, hopefully I'll be back someday. Mr. Walsh: Congratulations. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 964" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 10, 2008, was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman