Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2009-01-27MINUTES OF THE 975TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 27, 2009, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 975" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott Lynda Scheel Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw R. Lee Morrow Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Chairman Morrow 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 pefifion is approved or denied. The Planning 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 resolufions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome oflhe proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 200840-01-09 SOAVE BUILDING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-10- 01-09 submitted by Soave Building Inc. requesting to rezone property at 14745 and 14766 Taylor Boulevard, located at the northerly terminus of the section of Taylor Boulevard extending north from Oakley Avenue and lying west of Cavell Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, from RUF to R-2. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the exisfing zoning of the surrounding area. January 27, 2009 25090 Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence from the Engineering Division, both dated November 26, 2008. Because the comments are slightly different with respect to the two lots that are involved in this rezoning petition, they submitted two separate letters. The first letter reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description submitted is correct. We have one issue with the proposal at this time. An extension of the 12 foot drainage and storm sewer easement along the mar property should be required. The address according to our records is 14766 Taylor Boulevard." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description submitted is correct We have one issue with the proposal at this time. An extension of the 18 foot wide sanitary storm sewer easement across the front property line should be required. And an extension of the 12 foot drainage and storm sewer easement along the mar property and the sanitary sewer easement across the front of the property should be required. The address according to our records is 14745 Taylor Boulevard." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there anyquestions forthe staff bylhe Commission? Ms. Smiley: Yes, Mr. Chair. Does Taylor Boulevard currently extend to these lots? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it does. Ms. Smiley: So it's already paved. And there are houses currently on that property? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Seeing none, would the petitioner come forward please? Enrico Soave, The Soave Law Firm, P.L.C., 37771 Seven Mile, Suite C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. The only other additional comments I have, in January 27, 2009 25091 addition to what Mr. Taormina said, is the reason we're here tonight was this rezoning was mandated and actually conditioned by the Zoning Board of Appeals upon their approval. The rationale for that was they didn't want people buying those two lots under the guise or the misconception that they're buying in RUF zoning when it's R-2 zoning. So that was their only actual complaint or concern in regards to this. Mr. Morrow: So you are complying with the Zoning Board's request? Mr. Soave: Absolutely correct. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Varloogian, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-07-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2009, on Petition 2008-10-01-09 submitted by Soave Building Inc. requesting to rezone property at 14745 and 14766 Taylor Boulevard, located at the northerly terminus of the section of Taylor Boulevard extending north from Oakley Avenue and lying west of Cavell Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 24, from RUF to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-10-01-09 be approved for the following reasons: 1. Thal the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; 3. That the properties involved in this request would be in full compliance with R-2 District regulations; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension of an existing zoning district occurring on adjacent properties to the south and west. 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. January 27, 2009 25092 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 200842-0231 19055 FARMINGTON RD. Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 12-02-31 submitted by 19055 Farmington Road L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant with drive -up window facilities at 19055 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Cladta Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 9. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated January 16, 2009, which reads as follows: 'The Engineering Division has reviewed the above - referenced plan. The address of this site is 19055 Farmington Road. There is a discrepancy in the legal description information. On plan sheet no. 1, the length of the east property line is shown as 109.94 feet. The written legal description of the proposed combination found on the same plan sheet indicates the length to be 110.00 feet. The Engineering Division will be glad to review this again after the plan preparer makes the necessary modification. We trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 9, 2009, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for a waiver use approval to operate a drive-thru restaurant on the property located at the above referenced 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 January 12, 2009, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Farmington Road Restaurant, located at 19055 Farmington Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 16, January 27, 2009 25093 2009, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 5, 2009, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner shows a parking deficiency of 7 spaces. A cross parking agreement would be required or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals mould be required to maintain a deficiency. (2) The petitioner shows only one barrier free parking space. Two barrier free spaces are required. (3) The petitioner would be required to provide parking spaces designated for use of drive - up window patrons in addition to the required parking. (4) The radius of the curves in the drive thru lane must not be less than 15 feet It appears that one section is not in compliance. A super majority of Council may waive this slight deficiency. (5) Signage has not been reviewed at this time. 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. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Scheel: So the drive-thru radius, is it 15 feel? Mr. Taormina: I believe that was corrected. I'm not sure at what point it would not comply, but maybe At has some further information on that. Mr. Nowak: It depends on where you interpret the drive-thm lane as starting. If you figure it starts south of that landscape island between the parking and the drive -up lane, from that point on, from that first curve all the way to further on where there are three other radius points, they all meet or exceed 15 feet. But along the northerly drive just where it starts to tum to the left, there is one radius that is indicated at 10 feet. So it's a question of whether you interpret the drive -up window lane as starting at that point. So they may need a variance. The prepared approving resolution has a comment relative to that if you decide to approve this. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions from the staff? Would the petitioner step forward? Enrico Soave, The Soave Law Firm, P.L.C., 37771 Seven Mile, Suite C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening, once again. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. Before getting into the site plan, I want to provide a little background, the type of proposed business that would be going into this building. It would be a fast casual gourmet hamburger establishment with emphasis on taste, January 27, 2009 25094 freshness and quality. The menu in this business would be very simple, various size hamburgers with different toppings and condiments. There will be salads, sides, milkshakes and a breakfast menu. The breakfast menu would also be simple, coffee, bagels and breakfast sandwiches, somewhat like a Tim Horton's except better. Also, the hours of operation are important - 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. That would be seven days a week. Also, background on the owners of this proposed business. The proposed owners are long time Livonia residents. They are longstanding business members in the City of Livonia. Furthermore, this would be a new business venture for these business owners. This is something, a brain child they've been thinking about for a long time, and this would be a perfect opportunity for them to start a business, which they've wanted to do for awhile. Also, this would be an independently owned and operated business. It would not be a fast food type like MacDonald's, Burger King, what have you. Especially with the first store, they want to keep it centralized, localized in Livonia. What I mean by that is, they want all the businesses to cooperate which would help further economics within Livonia, the beef, the buns, produce. They want to purchase it through local merchants in Livonia. Seasonal changes are feasible. Also fanners' markets with their produce as well. It's commendable for a business like this to start up in a lough economic time. All the resources, the amount of capital and dubious economic dimate, which the return is very dubious, and this kind of dovetails into the drive-thru. Without a drive-thru at this business, it's almost destined to fail. The likeliness of it succeeding, especially with other competing businesses in our local area. You have MacDonald's. You also have Tim Horton's, Burger King and also the new Taco Bell at Eight Mile and Farmington. They all have drive-thru capabilities. MacDonald's is 100, 200 yards away and they are open 24 hours not just 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Another reason why the drive-lhru is very important is that the sealing is for 40 persons. Also, the parking is limited so you can't expand the seating. So a drive-lhru, to reiterate, is crucial and actually is going to make or break this business. Farmington Road where you have ingress and egress, obviously the parking is going to get filled up very quickly. Also, people can see the patrons inside and actually lines in front. If there is no drive-lhru, people are going to drive through, see it is actually busy, and go to the competitor, MacDonald's, which MacDonald's is already busy 24 hours a day. Me living right next door, close to MacDonald's, they're busy all the time. Without a drive-lhm and competing with MacDonald's, like I said once before, this business will be destined to fail. In regards to the site plan, we took great pains in revising the site plan to try to he Ip eliminate January 27, 2009 25095 the burden on the residential community, especially with the addition and the previous plans that were before you with keeping the house at 19036 Filmore. Also, where the building stands and location of the speaker box. With the exception of 19036 Filmore, you're hundreds of yards away from any nearby residential area. And the speaker box and activity going on there is not going to be a hindrance or undue burden or nuisance to surrounding areas. Furthermore, if you look at the flow of traffic, ingress and egress, it's all through Farmington Road. We also look great pains to make sure the flow of traffic will be harmonious - the perfect horseshoe shape. You enter off Farmington Road and you exit off Farmington Road. And the flow of traffic is going to prevent people from what was a concern in the past, people entering or exiting off Filmore onto Seven Mile. Looking at this plan and looking at the flow of traffic, it defies logical and common sense that people are actually going to turn around just to go on Filmore Avenue. If someone is destined to go on Filmore Avenue, don't forget you still have the Wine Castle to the north. They can still go around the Wine Castle and still exit at Wine Castle's exit onto Filmore. Mark Toarmine brought up the deficiency in the parking spaces, the two parking spaces that follow the pickup lane. With this proposed business and simple menu, the actual logical or rationale behind the ordinance is where there is a wail, where someone is waiting for food from a very diverse menu. Instead of blocking up the drive-thru stacking, they'll actually park in one of the two spaces just ahead of the pickup window. With an establishment just selling hamburgers, if they can't produce hamburgers efficiently and effectively, the business is going to shut down anyways. With this type of menu, the deficiency of two parking spots is overcome by the type of business that's actually in there, the menu. We don't perceive that being a problem because if the product is not coming out, and you're only selling hamburgers, like I said, they're going to be going out of business. Mr. Taormina, is it possible to put the elevation plan up for a minute? Thank you. I apologize in advance for not having the availability of a color rendering or having brick samples available. That was a mistake and the architect has dropped the ball on that but it will soon be rectified. Just to gel a flavor of what color scheme is going to be on this building, it's not going to be funhouse colors. They are going to be earth lone colors, natural subtle colors. If you guys are familiar with the newly constructed office building at Seven Mile and Newburgh behind the Speedway, those are natural earth lone colors. This will be a little bit lighter. If you follow the contour of the building with the base level being the split face block, then you have brick, then E.I.F.S. panels. The color scheme will have the darkest color on the bottom, followed by a lighter color for January 27, 2009 25096 the brick, and then the lightest color would be on the E.I.F.S. So that would be the color scheme for the building. Mark, could you put the landscape plan up please? Thank you. With this landscape plan, the petitioners went through great pains and also it was one of the chief goals and objectives to make this look the most aesthetically pleasing and actually maximize the amount of green space as possible. Albeit the ordinance requires 15 percent of green space, this is over 23 percent, especially the rear and the front of the building, a high density of green space to make it more desirable and actually to set off this building in comparison to the rest of the buildings in that Seven Mile and Farmington corridor. Hopefully, with the addition of this building, other buildings surrounding it, without naming any, will actually be inspired to redevelop and improve the appearance of their buildings as well. In the landscape plan, there was a typographical error. It stated that irrigation would be manual and the grass here to be seeded. That was an error. All the grassy areas will be sod and will have underground automated irrigation systems. Also, the vegetation and green space also helps to provide an additional banner in addition to the five fool screen wall to help further eliminate any intrusiveness into the residential area. With that said, I'd like to open it up and entertain any questions that the Commission may have. Ms. Smiley: I guess I'm a little confused. Is MacDonald's a competitor or not? Mr. Soave: Absolutely. Not speaking from experience because I'm not the biggest fan of hamburgers, but I do watch the food network quite often. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of kinds of hamburgers. MacDonald's is a high volume, typical fast food burger. And then you have just a few miles to the south, you have Green's. That's your typical slider hamburger. This one is a gourmet hamburger. Ms. Smiley: I'm not familiar with Green's. Mr. Soave: Oh, not Green's. Bates. I'm sorry. They both look the same. They both have old school while box buildings. It is Bates. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Soave: This one is a gourmet hamburger. The beef will be ground fresh daily. The buns will be fresh. Like I said, the produce is all fresh. So their biggest thing is big on taste and big on quality, which in comparison to MacDonald's and Bates, they are all high volume, pretty much run of the mill burgers. This one will Mr. Soave: January 27, 2009 25097 have different types of toppings, condiments, chili, different cheeses put on the burger. So it actually is a gourmet burger. Ms. Smiley: It's notjust beef, cheese, pickles. It's actually a gourmet burger. Ms. Smiley: So its not your typical fast food? Mr. Soave: Correct. Ms. Smiley: So it's not really so much a fastfood place. Mr. Soave: Casual dining. The ambiance will be more of a modern look. Ms. Smiley: Its not going to have a funhouse look with the red roof, goofy looking windows and some clown. Ms. Smiley: Okay. My other question was your hours. You are going to be open from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Mr. Soave: Correct. Ms. Smiley: Do you usually find your gourmet burger people out at 11:30, 12:00, 10:00 p.m.? That late? I mean if they're having a nice casual dinner. Mr. Soave: Late night menus are still very popular and still very desirable. Pizzerias are open until 2:00 a.m., and they have a wide variety in their menu too rather than just the bar crowd following, which this is obviously not going to attract. Ms. Smiley: I just find a little bit of a conflict in the drive-thru concept and the gourmet concept. And there's a new business that just opened on Seven Mile. That would be east of Farmington where Burkhart's used to be, a cupcake place. Mr. Soave: I'm very familiar with it. Ms. Smiley: Okay. They dont have any kind of a drive-thru or anything like that and they have just one item, cupcakes. I don't know that the drive-lhru would be critical to every operation, I guess is my point on it, but okay. I'll turn it back, Mr. Chair. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. Vartoogian: This pertains to the hours of operation. Are you aware of what the hours are at the Wine Castle? Do you know how late they stay open? Mr. Soave: Wine Castle, I believe, is 11:00 p.m. They're not open that late. I live right around the corner. I think its right about 11:00, 11:30 January 27, 2009 25098 p.m. I don't think they're open until midnight to be quite honest. I think 11:00 p.m. is when they shut their doors. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Mr. Wilshaw. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The argument that this burger joint is going to be competitive with MacDonald's, and that's why the drive-lhru is necessary, is an interesting one because its a self- imposed hardship on your part. The business model that your client is choosing is one of a burger place knowing that there are burger places adjacent to it. I'm wondering has he considered or given any thought to a different business model such as pizza or ice cream or something else that would be less competitive in that immediate area? Mr. Soave: Actually, pizza would be overly competitive in that area, and ice cream is a seasonal business. The Seven Mile and Farmington Road corner, it's not the cheapest real estate. So you can't expect a flower shop to go in there and pay $1,000 in rent because its not going to happen. Its a high rent area so in order to have a return, you have to have a business that going to have a high return or else that building is going to be silting there dilapidated and outdated as it is now currently unless someone actually is going to have the resources. The thought behind it is to put a business there that's going to succeed. I mean it's nice in theory to put a flower shop or a Dairy Queen there, but it's not going to support that. The ice cream business, actually now there's loo many of them. So a business is going to have to go in there that has a fine business model and know that what they're going to have to provide the customer and what kind of quality of product they're going to have in order to succeed because like I said, that corner is a high rent district. So you have to have the numbers in order to continue and actually have a flourishing business. Mr. Wilshaw: So based on the analysis that your client did, a burger place is the most viable business that he can put in that location? Mr. Soave: Looking at different options from all the information he had on hand and his previous experiences, a burger would be the best one. Pizza would be overkill, I think. You'd be seeing a lot of people in the audience if we were proposing to put a pizza place in there to be quite frank. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. A couple questions I had about the site itself. The parking is rather deficient. We just heard today in a January 27, 2009 25099 letter from the Inspection Department that there's only one handicapped parking space and there's a need for two. We already know that the total number of spaces is deficient and you're also getting shared parking from the neighboring liquor store. Do you think that you're going to ran into a situation where there's not adequate parking for your business when its doing well? Mr. Soave: To my knowledge, that parking deficiency was something that I wasn't aware of until tonight. We do have a reciprocal parking agreement with the Wine Castle which does have an additional handicap spot. Other than the two parking spot deficiencies for the drive-lhru or pickup window, that was all the parking deficiency that I was aware of, as was the petitioner. And speaking with the Planning Department, that was the only deficiency that they conveyed to me as well. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The only other question I have is, I do wonder if the hours need to be 12:00 midnight for closing or if there is any thought that maybe 11:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. would be a more reasonable time to close this business? Mr. Soave: That's something the petitioner can look into, but at this point in time, those hours of operation seem to be the most desirable for him in order to succeed. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McDermott: On the hours topics here, in addition to the concern on the back end, I'm a little concerned with the 6:00 a.m. opening time just because obviously the previous business didn't start that early there. If you're going to be known as a gourmet burger location, I'm rat sure I'm thinking about breakfast there, even though I know you said you were going to have bagels or something like that. Is there any thought process to maybe just going with the gourmet burger concept totally and eliminating the breakfast menu? Mr. Soave: The breakfast menu was another way to bring in more business. It was an easy concept to diversify from burgers rather than breakfast. Breakfast, even though it's the most important meal of the day, is one of the more simplistic meals of the day. So their thinking was in order to bring as much business as possible, opening earlier rather than trying to stay up later, would actually be something that would be more welcome by the neighbors as well as the city, in general, rather than trying to get a late night menu. An early menu for early risers was more of the thinking. January 27, 2009 25100 Ms. McDermott: Okay. And then I had a question. We were just referencing the parking and the deficiency on the handicap spot, and I believe you said there's a handicap spot at the Wine Castle. Mr. Soave: There are some spaces that are part of the easement agreement with the Wine Castle. Ms. McDermott Do you happen to know from looking at the picture that's on the screen where that handicap spot would be at the Wine Castle? Mr. Soave: It's the first one in to the right from the most northerly entrance of the proposed business. Ms. McDermott Okay. I don't know how that works with our ordinance, but if I'm looking at a handicap spot, and I had occasion to use a walker at one time in my life, that would be loo far for a handicap person to go, I would think. Mr. Taormina: Yes. If I could respond to that, Mr. Chair? Mr. Morrow: Sure. Mr. Taormina: Because of the deficiency of two parking spaces that the Inspection Department referred to, they are going to be required on this site. He can accommodate that by adding a second barrier free space here, adjacent to the one that he's currently showing. That way it's closest to the ADA ramp providing access to the interior of the building. It only makes sense that the second barrier free space would be provided here and we would not rely on one that's offsite. Ms. McDermott Okay. Then I guess the next question would be, and I apologize for missing this earlier, but so the handicap spots, then the people have to cross through lhedrive-lhru. Mr. Taormina: They would not cross directly in the front of the drive-lhru. They would have to come across the aisle. That's correct. The ddve- up window is located right here. Cars would be exiling out. So, yes, the closest access would be across the drive aisle, which is shared with the drive -up. Ms. McDermott Okay. Well, not knowing all the different handicap locations on fast food restaurants, it's my opinion that is probably not a real good spot either, but that's just my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Anyone else? January 27, 2009 25101 Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Chair, I did have one additional question if you don't mind. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: I was looking at the site plan and the rendering of the building and notice that there's no door on the north side of the building, yet that's where the bulk of your parking is located, both behind the building and then the shared parking at the liquor store. There's absolutely no entrance from the north side of the building? Mr. Soave: That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: The existing Taco Bell that was there did have an entrance on the north side which served those parking spaces in that area. Have you considered placing an entrance on the north side to allow those eight spots that are behind the building and the seven from the liquor store easier access to the facility? Mr. Soave: Well, there's a sidewalk and also we're looking to the availability in front of the patio as well to provide a walkway. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Do you think that's going to be adequate? Mr. Soave: We still have to go back and work with the engineers and see if we can come up with a more workable solution for it. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anybody else? Thank you, Mr. Soave. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? If we could have your name for the record. Roger Cote, 19018 Filmore. I've been living off of Filmore there since '91 and since Taco Bell left the area, it's been a pretty peaceful neighborhood. Its quite and its pretty nice, you know. Before they Teff the area, there used to be people hanging out in the parking lots real late in the morning. We do believe that if they're able to put in a drive-thru al this location, about the same thing will come back into our neighborhood. I do believe the neighborhood and the City of Livonia would be a better place if this is not put in. I just wish that this would be denied because I think we can put a better business in this location because it's such a small lot for a drive-lhru. The new Taco Bell location where they built off of Eight Mile, it seems like there's a lot of property there for them to put a drive-lhru and stuff, and this is a January 27, 2009 25102 little light. It just doesn't seem right. Thank you very much for listening to me. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou, Mr. Cote. Karen Greenwald, 19007 Filmore. I live directly across from Mr. Cote. I'm just wondering. I mean if we look at the diagram here on Filmore, just to give you an idea of our location to this restaurant, if we move just down the diagram, you'll see that one block. That's the first house. Roger is right next to that and I'm directly across over on the west side. The issue I have with the drne- thm is, personally, I like drive-lhrus. I use them frequently, but the concern I have is the traffic going down Filmore. I just want to reiterate something that happened two years ago. If you remember, Seven Mile and Farmington was under construction so the traffic was horrendous. We had going down the street people driving down Filmore as if they were on Farmington Road going 40, 50, 60 miles an hour. We had unmarked police officers. We had five officers pulling people over, bing, bing, bing, and people were still whipping down that street. The concern we had back with the drive-thru was coming down Filmore and using that as a thoroughfare. That's my concern. Okay? I understand that they can't block off Filmore because the Wine Castle gets it deliveries. And I have to tell you, I'm like every other citizen. If I have to go out to come back, I'm not going to do it. I mean that's human nature. If there's some traffic on Seven Mile, I'm going to go down Filmore. I think that's just pretty common. Even when you go to Bates on the boulevard. I'm sorry. I was there today. It's a one way. I'm going one-way, okay? I mean I may be going the other way, but it's one way. Where's the problem? I guess you kind of get with my humor kind of my idea of I dont mind the fact that ft's a drive-thru. My issue is the thoroughfare coming onto Filmore. People right now, when they're coming out from the Wine Castle, they own the land. They dont look where they're going. They're talking on the phone. They're drinking their coke. You put a drive-thm in there, I don't know if the two will really mix. So you've got some other issues there. But the Wine Castle customers and the other customers using that same thoroughfare. With that, I pass. Mr. Morow: Thank you very much. Ms. Greenwald: Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Chair? Mr. Morrow: Excuse me, just a moment. Did you have a question? January 27, 2009 25103 Ms. Smiley: You can correct me, Mark, if I'm wrong, but if they're going through the drive-lhru, there's no way they can getto Filmore. Ms. Greenwald: Oh, yes, there is. Can I use the .... Ms. Smiley: Just tell me. Ms. Greenwald: You see where you've got the Wine Castle on the corner? Ms. Smiley: Right. Ms. Greenwald: Okay. Directly behind there is a shared driveway. See Wine Castle gets its deliveries off of Filmore. Ms. Smiley: But my thing is, if they're going through the drive-lhru, they can't Ms. Greenwald: Are they going to put an abutment around it so people can't go onto ... there's not enough room to do that. Ms. Smiley: Is there going to be any traffic going the other way? Mr. Taormina: I'm sorry, could you rephrase your question? If you're asking can there be two-way traffic, yes, this allows for two-way traffic the way its currently designed. Ms. Smiley: But if you're in the drive-lhru and after you've picked up your meal, can you turn around and start going the other way? Ms. Greenwald: It's a one-way out, isn't it? Ms. Smiley: If you're going through the drive-thru, there's noway to get out. Mr. Taormina: No, this would be wide enough for two-way traffic technically. Is R possible for a car to then use one of these spaces, back up, and then come back out? It would be feasible. This is not identified strictly as one-way. Maybe the applicant can correct me. Although he shows these directional arrows, I'm not sure that it's intended to be one-way only. Mr. Soave: It is intended to be one way. That's the reason for the horseshoe design. Actually, a drive-thru helps eliminate a business going in there from having Filmore Avenue to create more traffic. The drive-lhru created less traffic because of the one-way in and the one-way out. Once, you pick up your meal, you have no way out to Filmore. Like it was just said, anyone can drive down a one-way street when it clearly says one way, January 27, 2009 25104 but that can happen anywhere. But this is clearly meant and drawn up to be one way in and one-way out. Mr. Taormina: If that's the case, then what I would suggest is that we look at possibly narrowing this drive slightly, maybe increasing the amount of landscaping in this area and going with some angled parking in this area. As long as he doesn't lose any spaces, maybe there's a way to redesign this so that it's clear to anybody using this area that its going to be one-way circulation only. He would have to provide pavement markings, as well as signage, to restrict any movement in the manner that you indicated. We were pondering that question earlier, whether or not this was intended to be two-way. He indicates today it's strictly intended to be one-way. So we should look at that design carefully to make sure that it functions as one way. Ms. Greenwald: Can I just add one last thing to this? I was out of town and I was in an area that basically what they did was, and it was kind of frustrating, but once you understood their concept, you could not get into a restaurant area off the main street, which is very frustrating. The concept was you had to go around. Everything was kind of in circles. It was very frustrating, but they put these little strips of concrete and you certainly didn't want to hit that. They were kind of hard to see at night, which was kind of a problem, but to kind of circumvent that, that might help. Something, kind of an abutment, small and yet tall enough that would kind of divert the traffic out. So again, I don't have a problem with the drive-thru, but the problem is it's a postage stamp lot and we're trying to squeeze so much on there. The problem, or the opportunity, is that you're sharing that with the Wine Castle folk, who they come and go, come and go. I don't know how that would work with them going out, these other people going around, without some sort of an abutment like this. I'm just using this as an example, tall enough, and yet something that they couldn't necessarily go per se, just like you're saying with some of the shrubbery or some of the decoration, whatever. But it's going to be tight. That's kind of the other issue. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll take that under advisement. I believe there is a lady over here. Janet Douglas, 19036 Filmore. I'm renting to own this property. I have no objection to this plan. I would like the retaining wall replaced prior to tearing the old one down if that's possible. Have the new one put up first before construction if that's possible. I have a small dog. That's all. January 27, 2009 25105 Mr. Morrow: Okay. We'll have the petitioner speak to that. Ms. Davis: I think it would be a good improvement. I think that comer kind of looks shabby. The building plans look nice. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Terry Shay, 18358 Filmore. We've had that properly since 1942. 1 worked at just about, when I was a kid, at every business on the Seven Mile Farmington Road from Joe Maiorana's to the hardware. It comes and go. We have times when our corner looks shabby and then sometimes, now its coming up. The bar has been redecorated. We have an empty building there. We have a family that lives in Livonia that wants to reinvest in Livonia, take that empty building and tum it into a business in Livonia. I'm all for it. And if you've ever seen any of the other, I don't know which Soave it is, but the other projects they've done in our Seven Mile/Farmington Road area, have turned out very successful and very nice. I'm kind of proud of what they've done. I welcome it. I hope you approve R. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Shay. Is there anyone else to come forward? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Soave, you have the final word. Mr. Soave: In response to a couple audience members' comments, in tearing down and replacing the screen, sure, we are inclined to put up a new one before tearing down the old one to make accommodations for that homeowner. In response to another audience member's comments, that's why we have the plan designed this way to help make one-way traffic stay one-way traffic. It doesn't matter what kind of impediments and how you draw something and the lane markers, people are still going to defy logic, still going to break the law, and still go against what they're supposed to do. So we try to make it obvious enough that's there is one way in and one way out, and thinking about backing up and turning around, which a turning radius wouldn't even allow that, and you see arrows pointing one way and you see drive-thru traffic coming this way, and you have to pass the bypass lane to gel out, it's meant for one way traffic. One way to get in on Farmington Road and one way to exit off Farmington Road. So I think the addition of the drive-lhru would actually help alleviate the traffic going on Filmore. If this was approved without the drive-thru and without the actual drive-lhru median there, the peninsula, it's a free for all. Of course people are going to use Filmore Avenue to gel in and gel out instead of going to Farmington Road to go west on Seven Mile. I'm going to go out Filmore and use Seven Mile. With this plan with the January 27, 2009 25106 drive-thru, it actually eliminates most of what people, especially audience member's concern about using Filmore as a thoroughfare. This will actually eliminate the thoroughfare problem. With that, thank you for your time. Mr. Morrow: I thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Soave? Hearing none, then I'll ask fora motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Varloogian, and adopted, it was #01-08-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2009, on Petition 2008-12-02-31 submitted by 19055 Farmington Road L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant with drive -up window facilities at 19055 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, which properly is currently zoned C-2 with the exception of a portion of the parcel which is currently zoned R-3 and is proposed to be rezoned to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008- 12-02-31 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job #08031 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., dated December 8, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the Petitioner shall work with staff to revise the plan to better delineate the one-way circulation, possibly with some angled parking, add a customer entrance to the north side of the building, and relocate barrier -free spaces closer to the entrance; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 of Job #08031 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., dated December 8, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to the following stipulations: That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas; That all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; January 27, 2009 25107 3. That the maximum number of customer seals shall not exceed a total of forty-nine (49) seats, including forty (40) interior seats and nine (9) outdoor patio seats; 4. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-1, Option "B", prepared by G.A.V. & Associates, Inc., received by the Planning Commission on December 22, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 - inch brick; 6. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 7. That the walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the walls design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of steel construction or reinforced fiberglass which, when not in use, shall be closed at all times; 8. That all light poles shall be a maximum of 20 feet high including the base and all light fixtures shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadways; 9. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage, marking and configuration, and all parking spaces shall complywith size requirements; 10. That the outdoor patio seating shall be confined to the area designated for that purpose on Sheet A-1, Floor Plan, prepared by G.A.V. & Associates, Inc., received by the Planning Commission on December 22, 2008; 11. That the installation of brick piers with wrought iron fencing around the outdoor patio area shall be completed in accordance with the above -referenced Floor Plan; 12. That the outdoor dining shall be conducted in a manner that will insure that sufficient clear space for pedestrian circulation and egress is maintained on the sidewalk at all times; January 27, 2009 25108 13. That a trash receptacle shall be provided for the outdoor patio area and shall be emptied regularly as needed; 14. That at least two (2) parking spaces beyond the drive -up window shall be designated for use by drive -up window patrons unless this requirement is waived by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two- thirds oflhe members of the City Council concur; 15. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 16. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows: 17. That the hours of operation of the drive -up window shall be limited to the time period between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight; 18. That the petitioner shall present evidence of a cross parking agreement that provides for sufficient parking on adjacent property; 19. That this approval shall be subject to the 15 foot minimum radius requirement for the drive -up window service lane being 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; and 20. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. 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 January 27, 2009 25109 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. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: There was some discussion about the traffic pattern and changing the way they park and changing the landscaping. Do we have any thoughts on that or any problem with that? Mr. Taormina: I would like to lake a look at that. Ms. Smiley: Okay. I would like something in there. And then there was some discussion on hours of operation. Is midnight still what you'd like or were they going to entertain earlier hours, especially for thedrwe-lhru? Mr. Morrow: I think she probably wants to slick to the motion. Ms. Scheel: I'm okay with midnight. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Then we'll look at the landscaping and the traffic flow. Ms. Scheel: Yes, I definitely ... Ms. Smiley: Change the parking, or how do you want to word that, Mark? Ms. Scheel: Subject to the discussion that we had earlier, making sure that its the one-way traffic flow and what we need to do in order to make sure that happens. Ms. Smiley: Parallel park and change the landscaping? Ms. Scheel: If that needs to be done in order to keep it the one-way traffic flow. Mr. Morrow: So I guess what we're saying is to make the landscaping a little more depth to it and change the parking to angle parking. Is that what you were saying? Mr. Taormina: Yes. The suggestion was taking a look primarily at this area in the southeast corner of the property to see whether or not we could provide 60 degree angle parking. That might also allow for these spaces to be moved up a little bit and we could get a little bit wider landscape strip along the south side of the January 27, 2009 25110 property. Now, that can come back to you as a landscape plan item if you want to consider the alternative for Condition 2. You had expressed some reservation initially about the landscape plan. I know it had to deal with the issue of the irrigation, or that was part of it, but also the material. One option is to adopt the alternate version of Condition 2 and have that come back to show the angle parking as well. Mr. Morrow: Which would incorporate the reconfiguration of the parking or would that require a reconfiguration of the parking or just adding to the size? Mr. Taormina: It's going to be landscaping and parking both, hopefully, unless we can't make the parking work the way I suggested. Mr. Morrow: To preserve the parking spaces. Mr. Taormina: Correct. The key is whether or not we can make that work and still maintain the same number of parking spaces. I like Ms. McDermott's suggestion, too. I'd like to take a look at an entrance coming into the north side of the building avoiding the handicap persons from coming across this aisle way. Possibly look at this area right here with the ramp. If we can accommodate a ramp here and put the barrier free spaces along the north side, that maybe the easiest access for banner free would be on the north side of the building if the sidewalk can be made wide enough. So there's some slight changes to the plan that I think might be beneficial. Overall, the question is how much do you want to allow staff to work with the petitioner to do this maybe prior to the Council's review or do you want this to come back for follow-up review? Mr. Morrow: I guess what I'd like to do is get some feedback from the petitioner before we decide which way to go. Mr. Soave: I'd be more than obliged to work with the staff and work out different variations of the site plan prior to an appearance before City Council. I think that would be the most advantageous and beneficial for all parties. Mr. Morrow: The two things we're talking about is trying to accommodate a better entrance for the handicapped. Mr. Soave: I agree. That would be a welcome addition to the site plan, and just changing the main entrance from the south end to the north end. I don't see why not without being an architect. Just transfer the main entrance from the south end to the north end. January 27, 2009 25111 Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure it would have to be transferred. It might just be a secondary entrance that would work for this site. Mr. Morrow: I think the secondary entrance would be the best option, or at lead another entrance in close proximity. I guess we have it. Ms. Smiley: What does our proposer say? Do you agree with that? Ms. Scheel: Yes, I'm perfectly fine with that. We would keep the resolution as is, then, right? We wouldn't change it? Ms. Smiley: Use the alternate version? Ms. Scheel: Would we go to the alternate version then to come back before the Planning Commission, or would you just work with the petitioner, Mark? Mr. Taormina: We would work with the petitioner. If you're comfortable with the landscape plan, then yes, we would just keep the motion as is. I would like to make a couple of minor suggestions, though, in addition. Is now a good lime? Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Condition 7, relative to the enclosure gates, if we could add steel construction or reinforced fiberglass. There are suitable other materials that we use now other than the wood. So if we could consider that. And then Condition 18 relative to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I would like to eliminate the first half of that sentence that would give them the option of going to the ZBA for deficient number of parking spaces and instead just have him present the cross access agreement to the City. I'm not sure that we would want to make this deficient by as many as seven parking spaces in the event that the reciprocal agreement either doesn't exist or expires any time soon. Ms. Scheel: Okay. I'm acceptable to those. Mr. Morrow: Okay. And Ms. Varloogian? Ms. Vartoogian: Yes, I am. Mr. Morrow: Its time to call for a vote. Ms. McDermott I just had one other question. I want to make sure that I understand this correctly because the handicap places are very important to me. So the staff is going to work with the petitioner January 27, 2009 25112 ITEM #3 PETITION 200841-06-04 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 11-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #477-08, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 10.03 of Arfide X and Section 11.03 of Article XI of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to require a 500 fool separation between check cashing stores and SDD and/or SDM licensed stores. to change the way the site plan looks before it goes to Council. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Yes. That would be my intent to have a modified plan that would go before Council that would either add another space at the south end on preferably change this such that we have either one or two spaces located here with a banner free ramp and access m the north side of the building ifthat's possible. Mr. Morrow: Ma'am, the public hearing is closed. Ms. Greenwald: Oh, okay. I wasn't sure of the protocol. I'm sorry. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Ms. McDermott: Okay. I still have a reservation about the hours and just about the drive-lhru, but that at least fixes the handicap issue. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: We can call for the vole. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Varloogian, Smiley, Morrow NAYES: McDermott, Wilshaw ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 200841-06-04 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 11-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #477-08, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 10.03 of Arfide X and Section 11.03 of Article XI of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to require a 500 fool separation between check cashing stores and SDD and/or SDM licensed stores. January 27, 2009 25113 Mr. Taormina: Council Resoluton #477-08 refers to and requests that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Sections 10.03 and 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to establish a separation requirement between stores that specialize in deferred presentment transactions, or more commonly referred to as "check cashing', "payday loans" or ..cash advance' stores, and stores that sell packaged beer, wine and other liquor products, also known as SDD and SDM licensed establishments. The proposed language, as prepared by the Law Department, would require a 500 foot separation between "check cashing' stores and SDD and/or SDM licensed stores. "Check cashing stores" are defined as licensees pursuant to the Deferred Presentment Service Transactions Act, which governs "payday lenders," and it excludes from its coverage banks and other traditional financial institutions. SDD and SDM licensed establishments are classified as waiver uses in both G7 and C-2 districts, subject to the special waiver use requirements contained in Sections 10.03 and 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language would echo similar separation requirements pertaining to other liquor licensees, as well as churches and schools. This language would amend the special waiver use requirements pertaining to SDD and SDM licensed establishments as set forth in Sections 10.03(8) and 11.03(r) by adding an additional requirement to both sections, as follows: Such proposed SDD or SDM licensed establishment shall be located at least five hundred (500) feet distant from any business licensed pursuant to the Defamed Presentment Service Transactions Act, MCL 487.2121, etseq., as measured from the nearest point on the building proposed to be licensed to the building in which the existing establishment is located. The principle effect of the amendment would be to prohibit SDD and SDM licensed businesses from opening within 500 feel of a payday lender; however, it would not prevent a payday lender, which is considered a permitted use in the C-1 and C-2 districts, from being established within 500 feet of an existing SDD/SDM establishment, and by doing so would render that operation nonconforming. It is for this reason I believe that the Commission is desirous of tabling this item to get additional information from the Law Department before acting on this request. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: That's correct. Mr. Nowak, do you have any correspondence pertaining to this? Mr. Nowak: No, there is no correspondence in connection with this petition ITEM#4 PETITION 2009 -01 -SN -01 LIVONIA MARKETPLACE WALL SIGNS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2009- 01Sh401 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting wall signage approval for the Regional Center (Livonia Marketplace), on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast % of Section 2. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was January 27, 2009 25114 Mr. Morrow: Okay, because this is the Planning Commission's petition. If there is no further discussion or questions, I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Wilshaw? Mr. Wilshaw: Al our study meeting, we discussed this item and had some question what the relationship was between SDM and SDD licenses and check cashing facilities, at least what the intent of that relationship is, and also if a waiver use would be more appropriate for check cashing facilities if the intent is to restrict the number of these facilities in the City of Livonia. Therefore, we are going to seek some additional time for the Law Department to get back to us on the information, and therefore I will ask that this item be tabled to allow for that time for the Law Department to get back with us on that information. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-09-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2009, on Petition 2008-11-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #477-08, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to amend Section 10.03 of Article X and Section 11.03 of Article XI of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to require a 500 foot separation between check cashing stores and SDD and/or SDM licensed stores, the Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 2008-11-06-04. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. That concludes the public hearing part of our agenda. We now move on to pending items. ITEM#4 PETITION 2009 -01 -SN -01 LIVONIA MARKETPLACE WALL SIGNS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2009- 01Sh401 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting wall signage approval for the Regional Center (Livonia Marketplace), on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast % of Section 2. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was January 27, 2009 25115 #01-10-2009 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does recommend that Petition 2009-01SN-01 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting wall signage approval for the Regional Center (Livonia Marketplace), on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 2, be removed from the table. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: Al our last Regular Meeting, the Commission reviewed a proposal by the petitioner, the developers of the upcoming Livonia Marketplace project. This proposal for wall signage is primarily for the retail buildings that will be located on the southerly half of the site. These are identified as Buildings "A", "B", "C" and "D" on the site plan. Previously, we took up a petition that would have allowed for, in general, about 2 square feel for every lineal fool of frontage. It would also allow for a similar type of signage ratio along the rear of the stores and a reduced ratio along the end caps or the sides of the buildings, especially those facing Seven Mile. The discussion ensued along the lines that while the Commission wasn't adverse to the concept of allowing some additional signage, it was the amount of signage that was requested that was problematic, and for that reason, you have before you a revised proposal that would scale back the amount of wall signage on these buildings. I'll just give you the thumbnail sketch and then allow Mr. Drane, the project architect, to go into greater detail if need be. But essentially, on the front the buildings, and this would be the east elevation on Building 'C" and the east elevation along Building "A", the west elevation on Building "B" and the west elevation on Building "D". The permitted ratio would be 1.5 square feel of wall signage for every 1 fool of building frontage. Then along the rear of three of the buildings, that would be the west elevation of Building "A", the east elevation of Building "B" and the east elevation of Building "D", that ratio would be 1 square fool of wall signage for every 1 fool of building frontage that the tenant occupies along the exterior portion of the building. The exception would be Building "C" which would not be permitted any signage. This west elevation of this building would oriented basically to the church field and to the condominiums to the back. So there really is not any visible exposure to either the roadways or to any of these larger parking areas, which is what lheyd like to capture those views from. This would be excluded from that calculation of rear wall signage. Then along the end caps, which are predominately along the south elevations of all January 27, 2009 25116 four of the buildings, but I think would also apply to the north elevations, the ratio would be 3/4 of a foot to every 1 fool of frontage. This is the schedule that was provided on the revised plans that you have before you. This represents examples of what the signage would look like at those ratios if constructed to the maximum amount. We have revised the resolution that we hope captures all of these changes to the proposed signage ratios. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nowak, is there any further correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is no correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions forthe staff? Mr. Drane. Mark Dmne, Rogvoy Architects, 32500 Telegraph Road, Suite 250, Bingham Farms, Michigan. Good evening. I wanted to add something to what Mark had to say. The building in the back, we've also eliminated the signs on the backs and sides of that building as well. Mr. Morrow: Which building is that? Mr. Drape: That's the building next to Retail "A". Mr. Morrow: The larger pad? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. Morrow: You've eliminated signs? Mr. Drane: We eliminated the signs on the back and then the east and west sides. Mr. Morrow: The north side? Mr. Drane: The north side and east and west sides. So there will only be signs on the south side. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else you want to add? Mr. Drane: No. Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions of the architect? Ms. Smiley: You also eliminated signs on the back of . . . what's that building? January 27, 2009 25117 Mr. Drape: Retail "C". Ms. Smiley: We eliminated them on the back ofthal also. Mr. Drape: Yes. They were never proposed there. Well, they may have been mistakenly, but we've always been in agreement that there will be no signage on the west side of that building. Ms. Smiley: Just as a matter of record, the signs on the back are smaller and the parking in the back is also very limited. Mr. Drape: Correct. Ms. Smiley: So that the back of the store or number of stores in that section would be ... they'd be more inclined not to go to the back of the stores. Correct? Mr. Drape: Correct. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Mark, if I may ask, the 3/4:1, where are those facing? Could you poinllhose out? Mr. Taormina: Those would apply to the shorter ends of these four buildings. I believe at both the north and the south ends. Of course, the ones on the north end really aren't going to be visible from the road. These two would be visible mostly from the parking lots in front of Retail "A" and Retail "B". Mr. Morrow: Okay. How about the ends closest to Seven Mile? What would those be? Mr. Taormina: I guess it's conceivable that two tenants could occupy a space along the south wall. It's more than likely you're only going to have a single tenant that would have an end cap. The front of the store in this case, let's lake Outtol "A" for example, a corner tenant would face to the east so they'd be allowed the 1.5:1 facing east on this elevation. Along the south elevation, they would be permitted to have 3/4 square foot of wall sign for every 1 fool of frontage, and that's facing south along Seven Mile Road. Technically, they would be permitted a third wall sign, in this case, facing west at a ratio of 1:1. Mr. Morrow: So I guess a lot of this depends on how these buildings configure out. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. January 27, 2009 25118 Mr. Morrow: Its kind of hard to lie down until we are looking at a plan in general. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Are there any other questions? Mr. Wilshaw: Al our study meeting we talked about the possibility of adding a restriction to this approving plan that would limit you to a maximum single size sign in the event that you happen to have one tenant take an entire out lot building. We were thinking on the order of 150 square feel or something in that neighborhood. Is that amenable to the petitioner? Mr. Drape: For the out buildings it is. That was part of that chart that we had that was so confusing. But 150 was the limit on a 20,000 square foot tenant. However, for Retail Building "A", I would like to still use the same ration of 1.5:1 on the back building because its so far back. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any otherquestions? Ms. Smiley: Just one comment, sir. I'm real appreciative of the visual aids. Mr. Drane: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: All set, Mrs. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: Yes, I am. Mr. Drane: Mark, did you gel that photograph of the individual letter signs so everybody is onboard with what an individual letter sign looks like? Mr. Taormina: Is this it? Mr. Drane: That's an individual letter sign. We incorporate several colors, a logo, different lines of type, but the rectangular area, you can see that X by Y, there's still a lot of negative area in there and they don't appear to be blocks as previously presented. Mr. Morrow: So this sign would be typical of those facing the interior of the campus? Mr. Drane: True. January 27, 2009 25119 Mr. Morrow: Seeing no other questions, we'll ask for a motion. On a motion by W Is haw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-11-2009 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does recommend that Pefilion 2009-01SN-01 submitted by Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C. requesting wall signage approval for the Regional Center (Livonia Marketplace), on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. For buildings identified as Retail "C" & "O' and Outlol "A" & "B", as shown on the plan marked Sheet AR -2 dated January 16, 2009, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, the following area limitations shall apply to all tenant wall signage: (a) Along each of the Front elevations, sign area permitted shall not exceed one and half (1%) square feel of sign area for each one (1) lineal fool of building frontage that the tenant occupies; (b) Along each of the Rear elevations, sign area permitted shall not exceed one (1) square fool of sign area for each one (1) lineal foot of building length that the tenant occupies; (c) Along each of the North (side) elevations, sign area permitted shall not exceed three quarters (3/4) of a square foot of sign area for each one (1) lineal fool of building length that the tenant occupies along the exterior portion of the north side of the building; (d) Along each of the South (side) elevations, sign area permitted shall not exceed three quarters (3/4) of a square fool of sign area for each one (1) lineal fool of building length that the tenant occupies along the exterior portion of the south side of the building; (e) That the width outer limits of a tenant sign shall not exceed 80% of the total storefront width that the tenant occupies; (f) That each tenant is allowed orly one (1) wall sign per elevation that the tenant occupies along the exterior portion oflhe building; January 27, 2009 25120 (g) No wall signage shall be permitted on the West elevation of Retail "C` and (h) That no single sign shall exceed 150 square feet in size; 2. For the building identified as Retail "A", as shown on plan marked Sheet AI -2 dated January 16, 2009, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, the following area limitation shall apply to all wall signage: (a) Along the South (storefront) elevation, sign area permitted shall not exceed one and half (1%) square feet of sign area for each one (1) lineal fool of building frontage that the tenant(s) occupies along the exterior portion of the south side of the building; and (b) No wall signage shall be permitted on the North, Fast or West elevations of Retail "A" 3. Wall signage for the building identified as Oullol "C', as shown on plan marked Sheet AR -2 dated January 16, 2009, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, is not approved at this time and shall be addressed when building plans are reviewed; 4. No LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 5. 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 8. The specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? I would like to make a remark. I would like to compliment the Commission, the staff and the petitioner for taking a complicated sign package and reaching a consensus and agreement on how to do these signs. So, a job well done. Mr. Drane: Thank you. And I had a question about the motion. I missed the part that wasn t approved. January 27, 2009 25121 Mr. Wilshaw: That's Outlol "C". Mr. Drane: Okay. Understood. Thank you. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9741h REGULAR MEETING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 970 Regular Meeting held on January 13, 2009. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-12-2009 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 974" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission January 13, 2009, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Scheel, McDermott, Varloogian, Smiley, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 396th SPECIAL MEETING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 396"' Special Meeting held on January 20, 2009. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McDermott, and adopted, it was #01-13-2009 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 396"' Special Meeting held by the Planning Commission January 20, 2009, are hereby approved. January 27, 2009 25122 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McDermott, Varloogian, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Scheel Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 97EP Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 27, 2009, was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman