Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2011-12-13MINUTES OF THE 1,018TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,018`h 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: Scott P. Bahr R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Ashley V. Krueger Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a pefifion is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final delenninafion 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 2011-10-06-02 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2011-10- 06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #321-11, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsection (b) of Section 18.50D (Permitted Signs) of Article XVIII so as to permit and regulate the painting of residential addresses on street curbs in the City of Livonia right- of-way. Mr. Taylor: It makes sense. Thank you December 13, 2011 25924 Mr. Taormina: The City Council has referred this item to the Planning Commission and requested that a public hearing be held regarding a proposed amendment to Subsection (b) of Article XVIII Section 18.50D (Permitted Signs) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit and regulate the painting of addresses on street curbs within the public rights-of-way. This language amendment would place restrictions on what homeowners are allowed to paint on street curbs in front of their properties, as well as provide consistency in the size, color, location and design of curb -painted address markers. This would assist emergency vehicles in locating residential homes. This matter has come to us through the Law Department who has drafted the language amendment. The language is provided within your staff packets. Its a one paragraph addition to Subsection (b) that reads: "In an effort to assist emergency response vehicles in identifying and locating a home, in R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and RUF zoning districts the owner of a single-family home may paint the address of the home on the portion of the curb in the City of Livonia right-of-way adjacent to the front of the home. The address shall only appear in Arabic or Western numerals painted in black on a bright white background. The address shall not exceed two (2) square feet." That is the extent of the proposed language amendment. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence on this? Mr. Taormina: There is no correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark, have we had any problems at all with curbs in front of homes? I know a college person comes along once in a while and wants to paint them and charge you for it. Mr. Taormina: I think the question developed when there was maybe an attempt to paint something other than the address markers on the curbs. So that became a concern. Mr. Taylor: Have we had that problem? Mr. Taormina: It has occurred. It's been somewhat limited, but I think to try to head that off, since there was a company apparently who was making its way around town asking if people wanted certain things painted on their curbs, which may provide some confusion. Mr. Taylor: It makes sense. Thank you December 13, 2011 25925 Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? Because this is a petition by the Planning Commission, I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing on this item and ask for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-72-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 2011, on Petition 2011-10-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #321-11, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsection (b) of Section 18.50D (Permitted Signs) of Article XXVIII so as to permit and regulate the painting of residential addresses on street curbs in the City of Livonia right-of-way, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-10-06- 02 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment would assist emergency vehicles in locating residential homes; 2. That the proposed language amendment would place restrictions on what homeowners are allowed to paint on street curbs in front of their properties, as well as provide consistency in the size, color, location and design of curb - painted address markers; 3. That the proposed language amendment will clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. That the proposed language amendment is in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. December 13, 2011 25926 ITEM #2 PETITION 2011-11-08-13 BANK OF AMERICA Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 11-08-13 submitted by Jones Lang LaSalle/Bank of Amenca requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a bank (Bank of America) on Buildable Area "G" within the Livonia Marketplace shopping center, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Pudingbrook Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct a new Bank of Amenca branch facility at the Livonia Marketplace development. This is the former Livonia Mall. It's located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Purlingbrook Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, General Business. As far as background, as part of the waiver use approval for the Livonia Marketplace in 2008, the conceptual layout of a bank was shown on what was referred to at that time as Oullot "C". This is an area within the development that is now labeled as Buildable Area "G". That approval was subject to detailed floor and elevation plans coming back for review at a later date when a tenant was finalized. Bank of America is now the owner or in the process of acquiring or working with a development company to acquire this parcel, which basically sits at the southeast corner of the Livonia Marketplace development. It is immediately adjacent to the shopping center's main access and signalized service drive. The original plan showed a building that was about 2,800 square feet in area. This is actually a portion of the approved plan that shows what was approved in 2008. As you can see, the bank pad at that time was a little over 2,800 square feet. It had two points of ingress and egress: one from the north to a service drive and then in the southeast portion connecting to the Sears parking lot. On the overhead, you can see this building in relationship to the service drive to the west, or on the left hand side of this drawing. On the opposite side of the drive, you'll see what is labeled as Oullol "B", which basically exists today in the same or very similar location. In terms of the setback, the ordinance requires a minimum setback of 60 feel in the C-2 distnct. This plan shows the bank building set back about 100 feet from the Seven Mile Road right-of-way. The current proposal shows the building set back about 64 feel from the right-of-way of Seven Mile Road, but this again is set back further than the adjacent building to the west. In fact, both buildings, "F" and "E" on the original plan, are setback 50 feel from the right-of-way. The proposed Bank December 13, 2011 25927 of Amenca building would beset back about 14 feel further from the right-of-way. Also from this onginal plan you can see that it showed half the parking between the building and Seven Mile Road and the other half between the building and the access road to the west. Now, all of the parking is shown between the building and the driveway. In terms of what's required, the ordinance specifies that there be at least one space for every 150 square feet of usable floor area within the facility. This would require a total of 24 parking spaces. The plan provides 33 parking spaces. It is showing a surplus of 9 parking spaces. All the spaces would be 10 feet by 20 feet, with the exception of the barrier free spaces which would comply with those requirements. As I indicated, there was originally shown two points of ingress and egress from the site. One of those connections, the one to the east to the Sears parking lot, has been eliminated. This would provide only one point of access to the service drive to the north. Dnve-thru facilities are shown behind the north side of the building. That is consistent with what was shown on the original approved site plan. The building itself would face west or the front of the building would be along the west elevation facing the main access road and the signalized drive approach from Seven Mile Road. I want to show you what the building's architecture looks like. It is consistent apparently with the Bank of America's branch prototypes today. The exterior matenals consist primarily of a gray or brownish brick on all four sides of the building. That would include the drive -up canopy and support columns, which you can see on the left hand side of the elevation view on the top part of this drawing. That's actually looking at the building, the west elevation of the building. This is a photograph of building that is either identical or very similar to the one proposed here. It's highlighted with a band of bright red aluminum composite metal panel that wraps around portions of all four sides of the building. This aluminum panel is kind of along the fascia of the canopy. It's about one and half feet in height. In terms of the building height, it about 21 feet across the front or south elevation and steps down to about 17 feet along the sides, which are the east and west portions of the building. We'll lel the architect describe that further. Some of the glass was added to the east side of the building in response to the Commission's concerns raised at the study session. The drawing on the top shows the east side of the building. So if you're dnving from Middlebelt Road west approaching the Livonia Marketplace development, after you pass the Sears parking lot, this is the side of the building you would see first. That actually is the rear or back of the building for all intents and purposes. These three windows, which I think are about 2.5 feet by six feet, were added on the plan from comments at the December 13, 2011 25928 study session. I believe everything else is the same. I do believe that this denotes a similar red band. There will be some color added to the backside of the building. There is no signage at this point provided on that side of the building. That's something that would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The landscape plan was another issue that was discussed at the study session. A detailed plan has been provided. It shows the location, size and species of all plant materials. I'll just focus on a couple areas. The first is the foundation because there was some concern about the blandness of the building with the original rendering, which really didn't do justice because it didn't show what the landscaping would entail in those areas. This is the detailed plan. There will be foundation plantings on three sides of the building. These are various shrubs, Junipers and Red Knockout Roses, which are somewhat low growing, one to three feel. On the opposite side of the access drive that wraps around the building providing access to the drive-thru facilities, there will be trees added along the south side of the building. There would be four Zelkova trees on the east side. There would be the same number of Autumn Blaze Maples that would be added between the driveway and detention basin. So there is a little area here at the lop of the slope where they will add these medium or large size deciduous trees that will help provide some visual interest on that side of the building. Lastly, with respect to the wall signs, this shows the main sign along the west elevation. That measures about 74 square feet in area and this would show what the smaller sign would look like. It's about 27 square feet on the south elevation. It's a secondary sign, but that's the sign that would be facing Seven Mile Road. The approval back in February, 2009, with respect to signage for the development excluded Outol "C" and indicated that would be addressed at the time building plans were reviewed. As you will recall from the signage that we did approve for most of the retail buildings at Livonia Marketplace, many of the corner stores were allotted up to three signs each, one on the front, one on the side if they were on the comer on the building, and at the rear at various sizes. This proposal has two signs that would be well within the allowable limits of what was permitted for the other retail buildings at Livonia Marketplace. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated December 2, 2011, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The written legal description provided is comect. The address for December 13, 2011 25929 this site is confirmed to be 29502 Seven Mile Road. The petitioner is hereby notified (via copy of this correspondence) that three sets of plans for this project must be submitted to the Engineering Division. It is noted that the dumpster enclosure, as shown, will encroach into the storm water detention area. This appears to be minor, but calculations of the volume reduction must be submitted along with the plans to the Engineering Division of Public Works." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 30, 2011, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a bank on Buildable Area 'G' within the Livonia Marketplace shopping center on the property located at the above referenced address located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Pudingbrook Avenue in the Southeast X of Section 2. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 30, 2011, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 9, 2011, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The proposed drive-thru lanes appear to have a width of only 8.5 feet where a minimum width of 12 feet is required. This would need to be waived by a super majority of Council. (2) There appear to be some code issues with the proposed drawings which will be addressed at the time of plan review if this project moves forward. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair, Mark can you put up the site plan again? Is there only one exit and entrance? There is nothing going out to the north? Mr. Taormina: Yes, just to the north. Mr. Taylor: You can gel out through the north? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Thats correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you December 13, 2011 25930 Mr. Taylor: And you come in through the, supposedly, going south on the drive? Mr. Taormina: If you're coming down Seven Mile Road, you pull up this driveway, turn right, and then enter the bank's parking lot from the north via the service drive. The same service drive connects with the Sears parking lot. Alternatively, there is another entrance drive coming in. You could enter this site from the north if you were coming in from either the Walmarl or the Sears property, or from the west along that service drive which extends across the property. But there is only one entrance coming into the bank parking lot and that's from the north. Mr. Taylor: Where is the dumpstel? Mr. Taormina: The dumpsler is in the northeast corner of the improved portion of the site. It was originally located in the southeast corner away from the detention area, but we requested that it be moved. So it's been relocated in the northeast corner where it extends a little bit beyond the existing curb line. I think that was what was noted by the Engineering Division. Apparently this now encroaches just slightly into the detention basin. You can see where the slope is identified here. They might have to do some kind of retaining system here or build this slope up. I don't think its going to have much of an impact on storm water detention. It will have a minor impact and Engineerng just needs to review how the slope is going to be stabilized, I'm sure. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: Through the Chair, Mr. Taormina, they say there appears to be some code issues with the proposed drawings which will be addressed at the time of plan review. Do you know what they are? Mr. Taormina: Those are all internal to the building. They deal mostly with hallway widths and openings and those sorts of things. It's all internal to the building. Ms. Smiley: So if things get approved they wouldn't end up being ... Mr. Taormina: No. It may necessitate changes but they usually can address those with the architect, minor changes that don't affect the exterior of the building. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you December 13, 2011 25931 Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? You can add to what you've heard so far. We'll need your name and address for the record. Michael R. Pifer, Kraft Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 409 W. Seventh Street, Flint, Michigan 48503. We are the civil engineering consultant for Jones Lang LaSalle and the Bank of America. Also, with me here tonight is the architect for the project from Nelson, Jason Wagner, and I'll lel him give you his address. Jason Wagner, 100 North Broadway, Sl. Louis, Missouri 63102. Mr. Morrow: Would you like to add any comments? Mr. Pifer: First of all, I think your Planning Director did a very thorough job in explaining the project, so he didn't leave me very much to do. As he said, the only thing that I would say is that originally there was a site plan done back I think in 2008, but there was also another rendering that was done later by Atwell Hicks in 2010. That plan is very similar to ours, and it doesn't show the other driveway going to the southeast. And again, the reason we don't have the other driveway to the southeast is that's a drive- lhru lane to the bank drive-lhru so we couldn't put another driveway connecting with a drive-thru lane to the drive-thru windows there. Other than that, I think most of the concems in the preliminary meeting were with the building. If there are any questions on the site, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Jason, do you have anything to add as far as the building itself? We'll lel him speak on the building. If there are any questions on the site, I'd be happy to answer them. Mr. Morrow: Okay. We'll gel back to you. Mr. Wagner: I just wanted to hand these out. These are some finish samples. I don't have the stucco. It arrived at 1:00 today and I was halfway to Michigan at that point. I want to just bring in the loose samples that you could take a look at. I hope that's okay. Mr. Morrow: We'll be happy to have them. Mr. Wagner: He had mentioned the spandrel glass. There is one window on the back that would be spandrel. The other two would be translucent to an open office area that is kind of like their workroom in the back of the building. It is, indeed, a red band. He had mentioned in the back so it would be a similar wrap around effect on the back side of the building. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of either of the representatives here tonight? December 13, 2011 25932 Ms. Smiley: This is your prototype? Mr. Wagner: This is a masonry prototype. This is what they prefer to see when it's a masonry building. Their standard prototype is actually just all stucco and there's reveals that go around the bottom of the windows and near the lop. Those reveals in their standard prototype are aluminum. This is definitely an upgrade from what they prefer to see ultimately, but when the municipalities and developments require masonry, this is the building that they would like to go with. Mr. Smiley: Okay. I want to thank you for the embellishments. You do have a very nice location. You're dghl on Seven Mile and it will give a real introduction into the Marketplace. So that's why we were glad to see the windows added and definitely the landscaping. Its a big improvement. Thank you. Mr. Wagner: I would like to add with the landscaping. There was a requirement in the development that it be irrigated. We're trying to go for the LEED credits here. One of those credits is reduction of water consumption. I believe the landscaping was chosen to be draught tolerant, but if there is prolonged drought and there is potential, there is a min gauge that the bank does keep. If it sees that the gauge, you know, just based on monitoring, that watering is required, they would hire a service to come in and make sure that the landscape is maintained. Mr. Smiley: I don't think you'll have that problem this year in Michigan. Thankyou. Mr. Wlshaw: Just a couple questions. The issue of the drive-thru that was brought up with the Inspection Department, has that been addressed or are you still going to have 8.5 fool wide lanes? Mr. Wagner: The actual lanes themselves, we had planned on keeping 8.5 feet basically because of the circulation requirements around the building for the fire trucks. The lanes in the back are more than adequate to service. As far as the standard, 8.5 is what the bank prefers to use and it's worked pretty well across the country. I guess we were wondering why it would be 12 feel. I don't know. Are there a lot of large trucks in Michigan? Mr. Wilshaw: There certainly can be in the wintertime, that's for sure. Mr. Pifer: To make that clear, the drive -up lhru lane itself, to gel to the drive-lhm window on the south and the east side of the building, ifs like 20 fool wide, so it exceeds the minimum of 12. The area December 13, 2011 25933 where they're 8.5 fool is just immediately north of the building as you drive lhru the window aisle area itself. They like to keep them kind of constrained in those areas so they slay where they're supposed to be. Sometimes you get them loo wide, they gel loo far over and they can't reach out and deposit the things they have to get to the teller into the vac system or the window. That's typical right adjacent to the drive-thru area to keep them light, to keep them on track. Mr. Wagner: I think if we were to widen that, it would push everything to the north and even affect the basin more. Mr. W Ishaw: Right. I think the only thought process is that if you have a fairly narrow lane and someone is rounding that corner and trying to gel into that drive-thm lane, they may plow down your mechanism that's in the island right next to it if they are not lined up just perfectly. That's ultimately going to be the bank's concern if something happens to the drive-thm equipment. The red panel that goes around the bulk of the building, which is a nice element to sort of break up the beige of the building, is that going to be illuminated at night or is thatjust red panel? Mr. Wagner: No. It's just a red metal panel. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The trees that you added right along Seven Mile Road, the Maple trees, what is the height of those going to be? Are they going to obstruct the view of the building, or are they going to be kept ornamental, or are they going to be large enough that you can see underneath them? Mr. Pifer. I believe the trees along Seven Mile Road are Zelkova trees. Currently, I think there are some existing Maple trees but they're all debarked. Somehow they all pretty well got destroyed. If they're not dead, they're on their way to dying. So we had to actually replace those with, again, I think they're Zelkova trees. They will be trimmed up initially eight to nine fool high off the ground so you can actually see underneath them. They will always be kept at least that high as a minimum. They very well may be even trimmed up higher, but the idea is to be able to see underneath the tree itself to be able to see the building. Also to keep them high enough so there are no concerns about security or anything like that. The bank gels nervous if there is anything anybody can hide behind. So we try to stay away from that. The trees will be trimmed up so you can see under them. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Good. That's exactly what I was wondering about myself because I didn't want you to have to come back in a couple years and say, gee, people can't see our building. We need December 13, 2011 25934 more signage or something like that. I have to agree with Commissioner Smiley. I think the additions of the landscaping, especially around the building itself, will probably enhance the appearance greatly from what we see from the small rendering picture that we have, which is void of any landscaping. Mr. Taylor: I have the same concern with the drive-thru because cars now have the very large side view mirrors. Mine must be at lead 7.5 feet. I've got a Lincoln, but these big SUV's are even worse because of the mirrors that stick out. It's just kind of a concern to me why you want to make them narrower. I mean, obviously a person who pulls into the drive knows they have to be close enough to where they can reach the door. So it bothers me a little bit that they're narrow like that because I've done it myself, come a little too close and you hit the mirror because of the width of the mirrors. They're really quite wide. This building, itself, is there another building like this around someplace? Mr. Wagner: Not nearby. No. I think the closest you'll find one is probably Chicago. Mr. Taylor: Il seems very austere to me. It's just very plain looking, the way banks used to be is very plain looking to me. It sits right on Seven Mile too and there's some good looking buildings back in there. It bothers me a little. I'd like to see one some place. I know I've seen the Bank of America buildings around but I don't think they look like this. That's my only real comment about what you've done here. Thankyou. Mr. Taormina: You mentioned that you did not gel a stucco sample in time. Does any portion of this building contain stucco? Mr. Wagner The backs of the parapets do have stucco on them, just areas that it didn't make sense to do brick where it would be carried over structure into the building, and then there is one area on the backside. If you go to one of the elevations, see where the signage is above the canopy? It's a bottom band about a foot and a half wide above the drive-thm lanes. The dark band - that s the stucco. Mr. Taormina: Up here? Mr. Wagner: On the back of the parapet. Mr. Taormina: On the back of the parapet. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wagner: Basically the colors of the stucco match closely the brick color. December 13, 2011 25935 Mr. Taylor: Do you own the site or are you leasing the site? Mr. Pifer: It is being leased. Livonia Phoenix, L.L.C., I believe, is who owns it. We asked them to be here but they had other engagements. They're I think two hours away from the actual site so they couldn't make it. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Anything else of the petitioner? Seeing none, I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #12-73-2011 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-11-08-13 submitted by Jones Lang LaSalle/Bank of America requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a bank (Bank of America) on Buildable Area "G" within the Livonia Marketplace shopping center, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. G7 dated November 18, 2011 prepared by Kraft Engineenng & Surveying, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet No. L-1 dated December 7, 2011, as revised, prepared by Kraft Engineering & Surveying, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A09.11A dated November 22, 2011, as revised, prepared by Nelson, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the revised Exterior Building Elevation Plan, showing three (3) windows along the east (rear) elevation, marked A09.11B dated November 22, 2011, as revised, prepared by Nelson, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all three drive -up lanes and the bypass lane for drive- lhm traffic shall each be at least twelve feet (12') in width for a combined total of at lead forty-eight feel (48') in width December 13, 2011 25936 unless this requirement is waived by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 6. That the back used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 8. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 9. That this site shall meet either the City of Livonia or the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, whichever applies, and shall secure any required permits, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE); 10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 11. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 12. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #429-08 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions; 13. 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; and, 14. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a December 13, 2011 25937 period of one year only from the dale of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expimfion of said period. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: Just a brief comment. Commissioner Taylor mentioned the appearance of the building as being somewhat bland, and that was really the main topic of conversation during our study meeting, as well, was how can we make this building a little more exciting or at lead fit into the area a little better. I think you made some stades toward that with the landscaping. It may help you as this goes forward to the Council, assuming it does, to have a rendenng that shows the landscaping in front of the building so that the City Council can actually visualize what that's going to look like to see if maybe that does break up the blandness of those walls. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Good suggestion. Any others? Mr. Taylor: I'm not going to support this because first of all I think the front of the building should be facing Seven Mile. It should be a good looking building that the people from Seven Mile can see. I just think, as Mr. Wilshaw said, it could be a much better looking building than what we're getting. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Anything else? I have one question of Mr. Taormina. It relates to the 8.5 fool wide drive -up facility. It's going to require a super majority vole of the City Council. Should that appear in our approving resolution? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We should add recommendation. Mr. Morrow: Just so everyone is aware of it. Is that ainghl with the maker and the supporter of the motion? Ms. Scheel: Yes, @ is. Ms. Smiley: Absolutely. Mr. Morrow: Seeing nothing further regarding questions or observations, I'll ask for the vole. December 13, 2011 25938 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Smiley, Bahr, Morrow NAYES: Wilshaw, Taylor ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Krueger Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. We appreciate your development coming to Livonia and we wish you well. ITEM #3 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FLOOD HAZARD DISTRICT REGULATIONS Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.11 of Article II, Flood Plain Terms, and Sections 28.01- 28.05 of Article XXVIII, Flood Hazard District Regulations, so as to adopt new regulations listed in the Federal Governments Code of Federal Register. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-74-2011 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.11 of Article II, Flood Plain Terms, and Sections 28.01 - 28.05 of Article XXVIII, Flood Hazard District Regulations, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, so as to adopt new regulations listed in the Federal Governments Code of Federal Register. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. December 13, 2011 25939 ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,017" Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,0171" Regular Meeting held on November 15, 2011. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-75-2011 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,0174' Regular Meefing held by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2011, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Scheel, Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Krueger ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. This will be our final meeting of the year. We wish you Happy Holidays and a Merry Christmas. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,018'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 13, 2011, was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman