Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-12-17MINUTES OF THE 1,048rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 17, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,048`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: R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Scott P. Bahr, Carol Smiley Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, 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 petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final 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 wnting, 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 pefifions 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 2013-08-02-19 LANG AUTO SALES Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-08- 02-19 submitted by Keith Lang requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a used auto dealership (Lang Auto Sales) with outdoor display of vehicles at 30805 & 30835 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. December 17, 2013 26187 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles on two adjoining parcels, 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road, which are located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Mernman Road and Milburn Avenue. The combined size of both properties is roughly one acre with 113 feel of frontage on Plymouth Road and a depth of 382 feel. Relative to the existing conditions on the properties, the larger of the two parcels contains a 6,500 square fool commercial building that is currently occupied by American Steel Motorcycle. The other parcel contains a 1,000 square foot commercial building that was most recently occupied by a cellular store. The zoning of both properties is C-2, General Business. This petition is very similar to one that was fled in 2012 under Petition 2012-03-02-05, which was submitted by Julian's Auto Sales. The Planning Commission had recommended approval on that particular item. However, on May 9, 2012, the City Council's motion to approve failed for lack of majority support resulting in the same effect as a denial. Thus, the petition in 2012 for a used car operation never moved forward. The current petition seeks approval for essentially the same use of the property, a used car dealership, but with a different operator. On this map, you can see the rectangular shape of the property. To the north are various commercial uses. Immediately to the east is the Mitsubishi auto dealership, which was formedy Livonia Chrysler. It is also zoned C-2. Immediately to the west of the site is the Bone Yard Restaurant, which is zoned C-2. Lying to the south are various single family properties that are under the RUF zoning category. Under Section 11.03(8) of the Zoning Ordinance, there are a couple of restrictions that apply: (1) that no vehicles shall be parked within twenty feel (20') from the front lot line or at the side lot line adjacent to the street; (2) the total number of vehicles proposed to be displayed or stored is subject to recommendation of the Planning Commission and approved by City Council; and, (3) outdoor storage of disabled, damaged or unlicensed vehicles is strictly prohibited. The interior of the proposed dealership would be divided into two sections. The fron12,000 square feel would be used pnmanly for retail sales and a showroom. The showroom would be able to accommodate up to 15 vehicles within the building itself and then the remaining back section, about 4,500 square feet, would serve primarily for storage and as a light service area. The plans originally submitted were to include two work bays but I was informed this evening that there would likely be only one service bay provided at the back portion of the building. Access is provided by an overhead door located on the side of the building. Lang Auto Sales would like to display a total of 31 December 17, 2013 26188 vehicles outside the building. They would be parked in front of the building and along the west properly line. One of those spaces is within the 20 fool setback and thus would require a waiver by the City Council by means of a separate resolution. In terms of parking overall, that is based on the amount of retail sales as one component and the storage and service area as the other. When you add those two together, there is a requirement for eight customer parking spaces. The other building on the site would require seven parking spaces based on the amount of retail sales occurring there. Altogether they would need 15 customer parking spaces. The plan provides for a total of 55 parking spaces. So if they utilize 31 of those spaces for displaying vehicles, that leaves 24 spaces available for both of the buildings. There is an excess amount of parking available for customers on the site and that should not present a problem. Site lighting is usually an issue related to car dealership operations; however, no additional lighting is proposed for this facility. There are two existing light poles along the eastern edge of the front parking lot. Apparently those are adequate to serve the needs of the petitioner. There is a trash enclosure behind the building. One of the issues that was discussed at significant length during the previous petition was the protection area along the back of the property where it abuts the residential. There is a five foot high masonry prolective wall that would have to be erected along the rear property line between the commercial zoned property and the land zoned for residential. There is a portion of that residential property that is actually zoned for commercial use and in that area they are proposing the continuafion of an existing fence. There is residential property located nghl in the corner in the back of this property and that residential property extends along the rear. They are proposing a masonry wall along the back section of the property, and then as it turns the comer, this parcel actually is zoned for commercial purposes. There is a fence along a portion of the property. They would propose to extend that same fence. They are not proposing any exterior modifications to the building. In terms of signage, they are showing a conforming 52 square fool wall sign. They don't show the details of the sign but they are showing where it will be situated on the face of the building in conformance with the area requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Do we have correspondence? Mr. Taormina: Yes, we do. Would you like me to read @? Mr. Morrow: Please. December 17, 2013 26189 Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 20, 2013, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. We have no objections to the proposed site renovation at this time. The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of minor improvements to the exterior of the building and parking lot which will not require Engineering Department permits. The following legal description should be used in conjunction with the proposed petition: That part of the Northwest X of Section 35 more particularly described as beginning at a point on the north line of said Section distant S 89 5845" E, 1197.00 feet frem the northwest comer of Section 35 and proceeding thence S 89 5845" E along said north line, 112.81 feet, thence S 0 03'15" E, 415.00 feet, thence N 89 58'45" W, 113.19 feet, thence due north 415.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 1.08 acres of land more or less. The addresses of 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road should be used in conjunction with the parcel. The existing structure is cumently serviced by public utilities, which are to remain in place. Should changes to the existing utility leads be needed, the owner will need to submit plans to the Engineering Department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 9, 2013, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings that are set back more than 150 feet frem a public mad or exceed 30 feet in height and are set back over 50 feet frem a public mad. (2) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (3) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors on both sides at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 19, 2013, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposaL" The letter is signed by Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the December 17, 2013 26190 Inspection Department, dated December 12, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Parking spaces are required to be a minimum of 10' wide and 20' deep and double striped per City Ordinance. (2) Barrier free parking spaces are required to be property sized, marked and signed. (3) The exterior of the building needs to be maintained and painted. (4) The screen wall shown by the petitioner on the south and west side of the property is required to be constructed of either reinforced concrete with a false brick design, cement shadow block or a brick wall. It must be between 5' and Tin height. This Department has no further objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. We do have a letter addressed to the Planning Commission and City Council, received on December 10, 2013, which reads as follows: "It would be a welcome addition to the business community. We look forward to their approval." The letter is signed by the Wine Barrel, 30303 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. Mark, I know there's not a lot of frontage on this building because of the cell phone building. I know they're lacking a lot of landscaping but I don't know if there is any area to add it. If they have too much parking, could they gel rid of one parking space and maybe do some landscaping on Plymouth Road because Plymouth Road is a little bit lax in landscaping? Mr. Taormina: If you recall, Mr. Taylor, we did in fact have a very similar discussion back in 2012. If you look closely at the plan, the darker shaded areas show where landscaping is going to be added to the site. They propose to do some additional landscaping in a couple areas on the site. I'm not sure what is new here, maybe one space. The one space that is within that setback, the one that is immediately adjacent to the other retail building on the property. They did show it as sales. So there is one space that they could probably give up, and that would have the same effect as complying with the setback requirement. The other option is to look at one or more spaces on the property, but I'd leave that up to the petitioner to see which ones they could forego in favor of additional landscaping. They are deficient according to the ordinance. We require 15 December 17, 2013 26191 percent of the site to be landscaped and I believe this is somewhere around 5 percent. Mr. Taylor: And I know the parking is 10 feel by 20 feel double striped. What about the used cars that theyre trying to sell? Do they have to have that type of parking spot? Mr. Taormina: I think the resolution that we adopted in 2012 may have required all of the customer spaces to be 10 feel by 20 feel. But for display purposes, many dealerships really don't need those kinds of dimensions. Nine feel is usually more than enough for a dealership operation. We do want the customer spaces, however, to be sized at 10 feel by 20 feet, and we prefer those also to be marked in some way so they remain open for customers using the facility. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Keith Lang, Lang Auto Sales, 27777 Ford Road, Garden City, Michigan 48135. Good evening. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Lang, you've heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina. Is there anything you'd like to add to it or any additional comments relative to your waiver request? Mr. Lang: No, I just appreciate the opportunity to be back in the City of Livonia. For 25 years I ren a business right here in Livonia on Plymouth Road, and I'd like the opportunity to be back in Livonia doing the same thing we were doing years back. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Mr. Lang: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Do we have any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Taylor: Just for clarification for people that are watching tonight, you're not going to do any mechanical work there to speak of, right? Mr. Lang: That is correct. We might change a light bulb. I have another dealership in another area that we will be doing all our service work. There will be no vehicles parked out that will be silting making it look unpresentable to the human eye. Everything will be done right. We use quality used cars. We don't sell the December 17, 2013 26192 lower echelon cars. It will be all quality, upper class used vehicles. Mr. Taylor No painting. Mr. Lang: No painting, no service. Like I said, maybe a light bulb. The only use inside is for detailing cars - what we'll be using the bay for, just washing the vehicles. There will be no paint work done on the properly and no heavy mechanical at all. Mr. Taylor Thankyou. Ms. Scheel: Good evening. Can you tell me what the hours of your business would be? Mr. Lang: The hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Fnday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. Ms. Scheel: And not open on Sunday. Mr. Lang: No, not open on Sunday. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Lang, what is your background in car sales? Mr. Lang: Twenty-five years I was with Tennyson Chevrolet. I was the Vice President General Manager. I ran the total operation there. Currently, since December of Iasi year when we sold the property, I've opened my own Car Right franchises. I've got one on Ford Road in Garden City that we've been very successful with. I've had great success. Mr. Wilshaw: This is going to maintain the same brand name as you have with your otherfacility? Mr. Lang: Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And what type of cars do you offer? Is there a specialty that you have or is itjust general cars? Mr. Lang: It will be general cars. We'll be like $10,000 to $60,000 range and a quality, newer used vehicle, certified cars. We have a few things we do that no other stores do in the whole country. We have a lifetime engine warranty so anybody who purchases a vehicle from us, they get a lifetime engine warranty. If they have that car for 500,000 miles, I'm backing the car for 500,000 miles. There's a lot of other things that we have, that we offer December 17, 2013 26193 through our brand that is great for the customers and for our clients and for the City. Mr. Wilshaw: Its safe to assume you have vast experience in the auto industry and car sales from your background. That's certainly appealing in the sense that you're not just starting out or trying this from scratch. Mr. Lang: No. Absolutely not. Mr. Wilshaw: What aftmcted you to this particular piece of property? Mr. Lang: It was there in Livonia. They've already been up and operating as a dealership. It's an A licensed dealer already so we wouldn't have to make any big changes or anything to the properly. It's a small piece of land. We're thinking we'll probably do 30 to 40 used cars a month out of that location. It's in a great area there, Plymouth Road. We've had some problems with some of those dealerships that were closed there for some time. I believe that was a problem with City Council last time, some of the vacancy, which has all been filled up now. Its a great area being butted up next to the Mitsubishi store that the McDonald's own as well as right down the street from RighlWay Auto. So its a great little car area there. So people traveling inside there can come and take a look at all the different varieties of vehicles in the marketplace and can do so in a nice area. Mr. Wilshaw: How many employees would you have working at any given time? Mr. Lang: Probably five. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Is that total number of employees or just working at any onetime? Do they work in shifts? Mr. Lang: No. They dont work shifts. They work from bell to bell. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: No moloroycles will be sold there? Mr. Lang: At the beginning, it's all under the same license. They do have some motorcycles left there. We will sell the remaining bikes that they do have there. After that's done, we are not going to be replenishing the bikes. The motoroycle store has been there for some time and they're pretty deep in some of their inventory. December 17, 2013 26194 I think they've got like 20 or 30 bikes left. We will gel rid of those and there will be no motorcycles sold there from there on out, and those will be under the A license because theyre all brand new motorcycles. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Will they be part of the display outside? Mr. Lang: No, they will not. Mr. Morrow: Theywill be within the building? Mr. Lang: In the building. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, did you have something? Mr. Taormina: Only that to go back to Mr. Taylor's earlier question. I've confirmed on this plan that the display spaces are striped at nine feel. They were made to be a foot narrower than what we normally require but all the customer spaces are shown at being 10 feet by 20 feet. Mr. Morrow: And we're still well over the minimum requirement, right? Mr. Taormina: In terms of customer spaces, yes. That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else? Thank you for your presentation. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? If so, please come forward to one of the podiums. George Monahan, 11400 Hubbell, Livonia, Michigan. I live right behind the motorcycle shop. I've looked over the site plan and I agree with everything in the site plan. I think it will be a good fit in the neighborhood and I approve it 100 percent. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Its always nice to hear from the neighbors. Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-87-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 17, 2013, on Petition 2013-08-02-19 submitted by Keith Lang requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of the City of December 17, 2013 26195 Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a used auto dealership (Lang Auto Sales) with outdoor display of vehicles at 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 114 of Section 35, which properly is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-08-02-19 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2013, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the recommendations of the Executive Committee of the Plymouth Road Development Authority (PRDA) shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the appropriate City Departments, including: a) providing an oil and grease separator in the parking lot catch basin if deemed necessary; b) limiting the waiver approval to this Petitioner only; and c) installing additional landscaping along Plymouth Road and the island within the parlang lot; 3. That the number of vehicles to be displayed outdoors shall be limited to a total of thirty-one (31) vehicles, and that no vehicle for sale shall be displayed closer than twenty feel (20') from the front lot line (unless waived by the Council in a separate resolution); 4. That except for what may be authorized under the Zoning Ordinance as part of a temporary sales event, any type of exterior advertising related to the sale of the vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, such as promotional flags or streamers, shall be prohibited; 5. That the display of any vehicles on car lifts is strictly prohibited; 6. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products, junked, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles, or other similar items in connection with this operation, and the overhead doors, when not in use for vehicles entering or exiling the service facility, shall be closed at all times; 7. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage, December 17, 2013 26196 marking and configuration, and all regular customer spaces shall be 10'x20' in size as required; 8. That the Pefitioner shall be allowed a conforming wall sign and the ability to either replace the panels on the existing ground sign or a new conforming ground sign, whichever he elects. Any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 9. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 10. That no overhead speakers shall be used inside or outside the building; 11. That the auto service facility shall consist of up to two (2) bays or work stations, and all service work shall be limited to vehicles that are on display and being sold at this location. The service operations shall not be open to the general public; 12. That only minor repairs and maintenance work on vehicles be conducted at this site, and that repair work shall not include collision repair; 13. That all light poles shall be a maximum of twenty feel (20') high, including the base, and all light fixtures shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadways; 14. That per the note on the plan, a minimum five feel (5) high masonry wall shall be built at or near the south property line adjacent to the residential district, and a fence shall be allowed along the remaining porton of the west property line where the site abuts the nonconforming residential use; and 15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department al the time an occupancy permit is applied for. FURTHER, the Planning Commission recommends the approval of a Conditional Agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use December 17, 2013 26197 approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? I noted under Condition 11, it indicated two bays and I think we heard earlier they were only going to use one bay. Would you want to limited it to what he plans or leave it at two? Ms. Scheel: Could we just say to consist of up to two bays? If it's less, it's okay, right? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Ms. Scheel: We could say up to two bays, then if it's only one, we're good. Mr. Taormina: That would be acceptable. Mr. Morrow: That's fine. I just wanted to point that out that we had new information. Mr. Morow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you for coming to Livonia. December 17, 2013 26198 ITEM #2 PETMON 2013-11-0231 NEWBURGH ROAD Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 11-02-31 01311-02-31 submitted by Newburgh Road Properties, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a physical therapy and athletic training facility at 13245 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between the CSX railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a sports medicine, physical therapy and athletic training facility within an existing industrial building that is located on the west side of Newburgh Road just south of Schoolcraft Road. The property currently contains a 10,900 square fool building and paved parking areas surround that building. The building has been empty for a couple of years. The zoning map shows the location of the property in relationship to the surrounding properties. All of the blue areas surrounding this site denote the industrial uses that dominate this area. This is part of the city's industrial corridor. There are industrial uses to the north, south, east and west. The proposed physical therapy and sports medicine facility would occupy the entire building. It would be operated by the Sl. Mary Mercy Hospital system. There is a floor plan included in your packet that shows how the interior space would be divided. It would include a reception and wailing area, as well as offices, a therapy room, a free weight area and a large athletic area towards the back of the building. The petitioner is not proposing any exterior building modifications with this petition. With respect to parking, the parking is based on the number of employees plus what the petitioner determines is needed for patrons and customers. On-site parking is limited. Thus, in order to provide adequate parking, the plans show additional spaces along the north side of the building via a shared parking and access agreement with the adjacent property to the north. The area immediately adjacent to the building is actually a lawn area that contains grass and is part of the subject properly. You'll notice that there is a row of parking along the south property line and a driveway that comes in off of Newburgh Road providing access to those parking spaces. It continues to the north and then to the east. You can see how the parking is arranged for the property to the north. For the subject property, you can see this shared access drive. There are six spaces including barrier free spaces located in the southeast comer of the property. There is a driveway here. This is an old loading area as part of the industry building, and then a limited number December 17, 2013 26199 of spaces along the backside of the building. There are three here and another nine spaces here. This is a very difficult plan to read unfortunately, but it shows how the parking would be rearranged on the site. Just going back to this plan, because it's probably easier to describe using this plan, the parking spaces along the south side of the property to the north, those would be shifted to be along this side of the building. So they would remove the grassy area, all these parking spaces would move to the south adjacent to this building, and then the aisleway itself would be moved to the south where these parking spaces are and new parking spaces would be provided along this building. So instead of having an aisle with a single row of parking, what you would have is an aisle that would be shifted to the south with a double row of parking, a row along this building and then a row along the building to the north. They would effectively add about 19 parking spaces, two rows of parking on that driveway. It would require the recording of a cross -access agreement with the property to the north. The new parking layout for both buildings shows a total of 97 parking spaces. Forty would be available for the subject site and 57 would be available for the building to the north, which gives its address as 37453 through 37457 Schoolcraft Road. The petitioner does feel that the amount of parking would be adequate to serve both buildings. I will note that shifting the parking and aisle without moving the approach off Newburgh is going to create a curved entrance drive for the first 50 feet. The Engineering Division is recommending that the petitioner consider moving this driveway in order to provide a straight alignment with the relocated drive. The shaded area shows the new paving. It shows how the new drive approach would have to curve and then the new parking area being provided along the side of the building. In terms of landscaping, the general landscaping standard for the M-1 zoning district requires at least 50% of the total area of the established minimum front yard be landscaped. The exisfing landscaping in the front yard, as calculated by staff, is about 70% so it does comply with the ordinance. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 27, 2013, which reads as follows: "in accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. The address of 13245 Newburgh Road is correct for the subject parcel, and should be used in conjunction December 17, 2013 26200 with this petition. The legal description included with the submitted plan set is acceptable to this office. The submitted plans indicate that the existing building interior is to be renovated, and a small area on the north side of the building is to be paved for additional parking. We have no objections to the proposed site development at this time, although the developer will need to provide this office with detailed Engineering plans for review by this office prior to any construction activities. The existing building is currently serviced by sanitary sewer and water main leads, which are to remain unchanged. Should the owner need to alter the layout of the existing leads, additional Engineering and/or Building Department permits may be required. In previous discussions with the owner, it was indicated that storm water detention would be required for any new paved areas. The plans do not indicate any proposed storm water improvements or detention in association with the proposed paving, so we will not be able to comment on that aspect until full Engineering plans are submitted to this office. We would like to suggest that the owner consider relocating the existing Newburgh Road approach on the North side of the building to align with the proposed drive aisle servicing the parking area. The proposed layout would require incoming drivers to negotiate two curves immediately after exiting Newburgh Road, which could create traffic issues with drivers waiting to exit the site." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 9, 2013, which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed the petition for a waiver use approval to operate a gymnastic training facility on the property at the above referenced address and have noted the following. (1) This proposal is a change of use for the address in question. This requires that the location must conform to current NFPA 101 standards, 2012 edition, for New Ambulatory Health Cart= Occupancies. (2) Chapter 20, New Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways, Occupant Load, and Extinguisher Requirements. These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process. We advise that no use of this facility be conducted prior to inspections and approval of any/all NFPA codes relating to New Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies. Providing that all details in regards to New Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies are followed and inspected prior to tenant use, this department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated December 4, 2013, which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed December 17, 2013 26201 the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 10, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A cross parking/access agreement will be required for the petitioner's property and the property located to the north. (2) Twenty percent of the parking spaces are required to be barrier free per the Michigan Building Code for this use. 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 of the Planning Director? Seeing none, we'll go directly to the petitioner. Tom Crabill, Crabill & Co. Real Estate, 33640 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1 represent the petitioner and Newburgh Road Properties. I also have with me today my father, who is also a member of Newburgh Road Properties, and the tenant, Steve VanBrussel, and Dan Wolocko from Sl. Mary Hospital. Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation. Is there anything you'd like to add to it? Mr. Grabill: Just a couple things. In regards to the cross -access agreement, we have been in contact with our neighbor to the north, Dave Plumley, who is an associate and he has agreed to enter into a cross -access agreement with us as the plan has described. Regarding the recommendation from the Engineering Department, Dave is reluctant to grant us permission to move the approach. The approach is currently on his property and although I'm sure through easement agreements we could achieve the same type of permanent access for him. I think he is just a little uncomfortable granting us the permission to remove an approach that is currently on his properly onto our property. Not to say that can't be worked through, but our feeling is this additional parking on the north side of the building was really proposed as overflow parking. The primary parking for the building will be as originally designed on the south side of the building. We're hoping that the Commission would allow us to leave the approach where it is and continue with the plan as proposed. Mr. Morrow: If I follow you correctly, you have no intention of working out an agreement to move the driveway. December 17, 2013 26202 Mr. Grabill: Not at this time. I checked with Engineering and they made it clear that this was a request, not necessarily a requirement. Mr. Morrow: Perhaps you can work that out between approval and the plan review to see if the two property owners can come to some sort of mutual agreement to move it. I assume the way it is now meets the fire requirements, but I think for traffic flow d would be nice to see that happening. Does the Commission have any questions of this gentleman? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, you mentioned about getting rid of the grass area and putting parking spaces there. He just said that he thought he had enough on the south side of the building. I'm getting a little confused here whether we're going to be alright or not. Mr. Taormina: He referred to those spaces as being available for overflow. I guess that's yet to be determined. From an operational standpoint, maybe this is a question for the actual operators of the facility. Maybe there will be limes when the parking available on the south side will be adequate but when certain other sessions are being conducted, they'll absolutely need the overflow parking. They are maximizing the amount of parking on the south side of the building. They will be adding some spaces where that old truck well is located and restriping some of the other areas to get a few more spaces. At the study session they indicated that they're going to need the additional parking at times when they are conducting their team sessions. That being the case, I'm sure they're going to rely on that parking to the north, probably on a regular basis. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Grabill, are you planning on getting rid of the grass and pulling some parking spaces in there or not? Mr. Grabill: Correct, on the north side of the building. Mr. Taylor: On the north side. Mr. Grabill: Correct. Mr. Taylor: What about the abutting parking places that are there now? Mr. Grabill: That would become a drive aisle to access the parking on both sides of that drive aisle. Mr. Taormina: I just want to point out the solution with respect to the approach may be one where rather than a relocation, that it might be just a slight widening on the south side of that approach in order to address some of the concems of the Engineenng Department. Its probably something for them to figure out in the final analysis. I don't know that it's going to be a problem. I think it should be resolvable with some slight modifications to address their concerns. Mr. Morrow: If that satisfies the moving traffic, we have no problem with that. Anyone else? Mr. Wilshaw: Just to beat a dead horse, I kind of agree with the Engineering Department that realigning the driveway would be an appropriate thing to do. However, it is on another paroel that is not subject to our approval today. We can certainly ask you to do things but I don't know that we can mandate that your December 17, 2013 26203 Mr. Taylor: I have no problem with the use. It sounds like there's going to be a lot of cement work being done. Mr. Grabill: Correct. Mr. Taylor: I think the use is a good use for the building. Mr. Grabill: I don't want to throw economics into the equation here, but I would just like to state for the record that we've struggled with leasing this building, and my fathers in the business. It seems like everybody who looks at the building is somebody who needs a little extra parking. The building kind of lends itself to this kind of use and some cases more of a retail type of use. So we've struggled in that endeavor and now we have an opportunity to add some parking at no small expense. Of course, as soon as Engineering suggested that we move the approach, I thought that would be nice if it was straight. I certainly don't think that it's necessary and certainly the cost is quite prohibitive, but if the City were to mandate that we do that, then we'd have to try and work that out. My concern would be that I would be at a standstill because the owner to the north is reluctant to grant us that permission. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: I would suspect these new parking places would probably be closer to the entryway too, would they not be? Mr. Grabill: Comect. Mr. Taormina: I just want to point out the solution with respect to the approach may be one where rather than a relocation, that it might be just a slight widening on the south side of that approach in order to address some of the concems of the Engineenng Department. Its probably something for them to figure out in the final analysis. I don't know that it's going to be a problem. I think it should be resolvable with some slight modifications to address their concerns. Mr. Morrow: If that satisfies the moving traffic, we have no problem with that. Anyone else? Mr. Wilshaw: Just to beat a dead horse, I kind of agree with the Engineering Department that realigning the driveway would be an appropriate thing to do. However, it is on another paroel that is not subject to our approval today. We can certainly ask you to do things but I don't know that we can mandate that your December 17, 2013 26204 neighbor construct driveways just to satisfy the waiver use for this building. However, I do think that Mr. Taormina's suggestion of softening the driveway by adding a Iitfle extra width to it would probably, in a not super expensive way, address some of the concerns that have been presented. Mr. Grabill: I would agree with that. That's something that we hadn't really considered. I think you're absolutely right that even if it was just a slight widening, it would help the condition. Mr. Wilshaw: We really like these petitions that have been coming before us using these industrial properfies that have struggled to find tenants, like your building who have had tenants come to them and say, hey, I want to use it for athletic or some sort of similar function. Its really a good re -use for some of these parcels especially ones like this one that have good visibility on a major road. The problem with these buildings lends to be the parking situation. This is probably one of the few that we've seen that actually has a pretty solid plan as to how you're going to address the parking in your facility. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Would the Commission be interested in hearing the use that is going to be within the building? If there are representatives from the new tenants, I think the Commission would like to hear what the use is going to be once it's granted. Mr. Grabill: Sure. I'll turn it over to St. Mary Daniel Wolocko, 447 North Franklin, Dearborn, Michigan. I'm the Director of Sports Performance and Sports Therapy at St. Mary Mercy in Livonia. I'd like to make a comment just regarding the overflow lot. Pretty much we're going to be seeing maybe six to eight patients or clients at the most at one time. That lot will probably be used during maybe later hours when we're holding education events or classes. No more than probably 20 people or 20 clients will be using the building. So I dont think it will loo busy on the north side of that building for the traffic flow, just to lel you know. That's why I think they refer to it as an overflow lot. Most of the parking on the south side and the west side will be sufficient to handle our normal daily case load of patients and clients. It's just that when we have a team or another group come in for a class, we need some extra spaces. So just a comment on that. Mr. Morrow: If you could lel us know exactly what you'll be doing as far as the use. December 17, 2013 26205 Mr. Wolocko: Its going to be two parts. One is going to be for physical therapy, specifically, and then we're also going to be doing some performance training for younger, active adults in the community that are staying active and want to learn how to move efficiently and effectively to prevent injuries. It's going to be served as a consultation building, an educational type facility that Sl. Mary's is investing in the community for the City of Livonia to help prevent injuries to keep our youth active and to draw teens to us to learn how to better develop their athletes and protect them and prevent injuries. Mr. Morrow: Have you any contact with the local high schools? Mr. Wolocko: Yes. We have reached out to the local high schools and the local club teams in the community. We already have different connections we use with them and they're looking for a facility in place that they can actually come to and team from. That's why the hospital wants to invest in something that they can relate to instead of going to a hospital selling. Mr. Taylor: What are the hours of operation and how many days a week are you going to be open? Mr. Wolocko: Typically, the clinic hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. That's to handle clients before work and school and after hours for practices and that. Then on the weekends, not a lot on Sundays, but we will be holding camps and courses for parents and the community to come out to. So that will be used as needed. As most, we would ran our clinic hours Monday through Fnday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and then Saturday mornings from like 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mr. Wilshaw: No better than a hospital to tell you how to stay out of the hospital. That's a unique mission on your part. The person that's coming in for physical therapy perhaps has limited range of mobility. What entrances are they going to use and how are they going to handle parking in both the front and back of the building? Mr. Wolocko: Like I said, most of the parking is going to be on the south side and there's a direct access right in the main entrance and everything is on the first floor, the private rooms, the bathrooms. There no accommodation for stairs or anything like that. Most of these patients will be pretty active adults. That's the reason its not connected to the hospital because they want to actively participate in a setting where there's more athletes moving so December 17, 2013 26206 it's less depressing. They're already feeling bad about themselves as failures in sports and we want to encourage a more positive atmosphere so they'll be readily mobile. Probably the most difficult movers will be older golfers. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the door in the back also going to be accessible so if someone parks in the back, they can walk right in? Mr. Wolocko: Yes. The door in the back, that's our open athletic facility for people to move around more. If we have groups coming in for training, they will be directed to the back so they don't intervene with the more private and we'll save the front doors for those who need the access to move a little bit easier. Mr. Wilshaw: How many employees would work at this facility? Mr. Wolocko: Right now, we'll have a front desk and office receptionist. We'll have an athletic trainer and two physical therapists. Mr. Wilshaw: And this will be branded as being part of Sl. Mary Mercy Hospital? Mr. Wolocko: Yes. It will be Sl. Mary Meroy Sports Performance facility. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-88-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 17, 2013, on Petition 2013-11-02-31 submitted by Newburgh Road Properties, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a physical therapy and athletic training facility at 13245 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between the CSX railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30, which properly is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-11-0231 be approved subject to the following conditions: December 17, 2013 26207 1. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated December 9, 2013, from the Fire Marshal, including those relating to the requirement that the proposed location must conform to current NFPA 101 standards, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department; 2. That adequate off-street parking shall be provided which shall be sufficient to comply with the parking requirement for employees and patrons as set forth in Section 18.38(12) of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. That an appropriate recordable legal instrument, such as a cross -access agreement, that gives notice and outlines the terms of how the subject properties would share parking and access shall be presented to the Inspection Department at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is applied for; 4. That adequate lighting be provided in the parking areas and walkways as determined by the Inspection Department; and 5. 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. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? December 17, 2013 26208 Ms. Scheel: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, the discussion portion of this resolution shows that the regular parking spaces have to be striped and 10' by 20' in size. Does that need to be part of our conditions? Mr. Taormina: No, that will be reviewed by the Engineering and Inspection Departments. You can include that in the resolution. That's not a problem. Ms. Scheel: But not having it in there is not a problem? Mr. Taormina: It shouldn't be, no. Ms. Scheel: My second question is, in the letter from Engineering Department, it mentions that if they're doing any new paved areas, about a storm water detention. Does anything regarding that need to be in our resolution? Mr. Taormina: Again, they have to get their Engineering permits. Ms. Scheel: So that would all be addressed at that time. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Scheel: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we're not missing anything here. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mrs. Scheel. We appreciate that. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you. That concludes our public hearing part of the agenda. We now move to miscellaneous items. ITEM #3 PETITION 2013-11-08-13 McDONALUS Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 11-08-13 submitted by Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., on behalf of McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 11800 Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. December 17, 2013 26209 Mr. Taormina: This petition involves a request to remodel the exterior of the McDonald's restaurant on Middlebell Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad. The properly in question is about 1.4 acres in size. Its dimensions are 250 feel of frontage on Middlebell Road by a depth of 250 feel. The parcel is zoned C- 2, General Business. This site received waiver use approval in October, 1990. Al that time there was a condition that limited the customer seating to a maximum of 90 seals. This proposed exterior remodel would not increase the current sealing count. In fact, the seating count would drop by a couple of seals. It involves a re-imaging of the building. The architecture still reflects the old McDonald's. This was the prototype that was used about 20 or so years ago. The building has a red double mansard roof with the old yellow lit accent beams. The new exterior re-imaging is consistent with the other McDonald's renovations that we've seen over the last couple of years. It would be made to look much more contemporary. I'm going to go directly to the elevation plans. They will use a combination of materials on the building which include concrete blocks, cement fiber board wall panels, corrugated metal panels, and aluminum. The mansard roof and accent beams would be removed and replaced with the face panel wall system and corrugated metal panels, which make up the upper third of the facade creating a parapet around the roofline of the building. The stone sections would frame the main entrance to the building and the aluminum trellised canopies would be installed over the windows and entrances. To improve customer service, McDonald's is proposing a split drive-thru lane containing a second menu board and order station. This is consistent with the other renovations that we've seen at the McDonald's restaurants within the City. To accommodate the second drive- lhm lane, len parking spaces will have to be removed. They would still meet the parking requirement. They are required to have a total of 58 parking spaces and the revised plan, even with the elimination of the 10 spaces, provides for a total of 58 parking spaces. Landscaping would be enhanced across the site. They are going to keep the existing monument sign but they would be changing out their wall signage. The wall signs do exceed the ordinance. They would be allowed one sign not to exceed 35 square feet in area. The elevation plan shows a number of wall and logo signs on the remodeled restaurant. We don't have the details on the wall signage. Again, going back, you can gel a sense of the amount of signage they're proposing. The main McDonald's sign would be located on the lop part of the building. Looking at an isometric view showing both the west elevation facing Middlebelt, and then the south side of December 17, 2013 26210 building, you can see the McDonald's logos above the entranceway and on the front of the building. Technically those constitute a second and third wall sign and would have to receive Zoning Board of Appeals approval. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated November 8, 2013, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced planning petition. The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of renovating the exterior of the building and minor parking lot alterations within the parcel boundaries. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time, although the following items should be noted. (1) The address of 11800 Middlebelt Road should be used in conjunction with the proposed project. (2) The legal description provided with the petition adequately describes the parcel and is acceptable to this office." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 8, 2013, 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 Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 10, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Scott Powlus, McDonald's Corporation, 1021 Karl Greimel Drive, #200, Brighton, Michigan 48116. Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation. Is there anything you'd like to add to it? Mr. Powlus: I believe Mr. Taormina did a grealjob describing the project. I'd be happy to answer any questions. It's a very similar remodel to what we've done in the area. December 17, 2013 26211 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Wilshaw: Some of the other remodels we've seen have a building that's generally brown in appearance. One of the photos that you submitted to us showing some of the building materials shows a building that appears to be relatively red. What color are we actually going to gel for the building? Mr. Powlus: There is a choice of colors for the franchisee. Typically, we're using a terra cotta scheme. It's a reddish brown. There is a chocolate scheme which is a darker brown, and then there's a medium brown scheme. It will be some variation of brown. Mr. Wilshaw: So you don't have, on this particular location, a solid handle on what color it's going to be. Mr. Powlus: Right. I actually have a meeting set up with the franchisee and they have some selection of about 12 different color schemes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The rest of the building looks good. Typically when we approve these things, we know what color we're getting on the building. That's my only comment at this point. Mr. Powlus: I do believe the plans do show a terra cotta scheme. There's actually a paint color in the elevations. Mr. Wilshaw: The terra cotta is more reddish than brown. Mr. Powlus: Its probably misrepresented in the copy that you have. Its not quite that red. If you think of a clay pot, it's more on a brownish color than red. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Along that line, I would advise you, should this move forward tonight at this level, that you resolve with your tenant or franchisee the colors that you're going to choose and bring some materials so the Council can get a better idea as to colors being used and the materials. Mr. Powlus: We can definitely put a board together. Mr. Morrow: A material board, a color board. I think that would argue well at the Council level. Mr. Powlus: Thankyou. December 17, 2013 26212 Ms. Scheel: Does the restaurant plan on staying open during renovations? Mr. Powlus: We typically do stay open. In a case where we're doing a kitchen expansion, we close, but we pretty much try and stay open as much as we can through the whole process. In this case, I don't believe we're doing any kitchen expansion, so yes, 9 would slay open during the whole process. Ms. Scheel: Okay. What is the projected time line? How soon do you expect construction to start? Mr. Powlus: I would say we're looking at probably some time in February probably for the inside, and then the exlenor would be done probably in March. It's typically a six to eight week process. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Relative to the hours of operation, would you reiterate that? I guess what I'm trying to determine, is it going to be a 24 hour operation or limited hours. Mr. Powlus: The restaurant is currently a 24 hour operation. It will continue to be that. It is a drive-lhru only from midnight to 5:00 a.m. where the dining room is actually closed during those hours. It's open 24 hours currently. Mr. Morrow: Okay. That's what I wanted to find out. Anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-89-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-11-08-13 submitted by Dorchen/Marfin Associates, Inc., on behalf of McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 11800 Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad nghl-0f-way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Cl dated October 29, 2013, as revised, prepared by Dorchen/Marlin Associates, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; December 17, 2013 26213 2. That this restaurant's maximum customer seating count shall not exceed eighty-eight (88) seats; 3. That the Landscape Plan marked C4 dated October 29, 2013, as revised, prepared by M.J. Gac & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A2.0 and A2.1 dated October 29, 2013, as revised, prepared by Dorchen/Marfin Associates, Inc., are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. 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; 6. 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; 7. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you for coming this evening. Good luck with your project. December 17, 2013 26214 ITEM #4 PETMON 2013-11-08-14 MID�JOY PLAZA Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 11-08-14 submitted by Jarjosa Joy Real Estate, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commercial center (Mid -Joy Plaza) at 29150- 29208 Joy Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebell Road and Oxbow Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Taormina: This is a site plan petition involving the remodeling of the exterior of an existing commercial center which is referred to as Mid -Joy Plaza and is located on the north side of Joy Road just east of Middlebelt Road. The zoning is C-1, Local Business. The shopping center building on the property measures about 8,800 square feet in overall size. The front of the building currently has a metal mansard roof. The petitioner is planning to completely remodel and upgrade the appearance of the shopping centers storefront, which is the south elevation. The most significant change involves removing the metal mansard roof and adding a series of parapet walls along the top half of the fagade. The new wall sections would project above the existing roofline using decorative E.I.F.S. comice and standing seam metal. The height of the new parapet would vary slightly at the ends of the center. In two sections above the storefronts, the E.I.F.S. fagade above the windows would be boxed -out a fool or two so as to project out from the rest of the building. The original design of the center includes a modified mansard style metal roof. All of that would be removed. A liquor store that occupies the east half of the shopping center would have this lower element located above the main entrance. Then on the opposite end, there would be a similar type of feature balancing out the overall center. The pilasters that are being created along the front of the building give it some dimension. Those two would be boxed out. There is also a decorative comice placed on lop of those pilasters and along the roofline. They are proposing some new masonry material along the lower part of the building. They would construct a new fooling in front of the existing brick and place new brick along the front part of the building. The brick would vary in height. The masonry material would go up to the lop of the windows; others would just cover the bottom portion of the colonnades. The rest of that would be E.I.F.S. The material on the upper part of the building and along three of the five or six colonnades would be E.I.F.S. but everything else would be masonry construction. No other site December 17, 2013 26215 changes or improvements are proposed as part of this petition. With that Mr. Chairman, I will read out the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 20, 2013, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced planning petition. We have no objections to the proposed site renovation at this time. The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of renovating the exterior of the building which will not require Engineering Department permits. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be connect and is acceptable to this ofhce. The address of 29150 Joy Road should be used in conjunction with the parcel, although addresses of 29150 thru 29190 Joy Road are assigned for the individual stores within the plaza. The existing structure is currently serviced by public utilities, which are to remain in place. Should changes to the existing utility leads be needed, the owner will need to submit plans to the Engineering Department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 6, 2013, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel the exterior of the commercial center on property located at the above referenced address and have noted the following. In regards to NFPA 1, 2009 edition: (1) Fire Department Access shall be maintained in accordance to 18.2.3.2, (2) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors on both sides at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. We have no other concerns with the remodel to the exterior of the building." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 19, 2013, 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 Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 17, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Barrier free parking spaces are required to be property sized, signed and striped. (2) The sidewalk along the front of the building will need to be widened if this project moves forward and will be required to meet barrier free access including curb cuts, ramps December 17, 2013 26216 and landings. (3) The dumpster enclosures gates have been removed. Install gates as required. 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 from the Commissioners? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Tony Jarjosa, Mid -Joy Plaza, 29150 Joy Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina. Is there anything you'd like to add to it? Mr. Jarjosa: I believe the gentleman did a good job as far as explaining the project. We've owned the building for the past six years, and we try to work with the community and neighborhood. We concentrated for the past six years on quality service and cleanness for the building and also inside the store loo. By doing this project, we're trying to add value to the neighborhood and also we have a better view for the City of Livonia as well. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Taylor: Do you have any problem making the walkway wider in front of the building? Mr. Jarjosa: At the moment, we don't have no problem with that, sir, but I believe my designer would be able to answer all those questions as far as wideness or if it is the proper size for the city. I will tum the microphone over to him. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to ask you one question relative to your center. What is the occupancy in your center? Mr. Jarjosa: Al the moment, we do have the liquor store on the east side. In the middle, we do have the coin Iaundromal and the far end is vacant space nghl now. Mr. Morrow: So you have one vacancy? Mr. Jarjosa: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Gli,rjlS��ilTlliRFM@ C1"ar4!T@NT--L'[llll Mr. Taormina: And the details would have to be worked out. The other problem we noticed is with the barier-free ramp. Some adjustments are going to have to be made to the ramp itself to comply with the barier-free code requirements, but all these details can be worked out at plan review. Mr. Morrow: It will all be worked out at plan review December 17, 2013 26217 Dave Jajjoka, Scope Data, 381 Deer Path Trail, Waterford, Michigan 48327. Mr. Morrow: Did you gel that, Ms. Watson? Okay, very good. Yes, sir. Mr. Jajjoka: Honestly, we just got a phone call yesterday from Scott on the sidewalk. It's only like 24 hours to make the decision. There are a couple of solutions to do that. One of the solutions is to increase the sidewalk by one foot. If we have to do that, then we need to gel the variance because of the parking lot limit there. If you give us one foot variance for the length, then we can do that. We can achieve this. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, would you respond to that please? Mr. Taormina: I don't believe that a variance is going to be needed in this instance and this is the reason why. The Director of Inspection and myself visited the site. We noted that the sidewalk currently is probably deficient in its width. If they go ahead and remove another half foot for the installation of the footing and the new brick material, they're going to lose even more from the sidewalk. Part of the problem is we actually noticed while we were on-site, cars would park up against the front of the building and in some cases have only four inches from the building itself, some of the larger vehicles. It's a situation where it would benefit the petitioner to either widen the sidewalk or raise the grade of the parking lot to match the sidewalk so you dont have that grade differential that would pose a safely problem. We measured the depth of the parking spaces plus the aisle width and we feel that he can make those adjustments, still comply with the ordinance in terms of the parking lot, parking space depth, the aisle width, as well as providing some bumper blocks along the front of the building, and as he indicated, widen the sidewalk by a fool or maybe match the grade. So there are a few options available to him in order to comply, but we needed to make him aware of it as soon as possible so that he can do the final design when we submits for the building permits. Gli,rjlS��ilTlliRFM@ C1"ar4!T@NT--L'[llll Mr. Taormina: And the details would have to be worked out. The other problem we noticed is with the barier-free ramp. Some adjustments are going to have to be made to the ramp itself to comply with the barier-free code requirements, but all these details can be worked out at plan review. Mr. Morrow: It will all be worked out at plan review December 17, 2013 26218 Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Taylor: What about the dumpster gales? Mr. Jajjoka: We didn't propose anything for that. Mr. Taylor: Evidently, there aren't any gales. Mr. Jajjoka: Actually, at the moment there is no gale on the box, but we are in the process to do so at the beginning of spring time. We will have the two door gates which is the front of the dumpster to cover that area. Mr. Morrow: I would add that it would be good to check with the Planning Department to make sure the gates you put on comply with our code unless you know something I dont know, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No. Again, that's something they can handle at the Inspection level. As part of the plan review process, we typically will require maintenance -free gale material to be used. Mr. Morrow: I just didn't want him to show up with new gales and not be acceptable. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a comment that this looks like a very attractive upgrade to the building, and I do agree that this is at the perimeter of the city and it makes for a nice entrance point to see an attractive building in the community. It looks like you've used good materials, color choices and design elements to make what's a reasonably plain building look appealing to the eye. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I second that comment. You've done a nice job with the design. Anyone else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speakfor or againslthe granting ofthis petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-90-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-11-08-14 submitted by Jarjosa Joy Real Estate, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commercial center (Mid -Joy Plaza) at 29150-29208 Joy Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebell December 17, 2013 26219 Road and Oxbow Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Elevation and Details Plan marked A101 dated October 17, 2013, prepared by Scope Data, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Petitioner shall work with the Inspection and Planning Departments to provide safe and conforming pedestrian access along the walkway adjacent to the building, including modifications to the barrier -free ramp(s); 3. That the Petitioner shall work with the Inspection and Planning Departments to provide additional landscaping along the site's frontage along Joy Road; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution. shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 8. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. It's a very nice job of upgrading your center, and thank you for doing that and thank you for coming. Good luck. December 17, 2013 26220 ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,047m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, we have a point of order here. Our next item on the agenda is approval of the 1,047th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting minutes. Mr. Wilshaw was not present, which leaves us with three Commissioners. Is it permissible to move forward and approve this on the basis of three Commissioners? Mr. Taormina: We're going to have to wail to have a quorum Mr. Morrow: This will not hold anything up will 0? Mr. Taormina: No Mr. Morrow: We want to conform to it, so we might as well be letter perfect. Nothing is hanging in the balance, so we will remove this from the agenda. It will be on the next agenda when we have a quorum. That will conclude our agenda for the evening. I want to make a comment before I ask for an adjourning motion. As I indicated eadier at our Iasi meeting, Ms. Scheel has been elected to the City Council. The next time you see her she will be sitting with her fellow Council people. We wish her all the success and the continued fine job she's done with us on the Commission. I don't know if there's any other Commissioners who want to speak to that. Mr. Taylor I think we should just give her a hand. Ms. Scheel: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: We wish you well. Ms. Scheel: Thank you very much. I've surely enjoyed my time on the Planning Commission working with everyone that I've been on the Planning Commission with. So thank you very much. Mr. Morrow: The feel is mutual with us working with you. You've not only been a good Commissioner but a veryfine Secretary. Ms. Scheel: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: This is our final meeting of the year. We want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a prosperous and happy New Year. December 17, 2013 26221 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,048'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 17, 2013, was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman