Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-07-09MINUTES OF THE 1,041 ST PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,041" 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: None 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 determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2013-06-01-03 TIM HORTONS Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-06- 01-03 submitted by Tim Horton Cafe and Bake Shop pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 37685 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, from C-1 (Local Business) to C-2 (General Business). July 9, 2013 25849 Mr. Taormina: This involves a rezoning request over a portion of the New Five Village shopping center which is located on the south side of Five Mile between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue. The property altogether is roughly 8.7 acres in area and includes 600 feel of frontage along Five Mile Road by a depth of 225 feel along Newburgh Road. The requested rezoning is in anticipation of redeveloping the site into a full-service restaurant, Tim Horton. This is an aerial photograph showing the specific location of the rectangular area that is requested to be rezoned. The dimensions are 224 feel in length in an east - west direction along Five Mile Road by a depth of 126 feel in the north -south direction. The total land area of the rectangular area proposed to be rezoned is about .65 acres. This is an area that is part of the parking lot of the New Five Village shopping center. Immediately to the east is a Shell gas station at the southwest corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Roads. Immediately adjacent to that lying to the west is Independent Bank. To the south of the shopping center complex is Sl. Edith Church as well as the Villa Marie senior housing complex. To the west are City -owned tennis courts and then further to the west of that are single family homes that are part of the Castle Gardens Subdivision No. 2. Lying to the north across Five Mile Road are single family homes that are part of the Newburg Heights and Greenwood Farms Subdivisions. The New Five Village shopping center is made up of two adjoining paroels that are under separate ownership. It functions more or less as a single community shopping center. Together, both of the buildings combined provide about 95,000 square feet of retail space. Past anchor tenants at the west end of the center were a Farmer Jacks grocery store as well as a Rite Aid pharmacy. Both of those units are currently vacant. The area to be rezoned is the portion of the shopping center that is currently used for off-street parking. It occupies an estimated 71 total spaces. The center currently has about 516 spaces. When we apply the 1:150 ratio based on the small percentage of restaurants that are located at this shopping center, they are required to have 508 parking spaces. So currently they're just a little above what they are required to have in terms of parking. We have not evaluated any particular site plan at this time to be able to advise you as to what the overall impact would be on the amount of parking, but generally speaking, the parking as it exists today is in compliance with the total amount of retail space available at the shopping center. In terms of the Future Land Use Plan, it shows the entire site as General Commercial, which would include either the C-1 or the C-2 zoning categories. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. July 9, 2013 25850 Mr. Morrow: Please Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated June 27, 2013, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced rezoning request. The written legal description is correct. The address for this site is confirmed to be 37685 Five Mile Road. Please note, upon City Council approval, a formal request for an additional address at this location will be needed. In regards storm water management, the City of Livonia requires storm water detention which falls under the jurisdiction of the City Engineering Department to review calculations and storage capacity for the proposed site improvements. We will follow Wayne County storm ordinance requirements. There is an existing connection to the southeast of the proposed site. Pertaining to utilities, the City of Livonia has an existing 124nch water main that runs east and west along the south side of Five Mile Road. There is also an existing 84nch public water main to the south that could be utilized. There is a 104nch sanitary sewer to the west, 12 -inch to the south and 18 -inch to the east that is in the area to be utilized for connection. Five Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. Any proposed work within the Wayne County right-of-way would require a permit. We are providing the owner, for informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, unless written approval is obtained to exceed this amount. This Ordinance also provides information on grease trap(nterceptor requirements, and is available on the City of Livonia website at wwwci.livonia.mi.us, go to the right hand side of the web page under Quick Shortcuts, click on Online Ordinances. A soil erosion and sedimentation control (SESC) permit will be required and involve separate plans to be submitted if the proposed site is one acre or more. This permit and associated fees will be handled by the Engineering Department before any work commences." The letter is signed by Todd Zilincik, P.E., City Engineer. The next letter is from Gerald F. Burke, dated July 2, 2013, which reads as follows: "My name is Gerald F. Burke. I live at 15329 Richfield Street, Livonia Michigan 48154 - 1511 on the north side of Five Mile Road - directly opposite the property 1 know as The Village shopping center - which contains the plot with the rezoning request. 1 am opposed to the property rezoning requested in the above petition. The existing store fronts of The Village shopping center are set back from Five Mile Road, providing a buffer from the shopping center for the residential area north of Five Mile Road. This buffer enhances July 9, 2013 25851 the residential appearance of the area and minimizes the impact of the traffic, noise, trash and signage glare generated by the shopping center businesses and their customers. 1 invite you to visit the area along Five Mile Road west of Newburgh and notice the residential nature of the area and the store front setback in The Village shopping center. The proposed rezoning would allow construction of a business that has no setback buffer, and will give the area a less attractive appearance and bring drive-thru traffic, noise, trash and signage glare closer to the residents on the north side of Five Mile Road. Please reject the rezoning request. Thank you." The letter is signed by Gerald F. Burke, 15329 Richfield Street, Livonia, Michigan 48154. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark Taormina. Mark, is this basically the same area that Blockbusters wanted to come into? Mr. Taormina: I would say yes, although I did not gel a chance to evaluate that plan prior to tonight's meeting. As I recall, this is the same general location where an out lot was proposed that would have housed a Blockbuster video store as well as maybe one or two other tenants within that building. That was a pefition that I think was filed in the early 2000's and was approved but never developed. Mr. Taylor: So the zoning never went through on that? Mr. Taormina: That did not require a zoning change at the time. Mr. Taylor: Oh, that was a waiver use. Mr. Taormina: That was a site plan as I recall. It did not involve any special approvals other than the site plan and maybe a zoning variance for parking, as I recall. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Wilshaw: The reason for this rezoning request is really because the potential intended use of it involves a drive lhru? Mr. Taormina: And a full service restaurant, together with the drive-thm, are two waiver use requirements under the C-2 District regulations. So that's correct. If the zoning moves forward, then the next step in the process would be the fling of a waiver use petition for both the full service restaurant and the drive-lhru. July 9, 2013 25852 Mr. Wilshaw: So if the developer proposed to put in a business that conforms to the G7 zoning, such as a video store, they wouldn't need a zoning change. They could just come forward with a site plan. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The other question is about parking. There is about 71 or 72 spaces that are going to be eliminated to some degree as a result of some development going in this parcel which would reduce the number of parking spaces for the rest of shopping center. At this time, being that the shopping center is almost half vacant, it's not really an issue, but if this shopping center was to be fully utilized, would there be adequate parking remaining at the site for a fully utilized shopping center? Mr. Taormina: Again, that's a question that is difficult to answer at this time without knowing precisely what type of tenants would occupy the space that is presently vacant within the shopping center. But assuming that it is a use or uses that would generate traffic similar to the previous uses, which was the Rile Aid and the grocery store, then there could be some issues with respect to parking. If its something less than that, I don't know that parking will be a problem. More likely what there would be is a redistribution of how the parking is utilized on the site. As you know, a use like a Tim Hortons is going to generale a lot of drive -up traffic as opposed to sit down traffic. You're probably going to see a greater percentage of their sales in the form of the drive -up window as opposed to sit down customers. So the parking spaces that they create around that area would be available for the patrons of the center as well. Again, there are large spaces that remain vacant in the center. They typically don't park at the same demand that the smaller retail centers do. I would anticipate that it would probably have sufficient parking when they finally find a tenant for that space unless it's a real high traffic generator, which is not likely. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Great. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: On the other side of where Fanner Jacks was, there's a tennis court and what else is there, just land? Mr. Taormina: You can see this on the aerial photograph. The tennis courts are set back on the southern part of the property and there's a grassy park area between that and Five Mile Road. Ms. Smiley: Is that owned by the shopping center? Mr. Taormina: No, that is all owned by the City of Livonia July 9, 2013 25853 Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Patrick T. Bell, Construction Project Planner, Tim Donut U.S. Limited Inc., 565 E. Grand River Avenue, Suite 101, Brighton, Michigan 48116. Thank you, Chairman Morrow and Commission members. Again, a pleasure to be before you once again. Tim Horton has done very well in the City of Livonia and continues our efforts to expand in the community. This project before you is much similar to the project we recently brought before you where we're looking to do infill redevelopment. Again, we're very familiar with the taste of the community so we will be providing a site that is somewhat similar to the last site but obviously organized in a different manner. It will be a brick building as we're providing on the other site. We're looking forward to getting this project going as quickly as possible. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Let's see if there are any questions from the Commission. Mr. Taylor: This would be the fourth site that you have, Tim Hortons? Mr. Bell : I believe, sir, that this would be the fifth site. Mr. Taylor: I was trying to remember where I saw them in the City and I've counted three. Mr. Bell : Including the new one at Merriman that is looking to be constructed here soon. Mr. Taylor: I forgot about that one. Tim Horlons is mainly breakfast and lunch, isn't it? Mr. Bell : That is correct. As any business, we're looking to expand our menu but I would say the majority of our business now is done between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and trickling into the lunch hours. Mr. Taylor: That's why I was thinking about any kind of parking problem. Normal stores that go into the shopping centers are busy all day, but in the morning they're not as busy as at night. So I'm just thinking that whatever goes in there in the other portion of the vacancies will probably work out without the parking. July 9, 2013 25854 Mr. Bell: I would agree with that, and as Mr. Taormina pointed out, a good majority of our business is drive-by, drive-lhru traffic. We're not a regional draw. We don't really bring to this area. Its the folks that are going to the hospital or going to their jobs or leaving their place of residence that stop by our place on their commute to other places. Mr. Taylor: Evidently, the hospital heard about it because I heard that they were very excited that Tim Hortons was going in there. Mr. Bell That's great and we look forward to being able to provide service. Ms. Scheel: This is just for rezoning and they will come back with a site plan, correct? Mr. Taormina: Yes. What I expect to happen, following the action tonight, it will move forward to the City Council. Should the City Council give First Reading to this, then they would put a hold on completing the rezoning until a site plan is submitted, reviewed by this body and then in turn moves forward for the Council to review. Ms. Scheel: Okay, so I'll hold off on other questions until then. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? We'll need your name and address for the record. James Crowley: I represent 15108 Blue Skies. Actually, I'll give you a little history on that plot over the years. My mother has been a resident of Blue Skies for 50 years. So several years ago, MacDonald's tried to come in, kind of in that plot that we talked about adjacent to the ... in the green space that is owned by the City. It was widely opposed and rejected. What I'm opposed to, number one, is we're talking about a zone change to general. So whether its Tim Hortons or anybody, now we're talking about a change in the zoning which I think opens you up to a lot of different issues, whether we complete this and move on, whether it's Tim Hortons or a MacDonald's, whomever. So I think we're opening ourselves up to those issues that were described by the resident on Richfield Avenue. That was a concern with MacDonald's back then. It's a concern today. Also, I'll give you a little history of what we've endured over in the general area. That shopping center has been vacant for a number of years. Number one, my concern is when we start laking away parking spots and now obstruct the visual signage or whatever it might be, is that going to hinder, and again, none of you could really answer that question because we don't know July 9, 2013 25855 what's going to go in there. And unfortunately, what I'm afraid that's going to do is also further prolong the vacancy in that building. What has happened over the years, as obviously I think . I'm assuming there's been a struggle with that shopping center. It's deteriorated overtime. I believe it was two years ago it was leased and it was a violation to the group that runs the Livonia Spree. It was set up as a camp site. We banned together to gel them moved out. There are trucks parked there overnight several limes. We call and call and call. They posted a lowing sign. The City does not enforce that. So we've endured a lot. So we're really concerned about what's going to happen here. We just noticed it Sunday, haven't had a chance to talk to the other neighbors, but I would imagine they will be extremely opposed when they Team that they want to change the zoning again. Now, my other concern is the traffic pattern. I would strongly suggest that we do a traffic study so we at least adjourn this so we can gel a traffic study and talk about the traffic study, especially being that it's Tim Honors, talking about the drive thm that is going to create a huge traffic situation. It's difficult to tum in off of Five Mile onto Blue Skies. Blue Skies is the main artery going through Castle Gardens Subdivision. So I think you have people cutting you off Teff and right trying to gel in and out of the subdivision, along with the other side of Blue Skies, which is the main artery as well as into I believe the other subdivision north. People are cutting you off Teff and right. In fad, Five and Newburgh has also been a huge traffic issue with accidents and so on. So I'm not sure what the impact that will have, but I would strongly suggest that we do some type of study and really be cautious about what we do with this. This is a very residential area. What we're concerned about, again, is neighbors. I noticed that the gentleman mentioned trash. Ironically, this morning, and I look a picture with my camera phone which I'll be happy to send. There was MacDonald's trash on our lawn today, ironically. And that was before I knew it was Tim Hortons because I just called the City this morning to find out what the zone change actually was. So again, we've endured a lot with that strip mall. There are a lot of restaurants in there now. I like Tim Horlons as well. I just don't think that's the place for it. I'm really, really concerned about the drive thru. I'm concern about, again, just opening up ourselves to a zoning change. That is kind of forever, and I've seen zoning changes. We've had zoning changes in the City before off of Six Mile. I was a resident there for a while in the Laurel Park 11 Subdivision. They built a large, large building sort of behind us with a zoning change because they were restricted at the height. There's a lot going on in that little square. If you've taken a drive through it with the Villa Marie, I mean they've done a great job with it. It is verytight in there. I mean July 9, 2013 25856 very tight. You have to enter and exit through ... they really don't have a proper egress. It's part of the church parking lot. Its high impact, a lot of traffic. I think if you look a drive back there you'd really see how dense that is. I think even back then, I know that my mother had an issue with the number of buildings there were going in. They kind of slipped an extra one in at the time, which brings it really tight, close to the residential homes. Again, they've been a great neighbor, but it is a very tight plot, and I think that now you keep making it more dense, now you're opening yourselves up to more zoning, more traffic. This is a residential area. If you drive through it, the homes are over 50 years old and most of them are really, really well kept and there is a pride of ownership in that neighborhood. And I think most neighbors would be surprised. I didn't have a chance to talk with them. I think they'd be very surprised again. I don't think they noticed that there's a zoning change. I just noticed it Sunday evening. Again, I would really suggest that when we talk about a traffic study and then really think twice about again impacting that area. I think we're just going to open ourselves up again to just more traffic, and again leaving the buildings. I'm really concerned that those buildings will sit vacant a lot longer now that you're taking parking away. We don't know who's going to come in. I mean it could be a situation like across the street with CVS where they actually look the building down and put a standalone. I don't know. You don't know how they want to plan, but this is going to hinder that. Even with the CVS, a lot of times it seems like we gel a little cheated. We really worked on the landscape there. Although it's a beautiful building, you know they kind of sold us a bill of goods with their pond. If you drive by, it's a mud hole with a lot of weeds. You're shaking your head. Its really kind of a sold bill of goods, and I'm afraid that's what we're going to gel again. So again, I'll leave you with that and hopefully we can consider rejecting this proposal. Anyquestionsforme? Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions? The Commission appreciates your input for tonight's meeting. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to come forward? Mark Canvasser, Representative, New -Five Plaza Associates L.P., 28580 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 101, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. I'm one of the owners of New Five Plaza shopping center. We've owned the shopping center since 1993. We are desperately trying to lease that center, and we think this is a great opportunity to start to be able to bring some more traffic to the center. Commissioner Wilshaw, you mentioned 50 percent occupied. Actually, we're closer to 30 percent occupied, and we have desperately tried to lease the Fanner Jack. We think this July 9, 2013 25857 is a great opportunity. I've spoken to many of you before in the past when we initially thought about bringing this to the community. The MacDonald's was long before 1993. It was not on the grassy parcel. It was on another parcel where the newer shopping center has been built. I'm not aware ever of any tenant or issues with our shopping center, tenants being removed from our shopping center. I just don't understand that at all. We think we're a good corporate citizen in the community. We contribute to Livonia in various ways. We have a tenant, the Arts Council, that was in one of the community buildings and that space got rented and we gave them space. So we work very hard to try and be a good corporate resident, commercial tenant in the center. I'm available for any questions. We're working hard to lease that center. We're working hard to bring traffic to that center. I have a number of tenants there that are holding on, and I'm trying to do what we need to do to bring more traffic. Thank you for your time and I look forward to moving forward to site plan approval for this site. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Canvasser, I have a question for you. Mr. Crowley made a comment prior to you coming up which sort of was a little sensitive to me. I think it rings somewhat true that if you put a building in front of the shopping center, it could obstruct the sight lines to your spaces and make those spaces potentially less desirous or make it harder to see the signage on those. Since you're here, which is really nice to have you here and you own the building and you're the one trying to lease it, can you explore that a little bit more with me just to let me know what your thought is as far as the leasability of your spaces with having that out lot there in front of your building. Is it going to bring more traffic in and make those spaces more desirable to lease or make them harder to lease because of the obstruction? Mr. Canvasser: We don't think it's going to be an obstruction at all. In addition to part of our agreement with Tim Hortons, there's an area to the west where we're agreeing that nothing is going to be put in that area. Even if it's ultimately allowed, we're not going to. But this is not a giant building. I know Mr. Bell can further address the distance from the building to the center as well as the height of the Tim Horton. We looked at that. There's a bank which is probably every bit as tall, if not taller, and that has never detracted from the center. We own and manage over 1.5 million square feet of commercial, industrial and office space. We're pretty active in the retail business. We have well over 300 tenants. We think this is a good opportunity for the center. We don't think it's going to detract from the center at all, and we don't think the sight lines are going to be impaired at all. If we did, we wouldn't. Our sign band is about 14 feet from the July 9, 2013 25858 sidewalk. That building is pretty impressive from Five Mile. So we don't think that's an issue at all. We wouldn't risk a 75,000 square fool shopping center with a 3,000 square foot tenant. Theyre not paying that much rent. We have a bigger fish to fry with a 40,000 square foot Fanner Jack. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate you giving me additional detail because I kind of agreed with Mr. Crowley as he made that comment that maybe this is not a good move in the sense that it's going to block your building, but the fad that you're here and you're able to tell us what impact you think its going to have on your building based on your experience is helpful. I think that helps me in making my decision. I do appreciate that. Mr. Canvasser: I hope I answered your question. I hope you understand. But again, I think the bigger point, and I really want to drill that home without getting into the economics of our deal. It's a 2,500 square foot tenant, a 3,000 square fool Tim Hortons. We have 75,000 square feet that is the real goal here, and I'm not going to risk that with a small Tim Horlons. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you think that having a Tim Hortons or any sort of out lot, really, because we're just talking about the lot as opposed to a specific tenant, I guess, at this point, but do you think that makes it more desirable for future tenants to locale there? Mr. Canvasser: A tenant wants traffic anyway they can gel it, and as I started to allude to just today, I got a letter from a tenant saying, hey, I can't pay the rent any more. I've already discounted the rent. The tenants there need more traffic. They're mom and pop tenants. They're holding on. Its traffic. If a tenant comes in there and they pay attention to the soccer store, or they pay attention to the triathlon store or people see the Art Council that's there, I have a new hair salon that's just opening up. The loner and ink store, they have a lot of competition with the big box office stores. They're looking for someone to say, hey, I'm here. I'm buying something from Tim Horlons. It's easier for me to drop my product off. I know you asked a little bit about the parking. When Fanner Jacks was operating at the height of their business and with Rite Aid operating at the height of their business, we never had a parking issue. I mean that parking lot has sat vacant. I have plowed it year after year after year. Empty, I plow it every year. We try and make that center look good no matter whether its 100 percent occupied or 30 percent occupied. Mr. Wilshaw: I wish you the best of luck in filling your spaces there. The axiom has always been in shopping centers that when you lose July 9, 2013 25859 your grocery, it kind of hurls the rest of the development because they're really the anchor. Mr. Canvasser: We've had three near misses on the Fanner Jack. We've worked on appealing our taxes without much success, and as I said, I think we're a pretty good corporate citizen. We're still standing up to the line and we want to, with your help, we can lease it, but our next altemative is to take down the Farmer Jack. Its cheaper for us to remove that building than to pay the electric, to heal it, to keep the fire suppression going, and we do that 365 days a year. Fanner Jack vacated I believe in '08 or '09. We appreciate your help. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Crowley: Again, I would just like to correct for the record, the MacDonald's was actually proposed on Newburgh, on that site, and when that was rejected, they did move it over to the other side and tried that as well. Again, I'm going to strongly oppose his statement that he takes care of the shopping center. Please lake a drive by. Over the years, we've complained about the signs falling down and being a danger. Called the City a number of times. He would not have rented it to basically the Spree carnival grounds to go set up camp site. He does not care aboullhe residents. Mr. Morrow: Let's not gel loo personal. Mr. Crowley: No, I'm not. I want this for the record. I'm not being personal. I'm just staling a fact that it was strongly opposed by the neighbors. I would agree that the shopping center is in need of repair. It has been in need of repair even when Fanner Jack was there. It was in need of a painljob. We would like to see at least ultimately, but if laking it down is an option, maybe it doesn't call for that type of center there. The parking may not have been an issue back then because Farmer Jack and Kroger had opened up. There was a Hiller's, a Fanner Jacks, a number of grocery stores at the time, and that's why that Fanner Jacks left that site was because they didn't have the customers. So if you brought someone in that could actually fill the store and actually make it successful, you might see a lot more cars there. Again, I strongly oppose it and I'd like to have a chance to have the neighbors be informed. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition? I see another gentleman coming forward. July 9, 2013 25860 Eric Ladwig, 37637 Five Mile, The UPS Store. I'm one of the center tenants. What this does for my business, to be honest with you, if a Tim Horton comes in, as a drive-thru is going to be kind of in the back, people are going to be sitting in their cars looking this way. Now they're going to see the visibility of my store. I've been with Mark for 17 year now. He's been a great landlord for me and if I have any questions or any concerns, they've been answered. But owning a business in a center that lost its two major anchors, the Farmer Jack and the Rile Aid, is lough. I'm spending a lot more money on advertising just to bring the awareness to the center that I'm actually there. The visibility. Mark mentioned traffic. That is key to me. I need people to see where I'm at and if I can cul down a little bit on advertising, maybe I can hire some people and maybe I can gel some more machinery. Then I can start upgrading and just improving my business. I think Tim Horlons is the gateway to start renting these other places out. Now it's desirable because think of the traffic that's coming through this plaza now. I don't know what the average traffic is, what 1,000 - 2,000 people or whatever it is, but for someone like me, I'm struggling. I need some help. I definitely think this is going to be a very positive thing for us to get the awareness for us. Mr. Morrow: I missed what your business is. Mr. Ladwig: A UPS store. Mr. Morrow: Okay. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Mr. Ladwig: Well, that was just it. I just passionately believe that this is what we need, because if this doesn't go through, are we going to wait until another big box store comes in? What big box store might come in or might not come in? But this is a solution right now that we can start improving our traffic for all of us. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience? I see no one else coming forward. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Mr. Taylor: I've lived in that area for about 45 years on Sunnydale, about a mile away, and I watched Fanner Jacks go in there and I watched other stores go in. There's traffic and that's what Livonia is all about as far as the mile roads go - Five Mile, Six Mile, Seven Mile. I just feel that if we can bring more traffic into that area, those stores will flourish better. There's no doubt about it, and it's happened throughout Livonia and I've seen it happen many times. When I moved out there, there weren't a lot of houses out there, and everybody else moved in and that's July 9, 2013 25861 when all the traffic came in. I've put up with traffic and we have a lot of traffic in that area, but we have a lot of traffic throughout Livonia. I'm going to offer an approving resolution. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #0738-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on 2013- 06-01-03 submitted by Tim Horton Cafe and Bake Shop pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the properly at 37685 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, from C-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-06-01-03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That C-2 zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That C-2 zoning would allow for the future development of a full service restaurant; and 3. That C-2 zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Bahr: I'll echo a lot of what Commissioner Taylor said. I want to particularly address the last point here, the C-2 zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. I can imagine some people hearing that and wondering about that, but retail is different today than it was when this center was built, and there isn't a Farmer Jack coming back. There's not going to be a full scale grocery store coming back. This center is very, very underutilized for what it was built for and what I remember it being when I was growing up in the city. The traffic, when its good for business, it's good for the neighborhoods. I really believe that. I live near a struggling center similar in size and scope to this, and I'll tell you the residents in our neighborhood would love to see something like coming in just because there's nothing worse over time than a struggling shopping center for the residents around it. I can July 9, 2013 25862 appreciate the neighbors concerns and certainly would urge, as I'm sure he has, the property owner to continue to be sensitive to those, but I do see this as consistent with the developing character of the area. I might also mention too that this is Tim Hortons fifth location and the other locations that they have, I drive by one every day. They're a pretty calm neighbor. Certainly not to the level that a MacDonald's is. That's the reason for my support. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Bahr Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate Mr. Bahrs comments. He always gives us a good perspective on things. As I looked at this petition and I listened to what the residents said, both in letter and in person here, I'm sensitive to their concerns and their needs as they're the people that live closest to this and have to deal with it. I thought that Mr. Crowley made a good point that perhaps putting something in front of the center could make it harder to see the center and harder for people to see the businesses located in the center. And then of course we had Mr. Canvasser, the owner of the center, come up and tell us based on his professional experience and years of dealing with retail, what his thought is as far as the desirability of the center with this out lot here. I think a valid point is being made that Tim Hortons is traditionally a good neighbor, a good business. Its not the same thing as a MacDonald's or a fast food restaurant that may have intense use during all hours of the day and night. It is focused more on the morning and possibly even lunch time frame. Will it generate traffic in the area? Yes, it will and as the business owners in the area indicate, it's going to generate positive traffic in the sense that it's going get eyeballs on their businesses and make their businesses more visible to the people who are sitting in the drive-thru. Drive-thru traffic is something that is always a concern to the Commission and to the City, but in this particular location, looking at the way the site is laid out, assuming there are no curb cuts that are going to be made for this business, there is more than adequate space to support a drive thru operation, much like the bank that's already on this site that has drive-thm activity, and there's room for adequate stacking of those cars because there are times when Tim Hortons will get quite busy, We see up on Eight Mile at that location where there's times when it actually backs out into Eight Mile because it's doing so well. That's not going to happen at this site because the placement of the driveways is far enough away from the site itself that there's no way you're going to have enough cars at that site to cause that sort of a problem. Even though I was not really on board with this zoning, I kind of wanted to keep an open mind. The comments of the various July 9, 2013 25863 folks that have come up and spoke today, the comments of the other Commissioners, has led me to the point where I believe it's appropriate to support this rezoning. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Just as a Chairman's comment, I think what we're seeing here tonight, petitions come before us and they're not always cut and dried. There's certainly good points on each side and that's why we're here, to make a determination. As I said in my opening remarks, what we do here tonight will be a recommendation to City Council, and they will have their own public hearing to determine the final outcome of this thing. Not all decisions are easy, but we do have to make one here tonight. If there is no other discussion or comment, I'm going to ask for a roll call. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. The City Council will ultimately make the final determination as to whether the petition is approved or denied. Thank you for coming tonight. ITEM #2 PETITION 2013-05-03-01 FARMINGTON PROPERTY Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 05-03-01 submitted by Farmington Property L.L.C. pursuant to Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate part of an existing utility easement at 12445 and 12319 Levan Road, located on the west side of Levan Road between Amrhein Road and Commerce Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to vacate part of an existing utility easement that is located on the west side of Levan Road between Amrhein Road and Commerce Street. The address and zoning map displayed on the overhead shows a lot of blue, which indicates that this property as well as all of the surrounding properties, are developed industrial properties. This particular easement crosses over two industrial properties, both of which are owned by entities of Roush Industries. The subject easement requested to be vacated is somewhal'T' shaped with part of it running parallel to Levan Road, approximately 150 feet west of the road, crossing Lots 1 thru 6 of the Broadmoor Acres Subdivision. Then there's another part that actually runs in an east to west fashion about 150 feet south of Amrhein and that crosses the upper and lower parts of Lots 5 and 6. This is an actual survey of one of the two properties that is affected by this July 9, 2013 25864 utility easement There is a building that occupies a substantial portion of the easement that is requested to be vacated. There is a little bit of a history to this. In 1968, part of the same easement running thru Lots 8 thru 12 of the Broadmoor Acres Subdivision was requested to be vacated under a petition that was filed back then, and it requested that Lots 1 thru 6, as well as 7 thru 19 be vacated. For some reason the City approved the vacation of the easements on Lots 8 through 12, but did not choose to vacation Lots 1 thru 6. For that reason, the petitioner is here this evening to request your approval to vacate said easement. If approved, this would move to the City Council for final action. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any correspondence on that? Mr. Taormina: There is no correspondence on this. We did notify the public utilities on this matter. We're not aware that there are any utilities currently occupying the subject easement. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Are there any questions ofthe Planning Director? Mr. Taylor: Mark, this must be just a maintenance job then? Mr. Taormina: From what I could tell, and we dug through the files, this is a plat that dales way back to the '40's at a time when this land was all zoned residential. Subsequently, it was rezoned for industrial purposes and developed with industries, Otherwise, you would have never seen these easements bifurcate these lots in the fashion that they do because it simply wouldn't allow for the industrial development. That's part of the history behind this, that these were all easements that were designed originally to accommodate homes that would have been developed on these individual lots. Mr. Taylor: So its kind of housekeeping, really. Isn't it? Mr. Taormina: It is a housekeeping matter at this point. Yes. It really helps Roush in their efforts to finance the properties, because anytime you have an encroachment like this, it presents a cloud on the title. Mr. Wilshaw: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. If 9 thru 12 are vacated, and we're looking at 1 thru 6, is that leaving little pieces of 7 and 8? Mr. Taormina: It may very well unless that was done under a separate petition. We'd have to investigate that. We responded to the request by Roush to vacate these. It could be that we can come back and, on our own initiation, vacate Lots 7 and 8, but we can't do it at July 9, 2013 25865 this time without going through the proper notification procedures. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. We'll deal with what's before us now, but it just seems like we're leaving little bits and pieces of easement to nowhere. We might as well clean it up at some point. Mr. Taormina: Yes, and I'll double check the record. There may have been a subsequent petition involving Lots 7 and 8 but right now, the way I understand it, this would lake care of everything in that subdivision with the possible exception of 7 and 8. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Good. Looking at this copy of the plat that we have, it's dated 1941. It's in pretty good looking shape actually considering how old the document is. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Paul Huba, Farmington Properly, L.L.C., 11916 Market Street, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you want to add to what you've heard so far? Mr. Huba: Mark has pretty much covered it. We appreciate your attention and appreciate your effort to clear the easement. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the petitioner? It seems to be fairly cut and dried, so we will keep this brief. 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 Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, @ was #0739-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on Petition 2013-05-03-01 submitted by Farmington Property L.L.C. pursuant to Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate part of an existing utility easement at 12445 and 12319 Levan Road, located on the west side of Levan Road between Amrhein Road and Commerce Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, which property is zoned M-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-05-03-01 be approved for the following reasons: July 9, 2013 25866 1. That the easement is not utilized and is not intended to be used in the future; 2. That the obsolete and unused easement runs directly through the middle of the buildings and for all practicable proposes is unserviceable; 3. That alternate utility easements that actually service the existing buildings were subsequently recorded in different locations;and 4. That no reporting City department or public utility has objected to the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, 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. ITEM #3 PETITION 2013-06-02-14 APPLEBEE'S Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 06-02-14 01306-02-14 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Morrow: Mark, when you present the site plan, will you be doing it for Items #3 and #4 and then come back and take each one individually as they come down the agenda? Mr. Taormina: Yes. The presentation I'll provide will be for Items #3 and #5 primarily, and then I'll make comments relative to Item #4 on the liquor license. But yes, I'd like to combine them. Mr. Morrow: Then we'll go back and handle each one individually after the presentation. July 9, 2013 25867 Mr. Taormina: This petition, as well as the following two items, involves development of the same parcel of land which is located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad and Schoolcraft Road and the 1-96 Expressway. The request is to construct a full service restaurant, an Applebee's, as well as a multi-tenant commercial building that would also include a full service restaurant, a Del Taco, that would contain drive-up window facilities. This site is about 2.95 acres in area, so it's just under 3 acres in size. It includes 360 feel of frontage along Middlebelt Road and 375 feel of frontage along Industrial Road. This site is adjacent to and north of the Menard's home improvement store that is currently under construction and scheduled to open later this summer. A little bit of history about the property. It was on May 14 that the Planning Commission forwarded an approving recommendation to the City Council for a request to rezone the subject property from its current classification of M-1, Light Manufacturing, to the C-2 General Commercial classification which would support the restaurants and retail uses that are proposed this evening. The City Council held its public hearing on June 24 and gave First Reading on the rezoning at its Regular Meeting on July 1. They are holding the Second Reading until the site plans are reviewed. Applebee's would be a one story building. It would total about 5,430 square feel in gross floor area. This plan shows the two buildings that are proposed on the parcel. Ultimately this property would be subdivided into two separate parcels with the north half of the property containing the Applebee's restaurant and the south half of the property containing the multi-tenant retail building and the Del Taco restaurant with the drive-up facilities. So on the right hand side of this drawing is Middlebelt Road and on the left hand side is a service drive that extends south from Industrial Road and feeds into the Menard's home improvement store. So the Applebee's, as I indicated, would be one story, about 5,400 square feet in area. It's on the north end of the property. The development includes a second multi- tenant building that would be about 35 feel south of the proposed Applebee's restaurant. The second building is a little bit larger. It's about 6,150 square feel in gross floor area and would be divided into three tenant spaces. The Del Taco would occupy the south end cap unit and measures about 2,000 square feet. The plans show how the building would be demised into three spaces with the Del Taco being located at the south end. This driveway would service the drive up window facilities that would be utilized by the Del Taco restaurant. The drive-up is located on the south side of the building, but the traffic lane serving the drive-up window would commence on the north side of the building between the two buildings and then loop around to the south side of the building. This is where cars July 9, 2013 25868 would enter the drive -up, come around and place their orders in the back of the building, and then the pickup window would be located on the south side of the building. There is a bypass lane provided for vehicles that want to avoid going through the drive -up lane. There are no additional curb cuts proposed onto Middlebelt Road. Access would be provided from three new approaches that would utilize the two existing drives that border the properly. One of the driveways leads from Industrial Road and extends along the west side of the property. This driveway is located on the subject parcel. The other access point would come from what is referred to as the east drive on the Menards site. This driveway is located on the Menards property, and borders the parcel to the south. There is an entrance there. The driveways in the northwest and southwest comers of the parking lot would allow for two-way directional traffic. Both ingress and egress would be allowed from these two driveways, whereas the one connecting to the Menards driveway would be for ingress purposes only. That would be accomplished by allowing for right Tums into the site for vehicles that turn in from Middlebelt Road. Heading westbound on this driveway would have the option of either continuing straight and going to Menards, turning north and entering the site from either of these two driveways, or alternatively, turning right into this access point here, which would be an ingress point only. The site plan shows a total of 160 parking spaces. The required parking for the project is equal to the sum total of all of the various uses. This would include the overall number of restaurant customer seats, the number of employees within the restaurants as well as the amount of retail floor space. A total of 171 parking spaces are required for all three uses. For the Applebee's, there are 216 customer seats. Del Taco has 44 seats. Combined, the seating would require 260 seats. Applebee's will have roughly 15 employees and Del Taco five employees. So that's 20 additional parking spaces needed for the employees. The retail area would require roughly 21 parking spaces. There are 160 parking spaces shown on the site plan while 171 are required per code, leaving a deficiency of 11 spaces that would have to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The landscaped areas on the site constitute roughly 17 percent of the overall property, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 15 percent. The plan shows mostly trees at the back of the property, as well as some shrubs along Middlebelt Road. Staff believes that the amount of landscape materials, especially trees, is not adequate, and for this reason we would recommend that this aspect of the plan come back to us for further review. I think its easier to look at the rendered site plan when describing the project, but as you look at the details here, you'll notice the size of the parking spaces, the specific location of where the July 9, 2013 25869 trash enclosures are going to be located, the exterior lighting and those types of elements are provided on this particular plan. I'm going to go to the rendered plans that were provided by the applicant showing what the building would look like. The first one is Applebee's. Both these buildings would actually be similar to each other in terms of architecture and building materials. For the Applebee's, there are three primary exterior buildings materials. There is a cultured or manufactured stone, which is the beige and brown color. The tower element above the main entrance into the restaurant is surrounded in the cultured stone material as well as along the base of the building. They are also showing a cement fiberboard siding. That is the darker brown. The east elevation would face Middlebelt Road. The fiberboard is shown here, which is a material we've seen before. In fact, Tim Horton being built at Merriman and Five Mile is going to use the same type of material on that building. The reddish color portion of the building which makes up the area around the windows is an E.I.F.S. or a dryvit material. Some of the details include metal awnings that would display Applebee's trademark graphics. Decorative light fixtures are also shown on the plan, a metal canopy over the entrance to the restaurant, as well as a prefnished metal coping. The coping is the area that runs along the top of the building. The light fixtures are a little difficult to see on this particular plan, but there are a number of sconces identified, and then the canopy over the entrance is located here. This shows you what the other sides of the Applebee's restaurant would look like. One other material that they are showing is this scored or decorative masonry unit that would be used to screen the trash enclosure area behind Applebee's. Actually, there are two trash enclosures. There is one for the retail building and Del Taco as well as the restaurant, all located behind the Applebee's restaurant. So they are going to consolidate all of the trash behind the Applebee's restaurant. The middle rendering is the building as it would appear from the north elevation. This is the side of the building that would face Industrial Road. The south elevation is the side of the building that would be adjacent to the other retail building. Next we have the multi -tenant building that includes the Del Taco restaurant. They provided detail specifically on the restaurant portion of this building, whereas the other two tenants have yet to be identified, but they would carry the same theme in terms of the architecture. They are using the cultured or manufactured stone over a significant portion of the Del Tam restaurant on the portion of the building that faces Middlebelt Road. They also use it to identify or subdivide the tenant spaces. The E.I.F.S. is shown in a lighter beige or brown coloring and then the awnings are a different color. So they are using the same types of materials, the July 9, 2013 25870 E.I.F.S., the cultured stone with a little bit different colors for both the awnings and the E.I.F.S. This may include some of the same material along the other sides of the building. This darker brown is either a brick or the same. This is a brick material that they're proposing for the north side of the building as well as portions of the south elevation. In terms of signage, Applebee's would be allowed one sign not to exceed 71 square feet. They are showing four overall wall signs totaling 120 square feet. Del Tam also is permitted one wall sign not to exceed 30 square feel. The elevation plans show they're proposing two wall signs that would equal 108 square feel. Clearly, the signage is something that would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. For Applebee's, the sign on the east elevation on the lower facing Middlebelt Road, then you have another sign on the north elevation that would face Industrial Road. I think the third sign is probably on that same elevation. Primarily, two sides of the building would have signage on it. The same thing exists for the Del Taco, one on the east elevation facing Middlebelt Road and then another sign on the lower on the opposite side facing south, so that would be visible for northbound traffic on Middlebelt Road. Lastly, in terms of monument signage, because these sites are being divided, they're each going to be entitled to their own ground sign. The limitations on the ground sign are six feel in height, 30 square feel in area with a minimum setback of 10 feel from any right-of- way line. The plans do show two ground signs but we don't have any details in terms of what those signs would look like at this time. With that, I'll answer any questions or I'll go straight to the correspondence at this time, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Morrow: Please go to the correspondence and then I think we'll have a couple questions for you. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 27, 2013, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use approval request. The written legal description is correct. The address for this site is confirmed to be 13301 Middlebelt. Industrial Drive is under the City of Livonia jurisdiction while Middlebelt Road is under Wayne County's jurisdiction. Any work within Middlebelt Road will require a Wayne County Permit. The Engineering Department is concerned with additional traffic to the proposed restaurants that would result in traffic congestion entering onto Industrial Road, especially mixing with truck traffic leaving from Kroger Dairy and UPS. Consideration may be needed to examine any traffic warrants for the existing traffic signal that may require improvements at July 9, 2013 25871 the intersection at Middlebelt/Industrial under Wayne County's jurisdiction. Consideration should be given to prohibit left turns entering onto Industrial Drive or provide specified times not allowing left turns during peak hours. A haffic report should be provided to determine the proposed impacts to the site and surrounding area along with recommendation to provide internal pavement markings and necessary traffic control devices to assist patrons. In regards storm water management, the City of Livonia requires storm water detention. The plans depicts storm water detention that ties into Livonia Drain #19 and falls under the jurisdiction of the City Engineering Department to review calculations and storage capacity for the proposed site improvements. Pertaining to utilities, the City of Livonia has an existing 16 -inch water main on the south side of Industrial Drive. There is an existing 18 -inch sanitary sewer that runs north and south along the west side of Middlebelt Road for use. Separate sanitary sewer leads will be required. Separate sanitary connections to the existing 18 -inch sanitary sewer along Middlebe/t Road will be required. In addition, separate domestic water service lines would be required, resulting in a private easement from the north parcel to service the south parcel. We are providing the owner, for informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, unless written approval is obtained to exceed this amount. This Ordinance also provides information on grease trap/nterceptor requirements, and is available on the City of Livonia website at wwwci.livonia.mi.us, go to the right hand side of the web page under Quick Shortcuts, click on Online Ordinances. A soil erosion and sedimentation control (SESC) permit will be required and involve separate plans to be submitted since the site is over one (1) acre. This permit and associated fees will be handled by the Engineering Department before any work commences". The letter is signed by Todd Zilincik, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 2, 2013, which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed the petition for waiver use approval on the property at the above referenced address to construct and operate a full service restaurant and have noted the following. (1) NFPA 1, Chapter 20 shall be followed for Assembly Occupancies, (2) NFPA 101, Chapter 12, shall be followed for New Assemblies, (3) Fire Department Access shall be maintained in accordance to NFPA 1, 18.2.2.1, 18.2.3.1.2, 18.2.3.4.1 and 18.2.3.4.3.; (4) Fire Hydrants and water supply are required according to NFPA 1, 18.3. These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process. Providing that all details in regards to New July 9, 2013 25872 Assembly Occupancy 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 June 14, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the captioned petitions. There is currently a driveway that leads from the complex (Menards, Applebee's, Del Tac) to Middlebeft Road. This is one of two driveways that the complex willuse. The other driveway is off of Industrial Roadjust west of Middlebeft Road. The driveway that leads from the complex is not a new driveway and was previously used by a distribution warehouse. The previous volume of traffic was far less than what it will be when the establishments open. It is anticipated that traffic exiting from this driveway will have several points of conflict with other haffic. Most notable is southbound Middlebelt traffic staged in the center lane waiting to tum left into Meijer. Motorists will have to cross three southbound lanes, and then navigate through or around vehicles staged in the center lane while entering into a gap in northbound traffic. An additional point of confilct with this driveway is for motorists intending to enter the complex from northbound Middlebelt. They will have to contend with the same southbound vehicles staged in the center lane and those turning left from the complex onto Middlebeft. It is our recommendation that turns be restricted into and from this driveway. Signs should be posted at the exit indicating NO LEFT TURN. Additionally, northbound traffic should be restricted from turning left into the complex. Signs should be posted on northbound Middlebeft indicating NO LEFT TURN into the complex. Rights turns should be permitted for ingress (southbound traffic) and egress (exiting traffic) only. Traffic intending to go northbound on Middlebelt can use the exit at Industrial and enter northbound Middlebelt at the current traffic signal. All northbound Middlebeft haffic can enter the complex via Industrial. Wayne County Roads was previously contacted regarding this matter along with our recommendations. We were advised they would have restricted the turning movements but there was not a curb cut (driveway) permit requested by the petitioner because there was already a driveway to the complex. Wayne County did advise they would install turning restriction signs on the right of way if crashes increased. We anticipate that crashes will increase. There are too many dynamics occurring at these driveways for crashes not to occur. This same strategy (turning movement restrictions) is currently in use on Plymouth Road west of Middlebelt for the driveways leading to Wonderland (Target and Walmart complex). It has proven successful." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 9, 2013, which reads as July 9, 2013 25873 follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess number and size of the proposed signage. (2) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the deficient number of parking spaces proposed. 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? Ms. Scheel: To Mr. Taormina through the Chair. The fimt question comes from the letter that was written by Sgt. John Gibbs of the Traffic Division. Are we allowed or not allowed to restrict the traffic signs? Does that have to come from Wayne County or can that come from us? Mr. Taormina: No, that would have to come from Wayne County if it is within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way. Just to elaborate or clarify what Sgt. Gibbs is suggesting, his concern is primarily with vehicles exiling from the driveway on the Menards property. Again, this is a driveway that is controlled by Menards. This was an item that was discussed at the time the Menards petition came before us. They did provide a traffic analysis. It was their opinion that there was sufficient sight lines and gaps in traffic to allow for a left hand tum to take place from this driveway onto northbound Middlebelt Road. However, they recognized the concems with those turning movements and so there will be signs posted along this road encouraging traffic exiting Menards, that all northbound traffic turn left here and then use the signalized intersection at Industrial and Middlebelt. Similady, this plan provides similar signage for people exiting the site at these two locations. There will be signs posted that northbound traffic tum nghl and use Industrial Dnve, the signalized intersection, in order to turn left there as opposed to using this drive for those turn movements. The other concem, as I understand the letter, is for northbound traffic on Middlebelt Road, the left hand turn movements into the site from northbound traffic on Middlebelt Road conflicting with left hand Tums occuring into the Mei&s from southbound traffic on Middlebelt Road. So you've got the entrance going into the Mep&s on the opposite side of the road and you've got persons that are southbound on Middlebelt Road wanting to tum left into Mep&s, and then you've got people northbound on Middlebelt wanting to turn left into this site, and there's the potential for conflict between the two. His suggestion is that there be a sign posted that would restrict or prohibit left hand turns from July 9, 2013 25874 Middlebelt Road into this driveway, but that's something that would have to be done by the County. He's indicated in his letter that he's had that discussion with the County. In fad, they're considering putting those signs in there if they see an increase in crash incidents. Ms. Scheel: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: The driveways pretty well line up though. Mr. Taormina: I'll go the aerial photograph and show you the difference. I don't believe they line up at all. The Meijer driveway is about 200 feet further to the south. Ms. Scheel: My next question, I didn't see where there was an outside dumpster for the retail building, but then you said that they're going to share that? Mr. Taormina: Yes. The retail building would use one of the enclosures behind the Applebee's. I believe this identifies the enclosure for Applebee's because this other box identified on the site plan would be one of the cooler or freezer units. There is masonry surrounding these. There are gales that are provided here for the dumpsler for access to the trash enclosure; gales provided here but the other areas would be surrounded by masonry. Ms. Scheel: And how would the folks from the retail building gel to that dumpsler? Mr. Taormina: They would walk along here. Access would be from the parking lot to the south to gel access there. That's my understanding, yes. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We have three things before us, but right now we're going to confine ourselves to Agenda Item #3, which is the Applebee's restaurant. We will need your name and address for the record please. Ryan Jones, TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We're here to propose an Applebee's and a retail building with a Del Taco end cap. Livonia is also our hometown. Our corporate office is right at Laurel Park Mall. We're very excited to bring a Del Taco to Livonia as well as an Applebee's. We have three other Applebee's throughout the State of Michigan, and we also have 65 Applebee's throughout the State of Michigan. We're very July 9, 2013 25875 happy to try to bring one here locally. Just a quick clarification on that trash enclosure. The retail and the Del Taco trash enclosure is located next to the Applebee's trash enclosure, but behind the retail building, and the Del Taco is actually all sidewalk, and that sidewalk connects directly to the side of the trash enclosure there. Right there there's an opening into that trash enclosure. So they definitely won't be going out into the parking lot. They'll have a straight shot behind the building to that trash enclosure all through a sidewalk. So that was the first clarification. Also, we've heard the concerns of the traffic, and we have proposed, just like Menards has proposed, to put directional signs up on our site to direct all customers leaving our site to use Industrial Road and use the intersection. We feel most people will learn that pattern anyways instead of trying to tum out of the Menards drive because there is no intersection. So we anticipate most people will use Industrial Road with the light. I'm open to any questions you guys have. I've got a lot of information. I know we discussed hardy board at the study meeting. I actually have a sample here if you guys wanted to see that. I've got a little more information on that. That material actually has a 30 year warranty. It actually comes prefnished now so there are many different color options. It can come prefinished so there's no painting involved. It should outlast the building life. Mr. Morrow: While we're discussing that, Mark, could you bring up the buildings? Mr. Taormina: Sure. I think this is the material he's referring to. It's a cement fiber panel, sometimes referred to as hardy plank. Mr. Jones: Yes. Mr. Taormina: On the Livonia store, that material is identified here on the building. Did you want to show the sample? Mr. Jones: Yes. Its actually made out of cement. It's very durable. It doesn't rot. Moisture cant affect it. And if it's not painted, they use a seven coal process to pre -finish the material. In the rendering, it's a brown color. I couldn't gel the actual color sample from them. This is the unfinished product that you would have to paint, but it's going to look exactly like this but in the color you see on the rendering. It's used quite a bit in construction these days. It's very durable, and like I said, has a 30 year warranty which is great. I think it will probably outlast the brick. So that's all I have to say on the hardy board. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? July 9, 2013 25876 Mr. Wilshaw: Since we're talking about the materials, did you want to hold up the material sample board and just sort of point out the different colors and materials that you're using since the vast television audience we have hasn't had a chance to see the actual colors? Mr. Jones: The stone you see on the entry lower and the bottom three to four feet around the building is the cultured stone. There's a little different color variation. It's mostly this whitish or beige and there's a little bit of yellow in it depending on how the manufacturer makes it. This is an actual sample of the hardy board that is in the actual brown color. The canopies you see above the entrance door are this standing seam metal. Its a silver gray. And the E.I.F.S., the red you see, is typical E.I.F.S. We use heavy mesh to make it much stronger so it lasts much longer and low maintenance. The metal coping around the top of the building would be this black metal, and this black you see here is the black that's around the back that screens the trash enclosure and the walk-in box. It's an outside cooler. Those are the finishes on the Applebee's and you also see the awnings there. It's a metal so we don't use the fabric. Fabric has very bad maintenance qualities. So the metal panels, they'll Iasi for a very long time and they have an LED light strip that lights them. So any questions on the Applebee's material? Mr. Wilshaw: Thanks for the showing the materials. I have a question on the awning though. I looked at the Applebee's at Six Mile and Haggerty, which recently was upgraded with new awnings that are similar to this in the sense of being the bright yellow corporate color for Applebee's, and are actually quite attractive looking, but they don't have apples on them. Is that graphic on the awning something that's a necessity or is that something that could be done away with? Mr. Jones: That is one of the main corporate images that we would love to keep. They also have a car -side awning there where they carry the food out. You can see it on the middle rendering there, the north. That is also the same metal canopy that says "car -side to go" so customers know where to come up. But yes, the apples are definitely something we would pursue. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, because I don't see that on the Applebee's at Six Mile and Haggerty, and I don't see it on any other Applebee's I've gone by that have these types of awnings. I'm fine with the "car -side to go" sign because essentially that's a directional sign. Its letting people know, like you said, what entrance to go in. I don't have a problem with that, but to me, the apples are essenfially advertising, especially if they are backlit with LED July 9, 2013 25877 lighlbands and so on, which is, again, something that we typically dont lend to like in the City. That's my only comment on the awnings. I think that maybe we need to think about that a little bit, but the rest of the materials, which I was not entirely enamored with at our study meeting. We talked about the lack of brick and so on. I do feel a lot better about these materials now that I've had a chance to Team a little bit more about them, see the materials that you've brought in. I think that the cultured stone and the cement fiberboard are nice durable materials which sort of complement the areas of drive-in, which are maybe a little less durable but not in an exposed area where they're going to get damaged. So thanks for reviewing those materials with us. I do appreciate that. I do have some concern over the traffic issues as our Police Department and Engineering Department have pointed out. I think the Schoolcratt and Middlebelt intersection is the busiest intersection in the city by traffic volume, which is why you're wanting to locate in that area I'm sure to capitalize on that. Menards is going to generate a tremendous amount of traffic. This is going to generate traffic. There's going to be a lot more out lots coming which will generale traffic. I think putting the traffic toward Industrial Road, I think is a wise move. I think the directional signs that you've proposed are probably helpful, although at some point we may find that we're even overloading that intersection, which I think is the point of the Traffic Sergeant when he indicates that they may need to even, or actually I think it was the City Engineer, that we may need to even look at the warrants on the signalized intersection itself and determine if there's any changes necessary at some point, but that's not necessarily your cross to bear. That's not you're light. You're just laking advantage of it. So that's my comments up to this point. I think the building looks good. I'm just not too keen on the graphics on the awnings. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Mark, referencing these graphics, will Inspection construe those as signs or how will they construe them? Mr. Taormina: You know, I had that conversation today with the Director of Inspection and all I can tell you is that the jury is still out. I think he wants to review the details before making a determination. Either way, it's really up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to advise whether or not the graphics are desired. If they're ultimately considered to be part of the sign package, then theyll have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. If not, then they're just an element of the site plan. Mr. Morrow: Theyre looking for a little direction from either this body or the City Council to make that determination? July 9, 2013 25878 Mr. Taormina: The Director of Inspection will make the decision ultimately. Mr. Morrow: But he wants the input? Mr. Taormina: Yes, he was hesitant to make a determination at this point with the information. He said he'd have to review the plans in greater detail and also compare it with what we've done with other projects in the past. There is a fine line between what constitutes signage and what is just an architectural element. Mr. Morrow: Got it. Any other questions? Ms. Smiley: What did we decide on the fish on Mitchell's? Is that art or is that signage? Mr. Taormina: You're testing my memory now, Commissioner Smiley. I would have to go back and take a look to see. I think that the Planning Commission and the City Council had significant input on the final appearance of those graphics. If you remember, originally they were going to be painted on the side of the building and we changed them to more of a sculpture type of element on the building. I'm not sure that they ever went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think it was handled mostly as a site plan element more than anything else. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bahr: A question for Mark. Are you comfortable with the E.I.F.S. sections on this building? I know you expressed concern with some other projects with that. Is this high enough that it's not a concern? Mr. Taormina: I don't think it's a concern. I was looking at that earlier and thinking that if the desire was to see a greater amount of stone or brick on the elevations, what would make sense. And looking at the east elevation, maybe it if went up a little bit higher along the base, but then it doesn't match the sill line for the windows. So that might be a little awkward. So really, I don't know what this dimension is. Probably 2.5 - 3 feet above grade, which I think is standard for a lot of the buildings that we have. I'm not overly concerned about the amount of E.I.F.S. shown on the building. It's similar on the north elevation as well as the south elevation. The south elevation really won't be that visible. This is the back portion of the south elevation. It really won't be that visible for most traffic. July 9, 2013 25879 Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. I do have a question for the petitioner. Do you feel that the parking here is adequate for you? I know that officially you're 11 spaces deficient, but what do you feel your needs are for this site? Mr. Jones: We feel we're proposing a few too many spaces based on ordinance. We're proposing 127 spaces for the Applebee's, and our typical high volume restaurants throughout our system typically only have 10010 110 parking spaces. So we feel we're providing a few more for the Applebee's than what is truly needed. On the retail and the Del Taco, I think those numbers are okay. So I would say we're probably around 15 to 20 spaces more than we really feel we need. Mr. Bahr: There had been some comment made at the study meeting about land banking some of those spaces along the west side. Do I remember that correctly? I guess I don't know if that's for the petitioner or for Mark. Mr. Taormina: Scott indicated that there was some discussion about possibly land banking the west row of parking, but I'm not sure if that was something the pefifioner had agreed to or not. Mr. Bahr: And I don't have a strong opinion on the land banking part so much, but if the pefifioner says based on what he said with his experience with the other Applebee's, I don't have an issue with the parking at all either. That's it. Ms. Smiley: On that subject, I have one more question. Is a lot of that drive- lhm for Del Taco? Mr. Jones: Its at least 60 percent drive-thm. Probably in this case, this one may even be a little more with the draw of the Menards. We feel this may be a little more than 60 percent drive-thm at this location, but it's typically what we see in our three other locations, 60 percent. Ms. Smiley: My main concern probably then is, I'm not a big fan of doing a survey to see how many crashes we had. I prefer we do everything preventative so that we don't make a statistic, because I could easily be one. So anything you can do to guide that traffic to the safest exit and entrance would be greatly appreciated. Mr. Jones: We originally had proposed a full movement access point onto Menards drive, but now we have reduced it to just a one way in so we dont have any vehicles coming out of that drive creafing more traffic. So we have looked at that already and tried to July 9, 2013 25880 ease some of the traffic situations that we can control, but we have absolutely no control over the existing Menards drive now. We can t do anything about that drive as it is now. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Scheel: I just have a very simple general question. What are the hours that you're proposing for Applebee's? Mr. Jones: Applebee's is 11:00 a.m. to midnight, and then I believe on Friday and Saturday, they are open until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m. Ms. Scheel: Okay. And you're not asking for any outdoor seating or anything? Mr. Jones: No. The prototype actually had an outside patio. We decided that we did not want to do the outside patio just because of Michigan climate. We didn't feel it was worth the expense for those couple months that it gets used. So no, we won't be proposing any outdoor seating. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, through the chair. Mark, a landscape plan is coming back to us right? Mr. Taormina: I'm recommending that, yes. Mr. Taylor: And the signage that we see on these buildings, they're non- conforming so they have to go to the Zoning Board. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Taylor: So whatever signs we approve tonight, which we're not approving really, its just the conforming signs. Mr. Taormina: Yes. The way the prepared resolution reads is, only conforming signs are approved and any additional signage would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Bahr: One more brief comment. I just wanted to voice my concurrence. Should this go through, we'll ask for a landscape plan to come back, but I would like to see more trees when that happens. That area can definitely benefit from more green and less pavement. And then one last question. Mrs. Scheel asked Mr. Taormina: No. They still comply. They're showing 17 percent according to Scott's calculations, which is in compliance. So this would not be factored into necessarily a permanent part of the landscaping. When we approve parking spaces being land banked, we also stipulate that if there's ever a need to construct those parking spaces that they be installed. That's why we don't count it towards the first 15 percent of the required landscaping. Mr. Wilshaw: That makes sense. If they come back with a landscape plan and they are going to land bank those spaces, they can still indicate some sort of shrubbery. Mr. Taormina: Absolutely. July 9, 2013 25881 a very important question about the hours, but she forgot the most important part, and that is, what night do kids eat free? Mr. Jones: That's a good question. I don't know that answer, but I do know every Monday I believe is Veterans Day where they gel 30 percent off every Monday. Mr. Bahr: I'm all set. Thank you. Mr. Jones: I'll lel you know on that one. Ms. Scheel: I have one more question. Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. The monument sign that you spoke of for each building, will that come back to us? Mr. Taormina: I don't know that the prepared resolution includes that. Again, it stipulates that they have to be conforming and if they're not, they require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Still, if this body wants to make any recommendations relative to signage, now is the time because that would be passed on to the Council and whatever the Council approves, the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot consider any signage in excess of that. So I think your recommendation at this point is valuable on any of the site plan elements, obviously including signage. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a question to Mr. Taormina. If we make as part of the approving resolution a recommendation that those western most parking spaces be land banked, does that then go toward increasing the percentage of landscaping on the site when you calculate that number, because I know they were a little low on that. Mr. Taormina: No. They still comply. They're showing 17 percent according to Scott's calculations, which is in compliance. So this would not be factored into necessarily a permanent part of the landscaping. When we approve parking spaces being land banked, we also stipulate that if there's ever a need to construct those parking spaces that they be installed. That's why we don't count it towards the first 15 percent of the required landscaping. Mr. Wilshaw: That makes sense. If they come back with a landscape plan and they are going to land bank those spaces, they can still indicate some sort of shrubbery. Mr. Taormina: Absolutely. July 9, 2013 25882 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you 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'll close the public hearing and request a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-40-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on Petition 2013-06-02-14 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcreft Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26, which properly is currently in the process of being rezoned from M-1 to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-06-02-14 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Dimension and Paving Plan marked Sheet C4 prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, dated June 26, 2013, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Department within sixty (60) days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 3. That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed two hundred sixteen (216) seals; 4. That the Building Elevation Plan marked A4.2 prepared by Wah Yee Associates, dated June 7, 2013, as revised, is 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 the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid July 9, 2013 25883 panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 7. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a height of 20 feet above grade and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway; 8. That the proposed wall signs as shown on the referenced elevation plan are approved with this petition, subject to approval by Zoning Board of Appeals, and that provided the parcel is split such that Applebee's and the multi -tenant retail building are located on separate parcels, the Applebee's shall be allowed one (1) conforming ground/monument sign in the approximate location as shown on the approved site plan, and that any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 9. That except for the accent lighting on the awnings, there shall be no LED lighlband or exposed neon permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits. 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, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? July 9, 2013 25884 Mr. Taormina: We don't have the information on the monument signs. We don't know if they're going to propose 6 feet or 10 feet high signs, but to the extent that you may want to restrict that somewhat, you may want to include a condition that those strictly be conforming in terms of their size and dimensions. You may want to have a separate resolution dealing with the monument signs. And then the other question was with respect to the LED. I think the petitioner indicated earlier that some type of LED was going to be used around the window frames or the awnings. Can you describe that a little bit further, if that's okay through the Chair to the petitioner? Mr. Morrow: I think its a concern that I'm glad you're bringing out. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Jones, is the lighting that you're referring to the lighting that appears underneath the awnings? Mr. Jones: It is what you're showing there. It's actually an LED strip lighlband that sits in front of the awning. You can see the black lines kind of running. There are two of them running horizontal there, and that projects light onto the front face of the awning. It does not illuminate the back side of the awning. Ms. Scheel: So is it on the black and it goes al the awning? It shoots in. Mr. Jones: Yes. It shoots towards the building, towards the awning. Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: So the awnings will be illuminated yellow essentially at night lime? Mr. Jones: Yes. Mr. Taormina: I'm just afraid that condition #9 conflicts with what they're showing on their plan because it would be LED Iighlbands even though its casting the light on the face of the awning. We may want to clarify that. Mr. Morrow: Yes, I see where you're coming from. I know in the past we've approved some lighting for the awning and it went through some sort of an architectural light fixture to reflect and light the thing. So I guess this is their way of doing it to light the awnings. How does the Commission feel about where we say no LED lighlband or exposed neon light shall be permitted? Ms. Scheel: Should we say if we didn't mind it being on the awning the way it's showing, could we add "except for as shown on the awnings?" July 9, 2013 25885 Mr. Morrow: Howdoyou feel aboutthat, Mark? Mr. Taormina: We could add that language to condition #9. Mr. Taylor: LED lighting as shown on the photograph is approved. Mr. Morrow: Just confine it to the awnings and any other shall not be permitted. Mr. Taormina: Is there any other? Mr. Jones: The word "LED" in that resolution kind of scares me because we like to use LED lights, not old fashion ones. I mean some of the wall scones are actually LED because they're low maintenance. I mean they last forever. Mr. Morrow: We don't want a Iighlband going all around the building, up or down the building. Mr. Jones: Right. We have no proposal for Iightbands as a solid band you can visually see, but some of the light bulb fixtures ... Mr. Taormina: That would not be a problem. Ms. Scheel: Itjusl says LED Iightband. Mr. Bahr: Even the ones around the awnings aren't the exposed type of lights. I don't have a problem adding the language, but I don't have a concern with it. Mr. Morrow: I guess its semantics now. Mr. Bahr: I don't see any exposed LED or neon on here and I don't think that's their intent. Mr. Wilshaw: I agree with Scott's comment. In this case, the LED lights on the awnings are being used as a lighting accent. It would be no different than putting spotlights in the ground and pointing them up towards at the awnings or anything else. Frankly, if there's anything I want to compromise on, I would gel rid of the graphics on the awnings but leave them illuminated. That's fine with me but that's up to the maker of the motion if they want to do that or not. Mr. Morrow: Mark, I think we've reached the consensus here that the LED Iighlband is not part of the awning. In other words, its just a way of illuminating, but not a band. July 9, 2013 25886 Mr. Taormina: We'll make sure that the resolution properly addresses that. Mr. Jones: Can I address one more thing? This is John Thompson. He's with PEA. I was going to have him just briefly discuss the landscaping concern you guys had. John B. Thompson, P.E. Senior Project Manager, Professional Engineering Associates, Inc., 2430 Rochester Court, Suite 100, Troy, Michigan 48083. My question with respect to the landscaping amendment is, if we could do that administratively through Mark's office rather than come back to another Planning Commission meeting. Would that be acceptable? Mr. Morrow: Are you talking aboutthe Iandbanking? Ms. Scheel: The landscape plan, #2. Mr. Thompson: I know Mark was looking for some additional trees and some of the Commissioners as well. I was just wondering if it would be acceptable to do that administratively through Mark. Mr. Morrow: Let's see how the Commission feels about that. Mrs. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: I have no problem with that. Mark knows what he wants and what we need. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wilshaw? Mr. Wilshaw: I don't have a stake in the motion. Mr. Taylor: I don't have any problem. Ms. Scheel: I don't have any problem with leaving it up to the administration. Mr. Bahr: I certainly trust Mark, and if its a valid procedure, then I'm fine with that. Mr. Morrow: It would appear that we're placing the burden on Mark, and if we're dissatisfied, we know where to go. Mr. Jones: Thank you. I have one more request. I'm not sure if this is the time to make it but I also need to request a seven day waiver so we could get on the City Council agenda for July 15. Mr. Morrow: We'll take that up at the conclusion of the first motion. What we were talking about is the landscape plan. July 9, 2013 25887 Ms. Scheel: The landscape plan, #2, is going to be adjusted. Mr. Morrow: That's what I wanted to verify. Ms. Scheel: And I have an additional question for Mark. Mr. Morrow: Well, as far as it relates to that, Mark, adjust #2 where he does not have to bring it back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Taormina: Yes. We'll lake care of that. Ms. Scheel: Mark, what you had mentioned earlier regarding the monument sign. If the monument sign that they propose is conforming, then it doesn't need to come back? As long as it's conforming, it goes along with what's before us now, right? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. If you want to stipulate that it be conforming, I think now is the time to do that. Mr. Taylor: Could we make it easier, Mark, to put in Item #8 that any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Taormina: Well, we dont know what the ground signs look like. Mr. Taylor: That's what I mean. Mr. Taormina: We know what all the other signs look like so we know that they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. As I understand it, you're comfortable with the sign package as it exists today, including the monument signs, as long as they're conforming. Mr. Taylor: We've done that in the past. Mr. Taormina: We can stipulate in the resolution that the ground signs be conforming. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Mr. Taormina: And that you accept the fact that the wall signs will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Mr. Taormina: Yet you're comfortable, as I understand it, with the sign package as presented provided that those monument signs fully conform to the ordinance. Is that cored? Then we can specify that. July 9, 2013 25888 Mr. Taylor: The only problem we have with that is we dont know the square footage or any of that. Mr. Taormina: That's what I'm saying. We'll make them conforming. You'll stipulate that theyre conforming, and if they're not, then they have to come back for your review. Mr. Taylor: Fine. Mr. Taormina: Since we're allowing the exception on the wall signs, maybe it's appropriate to make sure that the monument signs conform. Is that an issue? Mr. Jones: The only issue I see with the monument signs, which is one reason we haven't proposed anything, is the pending parcel split. We feel a parcel split will occur, and we will get two monument signs, but at this point in time, we truly are only allowed one monument sign per ordinance because the parcel split has not occurred. So it's very difficult to propose a monument sign now, al this lime. Mr. Taormina: If I could respond to that, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Morrow: Sure. Mr. Taormina: The split is something that they are entitled to, and once that occurs, they will be allowed two monument signs, one on each parcel. Those monument signs will be limited to, as I indicated earlier, 30 square feet in area, 6 feet in height and a setback of 10 feel from the right-of-way. So as long as they're willing to accept that, then we'll fashion the language in that direction. Mr. Morrow: They can always go the Zoning Board of Appeals anyway. Mr. Taormina: I would suggest that if they decide later on that they want to have larger signs, then they submit those to this body for your review first before going to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That serves as an incentive for them to comply with the ordinance as it relates to the ground signage. Mr. Morrow: I think we've got it now. I think we're all on the same page. If you want two monument signs, I think you'll move forward with getting the lot split and then you're entitled to it without further ado as long as theyre conforming. Ms. Scheel: So they submit plans for two conforming signs. Who looks at them? July 9, 2013 25889 Mr. Taormina: The Inspection Department. Ms. Scheel: The Inspection Departmentwill look atthem. Do you see them? Mr. Taormina: Typically, yes. Ms. Scheel: I'm good as long as you're looking at them also to make sure. Okay. Do we have everything? Mr. Morrow: Mark, have you got it pretty well cleared up now as far as the final motion? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Then without further ado, I'm going to ask for a roll call. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. I think you requested a seven day waiver. Will anyone offer that motion? Ms. Smiley: I will. I would propose that we grant them a seven day waiver. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-41-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2013-06-02-14 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. July 9, 2013 25890 ITEM #4 PETITION 2013-06-02-15 APPLEBEE'S CLASS C Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 06-02-15 01306-02-15 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(h) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26. Mr. Taormina: The proposed Applebee's would carry a Class C liquor license which would allow for the sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises. The license at this location would comply with all of the special requirements of Section 11.03(h) which specifies that no other Class C licensed businesses can be located within 1,000 feel of the proposed license. The closest licensed establishment is Logan's restaurant which is about 1,500 feel from the subject properly. With that, I'll answer any questions that you may have. There is no correspondence with respect to this item. Mr. Morrow: Any questions regarding the Class C liquor license? Seeing none, does the petitioner have any input that he would like to add to the proceedings? Ryan Jones, TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. It's a Class C liquor license which we received from a restaurant called Tina's Place. It was in Wayne County so it's just being transferred in Wayne County to Wayne County, which I believe is what you have to do by law. We have applied for it and we expect to receive it from Tina's Place, Incorporated. They were located out in Allen Park. Mr. Morrow: Okay. We assume that all necessary things will follow. Are there any questions or comments before I 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, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-42-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on Petition 2013-06-02-15 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections July 9, 2013 25891 11.03(h) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, which property is currently in the process of being rezoned from M-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-06-02- 15 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use of an Class C license 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 Class C license; 3. That the proposed use of a Class C license is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 4. That the proposed Class C licensed establishment would be utilized primarily as a restaurant. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance, 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. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Chairman, do they need a seven day waiver on that? Mr. Morrow: Theyve requested a seven day waiver. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #97-43-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2013-06-02-15 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(h) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine July 9, 2013 25892 and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right -0f --way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2013-06-02-16 DEL TACO Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013- 06-02-16 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a multi -tenant commercial building with a full service restaurant including drive -up window facilities (Del Taco) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26. Mr. Taormina: I'll let my presentation from Item #3 apply to Item #5. Also, with respect to the correspondence, I believe three of the four items are the same as what was read out for the Applebee's in Item #3. That would include the letter dated July 9 from the Inspection Department, the letter dated June 27 from the Engineering Division and the letter dated June 14 from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police. There is also a letter from the Livonia Fire and Rescue dated July 2 that I'll read now that is specific to this Del Taco. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: The letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 2, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the petition for waiver use approval on the property at the above referenced address to construct a multi -tenant commercial building with retail spaces and a full service restaurant, which includes drive - up window facilitfes, and have noted the following: Retail Spaces: (1) NFPA 1, Chapter 20, shall be followed for Mercanfi/e Occupancies as specified in 20.12. (2) NFPA 101, Chapter 36, shall be followed for New Mercantile Occupancies. Del Taco: (1) NFPA 1, Chapter 20 shall be followed for Assembly Occupancies. (2) NFPA 101, Chapter 12, shall be July 9, 2013 25893 followed for New Assemblies. (3) Fire Department Access shall be maintained in accordance to NFPA 1, 18.2.2.1, 18.2.3.1.2, 18.2.3.4.1 and 18.2.3.4.3. (4) NFPA 1, 18.2.3.4.1.1, Fire Department Access Roads, states that access to the property must be unobstructed with a width of no less than 20 feet. This is in regards to the drive -up window lane. These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process. Providing that all details in regards to Mercantile and New Assembly 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. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: I think we've got one from the Inspection Department also, Mr. Taormina, where they make reference to the drive -up window. Mr. Taormina: Thank you. Yes. The letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 9, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess number and size of signage. (2) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the deficient number of parking spaces. (3) Parking spaces shall be designated for the use of drive -up window patrons. These parking spaces shall be in addition to the required number parking spaces. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. Mr. Morrow: Okay That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Do you have questions of the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw: I think for the sake of consistency maybe Mr. Jones would like to show the material sample board for the Del Taco building as its slightly different than the other building. Ryan Jones, TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'll start with the cultured stone which is on the entry tower above the main entry feature there and it accents the retail building at the columns. We kind of shied away from a prototype for the Del Taco, which they used E.I.F.S. for most of their building, but we have decided to upgrade to the cultured stone to match the Applebee's. So it's going to be the same stone so we gel a uniform look throughout July 9, 2013 25894 that center. Also, the block or back that's along the north elevation at the bottom and along the columns, and it also wraps the rear of the building, is identical to the Applebee's brick or stone that wraps the trash enclosure as well for a uniform look. Some of the colors are a little different for the Del Tam. The metal coping that goes around the top of the building is actually the same black color that we are using for the Applebee's. The awning is a greenish color, which is their prototype color. We have the yellow for the Applebee's and then the green for Del Taco. We showed two options on this plan: one being fabric, one being the metal. We're definitely leaning towards the metal because of maintenance concerns. Some of the E.I.F.S. that's shown on the drive-lhm side of the building and also on the front, the major color is this goldish color that you see there with some green and red accent towards the rear of the building. On the retail building, you have two separate colors, kind of a gray and a whitish color that is the E.I.F.S. color that you see on the face of the building there and R's also on the side and rear of the building. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I think that's a very attractive combination of materials you're using there. The colors I think seem very nice. I do think the metal awning is probably a smart idea since you're doing that on the Applebee's to keep that consistent and, as you said, it's probably a little more durable. I'm glad to see there's no graphics or tacos on these awnings. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any illumination ofthe awnings? Mr. Jones: It would be identical to the Applebee's with that strip of LED lighlband that would shine on the face of it. Mr. Morrow: Is that represented by that one horizontal line there? Mr. Jones: Yes. Exactly. Mr. Morrow: We'll clearthat up right off the bat here. Mr. Jones: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Anything else as it relates to the building materials and the building? Ms. Scheel: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina, in the resolution that's prepared for this, there's an Item #7 which refers to the trash dumpsler. Would that apply here since this particular building is not going to have its own trash dumpster? July 9, 2013 25895 Mr. Taormina: Technically, no, it would not. You're right. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Whoever makes the motion, they can not mention that. Thankyou. Mr. Taylor: We have one dumpster, right, if I remember the way you explained it? Ms. Scheel: I think there's two behind Applebee's. Mr. Taormina: There's actually two. It looks like there's ... Mr. Bahr: Three. Mr. Taormina: Yes, and I'm not sure how they're being used. I'm guessing that these two are for the retail and the Del Taco and this one is for the Applebee's. Is that correct? Mr. Jones: Correct. Mr. Taormina: So we have two enclosures technically; theyre side by side. Mr. Taylor: But theyre behind the Applebee's. Mr. Taormina: They are behind the Applebee's. Mr. Taylor: That brings the question up, what kind of businesses do you think you're going to get into the two 20 foot spaces that you have? Mr. Jones: We were looking at a possible dental use, but that has fallen apart. So as of right now, I don't have ... Mr. Taylor: I was just wondering if there's enough dumpster space. That's what I'm thinking about. Mr. Jones: That's one issue I discussed with my leasing department. We had a discussion on that and they felt that there was plenty of dumpster capacity for the retail because Applebee's would have the one to the north, Del Taco would have the one to the south, and the center dumpster would be for the two retail spaces. Mr. Taylor: If you split that property off, are you still leasing both buildings? Is that Schostak leasing those buildings? Mr. Jones: Actually, we'd be the owners of the Applebee's and the owners of the Del Taco space but we would be leasing out the two retail spaces to a separate tenant or tenants. July 9, 2013 25896 Mr. Taylor: I'm just thinking ahead of what if something happens between those two lot splits and all of a sudden you don't have a dumpsler for the properly to the south. Mr. Jones: We would have an access agreement written between the two parcels. It would go with the land, if I'm saying that correctly, and not with the building. So that agreement would go between the two parcels forever unfit it was amended, which d never would be. Mr. Taylor: As a rule, restaurants have, as you know, quite a bit of waste. I'm just a little worried about the dumpslers. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the gmnting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing and request a motion. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0744-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on Petition 2013-06-02-16 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a multi -tenant commercial building with a full service restaurant including drive -up window facilities (Del Tam) at 13301 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, which properly is currently in the process of being rezoned from M-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-06-02-16 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Dimension and Paving Plan marked Sheet C4 prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, dated June 26, 2013, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the two spaces designated for drive -up window customers may be omitted only if 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; July 9, 2013 25897 3. That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Department within sixty (60) days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 4. That the maximum customer seafing count shall not exceed forty four (44) seats; 5. That the Building Elevation Plan marked A4.1 prepared by Wah Yee Associates, dated June 7, 2013, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 7. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a height of 20 feel above grade and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway; 8. That the proposed wall signs as shown on the referenced elevation plan are approved with this petition, subject to approval by Zoning Board of Appeals, and that provided the parcel is split such that the multi -tenant retail building and Applebee's Restaurant are located on separate parcels, the multi -tenant retail building shall be allowed one (1) conforming ground/monument sign in the approximate location as shown on the approved site plan, and that any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 9. That except for the accent lighting on the awnings, there shall be no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the lime of application for building permits. 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 July 9, 2013 25898 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: Does Scott want to change the verbiage on the LED lightband to go with Mark's verbiage on the other one, because he said if he goes with the green metal, he might ... Mr. Bahr: We might as well change it to be consistent. I dont know if ft's necessary, but we did do it on the other one, so that's fine. Mr. Taormina: Do we want to add on #5 an exception that the metal awnings should be used in lieu of the fabric awnings? Mr. Wilshaw: It was vague whether it was metal or fabric. Mr. Morrow: I think if we want to stipulate it, we can stipulate it Mr. Bahr: Its fine by me. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Wilshaw: I'd like to offer a seven day waiver for this item. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-45-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2013-06-02-16 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a multi -tenant commercial building with a full service restaurant including drive -up window facilities (Del Taco) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26. July 9, 2013 25899 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Morrow: So we've gotten through all three petitions. They've been approved. Good luck as you move forward. Mr. Jones: Thankyou. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,040" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,041" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 11, 2013. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-46-2013 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,040th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2013, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Scheel, Smiley, Bahr, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,041" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 9, 2013, was adjourned at 9:19 p.m. ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary