Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2014-02-11MINUTES OF THE 1,050rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 11, 2014, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,050` 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 Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, was 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 wnting, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. The first item has been removed from agenda because the petitioner has withdrawn his request. ITEM #1 PETITION 2014-01-08-01 6 MILE PROPERTIES Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefifion 2014-01-08-01 submitted by 6 Mile Properties, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to demolish an existing gas station and construct a multi -tenant retail building in its place at 17108 Farmington Road, located on the northeast comer of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10. February 11, 2014 26240 Mr. Taormina: This is request to redevelop a properly that is located at the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road. This is currently a site of a gas station. Most recently it was occupied by a BP gas facility. The property is about four-tenths of an acre in size. It has 135 feel of frontage on Farmington Road and an equal amount of frontage along Six Mile Road. The zoning of the property is C-2, General Business. Currently the site has three vehicle repair bays and a small convenience store within the building, which is about 2,200 square feet in size. The building is located in the northeast comer of the property at an angle. The canopy above the dispenser islands is located at a similar angle but in the central portion of the property. There are four points of ingress and egress to the property. There are two driveways off of Farmington Road as well as two driveways off of Six Mile Road. The Burton Hollow shopping center is to the north and east of this property. To the west across Farmington Road, there is a Mobil gas station, and south across Six Mile Road is a Walgreens drug store. The site plan shows a one story multi-tenant retail building that would be in the northeast comer of the site. There are four potential lease spaces that could operate out of this building. Three of those spaces face west toward Farmington Road. The fourth space is located on the comer facing both Farmington and Six Mile Road. The proposed building is slightly larger than the building that exists on the property today. This is 3,790 square feel, not quite twice as large, but it is larger than the building that is there currently. The C-2 zoning requires setbacks from both Farmington Road and Six Mile Road to be at least 60 feel. This plan shows the building being 81 feel from the property line adjacent to Farmington Road, which is conforming, but only 52 feel from the property line along Six Mile Road. So that is deficient by a distance of 8 feel and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Twenty parking spaces are required for a building of this size based on a parking ratio of one space for every 150 square feet of net retail space. The plan shows 18 parking spaces. So there is a deficiency of two parking spaces, which would also require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The parking requirement could vary depending on the uses within the building. For example, if we see more office space of a general office character occupy the building, then the parking ratio would be one space for every 200 square feet, so it would actually reduce the parking requirement. There is the possibility that with additional office space within the building, the parking could conform to the ordinance. The location of the trash dumpster is near the southeast corner of the property. The gates would face west towards Farmington Road. The redevelopment also includes February 11, 2014 26241 the elimination of two existing driveways. These are the two that would be closest to the intersection, one off of Farmington and one off of Six Mile Road. When the approaches are eliminated, they would be replaced with landscaping. The plans do not indicate how the site's stormwaler would be handled; however, that will be a requirement and based on the limited size of this properly, all of the slormwater would have to be handled underground. The areas of landscaping constitute slightly less than 15 percent of the total site area. Its certainly an improvement over what exists today, which is very little landscaping on the site. They also have to maximize the amount of parking and that impacts the amount of greenspace that is available on the property. This is the plan that was originally submitted to the Planning Commission at its study meeting. This is the proposed plan. It is very similar. What is different here is that some decomtive awnings were added above the windows. All four sides of the building would be constructed about of a combination of brick or split face block, which is the lighter color material shown along the bottom portion of the building and some of the areas extending vertically between the windows. The darker pattern on the elevation view represents a face brick, but the lighter patterns along the bottom and between the windows is split face block. Windows would be located on three sides of the building, most predominantly on the west elevation of the building facing Farmington Road. That's the long side of the building where all four of the spaces would face Farmington Road. Al the lop of the building along the parapet, there is an E.I.F.S. comice treatment. Each tenant would be entitled to one wall sign per unit at a ratio of one square fool for each lineal fool of building frontage. Al this point, not knowing who the tenants are going to be, no signage is illustrated. The site plan does show the location of a ground sign that would be right at the comer, a similar location to the sign that exists there today for the BP. It's a little further back from the right-of-way. In fact, it's required to be further back. In the case of gas stations, they're allowed to be 5 feel from the sidewalk. In this case for these retail buildings, they have to be back 10 feel. So he is showing a conforming sign with this petition. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 29, 2014, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition. February 11, 2014 26242 The existing building is assigned an address of 17108 Farmington Road, which should be used for any future cronespondence regarding the proposed project. The legal description provided with the petition matches the printed legal description included with the plans and appears to be comect. However, the drawings indicate that the north and south lot dimensions are 132 feet wide, while the legal description indicates that they are 135 feet wide. The petitioner should contact a surveyor to establish the comect lot dimensioning and property lines, and adjust the proposed plans accordingly. The petitioner does not indicate any existing or proposed utilities on the submitted drawings, so we are unable to comment on any impacts the proposed project may cause to the existing systems. It should be noted that the existing building is cumently serviced by a 12" sanitary sewer on the north side of Six -Mile Road and a 16" water main on the east side of Farmington Road. Those leads should be available to connect to any new structures, although the leads will need to be televised to determine the condition, prior to any new connection. The site is cumently serviced by storm sewer that connects to the Wayne County storm sewer system located within Farmington Road. The proposed development will need to meet the current Wayne County storm water ordinance, including detention, and be approved through the Wayne County permitting office." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 31, 2014, which reads as follows: 7 have reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 28, 2014, which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 11, 2014, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. 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 conespondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thank you Mr. Taylor: Along with those lines about parking, Mark, I think the project looks like it's going to be a good project and it will gel rid of an old gas station, but I'm just wondering if possibly a C-1 zoning would be better in that area. It would more or less eliminate some of the uses that could go into the building and cause a parking problem. I would be interested to see if the petitioner has a problem with the fact that we would like to ask Council for rezoning to C-1. Mr. Taormina: Staff certainly supports the Planning Commission's suggestion that a C-1 zoning would be more appropriate for this property under the redevelopment proposal as its before you. Mr. Taylor: And all around it is C-1 zoned properly. February 11, 2014 26243 Mr. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark, when we talk about parking requirements for this, is that ratio calculated the same as if this is all one tenant as opposed to four tenants? Mr. Taormina: Not necessarily. The ordinance provides a single parking standard for multi -tenant retail complexes that have more than four businesses. Because this has four or less tenants, we are going to have to compute the parking based on each individual tenant. For example, if a hairdresser moves in, we have a standard for that. We have a standard for a general retail building. If a medical office moves into one of these spaces, we have a separate computation for medical offices. We will compute those all individually and determine whether the parking is sufficient. If this were more than four tenant spaces, we would have a single ratio that we would apply to the shopping center. That way they can adjust the tenants more easily and there's a little bit of a buffer built into those standards for the larger shopping centers. Mr. Bahr: So this is taking into account that they're looking at four tenants here, and I understand that could change depending on who those tenants are. Mr. Taormina: We've provided you with the comparison between general retail versus the number of spaces that are proposed on the plan. That is why we are predicting a deficiency of two spaces assuming that this would all be parked at a ratio of one space for every 150 square feet of net retail area, which is our standard retail parking ratio. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thank you Mr. Taylor: Along with those lines about parking, Mark, I think the project looks like it's going to be a good project and it will gel rid of an old gas station, but I'm just wondering if possibly a C-1 zoning would be better in that area. It would more or less eliminate some of the uses that could go into the building and cause a parking problem. I would be interested to see if the petitioner has a problem with the fact that we would like to ask Council for rezoning to C-1. Mr. Taormina: Staff certainly supports the Planning Commission's suggestion that a C-1 zoning would be more appropriate for this property under the redevelopment proposal as its before you. Mr. Taylor: And all around it is C-1 zoned properly. February 11, 2014 26244 Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Mark, there was some talk at the study session relative to the rear doors. The Inspection Department was going to be checking on it relative to a little more space opening into the adjoining property. Mr. Taormina: Yes. I did pose that question to the Inspection Department. You'll notice on the site plan that the rear of the building is very close to the property line. In fad, I think it's possibly within three feel of the property line. Then if you look at the floor plan that was submitted, they show exit doors along the back of the building which really does not allow adequate space for patrons or workers to exit from those units without stepping onto the adjacent property and the constraints that they may have with a different grade or parking spaces. In posing this question to the Inspection Department, it is their understanding that, given the shallow depth of these units, they will be able to gel by with just a single entrance door from the front of the building, so the rear entryways can be eliminated and still comply with the building codes. Mr. Morrow: You mean the rear entries? Mr. Taormina: The rear doors are not necessary. Mr. Morrow: This particular project does not require rear doors. So one exit or entrance is all that is required. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Thank you for clearing that up. Anything else of the Planning Director? With that, I'll ask the petitioner to come forward. We will need your name and address for the record please. Michael Beydoun, NSI Construction, 4320 Pratt, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of 6 Mile Properties, L.L.C. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you would like to add? Mr. Beydoun: Yes. I'll start off with the exit doors or the back doors. We have no problem laking them out. The only reason we put them in there is in case of a fire if the Fire Marshal needs it as an exit. That's about it, but if we have to take them out, we can lake them out. That's not a problem. The other thing is, we do have a tenant going in there as an office. That's the lop corner one. We did put it on the plan as an office, 768 square feel. That February 11, 2014 26245 way we don't even need the two extra spaces. I mean that would comply with all the parking requirements. As far as the elevation, I did submit revised plans. We're not going with the split face block. We're going with some kind of smooth face. I do have a small rendering right here. It's not the greatest but that will show some of the colorings and the way the building looks. We're going with some kind of smooth face block. It looks like limestone but its not. We'll go ahead and put up some brick in contrast with the blocks. We added some awnings to the building. One thing that doesn't show up on the color rendering here is some of the lighting. We'll probably use some gooseneck lighting which is more modem, basically on the front or the three sides of the building. The dumpster enclosure - that's the only place we can put the dumpster enclosure. I did show it here on the color rendering. We'll go ahead and put some evergreens around it. Even if it's built up out of brick to match the building, but with some of the green in front of it, also some landscaping, it's going to be hidden, but there's nowhere else to put it. Like Mr. Taormina said, we're going to close the two approaches closest to the comer. We'll keep the two existing ones. As far as the drainage, I do have an engineer. He took a look at it, but we're still doing some calculation and once we're done with the calculation, we'll figure out if we do need some sort of storm system or not. So far he believes we don't. Unfit we get your approval and see if we have to change the building or any layout, then he will go back and do the entire calculation, and then we'll submit it to the City or Wayne County and we'll see if any more underground detention is required or not. As you all know, we have been struggling with this site. We came in front of you at election time I believe, four years ago, to put up a party store. Mr. Morrow: Time flies Mr. Beydoun: Time flies and politics played big time with City Council at that time just for the approval of that party store. Even though they're all Republican and I'm Republican loo, it didn't work. Yes, we tried with the party store. It didn't work. Then a couple years later we went back and leased the properly as a gas station. The gas station is not doing any money at all. As we all know, right now if you need to gel a load of gas, before you could spend like $15,000 - $16,000 to gel a load of gas. Right now, it probably costs $60,000 to $70,000 and the gas companies will not even give you credit anymore. So you have to come up with all the money either in cash or a certified check. That's one of the reasons gas stations are not even making it. But it's a good thing to gel rid of that gas station. With your February 11, 2014 26246 approval, we're going to clean up the site, remove the tanks, remove the canopy. Maybe we can gel rid of this eyesore in the middle of the City of Livonia. I've done some other projects in the City of Livonia. One of them is Schoolcraft and Inkster, the BP gas station. I redid the shopping center in the back. I worked on the properly on Five Mile and Inkster also. I redid the gas station. I did the one on Merriman and Five Mile. I've done some work and I know the procedure and I'm well known to keep my word and good work. Mr. Taormina asked me in the study meeting if there are other shopping centers that I did similar to this in different places. I did and I printed them out and I left them on my desk. I did one on Jefferson in the City of Detroit and another one. These are similar situations. They are on the comer. Some are bigger buildings, 4,000 square feel, that don't require that much parking. I did about six or seven projects like that and they seem to do well. As far as the tenants, we know we have an office going there. As far as the other three uses, I just split them like that because normally you have to go to 1,000 square feel if you're having a small tenant. But if someone comes in and they need 2,000 square feel, we'll give them 2,000 square feet so we'll probably end up with only three units. The C-1, I discussed it with the owners. They have a similar properly on Six Mile and Middlebell and that's a G7. I explained it to them that they will be able to do everything in the back of the shopping center. If a sub shop is going in, they can do that but they are limited to the seating. With spaces like this, say a sub shop comes in at 1,000 square feet, there is no where we can put 30 seats. We have no objection with the C-1 if that's what the City wants as long as we can have some kind of a sub shop or an ice cream parlor because really we need to do something with this property. I know the developer very well. I've done a lot of other projects. It's a good thing I don't sit on properties. I always want to do something with them. They're not going to leave like the eyesore right in the middle of your city and just ignore it like maybe some other developers. I'm working on another product for them right now at Cherry Hill and Middlebelt. Same situation, same property, shopping center, it's already been approved. So they like to develop. They like to build, and I like to make the money but they already spent on this property here. Hopefully, with your approval, we can go ahead and close this project. Mr. Taylor: Mark, what did the Fire Marshal say about only having one exit with no rear doors? They only have one exit, the front door. Usually they want another exit out of the building. February 11, 2014 26247 Mr. Taormina: I dont know if they've seen that plan but I think that's based on the building code. The input I received was from the inspection Department and what the code allows under those circumstances. I'm not aware that the Fire Marshal has reviewed any plan that only shows entry doors. Mr. Taylor: I just assumed they had to have another door to get out of the building. Mr. Taormina: Apparently, they do not. Mr. Beydoun: If the building or unit is like 1,000 square feet or less, you're not required to have an exit door. Like I said, we can keep them or we can lake them out. They're not going to be used, God forbid, only except in a fire. We're not going to use them for loading or unloading or access into the building, but if you don't want them, we don't have to put them in. Mr. Taormina: I think its based primarily on travel distance. Mr. Beydoun: Correct. Mr. Taormina: And that's what the Director of Inspection looked at when he commented on the plan. Mr. Beydoun: That's 75 feet distance basically from one door to the other. Mr. Taylor: I understand you're going to take the guard rail down along the side. Mr. Beydoun: Definitely, we are. We are going to lake them out. Yes, we are. And that's one of the reasons, actually, even with the C-2, you can built right on the properly. I don't want to do that. I just want to get some green behind the building. Thats why we set the building back. On the south we set it back three feel, and also going back to the west, we set it back another three feel, so we can have some green around the building. Mr. Taylor: I guess once that rail goes down, knowing people the way I know them, they're going to park there anyway to go to their stores. So I guess you wouldn't have to have an agreement with the other people next door unless they put "no parking' signs up. Mr. Beydoun: I don't think they can access the property because we have some landscaping, and the landscaping is going to have some curbs. The way the building sits, on the north we have about 82 February 11, 2014 26248 feet of open space, but to the west, we dont. Its right there on the plans. We have landscaping so there is no way for them to come through, but we're open to the idea. If the tenant next door wants to share a driveway or an opening through our place, we will do it. That's something we have to discuss with them if they want it or not. But basically, if they want to do that, we'll do R. If its not, we're going to put up some kind of a concrete curb. Mr. Taylor: And the parking spaces are all 10 feel by 20 feet. Mr. Taormina: In this case, theyll have to be 10 feel in width. We may be able to adjust the depth depending on how close they are to the sidewalks. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Beydoun: Also, coming back on the parking, I don't believe myself we need a variance for parking because we already have an office going in there. We might have another potential office also, but that's something we can recalculate later when we come for a permit or something like that. As far as it sits right now, I do believe we have the required parking that you're asking for. Mr. Wilshaw: Referring to the removal of the barrier along the north and possibly having a curb there or some sort of landscape element, what exactly is going to be on the north side because as I look at those northern most parking space on the property and I think of someone trying to pull out of one of those spaces, back up and then head southbound into the parking lot, are they going to be backing up into a row of bushes or what are they backing into? Mr. Beydoun: I did not put any landscape on that side. I did not put any landscape right there. Mr. Wilshaw: So is there going to be a curb there? Mr. Beydoun: That's if we dont work out our issues with the next door tenants, yes. Then we might have to put a curb if he doesn't want us to cross into his properly. Then we have to put a curb, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: If it was open, obviously it would be pretty easy for someone to pull in and out of those spaces. If you have a curb there, it may become rather difficult to gel out of that northern most space because you can't really back out. Mr. Jabora: Correct Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate that. The only other question I have right now is what is the need for the dumpsler? Obviously that's something of a concern that we talked about at the study meeting a little bit. I think you've made some effort to try to shield it as much as possible, but the reality is, it's going to be pretty visible in some form or another just because of where it's located and the fact that you can't hide it behind the building. Does this complex need a dumpster, or is there a possibility that these tenants February 11, 2014 26249 Mr. Beydoun: It depends on the next door. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. It's interesting because it almost makes that northern most space right along the building almost useless or difficult to use if the parking lot is full. Mr. Beydoun: I could still move it like a few more feel, but I just didn't want to bring it all the way down to the corner. With the sidewalk, we still have about probably five or six feel. Mr. Wilshaw: That's what I'm thinking. If you slide those spaces down a little bit, you may give that space enough room to be able to properly back out. Mr. Beydoun: Maybe we will then. Mr. Wilshaw: Its just a thought. It would have been nice to see some materials for the building. I think your rendering is nice. It would be nice to see in person what the actual material is going to be, but it's definitely a good start. I know you have light poles indicated on the plan in the parking lot, new light poles. Are those going to be a box light or what kind of poles and lights are you going to have in the parking lot? Dennis Jabora, 6336 Rose Boulevard, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. In regard to the poles, they would be almost like your typical light pole but the actual lights themselves would be LED. Depending on location and where theyre going to be, they might be a dual head or a single head. All of the poles on our properties are painted or they come in an aluminum color and all of our bases have a cover, like a plastic barrier cover so they're not concrete base exposed. They are very clean and very nice looking, and we keep them on all our properties that way. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And those would be shielded and pointed downward, the lights themselves? Mr. Jabora: Correct Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate that. The only other question I have right now is what is the need for the dumpsler? Obviously that's something of a concern that we talked about at the study meeting a little bit. I think you've made some effort to try to shield it as much as possible, but the reality is, it's going to be pretty visible in some form or another just because of where it's located and the fact that you can't hide it behind the building. Does this complex need a dumpster, or is there a possibility that these tenants February 11, 2014 26250 could store their trash internally and then put it out or have it picked up? Mr. Beydoun: The office could store it internally. They don't have that much to take out, but we don't even know what the other uses are going to be yet. I don't want them putting garbage bags outside or put a garbage can outside or anything like that. At least we will contain it like that. We'll be able to control it in advance. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That will be something that I'm sure even the Council will have some concem over just because dumpsters can become very visible and as much as you want to have those gates closed all the time, oftentimes they are not and it becomes sort of a visual eyesore. Otherwise, I think its a definite improvement over the exisfing use of the property. I think the removal of the extra driveways lends itself to better landscaping which makes for more attractive property, better flow for vehicles through the parking lot. The building itself is attractive and is using modern materials that we're seeing in other buildings around the city and has a nice modem look to it. So I really don't have any other comments at this point, but thank you for your interest in redeveloping this property. Mr. Jabora: You're welcome. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: We had mentioned earlier about the zoning and you mentioned a sub shop. I dont know if you noticed, but right behind you is a Subway shop in the shopping center. Mr. Beydoun: I'm not saying we're going to gel Subway, just like in general. Mr. Morrow: But that's a use that's permitted. You may need waivers depending on the seats you have, but in general, that can go in. Mr.Beydoun: Perfect. Mr. Morrow: Also, I want to amplify. I can't see the rendering very much, but I would advise you as this thing moves forward to the Council, that you bring forward the building materials and the color scheme for them. Mr. Beydoun: I will. I can drop a sample to Mr. Taormina in a couple days. Mr. Morrow: My biggest thing is that the block that you're proposing blends in with the nice brick job that you're doing. This is full face four inch brick, right? February 11, 2014 26251 Mr. Beydoun: Correct. Mr. Morrow: I want that block to complement as far as color. Mr.Beydoun: Correct. Mr. Morrow: I know that will draw a lot of interest at the Council level loo. I'm going to pass this along to my fellow Commissioners. Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Bahr: I'm just going to go back to the beginning here for a minute. First of all, I echo what's been said. I think this is a really nice looking development on what is an eyesore right now. I applaud you for the work you've done and bringing forth a really attractive option here. If we were looking at this from scratch though, obviously this is a less than ideal site to try to develop. Has there been any talk about working with the other property owner to do some kind of development with the property as a whole versus trying to slick something into a lot that was designed for a gas station? I know that's a big question but from a planning perspective, I'm looking at this and going, man, R's just unfortunate that we cant be looking al this whole thing. Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Jabora will comment on that because he's been working with the developer behind us. Mr. Jabora: The answer to the question is, we've tried. We've had plenty of conversation with him joining with a development on the comer to selling him properly to doing a joint development together and bringing in a national tenant. The challenge with the site is the size. To put a national company here as a single tenant food user or some sort or maybe a donut shop or whatever, the challenge was always the size because they all require drive- lhru. We worked with him trying to acquire some land, very little, just to make it all work, very difficult, not willing to budge. In the end, low ball offers. Basically thought he could put our back to the wall and take the properly pretty much. Based on what we paid for it and what he offered, it didn't make financial sense for us to do it. So that's why we've ended back up to where we are now. Mr. Bahr: Thanks for sharing that history. I can certainly understand that. It was a question I had to ask because I've tried to think of similar properties where you have a non -gas station on gas station property. I can think of plenty of convenience stores and gas stations that are sitting in the middle of a strip mall like this. Last week I was trying to think of it. Now I can't think of a February 11, 2014 26252 similar use like where it's a retail thing essentially silting in the parking lot of a strip mall, but I can certainly understand your challenges there. Chairman Morrow alluded to it loo, but I just want to make sure I understand. The sub shop and ice cream parlor thing, you're saying you want to protect for that? Mr. Beydoun: I believe it falls under the G7. So whatever it is we can do with the 61, something like that. Mr. Bahr: That does fall under the C-1? Mr. Beydoun: Yes. As long as we don't exceed the 30 seats and there's no way we're going to exceed it by that much. Al Telegraph and Joy Road, there is one like that. The big shopping center right there with I believe there is an AutoZone there or something like that. Some kind of retail. Mr. Bahr: Okay. One other little question I jolted down was, if the other owner is in agreement with it, is there anything prohibiting the use of a drive pass through to the other parking lot on the north side of the property? I guess it's a question for Mark. Is that all of matter of whether the properly owners agree? Is there some kind of zoning or legality issues with them doing that? Mr. Taormina: Absent a cross -access agreement between the parties, I don't see how we can force that to occur. They would have to agree to that, some kind of a cross -access agreement. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: I'm glad Mr. Bahr brought that up for the benefit of the Commission that you know the owner has demonstrated trying to work this out from a better planning perspective, but you can only go so far and do what you can do. As one Commissioner, I think you've done a good job to clean up the corner and bring up something that is viable for you and something that certainly the City will look forward to looking nice. So I just want to make those comments. Mr.Beydoun: Thankyou. Mr. Taormina: If I could comment on a few of the items discussed this evening. Mr. Taylor expressed some concern about the ability of vehicles to back out, particularly those northerly most spaces on the site. I will point out that the dimension of the aisleway there is almost 10 feel wider than what we typically see on an aisleway. He's got more room there for vehicles to back up. I know it's not the February 11, 2014 26253 ideal situation to not have a better turnaround area or someplace where vehicles as theyre backing out have room, but in this case we have an extra wide aisleway. I did compute the parking requirement based on the 768 square feel of office that he is showing in the north unit. While that does help, it still doesn't get him out of the need for a variance. He is required to have 19 spaces instead of 20. He still needs a variance. It's only one space as opposed to two, so unfortunately it doesn't help him a whole lot in that respect. Regarding the G7 zoning, we've provided information in the staff report which explains that the Commission can hold a public hearing on its own motion to answer the question of whether or not the property should be rezoned. And lastly, just talking about the C-1 versus the C-2, the C-2 district is designed more for larger properties where we desire to have more of comparison type shopping available. For example, the C -w would be appropriate for the larger fumilure stores, typically. It also allows for automotive uses to go in and full service restaurants. The G7 on the other hand is a local business. Its more apt for smaller properties and sometimes properties that are closer to residential properties. This isn't the case here but certainly the size of the property lends itself much more to the C-1 category than it does to the G2. It still allows for a broad range of office and retail uses, just not at the intensity and scale that the C-2 district would allow. I think going into the Council meeting they're going to want to know that the surrounding property owner has weighed in on this and see whether or not they could work out some kind of a cross - access agreement because certainly that's preferred in this situation. You can see how that would benefit the project immensely if they were to have some kind of a cross -access agreement and cross -parking agreement as well. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Getting back to the mining that we were talking about, and if the Commission agrees, I would like to, on our own motion, start a rezoning petition to go to the Council recommending a C-1 zoning that would catch up with the site plan eventually down the road. Does that make good sense to you, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: It does. Mr. Morrow: I'm not sure if you know what I just said. Mr.Beydoun: Ido. Mr. Morrow: That the burden would not be on you. We would do it on our own motion and it wouldn't hold up the project, but the zoning would be coming down the line. February 11, 2014 26254 Mr. Taormina: And Mr. Chairman, you can do that this evening. Mr. Morrow: I didn't know if we had to hold a public hearing first or not. Mr. Taormina: Not hold the public hearing, but you can adopt a resolution this evening that would refer the question of the rezoning to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. Mr. Morrow: We'll do that at the conclusion of this petition. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Mark, should that be done before or after the approving resolution? Mr. Taormina: That's up to you. I don't think it matters. Mr. Morrow: That will be the next order of business. Anything else 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, a motion would be in order. Mr. Bahr: I would bring forth the motion that you just alluded to that we would petition this to be C-1 zoning. Mr. Morrow: I'd like to make that a separate motion after this one closes. Mr. Taylor: After the regular motion. Mr. Bahr: Oh, okay. Fair enough. Mr. Morrow: This will be a motion on this particular petition, then we will follow it up as we had indicated earlier. Mr. Bahr: I did hear you say that. I just thought I heard that it didn't matter what order we needed to do it in. Mr. Taormina: No, not technically, but I think its probably appropriate to do it after this petition is voted on. Mr. Morrow: We'll send him on his way and they'll find out it's coming down the pike. So now I'm asking for a motion on this petition. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-04-2014 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-01-08-01 submitted by 6 Mile Properties, L.L.C. requesting approval of all February 11, 2014 26255 plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to demolish an existing gas station and construct a multi -tenant retail building in its place at 17108 Farmington Road, located on the northeast comer of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked SP -1 dated January 17, 2014, prepared by Detroit Design Images, L.L.C. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a revised, fully detailed landscape plan be submitted for approval to the Planning Commission and City Council within sixty (60) days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 3. That the Elevation Plan marked A-1 dated January 17, 2014, prepared by Detroit Design Images, L.L.C. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the scored block material shall be replaced with either a brick or burnished block at the recommendation of the Planning Department; 4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 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 this site shall meet either the City of Livonia or the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, whichever applies, and shall secure any required permits, including storm water management permits, and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County and/or the City of Livonia; 7. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feel (20') in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize February 11, 2014 26256 stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 8. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 9. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 10. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building setback and deficient number of parking spaces and any conditions related thereto; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 12. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you very much for coming tonight. ITEM #2 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REZONING Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item, a request to hold a public hearing, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to rezone property at 17108 Farmington Road, located on the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, from C-2 to C-1. February 11, 2014 26257 On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously approved, d was #02-05-2014 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone properly at 17108 Farmington Road, located on the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Su Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, from C-2 to C-1, such property legally described as follows: 10HHlBl THE NORTH 135 FT OF THE SOUTH 195 FT OF THE EAST 135 FT OF THE WEST 195 FT OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC 10 0.42 ACRE 039 99 0011 000 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,048m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next dem on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,048'' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 17, 2013. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-06-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,048" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 17, 2013, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Taylor, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bahr, Smiley February 11, 2014 26258 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,049m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,049th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 28, 2014. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-07-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,049th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 28, 2014, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Taylor Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,050'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 11, 2014, was adjourned at 7:54 p.m. ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary