Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,183 - February 8, 2022 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,183rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 8, 2022, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,1831d Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Peter Ventura ]an Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw 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 turn, 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 filing. 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 2021-11-08-06 Concord Plaza Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 11-08-06 submitted by Jeffery Scott Architects requesting approval of all plans required by Section 13.13 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior facade and modify the approved landscape plan of the commercial strip center at 16112 thru 16184 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Terrence Avenue in the Northwest'/4 of Section 13. February 8, 2022 30389 Mr. Taormina: Concord Plaza is a single -story, multi -tenant retail center located on the east side of Middle Belt Road between Five Mile and Terrence. This neighborhood shopping center is about 34, 800 square feet in gross floor area. It sits on a parcel that is roughly 3.65 acres in area. The frontage along Middle Belt is about 360 feet and on Terrence it is 440 feet. The property is split -zoned with the southerly portion zoned C-2 (General Business) and the north 2/3 of the site zoned C-1 (Local Business). The plaza was approved by City Council in 1996. The landscape plan that was approved with the development showed a total of 44 trees along the frontages of both Middle Belt and Terrence. The trees on the plan included a variety of deciduous and evergreen. Trees were also shown within the parking lot and around the plaza. In August 2021, the Inspection Department noticed that several trees had been removed. Based on the original plans, it is estimated that a total of 42 trees are missing from the site. The owner was notified of the violation and was instructed to replace the trees according to the approved landscape plan. They were also given the option of replanting the site in accordance with the Article X of the new Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, which differ from what the original approved landscape plan provided for. In the case of the new ordinance, the number of trees is based on the length of street frontage. The ratio is one deciduous or evergreen tree for every 40 feet of road frontage, plus one ornamental tree for every 100 lineal feet, and eight shrubs for every 40 lineal feet. When you apply these standards to this site, Middle Belt would require no fewer than nine (9) full size trees, four (4) ornamental trees, and 72 shrubs. Terrence, because it contains slightly more frontage, would require eleven (11) full size trees, five (5) ornamentals and 88 shrubs. The petitioner has submitted a revised landscape plan which is the same plan that you looked at during the study meeting last week. It provides for no additional trees. Instead, the plan proposes mostly shrubs, as well as other low groundcover, including ewes, ornamental grasses, and spreading junipers that would be grouped and installed along Middle Belt Road. The other part of this request involves minor fagade improvements. These would mostly include changes to the upper part of the storefront elevations of the shopping center building. The building is predominately brick. The red panels shown on the elevation drawings depict new E.I.F.S. panels that would be installed on the upper portions of the building. The plans also show some fabric awnings and new coping along the top. All relatively minor improvements to the exterior fagade. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. February 8, 2022 30390 Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 30, 2021, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. The parcel is assigned the range of addresses of #16100 to #16184 Middlebelt Road, with the address of #16100 Middlebelt Road being assigned to the overall parcel. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main and sanitary sewer, as well as private storm sewer. The submitted drawings do not indicate any modifications to the existing leads, and we do not believe there will be any further impacts to the existing systems. It should be noted that the developer may be required to obtain a permit from the Wayne County Department of Public Service should any work occur within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 6, 2021, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct or modify a commercial building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 23, 2021, which reads as follows: I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal. " The letter is signed by Scott Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 3, 2022, which reads as follows: " Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. The Inspection Department has an open violation on this property forthe removal of trees from the required landscaping. We are holding our enforcement action in abeyance while the petitioner seeks approval of a new landscape plan. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated December 13, 2021, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated December 3, 2021, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time taxes are due, but not delinquent, therefore I have no February 8, 2022 30391 objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley: Yes, just to confirm. You said there is anew landscape plan, but it was the one that we saw last Tuesday, and the new landscape plan remains with no trees on Middle Belt? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Mr. Ventura? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Taormina, I was not here last week, but as I read the write-up and listen to your presentation tonight... if I correctly understand that the petitioner has the option to comply with the Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance as opposed to the restoration and requirements place on the property in 1986, is that basically true? Mr. Taormina: That is what we have offered to them. Mr. Ventura: That involves a reduction in the number of trees they would have to plant by approximately a 1/3. It goes from 42 trees down to 29 trees as I read your write-up. Mr. Taormina: That would be correct. I think we had nine plus eleven...so yes if you include the ornamental trees. Mr. Ventura: Right. So, theresignificant reduction already. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for our planning staff? If not, our petitioner is in our audience. Feel free to come forward to our podium. We will need your name and address for the record please. Jason Curis, 24500 Northwestern Hwy., Ste. 100, Southfield, MI 48075. There was mention this evening about an updated landscape plan, and we actually have one to provide to handout. Apologize it wasn't provided prior to the meeting. It is fresh off the drawings from our landscape architect, so Marsha, who is the architect on behalf of February 8, 2022 30392 Jeffery Scott, would like to hand it out. I can run through it briefly and discuss it with the Commission. Mr. Wllshaw: Sure, you can take it over to Ms. McCue and she can pass them around. Thank you so much. Mr. Curis: So, just a brief summary while this is getting handed out, per the original plan, which was up on the screen, there was a total of ten trees and five ornamentals proposed, which was discussed prior to the Commission meeting this evening. Since that time, Belmond Properties, myself, the landscape architect, our architect, have gone back and have revised the plan to include trees on Middle Belt as requested and include more trees on Terrence, for a total of 17 trees on the site and eight ornamentals. So, we have increased that substantially. Per the previous discussion about trees being removed, Belmond Properties acquired the property at the end of July 2021. The end of July 2021 there were a total of eight trees removed at that time that were dead and had the dead tree disease. Those were fronting Middle Belt. I believe there were one or two on Terrence. The balance of the non-compliance of the property was prior to Belmond Properties ownership, just to clarify it for the Commission. However, we are submitting this new plan to Planning Commission for consideration, which again as you look at it is designed... it has the trees both as requested on Middle Belt and on Terrence, both the larger full trees and the ornamentals. We are looking for consideration and relief as described previously, which is... anyone who knows this property, I know the Planning Director indicated we wanted to do tasteful and minor improvements. Nothing crazy ecstatic, but something to refresh the shopping center in the taste of the neighborhood and surrounding community. In addition to providing the businesses themselves at that shopping center with a little bit of relief, a little bit of modernization with both landscaping, the refreshing of the property, and give them a little bit of visibility based on the way that the center is actually positioned on the road, which is almost backwards to the traffic. An L-shaped, not designed by us, of course back in the 80's, but something that was acquired and obviously we are looking to improve it. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright, thank you, Mr. Curis. We don't want to gloss over the fact that you are looking to make some changes to the shopping center itself with the E.I.F.S. panels, and so on, but obviously, a lot of the discussion at our study meeting and probably tonight is going to be around the landscaping aspect of things, but we may go back and forth on both the improvements on the building and February 8, 2022 30393 landscaping as we get into our questions. Is there anyone with any questions for our petitioner at this time? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Curis, or whoever is appropriate. Would you kind of walk us through this plan here and show us where the significant trees are? Marsha Horning, 32316 Grand River Ave., Farmington, MI 48336. I can kind of walk you through what has changed since the study meeting. I am sorry. Is that what you asked? Mr. Ventura: Yes. Ms. Horning: So, originally, we...Mr. Curis asked us to approach this with...so we could see the center. At the study meeting we could see that it was very well overgrown, what was there from 1986. The approach is to keep things low and what we have taken from the study meeting is to group several items, several trees along Middle Belt. We have a Ginkgo here in the corner. In the southeast corner here. Mr. Ventura: So, is that the one called GBF? Ms. Horning: GBF, yes. Then along Middle Belt these two clusters here... along here, is indicated as four LSS. Those are ... let me get the proper name here, they are Slender Silhouette Sweetgums. So, they are... they are a full-grown tree. They keep a little slender and we are able to cluster them, which we talked about at the study meeting. So, we have four of them here... sorry, four here and then four on the side. We did add to the plantings around the sign. We have an ornamental tree here and then we have two ornamental trees on either side of the entrance along Terrence Ave. These are tulip trees. Full size tulip trees here. Along Terrence we have six of those and then another Gingko indicated as GBF here. We also have some ornamentals along Terrence here ... two of those and then the rest are similar to what you saw last week with filling in with low lying plantings, shrubs, things of that nature. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright. Any other questions or comments from any of our commissioners? Mr. Caramagno: So, you might have said this early on and maybe I didn't hear you. How many trees are you planting? February 8, 2022 30394 Ms. Horning: There are nine along Middle Belt, these four, these four, and this one. Along Terrence we have ornamentals here. Two on either side and then we have these six tulip trees back here. Mr. Caramagno: I'm sorry. Let me clarify. How many full-size trees? What are you planting? Ms. Horning: Seventeen I believe. Mr. Curis: Seventeen full size trees and eight ornamentals. Mr. Caramagno: Seventeen and eight. Ms. Horning: That is along on the entire site. Mr. Caramagno: But not along the two main... Middle Belt and Terrence? Ms. Horning: I have nine and then... Mr. Curis: Six...seven. Ms. Horning: Seven. Mr. Caramagno: Okay, and what about the trees that you are removing. This plan goes back to us with even more removals on it, it looks like. Is that right? Ms. Horning. No. I mean the additional...we talked to our landscape architect, and he actually recommended that these two Norway Maples come down. Mr. Caramagno: So, those are the bigger trees? Ms. Horning: Those are the bigger trees on Terrence that he actually recommended those to come down. Mr. Caramagno: What is the removal in the back next to the building? By your thumb. Ms. Horning: These are the same as you saw before. Or. Caramagno: You are removing ... you are proposing to remove something else? Ms. Horning: No, this is what was on the original ... on the plan that you saw last week. February 8, 2022 30395 Mr. Curis: The only two that would be removed would be on Terrence, which would be the large trees. Everything else is being added to the site. Ms. Horning: I think there is a little bit of scrubby trees back there right now. Like a ... a honeysuckle, and a buckthorn, and some smaller bushes that need removing to replace with these, but that was on the previously submitted plan from last week. We didn't change that at all. Mr. Caramagno: Okay, when you submitted your original plan to us, with the groundcover trees, shrubs, or whatever they may be, there was some pictures of them so we could understand what they look like. No pictures of what you are planting here. Ms. Horning: They are the same as we presented last week, we just put a different amount of them in places. Mr. Caramagno: Okay, thank you. Ms. Horning: Yeah, it is the same plantings that you saw last week. The trees that were showed I believe I had all of them on there. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions, Mr. Caramagno? Mr. Caramagno: Not right now, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Looking at the pictures that were provided in our packet, I don't see the LSS. Ms. Horning: I apologize. I thought that one was on there. It is similar to the Tulip tree that was in your packet. Mr. Wilshaw: Which is LTF? Ms. Horning: Yes, that is LTF, and I believe the other one... Mr. Taormina: It is Or. a little more columnar. It is a very narrow species. I can show you a picture of what one looks like. This one right here. Wilshaw: So, that is why you would cluster four of them together. Ms. Horning: Exactly. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, any other questions? February 8, 2022 30396 Mr. Ventura: Sorry, I wasn't here last week. Can you explain why you don't want to comply with the zoning ordinance? Mr. Curis: So, when the property was purchased, it was purchased in a condition that our company felt we could improve, which is why it was purchased. The number one issue with most of the folks at that building, in addition to the building itself being rundown, was they were having visibility issues. The center was constructed in the mid to late 80's, pushed way off the road, L-shaped, in the opposite direction of traffic, so traffic obviously would have to make a left-hand turn into the center as they were heading south versus folks coming north it would blow by the center if they didn't know it was there or couldn't see it. The original landscape plan and there was a picture provided last week that showed, I want to say back in 2007, where there were substantial trees remaining on the property prior to Belmond Properties ownership and you couldn't see anything. You couldn't see the stores. You couldn't even see the building itself. So, as we have improved so far on the property, our goal was to fill the substantial vacancies that were there. We talked with a lot of the folks and from our experience, as described in the past with hundreds of centers that we have bought and turned around for communities, the number one issue on a lot of these properties is that they are directionally wrong, they are blocked by whatever they are blocked by. In this case, there was substantial landscaping prior to our ownership. Now, when we took over the property the issue, we had was there were, in addition to the construction going on Middle Belt, there were eight large trees that were overgrown. Never been trimmed. Never been pruned, but more importantly, they caught the dead tree disease. As the Planning Director was talking, when Inspections came and saw it, we had removed those with the idea that we are going to be coming to Planning Commission at some point with plans submitted for remodel. We figured the landscaping would be discussed, which we appreciate they are holding the violation in abeyance pending the outcome of the Planning Commission or City Council. So, we have done our best to come up with a plan that we felt was reasonable. We looked at comparable properties, as was discussed in the meeting last week. There was a number of other sites similar to ours, both old and new and on Middle Belt that were not in the 2021 Vision Plan that was approved, or we weren't really sure what plan they were in because they had limited if any landscape or trees fronting their Middle Belt or their hard corner that they were on. We did provide a plan last week with some comparables on some other properties that were similar to ours that had substantially less landscape and greenery than we did. We are just trying to do both, as I explained to the commissioners last week, fulfill what is February 8, 2022 30397 required and we appreciate the allowance of the 2021 Vision Plan, which is less than the 1986 plan. We are also trying to make sure that we can preserve and protect the property. Obviously, the business owners were substantially struggling due to obviously the circumstances going on in the last few years. So, we felt this was a compromise knowing that this center has really had substantial issues over the years. We are looking for a little it of relief. Obviously, from our original plan last week of ten trees and five ornamentals, the Planning Commission said to go back to the drawing board and see what you can do to add trees to Middle Belt. We have added trees to Middle Belt, both full and ornamental. We have added some trees to Terrence, full and ornamental. While we are not fully there at the 29 total, we have 25 total. So, I think we have come a long way since last week and we are hoping we can get a little bit of relief from the Planning Commission this evening. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions? Mr. Bongero: I want to go back to Mark. Do these full-size trees that they call out, do they satisfy the requirement? Mr. Taormina: I am not really in a position to speak much about the silhouette Sweetgum, as I am not familiar with this particular species of tree. What I can tell you is that the Gingko would certainly work because we see these quite often on landscape plans similar to this. The Sweetgum, the normal variety that is, is more of a full- size tree, but the much narrower silhouette variety appears quite different. Again, I am not familiar with the silhouette. I'm not sure that I would even classify it as a full-size tree. While it appears to grow very tall, it only gets about six -feet wide. It can grow to up to 60-feet in height. It is not something you typically see along a street frontage. What we typically look for is something with more of a canopy. This is a bit unique. Mr. Bongero: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Ms. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: Mark, between those two clusters, the four and the four clusters on Middle Belt, do you know approximately how many feet that is or yards or would you have any idea? Mr. Taormina: Between the clusters? February 8, 2022 30398 As. Smiley: Yeah. Between the two four LSS. Mr. Taormina: You figure... you have 361 feet, so it is probably 200 feet between the two I would think. Ms. Smiley: 200 feet? Mr. Taormina: Yeah, I am just guessing. Ms. Smiley: So, over 60 yards in between? That is more than half a football field between the two sets of trees that are clustered together. Mr. Taormina: Again, I am just... Mr. Wilshaw: It is just a rough estimate. Ms. Smiley: Well, it certainly...from this commissioner I would certainly say that this doesn't fulfill what I was going to get or even close. I go to that center. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Ms. McCue? Ms. McCue: Mark, I know we have asked you this multiple times, these numbers, but we said it is supposed to be 29 full-size and how many ornamentals did we say? I feel like we have tossed these numbers around. Mr. Taormina: No, 19 full-size. Ms. McCue: 19? Mr. Taormina: Nine ornamentals. No, excuse me, 20 full-size. I apologize and then nine ornamentals. Ms. McCue: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: All set, Ms. McCue? Ms. McCue: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright, Mr. Bongero. Or, Bongero: Just a question for Mr. Curis. What is the reason...why are you guys taking down the maples? Or. Curis: I will let our architect answer. Our landscape architect actually recommended that with the mix and the look of the new trees we February 8, 2022 30399 are adding, again, to just modernize the landscape. Those trees were a little bit outdated, old, problematic, they needed to be trimmed to the point we may kill them if we trimmed them up. So, he just suggested taking those down and starting over on Terrence and that way the whole property meshes together with the landscape design. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions? While we wait to see if there are any other questions, Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? I don't see anyone wishing to speak on this, I just wanted to make sure. I will go back to the commission. Is there any other questions or comments from any of our commissioners? Mr. Long? Mr. Long: You said there was, in this new plan, 17 full-size trees, but I must be missing one. I am getting 16. So, I have nine along Middle Belt, eight LSS and one Gingko and then I have got... Ms. Horning: You have got six Tulips along Terrence here and then one Gingko. Mr. Long: Okay, so that is 16. Ms. Horning: We are maintaining a Red Maple, but that is not in the front. Mr. Long: You are maintaining one of the Red Maples? Ms. Horning: Yes. Mr. Long: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Long. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Caramagno: As I was driving around the city the last few days, I looked at some of the properties that you took photographs of comparing your property to those with maybe some lesser landscape at a different point of time. I couldn't help but notice there are a lot of properties with much greater landscape that you didn't share pictures with us because they are done properly. So, it just seems to be a hold up that ... we talked at great length last Tuesday and to come back with this plan ... with no time to review it, doesn't seem right to me. I mean, we have pictures that are not here to look at. We have something that, again, is ... you say you want to meet the spirit of the ordinance or whatever you said a few minutes ago, and I got to tell you again, I just don't see that February 8, 2022 30400 at all. I don't see that at all. I don't even see you trying, from my perspective. I just want to tell you that and we will see what happens here. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions or comments from anyone? If not, Mr. Curis, is there any final comments that you would like to make before we make our decision? Mr. Curis: No. I think the only comment that I would say is we have tried exceptionally hard, and I know it is difficult. I know we didn't provide certain properties as the commissioner previously stated... some were office, some were industrial, some were different character. Every property... and that is the beauty of real estate is it has a different character, a different design, a different look, a different feel, and I will be honest with you, I am exceptionally proud of what the landscape architect and our architect came up with, considering what we started with originally. To be honest with everybody, the landscape architect was challenged based on direction that I gave him because a lot of times when the trees come down, developers don't sometimes want to put them back up. We want to change. We want to update it. We want to refresh it. So, it was challenging to get to where we are at and I am proud that we got here. I am hoping there is some relief given. I think we presented this to some of the businesses there and they were happy with it. While 150 feet may seem like a lot, it goes by like that when you are driving 45 mph. The idea is ultimately this is a neighborhood shopping center. We want to make sure we protect and preserve, not only the existing businesses in there, but we would like to bring in new ones in there so that any commissioners that do go there, may have more of a variety when they are at that shopping center. We appreciate both meetings, your time, and are hopeful for your consideration on some relief. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Curis. Just two questions for you from myself. You just mentioned... based on what you just said, you mentioned that you gave direction to the landscape architect, and he was challenged by your direction to come up with this plan. What was your direction to the landscape architect? Or. Curis: We wanted to modernize the property, and this was prior to reviewing the ordinance. Obviously, his job was to review the ordinance, look at what we needed to do. My vision was for him to design it all ultimately, but to design it in code and the original conversation was we would like to provide lush landscaping throughout but keep it fairly low to the ground so that folks could see the existing businesses. We were losing businesses on day February 8, 2022 30401 one. The biggest complaint was they could move across the street and people could have better visibility. There was no trees at the shopping center just to north and so our job was to try and protect and keep them there. The direction initially was that if there are problematic trees and the only problematic trees that we had, which is why the two maples were not cut down, they were living, they were healthy, while they needed to be trimmed and the trimming may kill them based upon all of the overgrowth. The ones that were taken down were dead and they were dying, so we did take those down with the idea of okay, now what? What are we going to do? The original plan that we came up with had limited trees on frontage that wasn't really conducive to our study group, and so when I went back with the landscape architect, we wanted to try and make sure that whatever we could provide would fit as close to the guidelines as possible, but with the same goal of not blocking and disturbing the vision path of the businesses that were there. Thus, we created the 17 total...16 on the frontage versus the 20 required. The eight ornamentals versus the nine required. In my eyes we have come up substantially on the request of the trees to be on Middle Belt, which was the critical discussion last week. Get some trees on Middle Belt and ultimately, what are you going to do on Terrence? I think we have done a good job getting as close as we can to what I believe is a reasonable plan. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The other question I had for you is...and I know that you just got this plan at the last minute, but you know that landscaping was a significant concern of ours from our study meeting. Why wasn't the landscape architect brought to this meeting? Mr. Curis: I do not know. I do not know his availability. If it was something that was necessary... I thought the critical piece was, to be honest with you, to get the trees, design it better, come back with a better drawing. If it was more of a hey, we want to talk about every plant, I would have definitely brought him here. I didn't know that. We did talk with him on Friday. We went through this. We redesigned everything and that is my error if it was something that was required by Planning Commission to chat specifically about the plants and types of trees and everything. Mr. Wilshaw: That is fair. The only reason I say that is because we just got a plan here at the meeting, which is unusual to get something at that last minute and we don't have the expert who created this plan in front of us to ask questions of or to explain it. That is the reason I asked that question. February 8, 2022 30402 Mr. Curis: If the Commission would allow, I can step outside and see if it is available to get him on the cell phone if that helps the Commission at all. Mr. Wilshaw: I think that moment has probably passed us at this point. Mr. Curis: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: If there are no other questions from any of our commissioners, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-09-2022 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council that Petition 2021-11-08-06 submitted by Jeffery Scott Architects requesting approval of all plans required by Section 13.13 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior facade and modify the approved landscape plan of the commercial strip center at 16112 thru 16184 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Terrence Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 13, be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 1.02, 10.03 and 13.13 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, 2. That the lack of trees shown on the proposed landscape plan would have a negative effect upon the neighboring properties, as well as the City as a whole. 3. Allowing this would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and appeal of the overall site, and negatively alter the character of the property. 4. That the plantings shown on the previously approved landscape plan shall be reinstalled to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. 5. That any remodeling of the exterior of the shopping center shall be reconsidered once the required landscaping is completed, and February 8, 2022 30403 6. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. Jr. Caramagno: This talks about the previously approved landscape plan or the plan they submitted to us. That is different than what we are looking at here, but I would also like to say that this plan doesn't spread trees along the frontages as we requested. It doesn't even come close as a matter of fact, so that is my reason for denial. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wilshaw: This is a site plan, Mr. Taormina, so the petitioner would have ten days in which to appeal the decision, correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, so the motion has been denied. So, you have ten days in which to appeal the decision in writing to our City Council. If you do that, then they will hear it. ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-08-SN-08 Aver Sign (BP Gas Station) Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 08-SN-08 submitted by Aver Sign Company requesting to amend Council Resolution #549-03, adopted by the Livonia City Council on October 22, 2003, to allow the illumination of tubing around the pump island canopy of the BP gas station at 27428 Schoolcraft Road, located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster Roads in the southeast''/4 of Section 24. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to amend a Council Resolution, in this case CR #549-03, to allow the illumination of a pump island canopy. The site is the BP gas station at the northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster roads. It was in 2003 when City Council approved the sign package for the gas station which limited the area of all wall signs to 100 square feet and the total area of the monument sign on the property to 52 square feet. As part of that approval, City Council included a condition in that "no LED light band or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to the building, the pump island canopy's or around the windows'. The petitioner is now requesting to amend this condition in order to allow for an LED light strip that would be February 8, 2022 30404 installed around three sides of the pump island canopy fascia. I will just note that the restriction that was imposed by City Councill in 2003 is consistent with the action that they have taken on most commercial developments over the past 20 years, including gas stations. I know the petitioner, at the study meeting last week, provided some information regarding the details of this. I don't really have those plans available for you to view. I just have photographs of the existing gas station. As you can see, this is the condition as it exists today. It is the typical BP canopy fascia. As you can see, the light band extends across the center of the fascia. In this case, the new light strip would be installed on three sides. The west side of the canopy, the south side of the canopy facing Schoolcraft Road, and then the east side facing Inkster Road. It is our understanding that the north side facing the building would not be illuminated. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Certainly. Mr. Taormina: The first letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 1, 2022, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated January 26, 2022, which reads as follows: " / have reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. The following amounts are due to the City of Livonia Unpaid water and sewer charges: (currently due on 2110122) $ 90.23 Total Due City of Livonia $ 90.23." The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 13, 2022, which reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time no taxes are due, therefore I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? I see no questions. Our petitioner is here in our audience. You are free to come up to our podium. Good evening. We will need your name and address for the record please. Jennifer Glover, Aver Sign, 359 Livernois, Ferndale, MI. I had some correspondence with Scott Miller last week regarding that light bar and the square footage that we calculated for the light bar on the three sides of the canopy. The light bar would be 15.5 square feet and there will also be three helios, which is the BP logo. February 8, 2022 30405 Those are 10.56 square feet each. We are looking at approximately 40 square feet of signage on the canopy in its entirety. I will uniformly match the rest of the stations in Livonia with the lighting on the canopy, as well as all the BP stations that are currently there. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. over. Is there any questions for our petitioner in regard to this item? Mr. Ventura: I don't have a question for you, but I have to tell you that, and I know you don't watch television, you don't watch this on television, but we sit here every week or every other week and have these public hearings and we make motions with regard to site plans and virtually every one of them light bands are prohibited, and we are specific about it. It is just the status of the ... the standard of the city and it is the ordinance of the city and that is what is reflected in the Council resolution. I have to tell you that I can't support going against what we sit here and do every single week with every other petitioner that comes before us. It is not the standard of the city. It is not the charge that we have been given to enforce and I am sorry, but I can't. Whatever the other circumstances you have that motivate you to bring this before us. I just can't, having said no to so many other petitioners, say yes to you tonight. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any question or comments? Ms. McCue: Mr. Taormina, can you tell me what the allowed square footage in total for signage? Mr. Taormina: I'm sorry? Ms. McCue: The total square footage allowed for this signage when we are taking into consideration the band, the logos, and all of that. Mr. Taormina: 100 square feet total for all wall signage. So, that would include anything on the gas station building, as well as on the fascia of the canopy. Wall signage is limited to that amount. 100 square feet in total. I believe the report indicates that the sign on the building currently is 30 square feet. Ms. McCue: Okay. Thank you. Or. Taormina: As was noted, I think what they are adding computes to about 50 square feet. February 8, 2022 30406 Or. Wilshaw: The petitioner indicated that she talked to Scott, and I guess they recomputed it to the 40 square feet, so in any case it is below the 100 square foot minimum. Mr. Taormina: Below the 100 square feet, yes. If you include the light band, the logos, and whatever is on the building currently. Ms. McCue: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Any other questions? Mr. Bongero? Mr. Bongero: Question for the petitioner. I think last week at the study meeting you said that this is a requirement from BP. Ms. Glover: Yes. I wanted to add that. This is a brand requirement. Each individual brand of fuel has their own specific signage that they require at each site. This is a very big issue for them. Mr. Bongero: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Ms. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: This is for the petitioner. You said that there is another BP in Livonia that has this? Ms. Glover: Yes, ma'am. There are three other BP gas stations in the City of Livonia. Each one, from what I can tell, has a light band around the gas canopy. If it is illuminated at nighttime, I don't know. I don't live over here to see it, but they all have them, yes. Ms. Smiley: I guess I am confused on how we passed those three, but not hers. Do you now, Mark? Mr. Taormina: I can speak to only one of those three. I did not check the other two. The most recent of the three would be at the corner of Schoolcraft and Farmington Road. We included a similar condition in the approving resolution and apparently that canopy is being illuminated at night. That is in violation. The Inspection Department is aware of that violation, to my understanding. Ms. Smiley: So, they are in violation. I guess she is asking for permission, and they are asking for forgiveness. Is that where we are at? Mr. Taormina: They haven't asked for anything yet. As, Smiley: So, what happens to them when they are in violation. Will they make them... February 8, 2022 30407 Mr. Taormina: They will be told to either remove it or stop illuminating it. I suppose if the light band remains, and they don't want to take it down ... what is in violation is the fact that it is turned on in the evening. Whether or not they can... how they are going to correct that, I have no idea. Ms. Smiley: You don't happen to know the hours of that one on...that BP gas station that is illuminated. Is it 24 hours? Ms. Glover: I don't suspect that it is illuminated 24 hours. I think it comes on for nighttime illumination. I don't know their hours. I apologize. Ms. Smiley: Do you know the hours of this gas station? Ms. Glover: Ray's gas station...go ahead. Ray Salem, 27428 Schoolcraft, Livonia, MI 4:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. as of right now. Ms. Smiley: Then the light would go off at 11? Mr. Salem: Yeah, I would be fine with that. I mean that is...you know. As I explained at the last week, I would just do according to what the other stations and like I said, I am off the highway. There is probably about four of the five stations that are on the highway that are all illuminated, so you know I was just trying to kind of, you would say, fit in with that. Ms. Smiley: This is going to sound bad, but I am inclined to deny it and let you go to Council and let them hear your story behind it. The fact that the BP is doing that. That the BP wants you to do that, or that is their brand and that is how they do it. I guess I am kind of supporting you, but I am probably going to deny you. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Is there any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Long: Can I get Ms. Glover to take me through the math again on the signage? You said that the light bar was 50 square feet or 15? Ms. Glover: 15.5 Mr. Long: 15. Okay. Now that is where my math is going off. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Long. Any other questions for anybody? February 8, 2022 30408 Mr. Caramagno: If you do not get the LED light band, what does BP do? Are they going to pull your BP station? Brian Tucker, Corrigan Oil, t t o North 2"d Street, Brighton, MI. We are the supplier to Mr. Salem's station. There are alternatives. To that those alternatives are based on the circumstances. The first plan is to always fully meet image requirements. It happens when situations like this occur, where decisions are made where it is not allowed. I think from the brands perspective, and I can't speak for the brand because I only represent as a distributor, they are not here to speak on their behalf. The first request is to always to fully illuminate the canopy. Mr. Caramagno: So, when you can't do that, you talked about alternatives? What are the alternatives? Mr. Tucker: The alternatives are for non -illuminated canopies. Mr. Caramagno: So, BP is not going to walk away from Ray over an LED light band here? Mr. Tucker: No. To support Mr. Salem in the spirit of fairness and what he is competing with, that is the reason for the request. Mr. Caramagno: So, you speak on behalf of Corrigan delivering fuel for BP? Mr. Tucker: Yes. What I can also say is that of the other BP stations that are in the city, Corrigan is not a supplier Mr. Caramagno: Is not a supplier. Okay. I have got to say that I am probably not a fan of the LED light band. The only thing that I...if there were an exception here it would be because this doesn't face any residential properties. It faces the freeway. So, if there is an exception for me that would be it. I have to think about it. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Any other questions or comments from anyone? Good discussion from everyone. I don't think there is anyone else in our audience wishing to speak to this item, but I will throw that out there in case someone is hiding and I can't see. I don't see anybody jumping up. Anything else, Ms. Glover, that you would like to add before we make our decision? Ms. Glover: I did a lot of thinking after the study session that we had and one of the things I would say is that as a female, finding a gas station at night that is illuminated makes a world of difference of where I am going to go buy my gas. I am not going to go to some station February 8, 2022 30409 that might be kind of dark. There is a lot of dark corners. I personally will look specifically for an illuminated station so that I know that I feel, at least I feel, that I have some safety there. That is all I needed to add. Mr. Wilshaw: That is great comment. We appreciate that. Ms. Glover: Thank you. Mr. Ventura: Excuse me, are you saying that there are no lights under this canopy at night? Ms. Glover: They have the normal... Mr. Ventura: So, what is illuminated? So, you can see what you are doing. Ms. Glover: On the expressway, when you are driving you can see that there is a station up there if you see that glow. Mr. Ventura: Your comments led me to believe that there were no lights there. Ms. Glover: No. Mr. Ventura: So, it is well illuminated. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, I think this would just be an enhancement to that illumination. A colorful one. Any other questions or comments? If not,... Mr. Bongero? Mr. Bongero: Quick question. Kind of like what Commissioner Caramagno said, I don't have a problem with it. I think it is not intrusive. I think it is subtle. I think it adds a little bit of an effect. Slightly. I don't think it is going to be beaming into people's eyes and it is in commercial only, not around residential. I don't really have a problem with it. Mr. Wilshaw: Fair comment. Anybody else with anything? If not, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #02-10-2022 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council that Petition 2003-O8-SN-08 submitted by Aver Sign Company requesting to amend Council Resolution #549-03, adopted by the Livonia City Council on October 22, 2003, to allow the illumination of tubing around the pump island canopy of the BP gas station at 27428 Schoolcraft February 8, 2022 30410 Road, located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster Roads in the southeast 'Y4 of Section 24, be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed modification is not supported by the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance which prohibits outline tubing signs. 2. That it has been along -standing policy by the City not to allow this type of illumination around pump island canopies. 3. That the applicant has notjustified the need to illuminate the pump island canopy at this location. 4. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed modification would be aesthetically in the City's best interest. 5. That approving this type of illumination would set an undesirable precedent for businesses of this type. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Ventura, Smiley, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: McCue, Bongero, Long ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wilshaw: To the petitioner, you will have ten days in which to appeal the decision in writing to City Council and if you choose to do that, they will take up the request and you can have them make the decision. ITEM #3 MOTION TO HOLD A LANGUAGE AMENDMENTS PUBLIC HEARING LIVONIA VISION 21 Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Motion to hold a public hearing, to consider amendments to the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance (Petition 2022-01-06-01). February 8, 2022 30411 Mr. Taormina: I will just say that we are set to present these changes to the Commission at their Public Hearing scheduled for February 22, 2022. We will devote much of the next week meeting going over each of the changes. There is about 32 in total. Mr. Wilshaw: Sounds good. Is there a motion to set a Public Hearing date for February 22, 2022? On a motion by Long, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-11-2022 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 13.15 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and in accordance with Public Act 110 of 2006 (Michigan Zoning Enabling Act), as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine to consider multiple revisions to the LIVONIA VISION 21 Zoning Ordinance in order to correct certain defects, add and delete provisions, and provide clarification to others. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section13.15 of Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, 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. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM 444 2022-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, the Capital Improvements Program for the years 2022-2027. Mr. Taormina: Thank you. This item involves consideration of the City's Six -year Capital Improvements Program. Like previous plans, the 2022 — 2027 (CIP) incorporates recommendations from each of the various city departments that are responsible for planning and overseeing significant capital improvements. The plan provides a schedule of anticipated public capital expenditures over a six - year period. It begins in 2022 and ends in 2027. Included with each entry is a brief description of the capital improvement, the city department responsible for overseeing the project, the year or years that implementation is anticipated, the location, annual February 8, 2022 30412 cost, funding sources, total project cost, the city share of the total cost, project status, priority ranking, and area benefited. So, it includes a lot of information on each capital item. A new approach was used to create this CIP. Instead of compiling the data from each department and then combining it into a single spreadsheet, the information was entered using a database program and is being stored on SharePoint, which is a cloud - based content management platform. There are several benefits to doing it this way, but most importantly what it does is allows the Capital Improvements Program to become a living document since the data can be updated at anytime and instantly retrieved. Currently the 2022 — 2027 CIP has 422 entries with a total estimated cost of $268,000,000. There are eight major project categories. I will give you a quick breakdown of the anticipated expenditures in each one of the categories. First is Building, with 110 entries and $95 million. Equipment with 113 entries and $17.2 million. Land Improvement projects with 28 entries and $20.4 million. Paving with 54 entries and $53.2 million. Technology with 70 entries and $3.9 million. Vehicle purchases with 30 entries and $20.2 million. Water and Sewer with 10 entries and $32.9 million. The eighth and final category is Other with eight entries and a cost of about $25 million. The Planning Commission is required to regularly prepare a Capital Improvements Program of Public Structures and Improvements pursuant to the Michigan Planning and Enabling Act (PA 33 of 2008). What the CIP does is serve as a guide for forecasting and budgeting. It is not to meant to replace the Annual Budget by any means. This is just a list of projects that are desired by each of the departments. Some of them are recurring expenses. Others would fall under the category of a "wish list'. Some may never come to fruition, but... again it serves as a guide for budgeting and forecasting. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent, Mr. Taormina. Normally this is presented to us on a spreadsheetwith many pages and really microscopic print, so this is a nice update for you guys to use this new format and I think it will work out well going forward. Jr. Taormina: Thank you. Or. Wilshaw: Obviously, we are not going to talk about it a lot this evening, but this is a lot of work that goes into making these. A lot of coordination from different departments, so we appreciate the hard work that goes into that. Jr. Taormina: Thank you, again. February 8, 2022 30413 Or. Wilshaw: Is there any questions for comments from any the commissioners in regard to the Capital Improvement Program? Mr. Bongero: Mark, so each department puts in their wish list. So, like the new Police headquarters, $40 million. That would be their wish list, but they have an alternate to renovate the existing for $20 million. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Bongero: So, either way they want something? Mr. Taormina: Either way. Apparently, there is something that needs to be done. Again, the CIP includes very few details. The Police Headquarters is one of the outliers that I think we have seen in the Capital Improvements Program going back at least ten years. Mr. Bongero: Thank you Mr. Taormina: Maybe 20 now. Mr. Wilshaw: I was thinking almost maybe 20 years now they have been asking for that. It is desperately needed. Mr. Taormina: This by the way shows you what the program looks like with a couple of examples. It is a scrolling list. You can see each one of the entries that is provided with all the information. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Any other questions from anybody? If not, there is recommended motion in our packet if someone would like to offer it. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-12-2022 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, P.A. 33 of 2008, the City Planning Commission is responsible for the preparation of a Capital Improvements Program for the ensuing six years; and WHEREAS, the 2022 - 2027 Capital Improvements Program, prepared through a joint effort of several City departments, has been submitted to the City Planning Commission for consideration; and WHEREAS, duly -noticed City Planning Commission public meeting was held on February 8, 2022; and February 8, 2022 30414 WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Program presents a realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete fiscal planning strategy for the City of Livonia; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission stands ready to do all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and City Council in maintaining a functioning program of capital improvements and capital budgeting for the City of Livonia; therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the City Planning Commission hereby adopts the 2022 - 2027 Capital Improvements Program; and BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt this Capital Improvements Program and use it as a guide to funding priority capital projects with the program. Mr. Wilshaw: I do want to note for the minutes that I didn't' ask if there was anyone in the audience with any comments on this because there is no one left in our audience. I just had to get that in the minutes. Or. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,182"d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,182"dpublic Hearing and Regular Meeting held on January 25, 2022. On a motion by Long, seconded by Ventura , and unanimously adopted, it was #02-13-2022 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,182"d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 251 2022, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Bongero, Long, McCue, Smiley, Ventura, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None February 8, 2022 30415 Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,183'd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 8, 2022, was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. /I CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sam C ramagno, Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw. Chairman