Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,241 - February 3, 2026 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,241st PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,241st Public Hearing and Regular Meetings 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: Patrick Droze Glen Long Members absent: Wafa Dinaro David Bongero Peter Ventura Sam Caramagno Ian Wilshaw Mr. Jacob Uhazie, Assistant 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 2025-12-02-22 LAG Development Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2025- 12-02-22 submitted by LAG Development requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 3.11 and 6.05 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to remove the existing house and garage at 11315 Stark Road to provide additional parking in connection with the existing automotive dealership operation at 34501 Plymouth Road, located on the west side of Stark Road Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32175 between Plymouth Road and Pinetree Road in the Northwest'/ of Section 33. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As stated, this petition is to remove the existing house and garage at 11315 Stark Road, to provide additional parking in connection with the existing automotive dealership operation. The overall LAG parcel is about four acres in size. The former house parcel is about 9,750 square feet in size. The house site measures 60 feet on Stark by 162 1/2 feet deep. The house parcel was added to the dealership parcel in a petition in 2021. The existing zoning for the site is C-2. The site plan shows that there would be a new parking lot added to the house parcel with 26 single striped parking spaces. The parking area would be used for used car dealer inventory. The existing drive off of Stark would be removed. Every space would have a bumper block. There would be a new 24-foot drive to connect the new lot to the existing lot to the north. There would be a six inch concrete curb and gutter along the new spaces. A six foot high masonry screening wall would be in place along the property line abutting the residential to the south. The proposed parking lot is located outside of the required 20 foot setback and therefore complies with setback requirements of Section 6.05 of the zoning ordinance. The addition of the new parking lot increases the site's road frontage along Stark Road from 120 feet to 180 feet. The petitioner did include a lighting plan since we last met. The lighting plan shows 2-20 foot light poles on the south edge of the property. The parking lot average is 6.03 foot light candles and a max of 20.6. For reference, the Bill Brown on Plymouth Road has an average of 10.62 and a max of 27.4 in their inventory lot. The average foot candles at the property line is 0.16 and a max of 0.5. The zoning ordinance says that light emitting elements of a light fixture shall not be directly visible from the neighbor's property, as they are the primary cause of glare. The landscape plan provided based on the 180 feet of frontage along Stark Road, the site requires to provide four deciduous trees, two ornamental and 32 shrubs. The petitioner proposes four canopy trees, two ornamental and 32 shrubs, thereby meeting the frontage landscaping requirements. In addition, the hedge screening with a minimum height of three feet is provided along the pavement edge. And the plan also includes five parking lot trees. The petitioner further proposes a green belt buffer consisting of a 25 well rooted, narrow evergreen trees and one ornamental tree along the masonry wall. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32176 Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 8, 2026, 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, but would like to note the following items: 1. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #34501 Plymouth Road. Should additional addresses be needed, the owner will need to contact this Department once approvals have been obtained. 2. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main. Since the existing residence is to be demolished, the existing sanitary lead will need to be capped at the property line, and the water service will need to be removed at the main. 3. The submitted drawings do not indicate any proposed storm water improvements. Any new construction will be required to meet the latest version of the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance, including detention. If detention is provided in the existing development, calculations will need to be provided. 4. When the existing approach to Stark Road is removed, the owner will be required to place new curb and gutter along the existing opening. 5.If necessary, any disturbances within the Plymouth Road right- of-way, including replacement of the drive approach or sidewalk will require permitting through the Michigan Department of Transportation." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 14, 2026, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with the new construction and use of the property located at the above referenced address. No objections to this proposal with the stipulations: -If the installation of Electric Vehicle charging stations is to occur, please provide details on location and separation distances between other vehicles and structures. A further detailed plan review will take place when this division receives an official plan set." The letter is signed by Brian Kukla, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 7, 2026, 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 Paul Walters, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 30, 2026, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. Exterior lighting sources shall be designed, constructed, located, and maintained in a manner that minimizes light trespass onto neighboring properties and public ways. The light trespass from a property shall not exceed 0.5-foot-candles at the property line, Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32177 measured five (5) feet from the ground. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated January 20, 2026, which reads as follows: "/ have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Benjamin Grier, Director of Finance. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 7, 2025, which reads as follows: "The owner of the property is current on their property tax. The billing address for the property is 34501 Plymouth Rd."The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. And finally, we have a letter from the public. "Hopefully this stops. Stops with you. Lighting was brought up by a resident at the last Council meeting. I will bring it up again this request. The closer this property gets to my property, 1 fear decreasing my property value and comfort. I have lived in my home for over 30 years, since LAG took a position of the position of the property. I believe they have updated the intensity of the lighting on the property. This has had a negative impact on the comfort of my home due to this lighting, I have worked with the inspection department in reference to the lighting, some adjustments have been made. I have made another request due to proposed changes at the property and more photos of the light pollution. The photos were taken just a few days ago. Please look at the photos in this email, and you will understand why I'm against the parking lot being extended to the south. Yes, this is in my backyard. I have lived with a scaled down version of this in the past. Please see my viewpoint on this and the stadium lighting at the dealership. I would also like to note the used car flags at the dealership and guard a garage between the chain link fence and the residential property. Properties, thank you for your efforts. Respectfully. Tom Togartz". You do have copies of the photos provided as well, and that is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Uhazie. Is there any questions for our planning staff? Mr. Uhazie, It's a little confusing, because the address 11315 is a house and garage that's proposed to be torn down, right? They're already gone. They were allowed to demo it as long as they meet the ordinance for the demo from the Inspection Department. So, it's just a remnant from the aerial photo, what we have when we first look it up. Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32178 I figured they owned it, they can tear it down. It wasn't necessarily torn down in connection with this petition at the time. Okay, but if this petition doesn't go forward, they're gonna have to restore what's there, obviously, plant grass... They would have to plant grass or follow the ordinance, but not necessarily build a new... or restore the building or anything. Would they still need a privacy wall? Since it's adjacent to residential, I would have to check to see what the exact requirements would be, because it's existing and maybe grandfathered in if they're not doing any changes. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for staff? I guess two questions on the site plan that we have. We talked about it a little bit, actually, at our prior meeting, where we had a site, commercial site on a main road, and whether sidewalk would be needed or not. I'm not necessarily saying it's needed here, because one, it's on the other side of the road, and two, I'm not sure the neighbors to the south would even want it. But is this a situation where they could do a payment in lieu type arrangement? And I guess the question that is, are they required to put sidewalk in across the frontage after they take the driveway out, or can it just remain grass the way they have it proposed. It can remain how they have it proposed. Okay. And then for the wall, did they provide any elevations or materials beyond just masonry, is it? I'm just curious if it's more of like a split face, or if it's actually gonna be like a brick wall, like we see on the Plymouth Road corridor. I didn't see anything in the plans, so maybe that's we can talk to the applicant about. It does say on the plans the masonry screen wall per architectural plans. I do not have any detailed architectural plans for the wall per se. Mr. Droze: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32179 All right, that would be a good question for the petitioner. All right, any other questions for planning staff? Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Mr. Uhazie, this evening, we were given a blow up of the photometric plan, and since I wasn't here last week and didn't participate in a discussion that evidently was had last week, maybe you can tell me, does this plan reflect the actual lighting conditions on the site today, or is this something that reflects the planned lighting? This would be the planned lighting at the study session. They did not have a photometric plan. This is something they provided. There was not one provided. So, this is in response to the fact that they had not provided one. Yes. But it doesn't tell us what's going on there today. Correct. Mr. Ventura: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for staff? If not, our petitioner is in the audience, feel free to come forward to our podium. Ask that you start with your name and address. Gary Laundroche, LAG Development, La Fontaine Automotive. I guess I'm going to kind of go down the list of, per your engineers comments. We would probably propose a partial combination for this because there's no sense in keeping a separate address or a vacant lot right. I think it would be connected and integral and through the site. The sanitary and the sewer and the water have all been capped and tapped at the right-of-way, as per the City of Livonia requirements. It was part of the requirements for the demolition permit. Storm water is something that has not been designed yet by our engineers. We're not sure if we're going to get approved to go forward with this project. So, before they do the engineering, but we would have to comply, obviously, with Wayne County storm standards there. With regards to the Fire Department comments, there are no electric vehicle chargers proposed for this portion of the parking lot. We do have a couple on site that could be used. Of course, the demand for electrical vehicle charges isn't quite what it was geared up to be originally, so it's we have adequate charging capacity. With regards to light February 3, 2026 32180 trespass, we did, of course, we did get this photo metric in time. We didn't have it in time for our meeting last week, but we are compliant with the ordinance with a maximum of 0.5 at the property line. We have also proposed to do shielded fixtures and forward throwing fixtures so that these would be pushing the light into the site. To answer Mr. Ventura's question, the photometric plan here is just for these two light poles. This has no bearing on the rest of the site. We don't have a photometric on the existing and I don't really think we didn't add any lights to this property while we were doing some renovations to the dealerships. I think the code inspector at the time did have us replace some of the lights that weren't working. And I apologize if Tom's in the audience, I've got a card. I can gladly give him my information and my phone number if there's any issues. We've had some management changes at this location, and I did forward Tom's email to the manager of this corridor. They have ordered new flags. Those were really embarrassing. He also suggested perhaps we could add more shields to those property line lights that are closest to the residential, which I thought was a great idea, anything we can do to contain that lighting, really, we're not advertising or trying to sell cars in the back of the buildings. It's just for security and for safety. So that's really all that we're looking to maintain for that. We aren't opposed to adding a sidewalk along there if it's determined that that would be beneficial. I don't think there is one on either side of the property. It would kind of be a road to nowhere, but again, or if you want to have it written in that if a sidewalk were to come up to the property line, we would add one. That would even be something we wouldn't mind bonding for, if that were the case. With regards to the wall, it was designed to be a brick -faced wall, pretty much to match the existing as close as possible, so that looked continuous with the existing wall that really goes along the whole strip of the back of that. This adds about 22-23 net parking spaces for us. It doesn't sound like a lot, but things are pretty tight in that corridor. As anybody who's driven by knows, the way that these buildings are so close to the road, there's very little display parking up front. It's a small thing that makes a big benefit for our access and flow around the site. So that's kind of our primary purpose there. This property was already attached to these other parcels when we bought it, and it was already zoned C-2 when we bought it, so it was sort of the previous owner's intent to do this very thing at some point. The vacant house that was there was becoming in disrepair and had a water leak at one point, and there was mold inside. It was kind of not healthy, so it sort of had to come down at some point or another. And we did follow the ordinance in February 3, 2026 32181 pulling in permits and taking care of that. I'm available for any other questions. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Laundroche. We appreciate those background answers for us. Let's see if there's some additional questions for you. Any of the commissioners interested in asking questions of our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Laundroche, thank you for coming tonight. I always am happy to see businesses in Livonia expand and be successful, and it appears that you guys are. I know that the Mazda dealer just a little bit west of this location expanded here recently, and we approved the site plan there, and they were responsive to the surrounding community when neighbors came and asked for some concessions with regard to access points and so forth. They demonstrated good citizenship, and I'm going to ask you to do that again here tonight. The encroachment of light on the neighborhood is a concern of theirs, and rightfully so. And since, in as much as you don't have a have a photometric plan showing the conditions on the ground today as they exist, I'm going to ask you to do that and to have a photometric essay done, so that if this is approved tonight, you can come back to the Planning Commission and say, here are the conditions that are there now, and obviously, if we approve this, you're going to have to do the new lighting and compliance with our ordinance, and any other conditions that would we would attach to it this evening, but we'd also like you to commit to us that if you find you are out of compliance on your existing lighting that it be brought into compliance. Mr. Laundroche: We can make those corrections, absolutely. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. And one other...I just note, and Jacob, maybe you can help me here, I noted that the parking spaces are nine and a half or nine feet, aren't they supposed to be 10 feet? Mr. Uhazie: Yes, but this is...we've allowed a little bit of leeway with other dealerships. Same thing with the lighting. Mr. Ventura: In as much as they're not going to be used by the public. Mr. Uhazie: Yeah, correct. Mr. Ventura: Okay, that's it for me. Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for our petitioner? February 3, 2026 32182 Mr. Caramagno: So, the lighting, as Mr. Ventura was mentioning, is there ability to turn that lighting down or off at a certain time of night that butts up to the property? Mr. Laundroche: There is, there are control systems with the LED lights. It's really become a whole different game. We can control the lighting, we can turn them down, we can dim them, we can even turn them off and have them operate on motion sensors. We can do that easily with these new fixtures. I don't know all the existing fixtures in there, if they have that capability. I know the ones on the Hyundai lot probably do because those were added, those were new with that renovation on the other side of that other side street. But it is a possibility, and we could do controls on these as well. Again, this isn't for display, like we're trying to sell the cars. This is just for safety and security. So those functions would work well for that. Mr. Caramagno: Yeah, I would think the lights, especially next to the residential property, if you could tone them down at night after, you know, 10 or 11, o'clock at night, you turn them down, and that might help the cause. You know, in the pictures I'm looking at that Mr. Tokarz sent, I see some of the lights from closer to Plymouth Road. Let's say they shine all the way across your property into his yard. So that'll be some of your photometric plan review, I'm sure. But anything you can do there, I think, is a good effort. The next thing that I seen in this letter is about the flags and banners. Now maybe Jacob could comment on that. Most of the time we don't allow flags and banners flying through the air. This obviously has gotten through. But can you comment, Jacob? Mr. Uhazie: I can only comment in that Inspection has reviewed it and had no issues with the placement of the banners. I don't know if they have an agreement or on their own in regard to that, other than the condition of the flags, but they did not cite any objections to them. Mr. Caramagno: Okay, maybe it wasn't an original plan, but yeah, they look like terrible and I think you said you're going to address they look really bad. That's good. That's only comments or questions I've got. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Caramagno. Mr. Droze. Mr. Droze: One just additional point relative to lighting plan. I certainly agree with Mr. Ventura and Mr. Caramagno about their comments. February 3, 2026 32183 What I would say too is, if the findings are showing that there is trespass, your plan, that you did provide for us, does show that the light poles you've selected do a really nice job of kind of cutting that light off right at the property line and it seems that a lot of times we see these buildings that put the wall packs that get converted to flood lights with the LEDs. Just LED light, as you mentioned, is just different. It travels further. As long as their line of sight, you're going to see it. So just some advice, I guess, if it's shown that there's trespass and your changes are going to be made, what you're proposing for this lot, I think will be a good addition for the other lots, if you can make that accommodation. So just that suggestion. Other than that, I appreciate your comments and responses. Mr. Laundroche: And Mr. Caramagno, I believe is correct. The trespass, I think there's a couple of lights that are mounted on the building. They had been on there before we purchased it, and those may have been like the ones that were fixed during our building process. And I do think that they're tilted up and they probably are facing the neighbor's yards. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Alright? Well, hopefully you can get those corrected and assist the neighbor. I don't want to keep beating it up. You kind of said that you'd be...you wouldn't be opposed to having them shut off after a certain point? Mr. Laundroche: Yeah, we can have them turn off after business hours, as long as we can still keep them on a motion sensor. Typically what will happen, and we found that the police and most communities like that, because if it's a dark lot, there's no issues. If the lights go on at night, it's because somebody pulled in there or something, they probably shouldn't be in there, and I think that would benefit the neighbors tremendously. Mr. Bongero: I like that. And in addition to making sure there's no light trespass, why not take care of the neighbors? Mr. Laundroche: Absolutely, we do. We really strive to be good corporate citizens. We don't want to have issues. I mean, people live here, this is their sanctuary, and we understand that. Mr. Bongero: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32184 All right, excellent. Any other questions for the petitioner? All right, good. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item, for or against? There's one person coming forward. Mr. Wilshaw: Good evening, sir. Again, name and address to start. James Arnold, 11205 Laurel, Livonia, MI. I'm the west property on the commercial wall on Laurel Street. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you. Mr. Arnold: Mr. Wilshaw: Basically, the lights come on at 5:37 in the morning, and they go off about 9:20 in the evening, daylight saving time, seven days a week. It would be nice if they were shielded. I have Comerica in my backyard. It's very bright. Everybody wants growth. I agree with that. All I want is, if we can get them to maintain the area they have, like a groundhog wall, a lot of groundhogs, holes in fences, lot of lighting coming off the buildings. We have darkening shades, and it still comes in...the light. I'm not opposed to, you know, they want 27 spots, but I know they have a lot of where they're unloading cars down on Plymouth Road. And you know, if we got five spots, we're putting 10 cars, you know, and, and it's quite a lot, with the carriers coming down Laurel. They're not supposed to unload there. It's just, I want to see positiveness, and I don't want to be a burden, but, you know, all I can do is I try to keep my place as clean as I can. I just think that we just need to monitor what's going on over there, you know. Okay, that's my concern, just the lighting and the basic maintenance on the ground, that type of thing. We appreciate you expressing your thoughts. We appreciate that very much. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Hi, good evening, sir. Demir Tayani, I'll speak on behalf of my father, who owns 11295, Stark Road, Livonia, MI. That's the house connecting to where this whole kind of mock up plan for these additional spots connects to. So okay, fairly affected. We have a tenant there. So, you know, I cannot attest to any lighting issues or anything like that. My address today is going to be essentially on the wall, and essentially requirements being, I...correct me if I'm wrong, but the wall is going to be on the south side that borders our house. there. So, the initial requirement that would only benefit us would be we get a lot of debris on the west side as well. And that debris, who knows where that comes from. It flies across their lot. They shovel snow that pushes it all to the side, and we get a lot of debris in Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Tayani: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32185 that backyard area there, where we should have a bunch of shrubs and like a little metal fence. So essentially, if willing, you know, we would love a additional wall, or probably a fence along the west side of our lot there. Okay, very good. Thank you for your comments. Thank you, guys. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? I don't see anyone else coming forward. Mr. Laundroche, did you want to give any additional comments? Mr. Laundroche: One more, thanks for the reminder. Tom did also comment on some of the debris and the garbage and stuff that was in there. And again, I've already directed the manager of that corridor as soon as it's thawed, to get that cleaned up and to maintain that and again, it's no excuse, but we did go through some management changes here. They've kind of cycled in a couple of different managers, and they've got a manager there now who has been with the company a long time. He just came from a different location. So, I think that will be a little bit of a more attentive improvement, Mr. Wilshaw: Specifically to the issue of trash. You've noted that there's going to be a wall on the south side of this property. What's the height of that wall? Mr. Laundroche: Six feet. Mr. Wilshaw: Six feet. Is that also going to be on the west side of this property? Mr. Laundroche: I thought there was an existing wall there Mr. Wilshaw: You may want to take a look at that and see if you can make sure that that's addressed as well, because that would help with debris flying over. Jacob's going to zoom in on that area. Mr. Laundroche: The west side of this lot that we're proposing is connected. It's continuous with existing south of that where his property is. Mr. Wilshaw: He's directly behind his property. Mr. Laundroche: I don't recall what was there. I just didn't look. Mr. Uhazie: This may take a while to load, but I tried. Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32186 Well, one thing we can do is we can always make that a condition to make sure that that wall is extended behind those properties if that's something that the Commission's interested in. Mr. Laundroche: Yeah, I don't know how it wouldn't have gotten put in there all along. It should be continuous along the whole property. Mr. Wilshaw: You wouldn't have any objections to that? Mr. Laundroche: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, all right. I think that'll take care of that. Is there any other issues that you'd like to address before we make our decision. Always like to give you the last word as a petitioner, Mr. Laundroche: No, I appreciate your time and consideration. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you for coming with that. I'm going to close the public hearing. If there's no other comments or questions from any of the commissioners, a motion is in order. On a motion by Bongero, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-04-2026 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2025-12-02-22 submitted by LAG Development requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 3.11 and 6.05 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to remove the existing house and garage at 11315 Stark Road to provide additional parking in connection with the existing automotive dealership operation at 34501 Plymouth Road, located on the west side of Stark Road between Plymouth Road and Pinetree Road in the Northwest'/4 of Section 33, be approved for the following reasons or subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Paving and Grading Plan marked Sheet C3 dated December 2, 2025, as revised, prepared by NF Engineers, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L1 dated December 2, 2025, as revised, prepared by NF Engineers, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; February 3, 2026 32187 3. That a lighting plan for the entire site be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and that all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 4. That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and, 5. That the lighting on the site shall be turned off after hours and then utilize a motion senor system to avoid excess lighting into the abutting neighbor yards; 6. That all debris along the protective wall shall be cleaned up on a weekly basis; 7. That the privacy wall be extended south along the eastern property line abutting the residential properties to the satisfaction of the Building Department; 8. That a portion of the property along Stark Road be land banked to accommodate a sidewalk along Stark Road if one is added to the adjacent southern property; 9. Pursuant to Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2025-12-02-23 Fleming's Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2025- 12-02-23 submitted by OSI/Fleming's, LLC requesting waiver use Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32188 approval pursuant to Section 6.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to utilize an S.D.M. liquor license (allows a licensed business to sell beer, wine, and mixed spirit drink products in the original package for consumption off the premises) in connection with the existing restaurant operation (Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar) at 17400 Haggerty Road, located on the north side of College Parkway between Fox Drive and Haggerty Road in the Southwest' of Section 7. Thank you. This is a request to operate an SDM liquor license in connection with the existing restaurant operation, Fleming Steakhouse. SDM license allows a licensed business to sell beer, wine and mixed spirit drinks within the original packages for consumption off premises. No other changes are proposed to the site. The reason for the request is that the petitioner sees this as a growing part of their business. It does seem to be a common theme along restaurants that they are seeing a need for takeout alcohol as well. The location of the applicant is the Flemings restaurant, which is located in a commercial area of Haggerty, and it is accessible via College Parkway and Fox Drive. The existing zoning is C-2. The site is bordered by other commercial properties, zoned C-2 and C-4 in Livonia. The operation of SDM liquor licenses requires special land use approval pursuant to Section 6.03 of the zoning ordinance. Flemmings currently operates a Class C liquor license, which permits the sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises. The site was constructed in 2006 and operated as the Fleming's restaurant since that opening date. There are two special requirements that apply to zoning approval of an SDM license. The first is the minimum separation distance between existing SDM licensed businesses. Section 6.03 of the zoning ordinance specifies that no other SDM. License establishments shall be located within 500 feet of any existing SDM license establishment. Currently, there are no other SDM licensed establishments within that 500- foot buffer. Another provision in the ordinance requires a separation from any church, schools or daycares within 400 feet of the subject parcel. There are no churches or schools within that buffer. As well, as I mentioned, there are no other changes to this property. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 8, 2026, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced February 3, 2026 32189 petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time, but would like to note the following items: 1. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #17400 Haggerty Road. 2. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main, as well as private storm sewer. There is no mention of utility revisions with the proposal, so we do not believe there will be any adverse effects on the existing systems. 3. Should any revisions to the utility services to the building, or any work on the right -of- way be required, the owner will need to submit drawings to this Department to determine if Engineering permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 14, 2026, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to modify a commercial building on the property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal. A further detailed plan review will take place when this division receives an official plan set." The letter is signed by Brian Kukla, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 7, 2025, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans submitted by OS I/Fle mings, LLC requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.03 of the Livonia Ordinance, as amended, to utilize an SOM liquor license (allows a licensed business to sell beer, wine and mixed spirit drink products in the original package for consumption off premises) in connection with the existing restaurant operation (Fleming' s Prime Steak house & Wine Bar) at 17400 Haggerty Road , located on the north side of College Parkway between Fox Drive and Haggerty Road in the Southwest % of Section 7. After reviewing the plans with the Chief of Police, we have no objections to the waiver being granted, contingent that the petitioner complies with 1. All State Laws 2. City Ordinances 3. Stipulations and conditions set by the Livonia Police Department, Liquor Investigations Unit, as approved by the Chief of Police 4. Stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic Bureau of the Livonia Police Department" The letter is signed by Paul Walters, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 30, 2026, 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 20, 2026, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Maureen Cullen Mr. Wilshaw: Ms.Cullen: Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Cullen: February 3, 2026 32190 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 Benjamin Grier, Director of Finance. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 7, 2026, which reads as follows: "The owner of the property is current on their property tax." The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. All right. Thank you, Mr. Uhazie. Is there any questions for our staff? Mr. Uhazie, just a point of information to confirm that there's not going to be any work done in this building of any kind pursuant to this position, That is my understanding. Correct. We have not seen any plans. It is all just the existing building they just submitted. So, the drawings that are attached to this petition really don't have anything to do with it. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you Thank you. Mr. Ventura. Any other questions? If not, our petitioner is in the audience. Feel free to come forward. There you are. Good evening. , managers at Flemings Steakhouse, Livonia, MI. Thank you for coming tonight. Is there anything you'd like to tell us about your request? No, I think you covered it all. Would you like to tell us why Fleming's is looking to utilize an SDM license? Well, I think it's just part of the ongoing trend of what's going on in the country, I should say, or in our in our business, and we want to be able to sell, like, bottles of wine, that's the majority of it, because really, we wouldn't sell cocktails to go. We don't have, you know, what they would have to be in the liquor bottle. And February 3, 2026 32191 people don't buy liquors, bottles of liquor from us anyway, so, but it's primarily the wine bottles that that are the thing that people like to take with them and buy so that we can have that off premise license. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, very good. Thank you for that. Let's see if there's some questions for you. Any questions for our petitioner, Mr. Mr. Ventura: I would ask one question. So, are you talking about taking the remainder of a wine bottle? So, you sit there and have dinner... Ms. Cullen: It has to be sealed. It has to be... Mr. Ventura: You can't walk out with a partially... Ms. Cullen: That's correct. That's correct. Mr. Ventura: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Long: And none of this would be sold by DoorDash or anything like that? Ms. Cullen: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Very good. Mr. Caramagno. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Just expand a little bit on the process. If someone's going to come in to get a carry out and grab a bottle of wine when they go, how's that process work for Flemmings? Ms. Cullen: Well, usually it isn't through carry out. It's usually they're dining there, and then they've enjoyed a bottle of wine that they like, and then they want to purchase that bottle of wine. And then we have, we would have a sealed or a bag, not a bag, but something that wouldn't. you wouldn't be able to see that bottle of wine that's sealed into it. And then they purchase it from us, and they're able to carry it out of the building. Mr. Caramagno: But if someone wanted to get a carry out order, they could also, Ms. Cullen: They could purchase that, yes. They would have to come in to our restaurant to do that, because we have to ID them. So, they wouldn't be able to do it over the phone. Mr. Caramagno: Okay, so you have a process in place, or you will. Ms. Cullen: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: To confirm they're of age. Ms. Cullen: Absolutely. Mr. Caramagno: I'm sure there's not many kids walking in, right? Ms. Cullen: February 3, 2026 32192 There isn't, but you only get that one. It only takes one. But yes, Mr. Caramagno: And you've had no trouble with any serving problems with underage? Ms. Cullen: Not at all. No, no. Mr. Caramagno: Good. Thank you. Ms. Cullen: Mr. Wilshaw: And I've been there for 12 years. Good, excellent. Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions for our petitioner? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item? We have one person coming. Okay. Greg Ralko, Golfridge Villa, Livonia, MI. I remember not too long ago, and I'm here for another reason tonight, but I think Outback just got the green light to do this same thing. And really what it is that, how do you stop anybody now from going forward, any other restaurant that sells beer, wine and alcohol, from not wanting to do the same thing? And so then all we have are liquor stores, you know, beer and wine, places where you can buy beer and wine. And then in addition to that, we have places where, you know, there are restaurants, but they're also in the retail business. And so we've,...we can't stop that, because you can't say no to the next one when you've said yes, yes, yes, yes. And so you've got a trend here that that now you're plaguing the whole city with to the extent that we have these many establishments that are selling beer and wine and alcohol, and is it fair, really, to our establishments that are in business to sell beer, wine, liquor stores that we have in the city, but all of a sudden they got a whole new cast of competitors that they're having to contend with that are really outside the norm. You know, as this woman was saying five years ago, because this all kind of started with the pandemic. So, I don't know, I don't know that you want to let that cat out of the bag, and to some extent, you've already done that without back, because there'll be a line of restaurants that will want to do February 3, 2026 32193 this, and you need to anticipate that. So, in my opinion, it's not a big part of their business. I'm sure, you know, if you looked at their P & L, I'm sure that this would be a fraction of what it is that more of a convenience than something that's business strategic but you're going to have this, and you're going to encounter this on every one of these meetings going forward, if this is the trend, then be prepared for the trend, but you need to nip it in the bud, in my opinion. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Any other comments from the audience? No others. All right. Anything, Ms. Cullen, that you'd like to say before we make our decision? Ms. Cullen: No. Thank you, though. Thanks for considering it. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you very good. If there's nothing else from any of my commissioners, I don't see any other comments, I'll close the public hearing, and a motion would be in order. On a motion by Bongero, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-05-2026 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2025-12-02-23 submitted by OSI/Fleming's, LLC requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to utilize an S.D.M. liquor license (allows a licensed business to sell beer, wine, and mixed spirit drink products in the original package for consumption off the premises) in connection with the existing restaurant operation (Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar) at 17400 Haggerty Road, located on the north side of College Parkway between Fox Drive and Haggerty Road in the southwest'/ of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. This waiver approval is limited to this applicant and can only be transferred to another user with approval by the City Council; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the use of an SDM license will complement the existing use of the subject property and will provide an additional service to customers. February 3, 2026 32194 FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2025-12-08-10 Gas Station Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2025- 12-08-10 submitted by Charlie Bazzi on behalf of 36300 5 Mile Investment, LLC requesting site plan approval under Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to demolish the existing gas station and fuel pumps at 36300 Five Mile Road, and construct a new gas station convenience store and fuel pumps, located the northeast corner of Levan Road and Five Mile Road in the southeast'/ of Section 17. Mr. Uhazie: This is a request to demolish the existing gas station, as mentioned and the fuel pumps at 36300 Five Mile Road, and construct a new gas station and convenience store with fuel pumps. The original gas station was constructed in 1960 and they added a second gas island in 1986. The site contains a 2,072 square foot gas station with three service stations. It has a total of five pumps, two to the west and three under the existing canopy. The site area is about 0.45 acres in size, and the gas station is currently zoned C-2. The proposal is to construct a new gas station/carry out establishment that is about 3,640 square feet in size. The building height is shown as about 16 feet. The setbacks for the proposed building would be 29 feet off of Levan, 84 feet from Five Mile, five feet from the eastern property, which contains a commercial strip center, one foot from the northern property, which is an existing medical office. The plans show tanks, pumps and canopies would be removed. A new storage tank would be located to the west of the building with a capacity of 22,000 gallons. The new fueling center would have four pumps with the ability to accommodate a total of eight vehicles, one on each side. An overhead canopy would cover the fuel dispensers and the front door entrance facing Five Mile. The canopy plans show a height of 17 feet. That was not shown on the plans last time they added that. For landscaping, we do require seven evergreen or deciduous trees, three along Levan Road and four along Five Mile Road. The zoning ordinance requires four ornamental trees, two along the Levan and two along Five Mile February 3, 2026 32195 and 55 shrubs, 25 along Levan and 30 along Five Mile Road. Although the petitioner did add new landscaping, per our request last week, the new trees do not meet the zoning ordinance requirements, with only six trees and 33 shrubs shown. The floor plan shows a large retail area, takeout restaurant area, cashier counter area, cooler, storage room, office and unisex restroom. For parking, the ordinance requires eight parking spaces for a gasoline service station, one for each pump. The carry -out restaurant requires three parking spaces plus one per restaurant employee. The petitioner has not revealed the number of employees for the restaurant, and the site plan shows a total of 12 double striped parking spaces, one of which is barrier free, and one space reserved for air stations. As mentioned, one of those spaces is a loading area in front of the dumpster identified in the site plan. The satisfaction of the parking requirements is pending on the number of employees for the carry out establishment. The petitioner proposes two electric car charging stations in the northwest corner of the property. Access to the site would overall remain the same with two access points off Levan and two off of Five Mile. The petitioner did submit an updated site plan that has reduced the width of these openings, both of which would be reduced to 30 feet in width. The Island in between would remain the same distance, the space was added at the two bump outs to the north and south corners of the property. A tanker plan was also submitted, per the request of the Planning Commission, and it shows access from Levan Road with access to the west side of the canopy to refuel the station and exit the site by proceeding forward onto Five Mile Road westbound. The exterior of the building would be constructed of a charcoal and neutral color brick and limestone and the top of the building would be constructed of aluminum composite materials with a red ACM stripe and one inch insulated glass in the clear aluminum frame making up most of the front facade. The existing freestanding sign would remain with new lettering, which is called out in the plans shown here. No other sign information was provided. A dumpster enclosure will be constructed with color fast concrete. The enclosure will be constructed about the same or comparable materials and colors of the principal building in terms of texture and quality. It is proposed to be six feet tall. The new dumpster will be just west of the existing of the new building shown here, and no site lighting plan was provided as part of this petition. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32196 The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 8, 2026, 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, but would like to note the following items: 1. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #36300 Five Mile Road. Should additional addresses be needed, the owner will need to contact this Department once approvals have been obtained. 2. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main. The submitted does not include any proposed utility information or calculations, but based on the project scope, we do not believe there will be any negative impacts on the existing systems. 3. Drainage from the proposed building shall not be shed on to the neighboring property. Downspouts will need to be directed to the parking lot. 4. The owner will need to submit proposed Engineering drawings to this Department once planning approvals have been obtained to determine what permits will be required in association with utility revisions. 5. Drawings shall be submitted to the Wayne County Department of Public Service for comments on access control and possible permitting for the removal of existing approaches, if required by the County." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 14, 2026, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on the property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal. Comply with codes and standards set by The State of Michigan for vehicle fueling stations. A further detailed plan review will take place when this division receives an official plan set." The letter is signed by Brian Kukla, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 7, 2026, 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 Paul Walters, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 30, 2026, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above - referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. Signage shall conform to the sign ordinance, or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. 2. Exterior lighting sources shall be designed, constructed, located, and maintained in a manner that minimizes light trespass onto neighboring properties and public ways. The light trespass from a property shall not exceed 0.5- foot-candles at the property line, measured five (5) feet from the ground. 3. The barrier -free parking space is required to be van - accessible. It is not currently proposed that way. The van- Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32197 accessible barrier -free parking space shall be sized, signed, and marked in accordance with the Michigan Barrier -Free Code. This will be addressed at the time of plan review if this project moves forward. 4. An enclosure of sufficient height to completely screen the dumpster is required on three (3) sides of the waste receptacle, with a solid gate on the fourth side. The height of the enclosure must be not less than six (6) feet or at least one (1) foot above the height of the dumpster, whichever is greater. The enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and, when not in use, closed at all times. The enclosure must be constructed of the same or compatible material and colors as the principal building in terms of texture and quality. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated January 20, 2026, 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 Benjamin Grier, Director of Finance. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 7, 2026, which reads as follows: "The owner of the property is current on their property tax." The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. All right. Thank you. Mr. Uhazie. Is there any questions for our planning staff? Mr. Uhazie, I wasn't there last week, so I see that they provided a tanker route. Who, who drew this? The engineer? I believe the engineer provided it. Okay, because it looks like it barely...there's hardly any clearance coming in off of Levan to the pumps. I mean, if this is exactly to scale, so I don't know, and I'll have to ask the petitioner if the furthest east pump, where it is right now, can be moved. Just if you look at that route, it's really close, let alone the canopy too. I just want to know who drew that, their engineer? I think it looks like it was from their consultant, their architect. Okay, alright, I'll ask the petitioner when he comes up. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for planning staff? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32198 My questions kind of go right along with Mr. Bongero's. I don't know how you get a tanker in there. If this is a typical tanker with a cab and this long tank, can it make a right turn? If it's going or can it get on Levan going north and make the turn into that gas station? I don't think it can. If it can, I'd like to see that demonstrated, and if it can't, then I don't know how they get it in there. I mean, they could draw it, they could come in off a Five Mile Road and go north, but then they're not going to be able to turn and go back south again to get back up to Five Mile Road. They're going to be stuck with going north up Levan through a neighborhood with that tanker truck, and the roads are not designed to carry that kind of weight. So, I'd like to see them come back with or provide to the Planning Department a demonstration of how a tanker actually gets in there and uses that path, because I don't see how that works. I don't either. All right, thank you for those comments. Anything else for planning staff? Mr. Chair, another thing we talked about at the study session was the eastern side of the property, and I don't believe that we saw any documentation regarding cross access and that sort of thing, unless I missed it. Is that correct, Mr. Uhazie? No changes were made to the eastern property line. Okay, thank you. And the question that Mr. Droze is referring to was in the discussion at the study meeting was either provide a barrier between those two properties or a cross access agreement if they want to leave it open, just to formalize that current access that flows through those two properties. So that's a question maybe we can ask the petitioner if there's any updates on that. Any other questions for our staff? Alright, is the petitioner here? There they are. Good evening, sir. Michael Beydoun, on behalf of 36300 Five Mile Investments. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Beydoun. What would you like to tell us about your proposal? Mr. Beydoun: Okay, well, since the last meeting, I've done some changes that, as you can see, as far as the approaches and all that. And I'll go February 3, 2026 32199 straight to the cross access. We're still working with the neighbors next door. Instead of us just closing it. We're still working with the neighbors next door, if they can agree to that. And I said that will be a plus, but it's up to them. If they say yes, then we'll do it. If it's not, we'll provide some kind of a buffer on that and give you more landscape right there. One of the most important things is actually that tanker. The tank location right now is existing, and it is what it's in place where we're actually proposing. And what we have there right now is you have two pumps right at that location next to that tank, and they still managed to come right through and get out and go out on Five Mile, I agree, if we could come through Five Mile, but if you look at the approach, it's actually on an angle. There is no way that tanker can go into the corner approach and make a turn and go all the way into the tanks, where the tanks are. It is because it's on an angle. If the radius was completely different, then yes, it would have been easy to come right straight through Five Mile and go straight down. But if you see it's like on a 30 degree or something like that, some kind of an angle, if the tanker wants to go in there, it's going to go on top of the ramp, on top of the curb, in order for it to go into the property. So, the way it's maintained right now, and the way it is done, they come right through Levan, they make the turn into the parking lot, and then they leave right through Five Mile. It's done. It's been done for years like that. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Beydoun, just to explore that a little bit more, do the current tanker trucks come south on Levan from Six Mile, or do they come from Five Mile and make the tight turn? Mr. Beydoun: It's exactly what it is that comes down Levan. They go through the property, even with the two pumps right there, and they manage to come through. And then they get out on Five Mile. Mr. Wilshaw: As indicated in the drawing? Mr. Beydoun: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. All right. Sorry for the interruption. Mr. Beydoun: Like you see that approach right there, if that approach has a different kind of a radius, yeah, then they'll be able to come west than Five Mile and go into the property, but with that curb right there, with that angle right there, there is no way for a tanker to go through. February 3, 2026 32200 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, we may have some more discussion on that. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us before we get to that? I want to let you speak. If you want to talk about anything else, feel free. We'll probably revisit. Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Uhazie: Only thing is, like, as far as landscape, and that's one thing I did not understand. How much more trees do you want? How much more trees are we asking for? Seven more evergreens? The requirement is seven evergreen or deciduous trees, three along Levan and four along Five Mile, then ornamental trees, which you don't have any showing for, two along Levan and two along Five Mile. Mr. Beydoun: I guess I'll change them into evergreens, because evergreens, you can actually bring them together if I put any ornamental trees, we don't even have enough landscape or enough square footage. I got that. To answer the question about the carry out. More likely it's going to be one. I'm not sure if we're going to have two employees right there. So that's going to answer that question. As far as sanitaries and all that I do have, we actually have an engineer working on it right now, and we will design it, will submit a preliminary as we go, and then we will be dealing with the Wayne County. That's not a problem. Photometric is already in the work. I could not get it as fast as I could. You asked me last time for some kind of rendering, and that wasn't mentioned here. I did get you a copy of a rendering, like at the four angles with the rendering. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Long: Excellent. If you want to give it to Ms. Reece, she'll pass it over. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Beydoun, anything else you would like to tell us? Not at the moment, no. While we look at these renderings, is there any questions? Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Beydoun, at the study session, we talked about shrinking the size of that northernmost approach on Levan, and you've done that in your drawings, you went from 36 to 30. Does that six-foot reduction affect the path of the tanker? It'll still be able to get in there if its 30, I mean, as much as we'd like to shrink that, I think it's more important... Mr. Beydoun: I mean, 30 feet, it should be okay for that. Mr. Long: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Long: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Long" Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: February 3, 2026 32201 And we're certain of that? Yes, unless, if you want me to go back and put it the way it was. I would not. I don't necessarily want you to go back, but I want you to go back if there's going to be any kind of a problem with getting the tanker in there, that's more important, Because the issue, one of the issues was, if we actually have a car right there, and it's where they fill up, and also, I wanted to provide another lighting. The 30 feet will be able to okay some other stations. They even go to 25 feet, so ifs okay. I don't want to do that. All right, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Anyone else? Back to the tanker route. It just seems so tight to me the...Jacob, can you put that up there...on the tanker route as the semis approach and come into the parcel, the parking lot. Is that tank, the very first tank next to the that tanker on the drawing, is that existing or is that proposed? The tank? You know, the pump right there, that one. Okay, that's a proposed location. This is all proposed. Does it seem like we should move it away from there to give room for those semis? Actually, if you see the lines around the semis, that's actually I'm giving, like, about two feet on the side of the Semi's. If you see, that's like just a route where they can go through. So they have maneuver in time, maneuver and lane too. There's a car there on the other side of that pump. If they have a car... then that's not going to happen. No, the tanker will be empty in the load, okay, once the car clears, then they actually can go through. Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: February 3, 2026 32202 Seems like there's a lot being fit in this, but you're thinking this is going to work. I've done gas stations like crazy, all over. I mean, we're looking at it. I know you know what. I mean, he follows on that exact path. I agree with you. If you want me to move the tanks and I mean the pumps little bit more forward, like couple feet I could, I'd say that's not a problem. Two feet. I mean, will help. I agree with you. Okay. But tankers will get there, and sometimes they bring the tanker depends on when they actually request it. Maybe they wanted it to be at night or something like that, or one that are not too busy. And usually when a tanker is actually unloading, I would not even going to the gas station and put gas, because that's the time all the gas is getting... But we're in the planning now. We haven't done it yet, so we could try to make a few adjustments, right, that might improve it. So maybe if we slide that over a couple feet? No problem. Yeah, a couple feet, I can still do that, and then as long as meet the requirement for the setback of the canopy, and I think I have enough right there a couple feet, that's not a problem. Okay, okay, I think that'll help. Thank you. All right, thank you. Mr. Bongero, any other questions for our petitioner? I think kind of how we got started on that discussion about that driveway on Five Mile was as we see these gas stations come in, we often talk about, what can we do to improve safety? My fear on this site is that as much as we'd like to try to remove that driveway on five mile, I think you've also demonstrated that you have an extremely tight site. And if you're going to maintain the tank where it is. Doesn't seem like there's really much you can do, but I did want to at least ask, if there is a cross access agreement with the property to the east, does that allow an opportunity where you could potentially close that driveway Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Droze: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Droze: Mr. Beydoun: February 3, 2026 32203 because that one right on the corner at Five and Levan on the south side, I mean, that's really close the intersection. That's a busy intersection. There's been fatalities at the intersection. So, if there's any chance to do that, and part of where I'm kind of going with this a little bit, is at the eastern edge. To me, you still have some homework to do there. If there is a cross -access agreement that would allow you to somehow get rid of that driveway and help and make this not such a tight site from a maneuverability standpoint, I'd love to see it. So, I don't know. What do you see from the design side? Is there an option where you could take out that driveway right at the corner and use some of the other access points? I have no problem taking that out. I myself. I don't like driveways right on the corners. Sometimes I close both driveways. But the problem with this site here is how to get the tanker in and out. That's my only problem with this. And even if I have the cross - access with the next door, they're not going to allow a tanker to go through their parking lot. So, I mean, tanker, it's heavy. It can be in our parking lot. We'll maintain it, but I'm not sure they're going to let that one go through, and then they have to go in front of the building, by the tanks, all the parking and go around. I think this is the best way for that tanker to go around. Now, maybe if I can...that's not even going to make a difference. Okay, just a question, if, for some reason, we make a suggestion that you go back and review that, that'd be just something that, from a homework perspective, I'd be interested to see, you know, just from a truck turning analysis stand point. Maybe we can put up a sign, no car exits right through there, but at least we'll leave it for the tankers. That might help a little bit if they can actually follow the rules and say, hey, no right turn or something like that. I'm generally, you know, I think signs are good, but I don't think...people they disobey them often, as we've seen. Another question and Mr. Caramagno and I were just looking at the rendering when we saw that you have some decorative fencing proposed along the edges. It is pretty. We're actually going to do that. You can see it actually on the site plan. It's basically around the sign on that. But the rendering guy ended up putting it everywhere. But if we have to, then we will. We like that. If it adds up more character to it, and... Mr. Droze: February 3, 2026 32204 It's a nice touch. So, I just wanted to ask you about that. And then I believe Planning Director Taormina at our study session asked a little bit about the parapet height. I see where you kind of have the roof line at 16 feet. Is that high enough to screen any HVAC units that are going to go on the roof, or is there a need to go higher with that? Mr. Beydoun: Well, we have the height of the ceiling. The building height probably...a joist, or roof heights will be probably more likely about 14' 8". We're not going to have enough, but we'll go ahead and do some kind of a decorative screening around it to actually what we're putting on the facade. We're going to put on the face here. We'll do some ACM around it too. Mr. Droze: So, in addition to what we see right now, there would be some more height to that? Mr. Beydoun: Correct. Just around the HVAC units. I cannot go higher with the soffit on the front, because I do have the canopy at 17 feet, and the building needs to be at 16 or 16' 4". It's going a little bit above the building, so that will screen those HVAC units. Mr. Droze: And then the last question...the overhead canopy, is that going to be backlit, or is that just under lighting? Basically, is the face with the Amoco logo in the in the red stripe, is that all going to be lit? Mr. Beydoun: That is a good question. I will have to find out from Amoco what kind of program they gave them. More likely it will be lit. I believe more likely it will be lit. But it's like it's minimum as far as lighting. And I did actually talk to the civil engineer, and he's going to install also, I think, an underground oil interceptor that's before it goes to the municipalities, so that is in work too. Mr. Droze: Thank you for that. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Droze. I believe it is in our prepared approving resolution that generally our canopies are not lit or illuminated with lights, so...just underneath. We'II have to look for that. Any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun, are you the owner of the operation of the gas station? Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: February 3, 2026 32205 Now, I'm not the owner. I'm just an architect, sir. I'm not the owner, but I've done a lot of gas stations, but I actually know the owner personally, and I worked on so many. So, will the owner, the person that owns it now, will he own it after this is done? Yes, that's the reason he bought it. I mean, I'm not sure if he actually looked at this. When did he buy it? Probably, maybe a month or a month. Okay, so he's a new owner. He actually is a new owner. And he's going to clean it up, if you see, at that one, I was actually surprised how come they did not get all the tickets, and he's actually getting the mechanic out, but they have some kind of at lease. He's working it out just to get him out. But it's a dump back there. Yeah, that's really the question of my question. It's a complete change in character of the operation there, from what appears to be a car repair store to a...which is in violation of virtually every ordinance of I can think of. But okay, so he's not planning on doing any repair. I don't see any way. No. All those cars parked around and all the engines and everything that's laying around there. It's all going to go. It's going to have to be gone. I think he gave him a notice like probably till the other end of February, for the mechanic to finish up his business and leave, and then he's going to go ahead and clean up the whole sites on that. Okay, good. Thank you. And a second question would be your rendering here shows these light bands. I'm assuming they are not illuminated on the canopy. More likely, it's not. Like I said, honestly, I don't know how...the old days, they used to have them illuminated right now and they...I don't think it's...99% I don't think they are illuminated. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Beydoun: February 3, 2026 32206 Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for the petitioner? While I share a great deal of things that have been brought up by the fellow board members, the truck path concerns me a great deal. There's certainly not going to bring a tanker down Levan Road from Six Mile Road to unload at the station. That's an immediate no for me, and I realize your entries to the property, your driveway entries are of concern. But there's got to be a better plan than what you're showing here. So that's one concern. The east property line was mentioned with no real plan for that. Color renderings. We got something here at the last minute to look at. We talked about bringing some materials of putting this building together that I haven't seen tonight. Parking is an issue still that's unresolved. How many parking spaces you really need? Trees, landscaping problems. To me, this presentation tonight is nowhere near what I need to see to make an approval or denial. So, it is what it is. There are too many open-ended items here, and I can't possibly make a decision with all these loose ends. I understand. I didn't even think I'm even getting approved today. I thought this is just like some kind of a study meeting you're going through. I honestly, I didn't even think I'm coming here for an approval. I'm still missing some items. We're certainly not here to design your plan for you. You're supposed to come. I would have think what the best plan you can do, you can put together, check all the boxes, make it look presentable to this body, and to me, this isn't even close. So my opinion. For what it's worth, Mr. Beydoun, this is a voting meeting. We do have the opportunity for the commission to offer an approving or denying resolution on this. They could also table this item if we feel that there's a need for additional work to be done, to give you additional time. Whatever happens from here, if it is approved or denied, then you would go on to City Council. If it's approved, you go on the City Council, then they have a study and voting meeting as well. If it's denied, you would have a chance to appeal the decision made by us to the City Council. So, there's many outcomes that could happen tonight. I've got a suggestion maybe, about the approach, and you brought it up, if we can change the radius on that approach. The radius, if we change it, instead of go directional, we'll be able to Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Beydoun: February 3, 2026 32207 pull the tanker in. I was trying to avoid doing road on Five Mile as much as I can. But if we trade, if we change that radius, then the tanker could come in right through Five Mile, go straight through, and go up on Levan. That's something else could work. Mr. Caramagno. I didn't quite understand what you said. But if you're saying the tanker comes in off Five Mile Road, pulls up and comes out that north exit on the Levan property, that looks reasonable to me. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah, like I said I was trying to avoid even working on Five Mile but if we change that radius, instead of going diagonal, we can change that radius, we'll be able actually to pull up a tanker, right? Mr. Caramagno: Well, we're not going to solve that here in discussion, so it's something you're going to have to look at, in my opinion, and bring back to us. A better plan. Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Wilshaw: Definitely will. Very good. Thank you. Is there any other comments to our petitioner or questions? Just comments. I am in agreement with Mr. Caramagno. I think there's a lot of things that we could work out here, but not tonight. Needs to be represented and then hit it again. But I think its incomplete right now. I really had, like, just not enough time from the last meeting. And I think I've done a lot from the last meeting, but I really didn't even think we're working on this one here tonight. If this is will be tabled, I'll appreciate that, and I can have all your answers. Then maybe I can have the photometrics at that time, and I can have a full rendering for you, and I can rework that issue with the tanker, because I think that's one of the biggest issue. So, if this can be retable, I'll appreciate it. So thank you, Mr. Bongero, any other questions or comments? I did just want to ask one question. I didn't see in the approving resolution, any mention about signage at all. Normally, we at least have a condition that only conforming signage is approved. Normally, when we get gas stations come to us that have pylon signs, we ask that they try to change those down to a monument sign. We've tried to do as much as we can to eliminate pylon signs Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bigga: February 3, 2026 32208 in the city. Is that something that your client would be willing to consider I think we have it also on across the street. Maybe it's...yes, with a brick column on the sides. Yeah. What can I do? Usually we try to get it down to a monument sign to get it down a little closer to the ground. And the owner who qwns the property owns the gas station also across street, and I think that's how it's done right there, too. Yeah, that's not a problem. Okay, that sort of levels the playing field for everyone, too. All right. Thank you for that. Is there anything else from the commissioners? If not, is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? A couple questions. I'm still confused as to traffic along Levan Road. I thought Levan Road had a weight restriction, and as far as I know, 23,000-gallon tank, roughly what they're proposing here, would require at least about a 25,000-to-30,000-gallon tanker to bring it into the gas station. Traveling along Levan Road, I don't know if that would be a weight restriction. Is there a weight restriction on Levan? I'd have to go and look on the signs, but I thought there was no trucks and weight restriction signs along Levan. So, I'm kind of confused, because I can't hear clearly. He keeps saying going up and down Levan. So, I'm confused as to where this truck may or may not go. Continuing along with that, that's probably going to be a 40-foot tanker. When I look at the cutout on the Five Mile Road, there's no way he's going to be able to turn into the right-hand lane onto Five Mile. He's going to go into the left center lane onto Five Mile. He's going to block two lanes of traffic. If he goes the other way to the north exit to try to make a hard turn on the Levan to go south, he's going to wipe out probably either landscaping or the air tank sign, you know, the air fill sign, there's not enough space. And when you look at the tanker part of the truck, there's not enough room for that to swing the way you want without backing in and out and in, and Levan traffic at certain times of the day isn't going to be amenable to allowing that to happen. So, I think there's a lot of rework that has to happen. And I think one of the commissioners said something about blocking possibly one of the exits. I think you all need to look at that and probably send this whole thing back to be re looked, and have the city look at using or not using Levan Road as a means of getting gas in and out of that location. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Beydoun: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32209 Thank you. Mr. Bigga. Anyone else with any comments? I don't see anyone else. Mr. Beydoun. How about if I can get you a video how the tanker is coming in and how it's unloading right now, and it's going to be the same process. You can certainly do that. Because it's more practical. We can include that with the information that we have. Appreciate that. If there's no other comments from the audience and Mr. Bigga has made his comments, I'm going to go to my fellow Commissioners, Mr. Ventura. Mr. Wilshaw, I'd like to make, just like to give clarification here. Sure go ahead. So, currently you are saying that the tankers that are servicing the station are coming south from Six Mile to Five Mile and entering your station that way? Correct. That's why I will prove it with a video. That's the plan to continue. Yes, and that's it's exactly where the tank ends right now. And you don't know whether or not that's a violation of the weight limits on Levan? I don't know. Okay, I just want to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I see nothing else a motion would be in order. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-06-2026 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2025-12-08-10 submitted by Charlie February 3, 2026 32210 Bazzi on behalf of 36300 5 Mile Investment, LLC requesting site plan approval under Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to demolish the existing gas station and fuel pumps at 36300 Five Mile Road, and construct a new gas station convenience store and fuel pumps, located the northeast corner of Levan Road and Five Mile Road in the southeast'/ of Section 17, be tabled to the end of April 2026. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2025-12-08-10 Haggerty & Six partners Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2024- 02-02-03 submitted by Stonefield Engineering & Design on behalf of Haggerty Six Partners, LLC, seeking approval of all plans in connection with Buildings F and I, pursuant to Council Resolution #135-24, which previously approved the Shoppes at College Park as part of a Planned General Development, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and Fox Drive in the Southwest'/ of Section 7. Mr. Uhazie: Thank you. This is a callback item from the former Comerica site. Both the buildings in question are located on the south end of the property facing Six Mile. The first building that we will discuss here is Building F, on the southwest corner. In the original plan it was presented as a multi -tenant building. It has been updated to show a financial institution. The proposed building would be 7,396 square feet of office space. The floor plan shows a lobby area, 15 offices, two conference rooms, a kitchen, break room, restrooms and utility closet. The primary facade is composed of masonry, brick veneer with architectural accent banding and trim elements. Aluminum storefront systems with transparent glazing are incorporated along the tenant facing elevations, and the finished metal coping is used along the parapet edges and metal canopy elements are provided at select building entrances. This is the rendering that we saw last week of the building's facade that faces internal circulation. That's where the customers would come in. The petitioner did provide updated renderings for the rear of the building per our discussions at the study session. You can see here they have added the glass that now goes all the way to the top of the building. And they also added an accent sign to the east. For reference, this is from another angle. They show a little bit more of the landscaping that is proposed there as well. February 3, 2026 32211 For reference, this is what was shown before, so you can see the updates that have been made in more detail. A proposed trash enclosure is located to the east of the parking lot, shown here. The site has two accessible ramps to the barrier free parking spaces and bike ramps are proposed at the northwest of the building for general offices. The requirement is one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area. As such, the proposed building requires 37 parking spaces. According to the site plan, the site satisfies the parking requirements. The petitioner proposes one monument sign 10 feet from the middle of the right- of-way. I should note that all signage was approved as part of the development agreement by Council. The second building, Building I is located further to the east. This would be a proposed Fogo de Chao full -service restaurant, situated in the southwest corner of the building. It is 8,575 square feet, full -service sit-down restaurant. The proposed restaurant building utilizes a contemporary architectural style with articulated facades, a combination of masonry materials, exit panels and glazing. The elevations show a variation of parapet heights and material transitions to reduce the overall mass of the building. The primary building facade features an aluminum storefront system with extensive glazing along customer facing elevations. Architectural accents include laser cut metal panels with a stucco cutter backing providing visual interest and facade articulation. A decorative breeze block wall is incorporated as a design feature. Prefinished metal coping is used along the parapets and the canopy edges and metal copings are provided at select building entrances. The roof consists of a TPO roofing membrane with all rooftop mechanical equipment screened from the public view. All materials are applied consistently across the building elevations. You can see the color renderings here, seeing some of those accents and the customer facing elements and design elements. The floor plan shows a kitchen with prep area, bar, meat cooler, freezer, grill area, dish area, staff, bathroom and office. The restaurant area consists of a vestibule of 47 tables, a private room with 18 tables and another private room with 17 tables totaling 210 seats. Outdoor seating is shown for 30, and a bar that has seating for nine is present as well. A proposed trash enclosure is located on the north side of the building. One parking space for each two interior spaces is to be provided within the proposed establishment, plus one parking space for each three outside seating spaces, plus one parking space for each employee. There's also a valet area for the restaurant. Parking is something that was taken care of as part of the development agreement as well. There is a shared parking agreement for the development. So all that was approved by council previously. Same thing with Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32212 signs, but there is a proposed monument sign 10 feet from the right of way. The proposed signage would have height of five feet six inches, complying with the zoning ordinance. The submitted rendering plan shows three wall signs on the building, one blade sign. A single business occupying a single building is allowed two wall signs. Any signage in excess would normally go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but as I mentioned, this was all approved as part of the development agreement. The landscaping plan shows that the buildings would be significantly screened from Six Mile Road. Two hackberry trees and one redwood tree would be planted in front of the office building, and two red oak trees and one hackberry tree will be planted in front of the restaurant. The plan provides the required number of street trees and shrubs along Six Mile Road. The calculations demonstrate compliance with the ordinance standards for deciduous and ornamental trees as well as shrub quantity based on linear footage. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 8 , 2026, 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 waiver use at this time, but would like to note the following items: 1. The subject parcel is assigned the address of#17400 Haggerty Road. 2. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main, as well as private storm sewer. There is no mention of utility revisions with the proposal, so we do not believe there will be any adverse effects on the existing systems. 3. Should any revisions to the utility services to the building, or any work on the right -of- way be required, the owner will need to submit drawings to this Department to determine if Engineering permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 14, 2026, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to modify a commercial building on the property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal. A further detailed plan review will take place when this division receives an official plan set." The letter is signed by Brian Kukla, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 22, 2026, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans submitted by OS I/Flemings, LLC requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.03 of the Livoni a February 3, 2026 32213 Ordinance, as amended, to utilize an SDM liquor license (allows a licensed business to sell beer , wine and mixed spirit drink products in the original package for consumption off premises) in connection with the existing restaurant operation (Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar) at 17400 Haggerty Road, located on the north side of College Parkway between Fox Drive and Haggerty Road in the Southwest'/ of Section 7. After reviewing the plans with the Chief of Police, we have no objections to the waiver being granted, contingent that the petitioner complies with: 1. All State Laws 2. City Ordinances 3. Stipulations and conditions set by the Livonia Police Department, Liquor Investigations Unit, as approved by the Chief of Police 4. Stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic Bureau of the Livonia Police Department" The letter is signed by Jeffrey Ronayne, Special Services Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 30, 2026, 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 20, 2026, 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 Benjamin Grier, Director of Finance. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 7, 2026, which reads as follows: "The owner of the property is current on their property tax." The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Uhazie, is there any questions for planning staff? Mr. Caramagno: Jacob, how does Building F get a Haggerty Road address? Mr. Uhazie: I'm not sure. Mr. Caramagno: That will almost make it difficult to find if you, if you don't know where you're going. Mr. Uhazie: Yeah, that would be a better question for the Engineering Division. Mr. Caramagno: Okay, just something as you read it out, I was looking at that. Seems odd, but okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Good question, though. Mr. Droze. Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32214 Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that these building pads we're looking at today are part of the larger plan. Could you talk a little bit, Jacob, about the landscaping for the site? Is it each individual building pad's responsibility to do their landscaping, or is there kind of a larger overlay? It was a landscape approach for the whole development site. Okay. That was something that this PC reviewed and approved. I'm kind of getting at what's in front of Building F versus Building I. Is that consistent with what was approved previously or have they made some changes? I would have to double check exactly what was approved. I don't know if we went into as much detail as what we'd be going into now. I think it was more of just a, does it satisfy the requirements numbers, and this would be more of a detailed how, you know, how does it look? How do we feel the site plan would actually be built out. It's just an observation I had looking at is obviously in front of Building F, there's pretty elaborate planting plan and Building I, it's three trees, and I'm not saying one's right or the other, but it's more of just the consistency of that, how that frontage will look. Maybe that is a question for the applicant, as we get into it, about whether there's going to be kind of a consistency check as they bring in these various projects. If I remember correctly, at the study session, they did mention that they do have it designed to flow as one cohesive unit. So, there may be a reason that they have it planted as they do. Mr. Droze: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Droze, Any other questions for staff? Mr. Ventura: Jacob, is it fair to equate stucco with E.I.F.S.? Mr. Uhazie: Say it again. Mr. Ventura: Is it fair to equate stucco with E.I.F.S.? Are they essentially the same material with different E.I.F.S.'? Mr. Uhazie: I mean, in my mind, they're very similar. Mr. Ventura: February 3, 2026 32215 And then looking at the retail building, I see material C is a fiber cement panel. We've looked favorably upon citing this fiber cement in the past, and this would be something comparable? Mr. Uhazie: Yes. Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw, Mr. Wilshaw: We seem to be stuccoed with E.I.F.S. in a lot of developments.. All right. Any other questions for staff? Mr. Uhazie, these two pads on the original plan journal development were not necessarily the proposed use initially, correct? Mr. Uhazie: Correct. Specifically, Building F was originally a multi -tenant, I believe. Mr. Wilshaw: It sort of plays a little bit into Mr. Droze's question in regard to the overall site development and what was proposed at the time. Mr. Uhazie: So yes, where the Fogo de Chao is proposed, the hotel has been scrapped and has been replaced with the restaurant pad. So this is what was originally reviewed back in 2024. So, there was the multi -tenant building in the southwest, and then the proposed hotel in the southeast. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, that's good to see what was originally proposed versus what we're looking at now, just to get our bearings and orientation on this. Thank you. Any other questions for staff, if not the petitioner I believe is in the audience, feel free to come forward and tell us about your proposal. Dorais Marcus, Haggerty and Six Partners. I represent ownership. Just by some brief background. It is an ever -evolving process. Obviously, it's a big development. Things change, things pivot. We understand things better. We discover things and, you know, we're always pursuing the goal of bringing the best development forward. As it was stated, there was a hotel where the two restaurant pads were. As we got into development and understood the needs of the community, the needs of the city, we just figured that hotel is probably going to be just not successful. I think we thought there were better uses. So we pivoted from the hotel to two restaurant pads, which we thought would better serve the community. I know there was some mention to landscaping, I'll get into that. But we also change Building F into one user. I'm happy to announce that the one user is now Charles Schwab. We just signed a deal with them, and this is who's going to occupy Building F, so it's February 3, 2026 32216 eventually the same square footage, but instead of multi -tenants, we have one national user that we think would benefit this development greatly. In terms of materials. I'd like to start with Building F and speak to that. Obviously, when we first got approved, we were told to come back to the Planning Commission for final building elevations, designs for what happens where Building F and the old hotel parcel was. So that's why we're here today. To start with Building F. If you can pull up the renderings. I know there was comments that, you know, we need to make Building F look a little better. And we need to understand what Building F really looks like. If you would go to the color...go to the first picture. Yep. Obviously this is when you're in the parking lot looking at the building from the parking lot side. On the right-hand side, where you see that white, that's the brick that's being used. The monument tower is the brick that you see on the material board. On the side, the wood panel is the wood board that you see there. The windows have silver frames, and underneath that canopy is black framed. That carries through to the side, which is a second picture, I believe. You can kind of see...but the most important thing was to speak about the Six Mile side, because, you know, we understood the comments that this building needs to make an impression. So, what we did is we took up the glass to the ceiling to mimic what happens on the other sides. We tried to give you a perspective where we show the landscaping. The side where the sign is on the wall, is a off white metal panel. The left-hand side, left of the windows, is the white metal panel, just to get some contrast and some differentiation to make this building really pop. We have, obviously, a monument sign in the middle of the building. And this is a prototypical Charles Schwab building. This is their prototype. This is why they have that wall. I think you know, it's to cover the back area is to cover their back of house and not be exposed tow. We think the landscape does it justice. We did show the landscape here. I think one of the commissioners or planning board members said, Why isn't the landscape shown on the Fogo de Chao side? There is landscape. We can provide that to you. We were stressing the landscape to show this building and how nice it will look once it's up and completed. But there is a Fogo de Chao stipulated landscape plan. And the landscape plan is cohesive throughout the entire development all the way from the Whole Food side that's being built all the way across the Six Mile and all around Haggerty. And really that's where we're excited about this project. We want to get going on it, we're in for permits for the site, and as soon as we get the green light, hopefully we finish up this project. We're very excited to see the tenants coming into this area. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: Mr. Marcus: Mr. Droze: Mr. Marcus: February 3, 2026 32217 Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Marcus. I do want to point out you eloquently stated that what we're looking at tonight is not the corner of Six Mile and Haggerty as a cohesive one piece and trying to say, are we approving development at this corner. What we're doing is...we've already done that through the planned general development process. We're now drilling down into a couple of these pads on this site and looking at the details of what is being proposed and the specifics of these sites. So, I just want to set that expectation as we move forward, that that's why we're here. This is a callback item. It's not a first run look at this development. So, I appreciate the way that you described that. Is there any questions of our petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the changes on the southerly elevation along Six Mile for the Schwab building. The one thing...1 keep coming back to that door. It's just kind of sitting there and looking at the floor plan, it looks like it aligns with...you have some interior office space and cubicles. Is there any way to, you know, push that door either...so it's falls within the glass, so it kind of gets, you know, more just part of the curtain wall, or is there an opportunity to push it further to the west? Because where it is right now, it's just, you know, I think everyone looks at that and goes...it's just kind of floating and it could be a nice architectural element to have that facade just, you know, uninterrupted, but where it is, it's a little bit unfortunate. I will definitely look at it. I think the better idea is to move it further west into the corner and tuck it in there. I guess, if you want to make that as a condition, and we'll look at architecturally trying to make that happen, and we'll finalize it with your building department, but we have no problem doing that. If it works. I don't know even...if you have to have it on Six Mile, then that's understood from an egress perspective, but if there's a way to even sneak it around in the corner, the western facade, or no one will see it perfect. . I have no problem with that either, and we'll work, you know, if you want to make that as a condition to see if it's possible based on the rules and regulations and whatever code requires, we will do it. I don't think that's a big issue. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Droze. Other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Marcus: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Marcus: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Marcus: Mr. Ventura: February 3, 2026 32218 Mr. Marcus. I don't have any questions regarding this building. My questions would have to do with the proposed Fogo de Chao. Just generally, conceptually, my understanding is the Fogo de Chao is a Brazilian steakhouse. So, from a business perspective, how do you stick another steakhouse up against Hyde Park, Flemings and Capital Grill? I mean, this can become the steakhouse capital of southeastern Michigan here. You know, I asked that same question, I go, aren't there enough steakhouses here? But it isn't really just steak. It's a completely different experience than sitting down and getting a big steak put on your plate. This is a roving type dinner, where they come with skewers, and you get to pick from many different types of proteins, many different types of meats, many different types of seafood. And it's not just one steak that sit at that you set a plate. So, there's a variety of things. So, it's very unique in the sense that what they are offering is much different than a traditional steak house. If you look at their menu, you know they have long skewers of different meats, whether it's Iamb, whether it's steak, whether it's ribeye, whether it's chicken breast, whether it's pork, whether it's sausage, and you get to pick as these waiters come around with these skewers of different meats for you to taste. So, their bet is they're differentiated enough. Very much. So, I mean, they call it a steakhouse because they serve a lot of beef, but it isn't a steakhouse in the tradition. That answers my curiosity about this. So, my other observation is that a good percentage of the exterior of this building is stucco, which is an E.I.F.S. type material, and we're not real partial to that. And there are some portions of the building, Jacob, if you could point them out, where the stucco goes right down to the grade level. And those never, never fare well. So, I'd like to suggest that an alternative material, similar to, I think the materials that you're using on the Schwab building are really great, and if you could... The problem I face... Replace some of the E.I.F.S., or stucco, whatever you want to call it, portions of this building with something a little more substantial, I guess, is the word I would use. Mr. Marcus: The problem I face is that I'm not actually building this building. Fogo de Chao is actually building this building, and this is their Mr. Ventura: Mr. Marcus: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Marcus: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32219 prototype. We are basically land leasing the land to them and they are building their building based on what they built across the United States. I can make the recommendation. I hear you loud and clear, and ask them to provide alternatives that we can give to your building department and work with them to get a more suitable plan or suitable material board to be used here. But I cannot commit right now until I have the conversation with Fogo de Chao, but you can, you know, I think I have some credence when we say we're going to do a fantastic development here by based on what we've done, and I assure you, we want this to be as top notch as the city wants it. This is a property that we are very proud of, and we'll make every effort to make sure that the best materials are used. If we can get Fogo de Chao to pivot, we'll make them pivot. I completely appreciate what you're saying, and I think everyone that has worked on this project with you, has hopes that this will be a really exemplary development in total and so... My apologies for not knowing exactly the material board on this, because you've caught me at a bit of a disadvantage because, you know, because I am not building it, I don't know exactly the material boards. I'm just presenting what they presented for their prototype. I'm sure they've encountered this at some other...they are a big chain, their foundation line, We'II make the recommendations, and you know, we hear you loud and clear, and if you allow us with your building department, I'm sure we can get to a happy medium between everyone. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Ventura. I'm sure the citizens of Livonia will be glad to know that chicken is being served at Fogo De Chao. That's it's an important thing in the city. Thank you for that. And just for Mr. Ventura's benefit, there was a lot of discussion at our study meeting regarding Building F. There was not as much discussion regarding Building I and the materials on that one, which is I'm sure why Mr. Marcus was focusing more on that, on Building F, because he sensed our trepidation, with the way Building F was looking initially. So is there any other questions for the petitioner? February 3, 2026 32220 Mr. Caramagno: Just for the purpose of conversation regarding what Pete is suggesting with some rock stone, something more durable down low on that building, would it make sense to put something in a recommendation as to what we're looking for? Or will we prefer to leave it to Planning, to negotiate with the petitioner, to come up with something there? Or do we approve half this plan and don't approve the other half till we see what we want. Again, we're not talking about a small development here. We're talking about a substantial, huge corner in the City of Livonia. It should be something that we like and represents this city well, and recommending to the restaurant what we desire doesn't mean nothing. Doesn't mean we get anything. Mr. Marcus: Are we talking about the Fogo de Chao building? Mr. Caramagno: Yes, recommending to the builder the chow to build this building doesn't mean they'll do anything. Well, so that's why...do we approve in part, do we...we'II need a commitment, in my mind, to have something in line with what we're looking for. Mr. Marcus: May I comment on that. You know, we ultimately control what they build, in terms of, you know, the comments that I hear. So my plan is to go back and say this has to be some different materials all across with a minimal amount of stucco or stucco in places that you really can't tell. And then what I plan to do, what, what I'm hopeful is, is that we present a plan to your building department which meets the intent of the Planning Commission with what they want to see. So yes, this works. And let's get this thing permitted and built. That's what I would ask for. Again, we have, we don't have conflicting interests. We have common interests. We want as nice as a development as a city wants. Mr. Caramagno: Agreed. Agree, something very nice. Again, big corner could be...could and should be very, very nice, and I think we're all looking for the same thing. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Caramagno, any other questions, comments? Mr. Bongero: Just to go back with Sam, I feel comfortable with the Planning Department working with them. They kind of know what we're looking for. I don't see any point in tying this up, if we can just, you know, get a working relationship and come to something that you know, what we're looking for. Mr. Uhazie: Yes. Mr. Bongero: I'm good with that myself, Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32221 And at the end of the day, City Council will have a chance to review those and give the final approval to that materials, and hopefully give them time to have feedback from the Fogo de Chao. Mr. Wilshaw: Exactly. Obviously, any commissioner can make whatever motion they wish, and condition it the way they wish. There's certainly opportunity to make this a item that works with the Planning Department, if that's what the commissioners wish to do, and if they wish to specify as part of that motion guidance as to what types of materials they are looking for, or specifically what aspect of it that they're looking for the Planning Department to draw down on, which, in this case, is the lower few feet of the building, and making sure that that's a hard scape material, I think that would be appropriate to put that into an approving resolution if someone wishes to do that. Let's see if there's any other questions or comments from any of the commissioners. Mr. Droze: Mr. Marcus: Mr. Chair, similar to the architectural comments I do think...you talked about, you know, that the Fogo de Chao building has different landscape than the westerly building. I do think again, working with the planning department a little pen to paper about what that finished condition looks like along Six Mile would be helpful for me as well. You know the fact that it's really just three trees, maybe that's what they have in mind from an architect..) know sometimes the commercial spaces really don't want anything because that's reducing visibility, but at the same time, I think we also want to balance it again. This is, as Mr. Caramagno pointed out, it's going to be the first corner that people see as they come off the expressway. And, you know, I think, you know, like we have over at like College Park, as an example. That's a pretty well landscaped entryway. And I would kind of look for that same type of thing at Fox Drive. And again, I want to stress you that we came in, focused on the landscaping to enhance Building F. There is landscaping there. Obviously, we were not showing all of it, but. Uh, again, I can work with your Planning Commission because they may want some trees that we don't want. They may want some bushes that we want that they don't want. It's a work in progress with them, and I ask that you allow us the opportunity to work hand in hand with that department in order to get the right type of landscaping in there. February 3, 2026 32222 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Droze. If there's nothing else from the commissioners, I want to go to the audience and see if there's anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item, for or against. Good evening again. James Bigga, Livonia, MI. A couple of comments. I know this is a premier development for Livonia, and looking at the corner right now, you've got a gas station, Exxon gas station, that's got one set of colors and architectural features. You're going to have a Whole Foods that's got one other set of architectural features. You've got a parking garage that's going to have another set of architectural features. You're going to have these buildings that are going to be the first two buildings other than Whole Foods built. They'll have two different architectural buildings or features. You have a street called Fox Drive that right now the design shows the existing Fox Drive without being a changes. So it's going to look like crap to me the way it looks. The people who may be pulling into this before a car wash or whatever else is being done on the other property has changed. There's the nursing home or home there. They've got that there. You've got the other properties there. This is not looking esthetically pleasing to Me, as it is a bright white building with bright blue with muted colors for this other building with, God knows, whatever colors and lights we're going to have on a car wash that, you know, I'm going to be at a fancy restaurant with outdoor seating that I can hear a car wash next door and oh, gee, there's a Gauchos at seven mile that has the same menu. So, I got the same restaurant another mile north, I've got Bravo that's closed. And today they announced Bahama Breeze is closing all their restaurants. So, we've got two major restaurants that have closed or are in the process of closing along Haggerty and Livonia. How long is the movie theater going to be around? You put Cava in and they can't get a cut out onto the road with the movie theater because gee they wouldn't let them go there, and so we got more traffic going there. What's going on here? Why is the rush to not let them come back to you with a complete plan, a cohesive plan for the whole development that matches. Right now you're going to have, I don't know how many buildings in this development, how many different colors, how many different architectural renderings. It's not going to look complete. You go to Troy, when they do a development for a parcel this large, it all blends together. This is not blending together. I don't even know what Whole Foods is going to look like, because, quite frankly, I don't remember what the rendition looks like right now. And if I look at the pictures outside, it doesn't look good. I mean, at least with what you did at Schoolcraft College with Nino Salvaggio, it looks like it goes Mr. Wilshaw: Patty. Riggio, February 3, 2026 32223 together, but this doesn't look like its going together at all. It's going to start looking like, you know, any other strip mall with another strip mall behind it, with another strip mall next to it, with another strip mall across the street. Can we have something cohesive? And can you look at maybe, maybe telling the, whatever they're called, the person to look at the restaurants you've already asked, how many steakhouses? How many of these kind of Brazilian steakhouses can you have? We already got too many steakhouses as it's going to be. Thank you, Mr. Bigga. Good evening, ma'am. Livonia, MI. I was commenting just basically on the same thing and market saturation with steakhouses over in that corner. You know, three steakhouses and now two Brazilian steakhouses just a mile away. I mean, we're turning into a steakhouse away from chicken into a steakhouse. So it's just way too much. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Anyone else wishing to speak? Greg Ralko, Go!fridge Villa, Livonia, MI. I agree with that comment. I guess I didn't know that Bahama breeze is on its way out. And you know Jim makes a good point about the AMC theaters, as well. And I don't think the Gaucho does real well too, because I drive by there on a Friday or Saturday night, and I don't see that many cars in that lot. So, when you over develop, business people, they take the risk. They're investing. They're taking the risk, but at the same time too, I think the job here is to prevent them from over stretching that risk because of the possibility that they take other businesses out that are in that corridor and so all we're doing is trading a new business for one that wipes out an old one, like the Bravo. Same with the Claddagh. It changed and that went out. We had Champps, I think it was called Champps, that was actually knocked down and it was replaced by the BJs. So, there's a real concern there. You know, they all want to come into Livonia, and they all want to fight for market share. But I don't know that the pie gets any bigger. It just gets sliced into smaller pieces. And with this kind of investment, you have to have a big enough piece of the pie for your investment to pay off. Otherwise, it's a transient investment, or if you're taking someone else's that, that that has a present, like Flemings, for example, the impact on them. We don't know what Cooper's Hawk and the other one over there on Six Mile is going to have on those businesses, but it seems to me that this is where the sanity has to be. And saying, hey, there's too much and, and we're going to back off, or we're going to disallow too much more because of the trends that we're February 3, 2026 32224 seeing right now with, like I said, the Bravo and the Bahama Breeze. So that would be a concern that I have. The other thing too is that I don't know that, you know, but in the City Council meeting, when they approved the car wash, and Patrick, you made a point, you know, when you come off the freeway, you really want to see nice buildings there. Well, the first thing you're going to see is a car wash, where the Buca is, so, you know, that's the reality of that. That's what you guys approved. But the car wash, when they said okay to the car wash on December 17, at their City Council meeting, they did say that Fox Drive would not have any more entrances onto Fox Drive. Fox Drive goes all the way out to Fleming's, and then it wings out to Mitchell's, and so I just want to make sure that you're in concert with what it is that they expressed to both the Quakertown people and the folks when they when they approved that, is that there's no more kick outs that would go on to Fox Drive, because they really wanted to manage the traffic going out onto Six Mile really, for the advantage of the 300 homes that are in Quakertown, because they were concerned about that, and they still are, quite frankly. And just so you know, that there's an Open Meetings Act violation that that was done with the City Council, and they are going to file a lawsuit. So just for FYI, but I think Fox Drive, we have to make sure that that there's no access to this development on to Fox drive. Those are the kinds of things that well, okay, let's just do it after the fact, because the representation from City Council was just to the contrary, and we need to be consistent and reconciled to what it is that they agreed to when they said that. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Ralko. Denise. Mika, Livonia, MI. When we were talking about the car wash to Buca, that just be the first thing you're going to see when you come into Livonia, going west on Six Mile. When the councilman said, well, it could be a chain restaurant there. Well, just across Fox Drive, it's a chain restaurant. There's another one in Troy. So I don't know how long these plans have been in there, but if you look at the original plans of the development that are supposed to be like a little strip mall there or something, and the hotel, the hotel did not have an access onto Fox Drive that close that now the rendition of the new restaurant will have a cut out closer to that. When talking about the developer would not allow a cut off in that area, we were led to believe, and maybe that was erroneously, that it was somebody else, part of Schoolcraft College, or whatever and then we find out that who owns the land is somebody different, and it's that parcel of land. So it's interesting to see. And I would love to know how many different people own Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32225 those parts that are there. And you know the tell of the address being Haggerty Road, God help the people that try to GPS going there. And so what does that tell me? They're going to put another...they're gonna say, oh, I need another street to go on to Haggerty Road to get to that spot, because that's their address. Okay, so then how are we going to be? I mean, I know the east side Hall Road, oh, stop, stop, stop, stop. That's what we're going to have right there. It's over saturation, and I don't know how they're going to make that traffic, that parking garage, look good. I can't wait to see that one. But like what Jim said, Where's the synergy of what that is? It's not going to be putting all this on...what's Whole Foods going to look like? What's the parking garage going to look like? We can't see that. And is somebody looking at the detail of that? Because it seems that it's not like what was approved before. Now there's a change. No hotel got it, but now you're changing the egress out of the restaurant. So that is a material change, I think to what's going on. And I know the traffic department said, Oh, we say it's okay. That's a lot more traffic than a hotel. And we know that from all these hotels right there at Fairfield Inn, and the Residence Inn there, and then we have the Hyatt over there, and then we've got Cava stuck on that little corner, and they can't get any egress there. Well, maybe we should tell them, You know what Bahama breeze is going to be available? Maybe you should go there, because that parking lot also is not big enough. So its like, why are we trying to, like, jam everything right there? It just doesn't make common sense to me. So, I hope you take our comments, and we don't do this just to be pain in people's you know, but we care about the city. We want it to look good. We don't want to turn into another group of city that is just hodgepodge. Put it together, because we're going to develop it and all that, we have to take time I think and breathe, and what does make sense for us, and what do we want to look at in even 10 years, is it going to be there? So thank you. Thank you. Ms. Mika. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? If not, thank you for those comments. Is there anything, Mr. One thing I would like to just make sure you guys are aware of that this is the original plan that was approved. The Fox Drive access road has been there since it was originally approved in 2024 so that drive has been existing. Okay, thank you for pointing that out. Is there anything else that the petitioner would like to say before we make our decision? Mr. Marcus. Okay, thank you, sir. Is there any questions or comments from the Commission? If not, a motion would be in order. February 3, 2026 32226 On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Droze, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-07-2026 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2024-02-02-03 submitted by Stonefield Engineering & Design on behalf of Haggerty Six Partners, LLC, seeking approval of all plans in connection with Buildings F and I, pursuant to Council Resolution #135-24, which previously approved the Shoppes at College Park as part of a Planned General Development, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and Fox Drive in the Southwest '/ of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Site Plan marked by Sheet C-3 dated January 5, 2026, as revised, prepared by Stonefield Engineering & Design, are hereby approved, and shall be adhered to; 2. The Landscaping Plan marked by Sheet C-5 dated January 5, 2026, as revised, prepared by Stonefield Engineering & Design, are hereby approved, and shall be adhered to, except that landscaping along 6 Mile Road in front of Building "I" reflect the landscape design of the rest of the Six Mile frontage to the satisfaction of the Planning Director; 3. Lighting Plan marked by Sheet C-7 respectively, all dated January 5, 2026, as revised, prepared by Stonefield Engineering & Design, are hereby approved, and shall be adhered to 4. The Floor Plan and Exterior Elevations, as shown in the rendering received January 30, 2026, for Building F on Sheets A-100, A-300 and A301 respectively, dated December 23, 2025, prepared by Bowers and Associates, is hereby approved with the exception that the egress doorway along Six Mile, be relocated to the western fagade or incorporated into design elements to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Building Department; 5. The Exterior Elevations and Floor Plan for Building I on Sheets A4.0, A4.1, A4.2, and FS1, dated October 9, 2025, prepared by Innovation Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, provided that the exterior stucco portions of Building "I" be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning Department with materials equal in quality and character to those being employed on Building "F", February 3, 2026 32227 6. That the petitioner shall comply with the following stipulation in the correspondence dated January 13, 2026, from the Engineering Department, which reads: "The submitted landscape plans show plants that the owner may want to revise based on locations and current conditions. It is currently recommended not to plant boxwood shrubs due to blight. Also, Hackberry and Honey Locust tend to attract bugs that create messes that should not be planted above areas where cars will be parked. While not a mandatory change, it is something the developer may want to consider changing.", 7. That the petitioner shall comply with the following stipulation in the correspondence dated January 14, 2026, from the Fire Department: "Provide detailed plans and location of all Electric Vehicle charging stations. Separation distances and available water supply for potential suppression efforts is critical", 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; 9. Pursuant to Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. 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 PETITION 2026-01-07-01 City Planning Commission Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2026- 01-07-01 by the City Planning Commission, requesting authorization by the Livonia City Council to distribute proposed amendments to the Livonia Vision 21 Master Plan, including the Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32228 addition of Book 5, Housing Sustainability, as well as several changes to the Future Land Use Map, for public review and comment, and to hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed amendments pursuant to P.A. 33 of 2008, as amended, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act. Thank you. As we discussed last week, we are recommending some changes to the future land use plan that we discussed in detail last week. Take this time if you have any amendments that you would like to propose, and then after that, we would have McKenna here to discuss the update to the master plan, including housing features. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, very good. Let's see here. Pull that up. Is there any additional information that you want to provide, Mr. Uhazie? Mr. Uhazie: Not at this time. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And is there any additional information that Mr. Smith is going to provide to us as part of this, or did the presentation at the study meeting cover most of it? Mr. Uhazie: I think it's just what was covered at the study. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good, and I appreciate Mr. Smith being here in the audience, just in case we do have any questions from our vendor that's working on this project. Is there any questions from any of the commissioners? Mr. Droze: This is regarding the book five. Do you want to talk about that after the individual sites zoning changes? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: If you want to talk about the book five, addition to the master plan, I think that would be appropriate to talk about now and then we can talk about the future land use map as a separate discussion. I had a conversation with Director Taormina yesterday, just to pick up on some of the comments that we made when we saw the draft. I think that was back in November, time frame one, I guess, one suggestion that I had as going through the book five plan, which really kind of lays out a series of goals and objectives for the community to work on relative to housing going forward. Really the way its laid out, there's essentially about 42 or so approaches, tasks, whatever, however you want to define them. And you know my concern back in November was, when we have too many of those, we kind of lose our way. There was, I used to Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: February 3, 2026 32229 Jim Price on Tiger baseball would interview (inaudible), and one of his quotes was, "When I tried to do too much, I don't do too much." And I kind of was getting that feeling as I was reading through that where there are a lot of things we can focus on, but I'm concerned that, you know, as a working document going forward, that we need a couple more tangible things to work on. And so what Director Taormina and I talked about, and he suggested it, I think book four has essentially five or six, like projects, almost, that were identified. And I would maybe encourage you to work with the Planning Department on maybe defining a couple of those things, not for what we're going to talk about today, but when that comes back to us, just to kind of give us a couple guiding things to work on, and those are, the benefit of those is that they're identified and then, you know, if we look at them year over year, and if we're not making progress on them, maybe they're not the right things so we can take those away, or if we take care of some of them, great, we take them off the list. That's really kind of my only suggestion, because really, the plan is very general in terms of where we're going. You know, there wasn't necessarily any sort of, like, you know, moon shot that we're calling out with population, or a certain metric we were trying to attain So recognizing, and that's result of kind of the process we went through that the feedback that was received from the community was that people were pretty happy with the way things are recognized. Obviously, we could do some things better, so some a lot of good things from that. But at the same time, we don't want to be complacent either, because we are losing population and we continue to lose it. We know that's not a sustainable model. So those are just kind of my suggestions. Other than that, I don't really have anything else to add. Thank you for those comments. Mr. Droze. Is there anything else from any of the commissioners? Yes, Mr. Wilshaw, thank you. I participated in some of the steering committee meetings, not all of them, however, due to schedule conflicts, but my approach to the process was to determine what this plan, and this is kind of in concert with Mr. Doze's comments, what parts of this plan are actually actionable? What is this plan going to allow us, or enable us to do about affordable housing in Livonia, and at the time, I, because I'm in the real estate industry, went to a friend of mine in the residential real estate industry and had him do an analysis of the housing stock in Livonia. And I looked specifically at the housing stock below Plymouth Road from border to border in the city. And the statistics that came out of this analysis were really eye opening, Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32230 because there, if you want to buy a house for under $200,000 you can do it, and you can buy a house that's in good condition. And these houses in Livonia, with all of the city services and all the advantages in the school system and the police system and the fire system, and every other advantage of sitting and living in Livonia that everybody in Livonia enjoys, regardless of the price of your house. Then I went to Mr. Bongero and a number of other people in the construction industry. And I said, so can you build a house today for what you can buy a house for in Livonia on the affordability scale? And the answer was, there are a resounding and emphatic no, you cannot. Construction costs and material costs, labor costs, have escalated to the point where, and we've seen it, gentlemen. We have approved site after site for infield housing, and it's all $300,000 and above, and mostly above. So, I'm at a Toss at this point to understand what we're doing here. I don't think that this means a lot, and again, to Mr. Droze's point, 40 paths to nowhere are what we have here. And I'm all about improving our city, or I wouldn't be sitting here. And I embrace an actionable plan. I don't think this is one. That's my take on this. And so, in terms of sending this out for public comment, what are we going to ask the public to approve? What can we say to them? Here's a concrete plan that we can do something with. I don't think it's here. Thank you. Mr. Ventura. Any other comments? Mr. Uhazie, I just want to set the expectation as to what is being...what our purpose is here tonight, which is for the folks that are in our audience or watching us on TV down the road who want to understand, what are we doing tonight? And I'll try to explain it as best I can. You can tell me if I'm correct or not, but we have a draft of this amendment to the Master Plan, which is to add book five. We're also going to talk briefly about some changes to the future land use map, which is not necessarily tied to this. It's not, it doesn't need to be part of this process, but it's a process that we do every several years. We kind of review those and make some amendments or changes as we see corrections that need to be made. We'II talk about that in a second. But, as far as the change to the master plan, the addition of book five, the process today would be that if we make an approving resolution, it would take the draft to City Council. City Council will then have to make a motion to put this draft out for public comment for a period of time, get those public comments back. We then, we, being the city, would review the comments that have been received, any changes that that us and other people wish to make to that draft, and then we'll incorporate those, those changes into the master plan. And then we'll again make another process to seek to Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: February 3, 2026 32231 approve the changed master plan, or the amended master plan, incorporating those suggestions. Is that basically what the process is? So basically yes. You are just referring to City Council, so they can distribute the plan and give feedback. So, if more actionable items are preferred, that is something that the public can comment on as well, and we can take that back with McKenna to incorporate those changes into the plan. Okay. And one thing I'm hearing tonight, I want to ask you is, I'm hearing some, some comments from my fellow Commissioners that are kind of questioning the book five, as it is worded right now, and what its purpose is, and what's in it, is this the appropriate time to continue this process of getting this draft moving and then make the changes as we go? Or is this a time, if the commission is not comfortable with the direction of book five, to go back to the drawing board a little bit and go back to McKenna and say, what can be changed at this point? Is this the point where we should be making changes? Well, I think it's ultimately up to the commissioners of how comfortable they are. I will say that book five is the main focus. But overall, this is an amendment to the master plan which correct me, if I'm wrong, does need to be amended every five years. So, this would be amending that to follow the statute requirements of updating the master plan as well. I think making things that are more actionable is something that could be incorporated into this as we as we move along. But certainly, if you guys are not comfortable moving it to public distribution, we would not want you to recommend you guys do anything that you're not comfortable moving forward. With that being said, does McKenna have any feedback on what you think would be the best course of action for the planning commissioners? Yes. Donovan Smith, McKenna Associates. Yes. Thank you having me so. I believe there is enough time in our schedule that could accommodate extending this out maybe another two weeks, or at least maybe until your next meeting where we can work with staff to go over that information and possibly come back with some revisions, and then those revisions could be included in the draft before it's released to the public, and we can either do that maybe at a subsequent study meeting or follow up meeting, and then offer the commission a chance to have a bit more dialog as it relates to the actionable portion of the plan. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: February 3, 2026 32232 Okay, thank you for those comments. I appreciate that. One thing I do want to address, you know, some of the concerns about like the affordability, I think one of the reasons for the plan that is detailed in there is that, yes, there are houses that are available for those under $200,000 but those are aging stock, and this plan addresses what to do into the future as more and more of those becomes obsolete, and building anything new is going to be too expensive. So, part of this plan is to how to address things going forward, realizing that there are properties that currently fit that mold, but where do we go in 10 years? 20 years? When more of those are no longer viable options? Okay, thank you for those comments. Is there any discussion from commissioners? You know, kind of thinking about it from a calling this the update for the five year period, I know housing is a big part of that, and is this kind of goes back to that feeling that there's not a driving objective for the change and what I might just talk about is...in the City of Livonia, we do ratings of roads every 10 years or whatever and, you know, as an example, when the city started a road program several years ago, decades ago, I think they identified a desired state. When you do that, and when it calls to action that there is a deficiency that we have to address, and then it really kind of leads to community conversation about, what are we going to do to get there. That can mean different approaches to how we manage. I'm just going to use rose as example, how we manage it. Sometimes it means a millage. It can mean all sorts of different things. And it really kind of again, sets into action what needs to happen. And I think, you know, the housing, you know, to me, I look at population loss. To me, is one of the metrics above all else that I saw in there. Sure, if that continues to happen, that's a problem, just because of tax base and all the things we know that go along with losing people and I think it's really...it is a difficult thing to provide recommendations if there isn't some driving goal that you're trying to attain and so maybe that's something that can happen as part of a community conversation, if it goes to council and there's comments that's received that drives to that. But I really feel like a couple more weeks of you know, maybe some goals would be great in terms of, like, what you can concrete focus on based on what you have, but if we don't really have any driving desire about what we want Livonia to be in 5, 10, 20, 30, years, I know it makes your job, very difficult to do that, so I don't want to, you know, sugar coat and to say maybe two weeks is not going to get to what I'm kind Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32233 of driving at. I don't know if you guys have any other thoughts on that, but that's kind of my general feel when reading it. Mr. Caramagno. Peter and Patrick make great points, and it summarizes basically how I feel. I've talked to Mark as well, and I struggle with this to a certain extent. But as Patrick just said, maybe we have to have the public speak. Maybe they will be confused about this as well, without any actionable items. Maybe that's what this comes back and tells us, that hey, listen, there needs to be some meat in this thing. That's kind of where I'm looking from my position, there's more questions than answers out here still on this program, I don't know if it says what I mean to say, but that's my opinion. And certainly, moving this forward, to get those public comments would open up that possibility of having that dialog start, and it doesn't mean that this is the...this isn't the end of the process. Mr. Caramagno: But does it hurt to have the public comment? I don't think so. Which no action has to be taken until after public comment. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Long: Mr. Uhazie: Right. Well, you sort of plenty of time to make revisions to this, this plan, this master plan, before it gets finalized. Any other comments? So, what's the path then if we go through for public comment and we end up with a document that we're not happy with, that we're not proud of, we just deny it, and you start all over. What happens if... I believe we take it back to McKenna, we work out those...take those public comments into account and amend the draft to reflect what the public and the Planning Commission and City Council prefer to see. If that is, you know, seeing more actionable items, we address those and add those if it's addressing other needs that we do not see or providing more examples of certain things, we take that into consideration. I guess there could be enough comment that we don't need the housing portion of it, but as I mentioned, we will have to make some sort of adoption of an update to the plan at some point. But I think we would go, ultimately, go back to what the public comment and what the elected and appointed officials want to see, and take those into consideration. Mr. Long: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Long: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Smith: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32234 And if we, if we found nothing out of this process, nothing out of the updates that we wanted to increase or to change, do we just ratify the existing plan and that covers it as an amendment for the next five years? If we had not gone through this process, that's typically how master plans are moved forward, unless you do a whole new planning process. Okay? Thank you. Good questions. Mr. Long. Any other questions? Comments? Just so I understand we're going to send this out as is right? Get the feedback and then take an action only at that point. We're not going to do anything until we get public feedback. I think that's the right move. If you prefer to do the two weeks to see if it can be massaged a little bit and then come back, or if you'd rather just get it out there and see what people say, it's kind of what could be decided tonight. And if I may add, we did receive some other comments, some other staff comments. So, there are some minor revisions that we planned on incorporating before Council released it. So, there is, I think, an opportunity where we could spend a little bit more time massaging it, where we're hearing comments, and they could possibly provide a better version for Council and the public, if the commission chooses. When the master plan was originally approved, it was discussed at that time, it was said at that time that this is a living document. This is a document that's not going to be set in stone. It is going to be updated. Here we are five years later, and we're starting to do that process to make those updates. And I think what I'm hearing is, yes, there's basically two paths that we have for tonight. One is, is wait a couple weeks, let you make some updates to it, bring it back to us, see if we're comfortable enough with it, to get it moving to the public, to City Council truly, and then to the public, or we could just get it moving now and start that ball rolling, and again, we're still going to be able to continue to make edits and updates to this along the way. It's going to be up to the Commission as to what they're more comfortable with, but those are basically sounds like the two paths that we're looking at right now. Mr. Caramagno. February 3, 2026 32235 Mr. Caramagno: Now if we've got a couple of weeks, and apparently we do to have a better document, the most up to date, the best product we could possibly have in two weeks, I think we need to get that better document and push it forward. And essentially, it's no different than this gas station we saw earlier. We wouldn't have sent that on in the position it was because it wasn't the best document. So if this can be improved, let's improve it. Look at it again and elevate it to the City Council for their direction. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Appreciate those thoughts. Is there any other discussion regarding the master plan amendments in general? I think we've discussed that deeply here, which is a good discussion. Thank you. Thank you for that. Now, in regards to the updates to the future land use map. This is kind of a companion piece to this, because it is a component of the master plan. There were a number of and again, this is just again, for everyone's benefit who may not have been on the planning commission as long or or watched planning commission meetings if you're in the audience. This is a process that happens fairly routinely. I've gone through two or three or four of these things, probably my time, where every few years, the planning staff and other folks within the city will look at the future land use map and sort of go section by section and say, do things need to be fixed, either corrections that maybe were overlooked at some point or changes because the use of a particular piece of property has been changed, usually by action of us at some point. Perfect example would be the school property at Harrison and West Chicago, which future land use plan would have obviously said that that future land use is school public property. The school chose to sell that property privately to a private developer, and it became a residential development. So now the future land use plan map should show that as low density residential, because that is what its use is and will be for the foreseeable future. It's never going to be public land again. It's never going to be sold back to the school system. That's highly unlikely that that would ever happen at the end of the day. The future land use plan is a guidance document that is used by us and this and council to guide us as to what we believe the future land use should be for certain properties. It's not a law, it's not edict, it's not mandatory, it's a guide, but we want it to be as accurate as possible to what we think those properties should be used for. So the Planning Department has gone through and provided a number of, I think it's, what is the number 18, different edits to that future land use plan, our future land use map, correcting various things that they think should be corrected to different uses, and they've presented those to us, and we've had February 3, 2026 32236 a chance to look those over. They're in our packet. If there's any particular items that any commissioners would Eke to discuss or disagree with the proposed use. They're welcome to address those if they wish, because, again, we wanted to do whatever the commission wishes to be done. It's not the Planning Department that's making these final decisions. It's us. So, does anybody have any discussion on map changes that are proposed? I just wanted to explain that, because that's an element of all this. Okay, all right, I hear no discussion on that. Is there any other discussion from any of the commissioners before I go to the audience? As we do have some audience members left, I'm sure this is riveting conversation for them, but they may have some comments, so they're welcome to comment. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this? Mr. Bigga. Mr. Bigga: James Bigga, Livonia, Michigan, I'm talking about the housing plan for right now. I'm going to make it in two parts, if that's okay. Mr. Wilshaw: That's fine. Mr. Bigga: The housing plan, I know it's just a plan, and I know it's easy to kick the plan over to the City Council to let them throw it out. I would like to know why this schedule is so hard and fast. I think that this is a very important plan deserves a lot of comment. As we saw last year with the Vision 21, this caused a lot of consternation in the city, as we saw two thirds of the city voting public did not like Vision 21 that was proposed. So, if we're going to run a plan through, that requires a short period of time for public comment, ifs going to need more than one public meeting that I saw on the schedule that I couldn't read if it was posted tonight. Like many of you said, "What is the plan?". I mean, if I go back in history, there was a country called the Soviet Union that did a five-year plan and did five-year plans for five years and never did anything with them. Are we just to say we're going to do a plan and something we just know we're not going to be able to do? Or should we just sit there and say, Yeah, we know we need to do a five year plan, but we really don't see any reason to change it because we can't do anything with it, and let's leave it the way it is, or should we say, let's look at the city and say, we know we don't have affordable housing, and we know there's no way to make affordable housing, because if we look at the 500 foot level, and we look at the parts of the city that are affordable, the houses are junky, the houses need to be either torn down or a lot of money spent. I don't know, south of Plymouth Road, where there's homes available for under 200,000 except in certain patches. And some of those to me driving by and looking at them, February 3, 2026 32237 they're really rough looking. If I go to the northeast portion of the city, there's more homes that I see that fit that. They're small. They need a lot of work. If I go to Five Mile and Farmington area, they're not a lot of houses that fit that mode. So, we're really not going to have anything. The only other thing we have are apartments, and not everybody wants an apartment built around them. There's not a lot of vacant land. And the only vacant land we have, we're putting to a restaurant, a new financial center, a sports center. We tore down the Comerica, but we're leaving the parking garage. So that's the only area that we really could have put a bunch of apartments that could have been affordable, but we know that property is too expensive to build affordable housing, so we're really not going to build affordable housing anywhere. So, let's just face it, the city is just too darn expensive. And in their charts and their plan, they showed that of the three four cities that made up the comparison. Dearborn, Detroit, Livonia and Warren. Our incomes are over $10,000 a year, more than those three cities. Our home values way more than $10,000 more than those cities. So, who are we kidding by saying, let's put together a plan and show how we can be affordable. We know we're not going to get there. We're going to waste everybody's time. We're going to make everybody angry. Let's put together a plan that says, Why don't we have maybe four or five public comment forums, and then maybe force the city, when they put this plan together, to incorporate the plans, and not just the whims of the elected politicians. Make it what the people in the city want. And if we have to put an addendum that says we really would like affordable housing, but we just don't have it, just say it. And that's just be it, be honest. Now for the land use portion. I like some of the ideas you guys present at the planning meeting where you said some of the old office buildings that just...they're too junky. They need to be torn down and maybe put in a four -unit apartment building. Be nice if you could find a developer who could put a nice four unit apartment building for a family. Single parent with maybe two kids, three bedroom, but you know you can's get all that, maybe a two bedroom, but you've got some other spots where the people who own the property came in and asked for a variance to build something, haven't built it, and now we're going to change the zoning of that property to fit with their building. And I'm talking St Mary's, the church. They were going to build something back there. They haven't built anything back there. So why change the property if they're not building leave it the way it is. Make them come in and come and ask for zoning variance. Do the same thing. You also are proposing to change the park land at Eight Mile and Newburgh. That's a real controversial property. We know that there's homeowners suing February 3, 2026 32238 that property in the court system, so why not wait till that's all resolved before going to the City Council and saying, Hey, let's go and do something with that. I'm just saying, let's save the city some money and avoid a court case on that. But really, when it comes to that plan, let's think it through and say, not rush it. And if it's really something that we really can't do and not do, let's not kick the can and push it down to City Council, who's going to hear the same comments from people like me or a more full audience coming up saying, oh, we need this, we need that. When we know we can't do certain things. Let's just recognize it up front. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Bigga. Jerry Karasinski, 19488, Bainbridge, Livonia, MI. A couple things. So, I was looking a little bit at the 2018 document online while you guys were speaking, and there's a whole series of priorities, number of action items, many of them never came to fruition, and that appears to be part of why you're reviewing the plan right now. Some of those ideas, I think, are still ideas that the community would like, one example was the bike loop. So, we don't have a bike loop yet. I don't know what the plan is for that. Perhaps the review is not just to look at what McKenna has produced for us, but its to go back and look at what we started with and make sure that if there are usable items that are still priorities, that we include them and make sure that that the city finds a way to do them instead of just having them on paper. That's what I would do if I were in charge of this. I do remember last fall looking at some of the mock ups that McKenna had done in the library for public review, and there were some very intriguing items. One of them was some ideas for redevelopment of some of our commercial space. So that's the other part. The big thing that I hear from people is the concern about the number of vacant commercial buildings, and I'm sure that probably rolls over into the office buildings that were just discussed and some other properties. We don't have a plan for how do we attract people. So, to Jim's point where we have a good economic position for our residents. As a matter of fact, the city population is decreasing because people are having fewer people in the same size homes. It's not that we don't have enough housing. What do we do to advertise that? What can we do with McKenna to make that a driver for solving some of the problems with empty buildings? And I think that those would be more important focuses than necessarily moving forward with book five. Because I think to Commissioner Ventura's point, we do have affordable housing. A lot of people don't necessarily like it because it doesn't match what their view of what their first house or their retirement house should be. But Mr. Wilshaw: Patty Riggio, Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ralko: February 3, 2026 32239 that doesn't mean that ifs not usable and adequate housing. So those are my comments. Thank you very much. I appreciate those. Mr. Karasinski. We need to get a slogan of have more babies for Livonia. Good evening. Ms, Riggio. Livonia, MI. I am requesting that you remove any future land use changes to the Eight Mile and Newburgh site from this discussion. This all seems a little bit kind of...why are we changing the plan right now? I don't understand. You know, as a reminder, this committee has already discussed and voted on this site, so I'm trying to understand why we're going to go back now and change the future land use. It doesn't make any sense. To recap back in September of 2024 this committee voted three to three against rezoning that property. That was a deadlock vote, which basically is not an approval. Somehow or another it managed to come back up again in October of 2024 when there were only five of the commissioners present, and at that time, you voted three to two to rezone it. It was a questionable vote at the time whether the Planning Commission even followed the appropriate procedures, holding two votes to the rezoning. But it's evidence that this commission, you're not crystal clear on that property. So, in October, Chairman Wilshaw, you passed the gavel to speak strongly against raising the intensity of the site because of the surrounding parks and residential areas. There's hundreds of acres of parks there. So also, in a private conversation with Ms. Dinaro, she was asked about why she voted in the way she did, but she responded that she was just following the master plan. I don't believe that she did any homework on that use of that land. Nevertheless, your recommendation went to the City Council, and the City Council voted five to two against rezoning that property. It's a solid no. You know why? Because they listened to the people. There were environmental concerns, proximity to the park. You know, we've talked about listening to the, you know, getting public comment. You just mentioned that, and I appreciate that. I guess this is another opportunity for more public comment. We're bringing it backup again. So, I'm asking you to remove that property from, you know, any changing for future land use, and again, remind you that that that property is under legal action right now. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Riggio. Good evening. Mr. Ralko. Yeah, to piggyback on what Patty said. Peter, Glen and Ian, they voted no to rezoning from a one to a three, a C-1, to a C-2. Peter, I think you didn't show up for the second vote two weeks later, February 3, 2026 32240 and they voted three to two, and your no vote was not there. So it did pass, and it was recommended to the City Council to rezone it. And then, as Patty mentioned, the City Council said no. So that's already been dealt with. And so for us to even consider an amendment to that corner from a C-1, to a C-2 is inappropriate, to say the least. And of course, I think you all know the circumstances around that corner, the ZBA, you know, dropped the ball on that on more than one occasion. Didn't give proper public notice. Didn't meet the four conditions in order to make a use variance, and there's litigation with the Wayne County Circuit Court. Us citizens are doing that, and it's unfortunate that the citizens have to sue their own city because the city doesn't do their job. When you look back at that corner when it was discussed to rezone it. The one oversight, and I'll point to the Planning Department, of which you guys are part of as well, is that there's a clear ordinance that says you cannot build a new gas station within 100 feet of a park. It borders a park, okay? This should have never gone anywhere. She should have told find another site, because this is against our ordinance, okay, but this whole thing kept rolling, okay? And the problems that have been created are not the problems created by the residents, but they're created by these bodies that don't even know their own rules when they're enforcing them. We talk about the future land use. The future land use on that corner was a park, a park, which makes very a lot of sense, because that park, it's surrounded by two parks across the street, Greenmead. It's residential on the other side of the street. So, there was wisdom, and we're going to be very dismissive of the wisdom years ago that the vision was to have that go back to a park, and as far as empty commercial buildings in this city, businesses have a life cycle. So do properties. Okay, and it's a reality. Patrick, you made a comment about losing population. I've been living in Livonia for 40 years. I used to have five people in my house. I'm down to two. That's a 60% drop in the population just in my household alone, we've gone from 112,000 people to around 92,000 that's a natural attrition. And the thing about Livonia is, I'm 68 and I still live here. I like the city, okay, I don't have plans on moving, okay, so if I don't move, I can't sell my house to a family, an up and coming family. The number of houses in this city hasn't changed. If anything, it's increased because we still open or build new houses. Okay, that so it's not a housing shortage, it's the makeup of those houses. So I think we're trying to fool ourselves that we can plan our way out of this. We can't. That the people, the elderly people, have to turn their homes, and when they turn their homes, will they turn them over to young families? And let's not just say that it's bad thing to have appreciation in your home. That's the Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ralko: February 3, 2026 32241 biggest asset people have. That's good thing to have a higher average home cost in this city than other cities, comparable cities. That's something we should be proud of, as opposed to saying, well, we should run from that. So, as it relates to Eight Mile and Newburgh, which is really my issue, is we have no business even changing that right now, or even considering changing that. And boy, the master plan, we all say, well, we got to do something with the master plan. We ignored or not we, the collective we. We ignored the content of the future land use, of the master plan, when Sheetz came to us because it said it was a park and what's a Sheetz, something that you find on a freeway, high intensity that you were going to put into an area that was the future land use for a park. I'd almost like they make the argument, why do we even have future land use maps if we just turned our back on what it was that was on paper that we brought to everyone's attention, and we get nothing, but, you know, head nods. Thanks for coming. Thanks for your comment. This is why we don't trust the city, a lot of residents. This experience has been an eye opener for the 400 homes in Deer Creek, Willow Woods and where I live, Golf Ridge Villa, the people that live closest to that corner. It's been an eye opener for us. It's been a frustration for us, and unfortunately, we have to sue our city under these circumstances because the Planning Commission didn't do their job and nip this thing in the bud from the onset, and another ordinance. Mr. Ralko, you've spoke for about six minutes. So, if you'd like to just sort of summarize. What I'd like if you're going to recommend, okay, let me just close. If you're going to recommend anything, exclude the Eight Mile and Newburgh corner. It's under litigation, and you already said no, and the City Council said no to rezoning. Doesn't make any sense to propose that in the in the master plan. In fact, it's, I'm not even going to say what it is. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Denise. Mika, Livonia, MI. I was at the study meeting, and some of the...I want to comment on the first part of the presentation on the makeup of people in Livonia. And it was saying people that were college educated and everything. And look at that, and was almost like, like it was a detriment. And you know, Lets applaud the Livonia schools for having people excel. But also, I think another metric we should have is the skilled trade workers we have in Livonia. We have them, and they are very valuable to our community, and February 3, 2026 32242 I think we should put them in in that demographic of wage earners and everything, because they've spent a lot of time in apprenticeships and everything to, you know, accomplish what their business is. I would like that. I don't know if we can do this, but when we go to City Council, you know they list what's going on, and they have the backup. It would be fabulous to have somebody upload the information from your meeting so people could understand. Because I bet you a lot of the people that are watching this tonight don't really know what we're talking about. Because if you weren't at the study meeting, which is not televised, and you had discussion, it's almost like just part of communication instead of, you know, I'm all about transparency and accountability. I said that at every meeting I go to, and that's what people are concerned about. So, if we could put those things up, that would really help people understand what you're looking at, what the challenges are, and you know, and thank you, Jerry, for looking up what happened in 2018 and what were the goals then? Have we even met those goals yet? And that's what we should look at that, that's a metric too, because we all want to have metrics in whatever we're doing, and if we haven't achieved those, why not, instead of trying to come up with something else? So anyway, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate that. Thank you. Good evening, ma'am. Lynn Mills, Livonia, MI. Thank you for letting me speak. I would like to encourage more beauty in the building. I live down the street from the Jughandle complex, and I think that is just ugly, and I don't know if planning had anything to do with that. This is only my third planning meeting, and forgive me if I'm getting it wrong, but that is really the prime example of ugliness in Livonia, along with the apartment complexes. If they are apartment complexes by the Costco at Eight Mile and Haggerty ugly and there are people hammering, clamoring to get into Livonia. On Farmington Road there are free standing houses between either Six Mile and Eight Mile or Seven Mile and Eight Mile, where they've built right on Farmington Road. They want to be here. There are four or five new houses on Parkdale, free standing, beautiful houses, esthetically pleasing. Can we focus a little more on the beauty? Now, I was at your study meeting last week, and I took pictures of most of the maps, tiny, little parcels and medium density, low density. Are they all apartments? I know maybe you can't answer me. Would they be free standing and whatever happened to the four or five houses that were going to be built on Plymouth Road just east of the between the car wash and Saturn printing? I don't see anything moving there. I thoughtthatwas a unique placement February 3, 2026 32243 for homes. I was excited about it. Is that dead in the water? I just want to encourage nice looking homes, not this. I think Mr. Bigga had it right. This last building that was up there. Not an attractive looking building. Your courthouse. Whoever did that? A beautiful job on the courthouse. I'm just asking for beauty in Livonia. I've been here my whole life. I'm not going anywhere. This Boomer is going to die here, sorry, and then you're going to have my son, who owns it. He's going to stay here that it's not we're not going anywhere. Boomers, anyway, thank you. Thank you for your comments. Laura Shoemaker, Golfridge Villa, Livonia, MI. I'm just going to reiterate what a few people have already said about the Eight Mile and Newburgh corner. What is the significance of the master plan? Because it appears to have been overlooked here based on what I have looked at, that corner is designated as public land for future land use, and it's unclear to me why, all of a sudden, it's a sense of urgency to make a change. Now I don't know, I have to ask the question, who's behind this? Is it someone within the city? Is it somebody within City Council? Is it the Planning Department? Is it a committee member, the law department? Is it the mayor? I don't know. I'm not going to get an answer. I'm just asking the question. What Patty mentioned from my attendance, and I've become pretty much involved for several months now, many months, at various meetings. I've attended the study meetings, City Council meetings, the ZBA meetings, and I've observed how some of these processes are managed. You can change the rules of the game when you sit on that side. You don't like the outcome, no problem. We'll just offer a substitute motion, or we'll offer a tabling motion until more members are present at the next meeting to sway the vote. We can all vote again, and then we get going to the direction of what someone wants, or somebody wants, and who is that somebody? Yes, I'd like to know that. So, what's the solution? This is a significant issue, and it comes with severe implications I should say. A motion, in my opinion, is needed to maintain this corner as its intended use and to exclude it from tonight's vote. There are concerns regarding the current situation. If there is no outside pressure, then why the urgency? Discussions can take place at any time, and knowledge empowers decision making. The master plan is mandated yes to be reviewed and updated every five years, but it can also be revised at any time. Am I wrong? This specific corner does not require immediate action at this time, as Mr. Droze said earlier, he stated, he said, when he was talking about the housing and changing the Vision 21 plan. What's the driving objective for the change? Is there? I'd like to know. It's important to note, though, Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Wilshaw: Faye Nemer, February 3, 2026 32244 that, as has been stated earlier, that this corner is currently under consideration by the Wayne County court system, and I think it is unwise that any official or entity to proceed until a ruling has been made by the court. This approach ensures protection for all parties involved for obvious reasons. I think you should strongly consider that. One thing I did, real quick, I won't take up a lot more time, is I went into the Vision 21 and I realized that this is a few years old now, but there were a lot of surveys that were taken. It's all documented. I'm sure you've seen them. It's new to me. But one of the surveys says, what's your big idea for Livonia. It says Parks and Rec, create useful small neighborhood parks. We have a lot of unused green space that could be used for small playgrounds. This will help draw young families to our neighborhoods and then future development projects and policies. What people, this was a survey of many people were involved. There were public engagement methods. There were surveys, presentations, you name it, they said keep parks and green space, keep single family neighborhoods, keep small businesses, keep design standards, keep small public private partnerships, and as far as sustainability and resiliency, it says, conserve and restore open spaces, waterways and canopies, consider long term, cumulative impacts when making infrastructure and policy decisions. And I think that's what you need to consider before you take the vote this evening. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Ms. Shoemaker. Any other comments? Hi, good evening. Ma'am. Burton Hollow, Livonia, MI. I just wanted to add my voice to the residents that are asking to remove Eight Mile and Newburgh from tonight's consideration for future land use. I invite this body to look at the City of Warren. They recently had Sheetz build a site there, and the business model for Sheetz is effectively to undercut the competition by reducing their fuel prices. So, what that's caused in that area, in that specific location is serpentine lines, half a mile in either direction, of people that are congested, you know, trying to save a few bucks on fuel. So, imagine, you know, that's what you're basically attracting to Eight Mile and Newburgh, a low intensity location that is a fairly quiet neighborhood. There's a golf course there. There's Greenmead Park, Friends of Greenmead have voiced their opposition to this. Friends of the Rouge River have voiced their opposition to this matter as well. In addition to the residents that have been very vocal, including myself, as to the detriments of this decision. So, Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Long: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Long: Mr. Wilshaw: February 3, 2026 32245 I think it's just prudent to table that from the 18 future land use considerations that you are making this evening. It is a highly controversial topic, you know, that goes without saying, but I think there should be a lot of caution in approaching this matter, and I think that has not been the case up until this point. I think people are, whether the Planning Commission or the ZBA are attracted by the bells and whistles of the Sheetz plan, but they're not really looking at the actual implementation and what that's going to draw to the region. But I thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to speak? No one else coming forward. Thank you for your comments. For the audience members. Is there anyone from the Planning Commission that wishing to make any additional comments or statements? I do appreciate all the discussion that's happened on this item tonight. It has been a well discussed item, and it's an important item. It is deserving of that. So, is there any direction from any of the commissioners, at this point. I'm looking for a motion. I believe the discussion was to bring it back into two weeks, correct? That's one of the options. So, I guess at this point, that's the motion I would make, is to bring all this back for the next meeting. So, this is going to be a tabling... I guess so, yeah. Mr. Long making a tabling motion. This is a first. On a motion by Long, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-08-2026 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2026-01-07-01, requesting authorization by the Livonia City Council to distribute proposed amendments to the Livonia Vision 21 Master Plan, including the addition of Book 5, Housing Sustainability, as well as several changes to the Future Land Use Map, for public review and comment, and to hold a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed amendments pursuant to P.A. 33 of 2008, as amended, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act., be tabled to the meeting of February 24, 2026. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? February 3, 2026 32246 Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,240th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,240th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on January 13, 2026. On a motion by Long, seconded by Droze, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-09-2026 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,240th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2026, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Droze, Bongero, Long, Ventura, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Dinaro ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,241st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 3, 2026, was adjourned at 10:26 p.m. ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman CITY " ANNING COMMISSION ramagno, Secretary