The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2015-06-09 MINUTES OF THE 1,071st PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,071st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan Mr Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m Members present: Scott P Bahr Kathleen McIntyre R Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in 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 2015-05-01-04 VERANT `- fits Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2015-05- 01-04 submitted by Aaron and Angela Verant, pursuant to uJ Section 23 01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as >c- amended, requesting to rezone the property at 19005 UJ C ) Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road �. between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast Lot) =L.1_3 1/4 of Section 9, from R-3, One Family Residential, to C-1, `.) = Local Business li_ N C) June 9, 2015 26845 Mr Taormina This is a request to rezone an existing residential parcel from the R-3, One Family Residential category to C-1, Local Business This property is on the west side of Farmington It's approximately 450 feet south of Seven Mile Road The parcel in question is made up of portions of six platted lots that are within the Seven Mile Super Highway Subdivision This is a subdivision that dates back to around 1925 The parcel dimensions are 110 feet by 110 feet for a total area of 12,100 square feet or 28 acres The property contains a single family home that is currently occupied The pattern of zoning along this block of Farmington Road is somewhat mixed Immediately adjacent to the property on the south side is a residential lot. Further south is property identified as Office To the North, there is a mix of commercial, both C-1 and C-2 zoning, and to the west are single family homes along Filmore Avenue To the east across Farmington Road are single family homes zoned R- 1 as well as commercial businesses The applicant in this case currently owns the subject property as well as the abutting property to the north, which is a commercial business known as Verant's Salon The purpose of the rezoning is to eventually facilitate the expansion of the hair salon and provide for additional off-street parking Plans for how the hair salon would either be expanded or relocated and where the additional off- street parking would be provided have not yet been developed In the meantime, the Petitioner would like to continue using the south half of the property as a temporary parking lot, mostly for employees and customers at times when the existing parking lot on the north side of the salon is full The Future Land Use Plan does show most of the block on the west side of Farmington Road, extending from but not including the Bigg Burger restaurant south for a distance of over 600 feet to Clarita Avenue, and including the property in question as Commercial So the Future Land Use Plan shows the property as Office This is an existing conditions map, more or less, showing both properties The hair salon is on the top portion of this map, not the area that is highlighted The outline of the building is "L" shaped, sitting immediately to the north of the property line of the site that they are seeking to rezone The outline on the map of the residential structure is within the highlighted area There are some parking spaces drawn that extend along the south and the west sides of the property I will tell you that currently the temporary parking is not done in this arrangement. There are no spaces along the west side of the property It's only along the south side of the property in the form of about 10 perpendicular spaces This is a gravel lot area With that, Mr Chairman, I can read out the one item of correspondence June 9, 2015 26846 Mr Morrow. Please Mr Taormina There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated May 22, 2015, which reads as follows "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced rezoning petition We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time The legal description provided with the petition appears to be correct and is acceptable to this office The existing parcel is assigned an address of#19005 Farmington Road, which should be used in conjunction with this petition The existing building is currently serviced by sanitary sewer and water main Since the petition does not include calculations for flows, we cannot determine whether the existing service leads are sufficient to service the planned usage Should the exiting leads need to be modified or replaced, Engineenng Department permits will be required, as well as permits from Wayne County for any work within the Farmington Road right-of-way In connection with placing the parking area, the owner will need to provide grading plans to this office showing existing and proposed storm drainage for the site The owner will also need to provide storm water detention per Engineering Department standards for any improved areas In addition, the owner will need to indicate an appropriate storm water outlet from the site Any connections to the storm sewer located within Farmington Road will require Wayne County approval and permits " The letter is signed by David W Lear, P E , Assistant City Engineer That is the only item of correspondence Mr Morrow- Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr Taylor Through the Chair to Mr Taormina, they are using it for parking now Why would they want to change it to C-1? It looks to me like the obvious would be P, Parking Mr Taormina That is an option depending on what the Petitioner's permanent plans are for developing this site I think that's a question for the petitioner as to the likelihood that the C-1 zoning would be needed over the entire property as opposed to maybe looking at split zoning it. If his intentions are to expand the building further to the south, then maybe, depending on how far it goes, he could reserve an area on the southerly portion of this land for parking Under that scenario, you could consider rezoning a portion of the property to the parking classification as opposed to the C-1 Alternatively, if he decides ultimately that he wants to build a new building, it may extend over the southerly portion of this lot, in which case he would want to stick with the C-1 So June 9, 2015 26847 my recommendation is to see what type of plan he develops for the lot and then that will help determine ultimately the exact zoning category and zoning lines for this site, if it's to be anything other than C-1 Mr Taylor. As we all know, it takes about three months for rezoning Mr Taormina Correct. Mr Taylor Normally, the City Council does not approve the zoning until they see a site plan I don't know whether the petitioner knows that or not, but maybe we will hear from the petitioner Mr Taormina I have had discussions with him I think his need at this time is to present to you some type of conceptual layout for how the site would be developed in the future Mr Taylor Thank you Mr Bahr Through the Chair to Mark. Just as a follow-up to Mr Taylor's question, seeing as the Future Land Use Plan is for commercial all the way down Farmington, I think almost to Curtis, what would be the advantage of us zoning it parking versus C-1? Does it really make a lot of difference to us as a city? Mr Taormina It would only make a difference to the extent that if there's going to be a lag between the time when this property is zoned and when a site plan is presented to you for final approval, if you wanted to make sure that the parking remained on that portion of the site and if for some reason you wanted to limit the building to only the north portion of the lot for the addition Mr Bahr Thanks Mr Morrow. Anyone else? Mr Taormina, are they currently using that lot for parking? Mr Taormina Yes If you drive by there on any given day, you'll see eight, nine vehicles parked along that south property line in what I indicated is a temporary gravel lot. Mr Morrow It is not conforming, correct? Mr Taormina Correct. It is my understanding that this was done without any permits, and that's the reason why the Engineering Division has indicated that they will have to come back with plans for the proper drainage June 9, 2015 26848 Mr Morrow- Okay If that's it, I will go the petitioner now and some of these questions can be addressed We will need your name and address for the record please Aaron Verant, 20203 Edgewood, Livonia, Michigan 48152 Delores Verant, 19205 Glen Eagles, Livonia, Michigan 48152 Mr Verant: I think Mark did a good job of explaining this I just want to say a few things Originally when I bought this property, I was thinking that I could quickly attach the building to the house and expand my business and do that affordably I ran into some issues working with the architect, a few being that there was an elevation difference between the house and the building The age of the house would have taken significant enhancement to improve Also, I would have probably ran into a parking issue had I expanded that. So I decided at that point to halt those plans and then put a tenant in that house, and then kind of just use the parking just for employees I did, to answer your question, Mr Morrow, I did contact the City and I was under the impression that it was okay that I expand my parking lot and just park cars there And later on I found out that wasn't the case, that the city wants it to be rezoned commercial I do have intentions of expanding the business Like I said, I'm a Livonia resident. I have a commitment to this property in investing in it and I really want to enhance it. I'm looking at some options right now, but as more options come, they become more expensive So I'm kind of just trying to focus on my business right now and pay down debt and look for the future One option would be to go to the south It's probably my best option which would mean taking the house down So right now, that's kind of where I'm thinking, but conceptually, I'd like to obviously just get this rezoned the way it is right now as C-1 if possible I didn't see a point to necessarily rezone it to parking So then I can have flexibility in the future to make my decision on how I'm going to expand this business Mr Morrow Have you outright purchased this or is there any kind of a conditional purchase? Mr Verant. I purchased it. Mr Morrow So you own it as of right now? Mr Verant: Correct. Yep June 9, 2015 26849 Mr Morrow. You say you just rented it to a new tenant. What were the terms of that? Mr Verant: It's a tenant. She paid for a year, so it's up in December I did that, just one year, to buy myself a little time to think of how I'm going to work this in the future She knows that eventually I will be looking to expand the business Mr Morrow. Okay Thank you Anyone else? Mr Wilshaw' Mr Verant, I know I've gone by that business a number of times and have seen cars double stacked in your lot. I believe it's probably employees parking there trying to make available space for customers Explain to us just what you need in terms of parking and why this has come up recently Do you have extra people working there or is the business just doing that well? Mr Verant: We have really grown well over the last five years I bought this building about five years ago It's not a full time issue I'm open 50 hours and really my issue is Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, kind of mid-day when I have a shift coming in and a shift going out. And then we just have a few hours of the problem So purchasing the house next door alleviated that and then also will give me the opportunity in the future to expand because I'm not quite at capacity yet but I'm getting close, which then will afford me the opportunity to grow and expand it. Also, I would really like to give the place a nice face lift too So the business right now is going well and time will tell if I can make that happen Mr Wilshaw' Definitely from what I can tell, your business is doing well That's a good problem to have and I hope that we can come to some sort of a good solution to allow you to continue to operate and look to expand in the future Mr Verant. Thank you Mr Taylor. Have you worked with an architect to say what you'd like to do, enlarge the building This seems to me, off the top of my head, that you're putting the cart before the horse That you don't know exactly what zoning you really need because you don't have a plan, and I know you need that parking now I guess you can get a temporary permit for parking, but again, the parking lot has to be fixed and taken care of So it seems to me like in my mind, I would like to table this for 90 days and let you come up with a plan and come back with the kind of zoning you want, C- 1, Parking, whatever June 9, 2015 26850 Mr Verant; As it stands, my plan is to leave it as is, to park cars in that lot, and I'll do what it takes to bring that up to code I do have a well built in It was built to, I feel, city standards but it hasn't been inspected so time will tell My plan is to rent the house out and use that for parking It seems like from my perspective, I need to have it rezoned commercial or parking I wouldn't have an issue with making that lot Parking, P, if that's the issue, however, not the whole area because I do think it may make most sense to build to the south If it's an issue of just splitting up the lot and making part P and part C-1, I'd be open to that, and then I can get anything up to speed That would buy me time because I'm concerned, 90 days, I can come with a plan, but I don't know if I'll be able to implement that plan I'd like to be ready to implement a plan when I develop it. Mr Taylor. What I don't know now is how much parking do you need footage wise? Mr Verant: Well, right now, the 10 spots is fine Mr Taylor. I don't know how we can rezone it. It's got to have a dimension to it. Mr Verant. Okay I can provide that. Mr Morrow. Anyone else? I think you have a successful business and we want to work with you as much as we can We do have our internal dilemmas. As one commissioner, I have no problem with zoning the entire site to commercial It's while we're playing out this one-year wait, unless Mr Taormina can assure me that the City has no problem having nonconforming parking on a residential lot, but I think we're trying to figure this out. Mr Taylor suggested tabling it. It might give us a chance to figure out what's going on here because I wasn't aware that you had signed a new one year lease with a tenant, which backs things up Also when you bought a residential lot, there's also either a wall required to the south or some sort of berm barrier to the residential So Mr Taormina, any thoughts on that? Mr Taormina I don't think it's advisable to extend this over a long period of time without some resolution on the zoning, but it does, as Mr Taylor indicated, make sense to have some idea of where that line should be drawn between potentially a parking zone and a C-1 zone That can easily be done We can do that and bring it back to you easily within two weeks or 30 days That way you can make a decision As far as going beyond that for the use of June 9, 2015 26851 this lot for parking purposes, if Council doesn't follow through ultimately on the rezoning, then I think he's forced to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a use variance That would be his only other option The zoning is the way to go here, and hopefully, he will bring back a plan that is acceptable to you and it can then move on to Council for final resolution If he needs the lot to be gravel for a period of time, he can appeal that decision to the Engineering Division I believe they have the authority to allow a temporary gravel parking lot for a certain length of time Mr Morrow. I think we've done that in the past. Mr Taormina Yes, we have Mr Wilshaw. Through the Chair to Mr Taormina, if we were to rezone this property to C-1 tonight, for example, which is what the petitioner is asking, they still have to come to us with a site plan showing where the parking is going to be, where the barrier will be between their lot and the residential lot, either a wall or landscape or whatever it may be They still have to come to us with that plan Mr Taormina. That is correct. Mr Wilshaw. Then that plan, once approved by us, assuming it's just showing the house staying where it is and 10 parking spaces for now, that becomes binding for them to hold that, to stick to that use until such time in the future that they may come to us with an alternative site plan showing an expansion of the building itself Right? Mr Taormina. That is correct. Mr Wilshaw. That's how I thought this was going to play out, and frankly, I think that's perfectly fine to do it that way because I think we're maintaining control of the process by doing that, making sure that nothing is being done inappropriately or the way the City wouldn't want it to be done It also allows the petitioner to move forward with their needs That's my thought at this point. Thank you Ms McIntyre Mr Chair, a request for clarification which may result in a question through you to Mr Taormina Are we being asked to rezone this but there would still be a residential structure there with someone living in it through December? June 9, 2015 26852 Mr Morrow. Yes Ms McIntyre How does that work, Mark? Mr Taormina It would be a lawful non-conforming use of a building if there is a change of zoning Ms McIntyre Okay Mr Taormina. To the extent that it's lawful today, it would remain lawful although non-conforming, but they could continue that use, just not make any significant changes Ms McIntyre Okay Thank you Mr Morrow. If it weren't for his using that as parking, there would be no problem Ms McIntyre Right. Mr Morrow- He can get the zoning and leave the house there forever, but because he's using a non-conforming parking lot, as Mr Taormina suggested, he could get relief through the Zoning Board of Appeals Mr Taormina. And I'm not recommending that. In fact, while that would be the only other alternative I see here, I would not recommend that because I'm not sure he would be successful in obtaining a use variance Ms McIntyre Thank you Mr Morrow. Thank you Mr Taylor Through the Chair to Mark again Mark, if we go ahead and approve the C-1, and then they come back with a site plan and then they say they want parking here, do we have to have another public hearing for the parking? Mr Taormina A public hearing would not be required to the extent that it complies with the zoning It would be treated as a site plan So there would be a public meeting, but it would not require re- notification You're saying if you wanted to down zone it to Parking at a later date? No We would consider that a less intensive zoning district from the C-1, which should not require re-notification June 9, 2015 26853 Mr Morrow. Anyone else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Bahr, and adopted, it was #06-26-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 9, 2015, on Petition 2015-05-01-04 submitted by Aaron and Angela Verant, pursuant to Section 23 01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 19005 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from R-3, One Family Residential, to C-1, Local Business, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015- 05-01-04 be approved for the following reasons 1 That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area, 2 That the proposed change of zoning would provide for the development of the subject property in a manner that is consistent with its size and location, and 3 That the proposed zoning change does not obstruct the goals, policies, and objectives of the Future Land Use Plan FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended Mr Morrow. Is there any discussion? Mr Wilshaw. I think I already stated my feeling on this, but just to clarify This is a rezoning at this point. The site plan will still have to be formulated by the petitioner and brought to us detailing specifically how they want the site in terms of the parking, walls, barriers, any of the other elements that need to be provided by to the City And this would go to City Council, and as we know, the City Council typically will not approve a zoning change until they have the completed site plan So this is a first step in a multi-step process I don't think that we're presenting any undue June 9, 2015 26854 hardship to the petitioner or to the City by approving it at this point. Thank you Mr Bahr. My thoughts would echo Mr Wilshaw's just add on to that as I feel more comfortable doing this just looking at the Future Land Use Plan and seeing what the plans are for Farmington Road and this fits within that. I just wanted to add that on to what Mr Wilshaw said Mr Morrow Thank you Anyone else? May we have the roll call? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES Wilshaw, Bahr, McIntyre, Smiley, Morrow NAYS Taylor ABSENT None ABSTAIN None Mr Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution Do you have any questions before you leave? Mr Verant: Yes, I do have a question So, what I hear is that City Council will need a site plan Mr Morrow. The site plan will come here first. Mr Verant: Okay And I would lay that site plan out as is now, not necessarily how it will be in the future In essence, I'll might have two site plans in the next couple years possibly Is that how I understand it? So I'm presenting a site plan the way it is, but yet I need to add the extra requirements as far as barriers go Will I be explained what those requirements are? Mr Morrow. I would suggest, with Mr Taormina's approval, is that you work with the Planning Department on coming up with a plan Mr Verant: Okay 1 Mr Morrow Do you have any problem with that, Mr Taormina? Mr Taormina. No, not at all Mr Morrow. We appreciate you doing business in Livonia We're trying to support you as much as we possibly can to serve not only your interest but also the City's interests With that, good luck at the June 9, 2015 26855 City Council, and sometime down the road you'll bring us a site plan which we will review and in turn send that to the City Council who will be holding the zoning until they see the site plan Ms Smiley. Just for clarify, you understand that it was approved tonight and it's going to on to City Council, just the zoning Mr Verant: Yes, but with a site plan though Mr Taormina I'll explain all this to the petitioner Mr Verant: Okay ITEM #2 PETITION 2015-05-02-06 HEALTH & FORTUNE Ms Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 05-02-06 submitted by The Health & Fortune, L.L.0 requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11 03(u) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a massage establishment (Wu Xing Acupressure Massage) at 17800 Laurel Park Drive, located on the northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 Mr Taormina This is a request to operate a massage establishment pursuant to Section 11 03(u) of the Zoning Ordinance The location is the Laurel Park complex, which is generally situated at the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads In 2012, the same petitioner received approval to operate a massage establishment within Laurel Park Place mall The original massage therapy business is still in operation and is located at the north end of the main concourse of the mall near Carson's Department Store Wu Xing is now looking to relocate to a new location within the Laurel Park complex, a move that would basically coincide with the expiration of Wu Xing's lease at the mall The new location is still part of the Laurel Park office and retail complex; however, it is on a separate parcel that is under different ownership So it is not technically within the mall, but it is still a part of the overall Laurel Park office, retail and entertainment complex. This new space is near the Phoenix Theaters situated between the parking structure and the Laurel Park offices This is an aerial that shows the mall on the right hand side and the Phoenix Theaters and the offices are on the left hand side The yellow highlighted box is the approximate location of where the new establishment would be located The June 9, 2015 26856 map gives you a good overview of where the current location is within the mall It indicates Parisian, but that's an older plan That us now Carson's Department Store The notation on the left hand side shows where the new place of business would operate The new space is about 1,800 square feet in size The distance between the two is roughly 250 feet. No exterior changes or modifications would be made to the building The ordinance requires that any new massage establishment not be located closer than 400 feet to any other existing massage establishment. As previously mentioned, where Wu Xing currently operates is within 400 feet of the new location However, the 2012 approval does not automatically extend the waiver use to a new user at that location or anywhere else within the mall Thus, as it stands now, once Wu Xing vacates their current space, they would be in compliance with the 400 foot separation requirement. If approved, any future consideration of re-occupancy of the old space by a massage establishment, whether it's Wu Xing or any other operator, would not be in compliance and would require City Council to waive this requirement via a super majority vote The only other requirement that the ordinance mentions relative to separation is within 400 feet of a school, place of worship, or state-licensed day care facility This petition is in compliance with that requirement. With that Mr Chairman, I'll read out the correspondence Mr Morrow- Yes, please Mr Taormina There are four items of correspondence The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 14, 2015, which reads as follows "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time The legal description provided with the petition appears to be correct and is acceptable to this office The existing parcel is assigned an address of #17370 Laurel Park Drive North All businesses located within the mall should use the address of #37700 Six Mile Road along with the appropriate suite number The existing building is currently serviced by public utilities which should not be impacted by the proposed waiver use, so no Engineering Department permits will be required " The letter is signed by David W Lemon, PE, Assistant City Engineer The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 2, 2015, which reads as follows "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a massage establishment on property located at the above referenced address We have no objections to this proposal with June 9, 2015 26857 the following stipulations (1) Chapter 38, New Business Occupancies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways and Extinguisher Requirements, NFPA 101, 2012 (2) These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process " The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 15, 2015, which reads as follows "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition I have no objections to the proposal " The letter is signed by Joseph Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 8, 2015, which reads as follows "Pursuant to your request, the above- referenced petition has been reviewed The following is noted (1) The existing location would not be permitted to be maintained as a massage establishment as it is within 400 feet of the proposed location This Department has no further objections to this petition " The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection I'll note too, Mr Chairman, and I believe each of the Commissioners has received copies of 93 letters of support that have come in over the last couple of weeks Thank you Mr Morrow- Would you care to read those? Mr Taormina. No Mr Morrow Then we will just note that we've received 93 memos of support for the new petition Any questions of the Planning Director? Mr Bahr We talked about this at the study meeting I just want to make sure that I'm clear on it, and it's pursuant to the letter from the Department of Inspection So if we were to approve this new location, they would no longer have the approved use at the current location, and if things worked out that they wanted to come back, they would have to come to us to get approval again Is that correct? Mr Taormina That is correct as long as the City Council does not waive the 400 foot separation requirement. That would mean that only a single massage operator can be in business in either the mall or this location Mr Bahr So the Council could waive it presumably because it's one owner June 9, 2015 26858 Mr Taormina If they waived the 400 foot separation requirement on the basis that they expected another business to remain in operation in the mall, whether it's Wu Xing or somebody else, then yes, two could operate They have that authority to waive that, but in the absence of that, once he vacates his current premises and moves over here, then there can only be a single massage operation Mr Bahr Okay And these things go with the owner, right? Mr Taormina. This goes with the owner That is correct. Mr Bahr So if the owner ever leaves that, then any new massage establishment would have to come through the same process? Mr Taormina That is pursuant to a conditional agreement that was imposed with the granting of the 2012 petition We are making the same recommendation as part of this petition So that is part of the prepared approving resolution for this project. The same as what we did in 2012 Mr Bahr Okay I'll just make this comment now It will save a comment later Just in general, I'm familiar with this business and think very highly of the way this business runs I want to help them out, and I just wanted to make sure I was clear on what exactly we were looking at tonight. So, thanks Mr Morrow Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we will go the petitioner Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please Rick Wang, The Health & Fortune, L.L.C , 37700 W Six Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152 Good evening I'm the representative for The Health & Fortune, L.L.0 d/b/a Wu Xing We have been servicing the residents of Livonia and the surrounding cities for the past nine years We were fortunate to have the City grant us the waiver use back in 2012 It's very unfortunate that we are in front of you today again because our lease is not being renewed, and that's why we're looking for you guys to hopefully grant us a new waiver use at our new location Mr Morrow When will your lease be up? Mr Wang End of July Mr Morrow End of July At that point in time, you will move to the new location if it's approved? June 9, 2015 26859 Mr Wang That is correct. Mr Morrow. Do you plan on moving any time sooner or pretty much coordinate it with the expiration of your lease? Mr Wang I'm not sure It depends on how much work needs to be done to move the existing equipment over It will probably only take a day and half at the most. Mr Morrow We're not trying to pin you down Just an idea Mr Wang I understand Mr Morrow. Do you have any other comments? Mr Wang We were informed by the management company, CBL, that they are no longer going to renew our lease So we have to find a new location Again, like I said, we've been servicing the residents of Livonia and surrounding cities for the past nine years helping customers get rid of their stress and pain I went through the City Council to have everybody approved as massage therapists, as our employees, and we're adding more and more employees So we do have a thriving business, if you will But it's very unfortunate that the landlord did not renew our lease, but we do have employees and family to feed We were very fortunate There's a space available across the hall so we're hoping that - we especially ask for your understanding and support to help us get approved so we can continue to service the residents of Livonia and its surrounding cities Mr Morrow Thank you Ms Smiley. So it's a different landlord? I mean I know it's all part of Laurel Park. You're going from Laurel Park where there's the stores to Laurel Park where there's more offices and the theater Mr Wang Right. It's more of a mixed use of office, theatre and mixed use I think they have a couple retail spaces on the first floor Ms Smiley- And then it's a different landlord? Mr Wang Right. I'm not sure with regard to history, but CBL purchased the property from our current landlord probably nine or ten years ago So they used to be one Ms Smiley. But now there's two different landlords? June 9, 2015 26860 Mr Wang Now there's two Yes Ms Smiley. Okay That was my question Mr Taylor. Is this facility larger than the other one you have? Mr Wang It's about the same size Mr Taylor Same size? Mr Wang Yeah, about the same size Mr Taylor. And if you did get your lease renewed for one reason or another, would you keep both places? Mr Wang We would like to We are busy enough Initially we were talking with CBL about renewing our lease We are looking for a bigger space because we do have it's unfortunate that the customers have to wait because we're that busy, and so I think we do have enough room to expand Mr Taylor I know I've never seen so many emails come in approving and like the business that you're doing There were at least 75 emails I was surprised Good luck. Mr Wang Thank you Mr Morrow. Are there any other questions of the petitioner? Well, we have no more questions so I'm going to go to the audience Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Erin Taylor, 42945 Northville Place Drive, #1323, Northville, Michigan 48167 Good evening This is my wife, Nathasja Taylor We have been utilizing Wu Xing's services for almost eight years Cannot emphasize the amount of stress that we undergo in our daily jobs We, ourselves, own a small business and are pretty much working close to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, sometimes it seems We are here to strongly support their approval for the waiver We've watched them grow from a couple employees and, like he said, waiting for massages to help us and it's well worth with it. So we're here again to help, to support them as a fellow small business owner, but also as a patron that fully utilizes their services and gains from that. So we hope that you guys will also support them in that. June 9, 2015 26861 Mrs Nathasja Taylor, 42945 Northville Place Drive, #1323, Northville, Michigan 48167 And I would like to speak in support of them as well I think for that particular type of business, foot traffic matters a lot and I think as well with them being rooted in the community, having existed here for so many years, having a loyal customer base, I think that for most customers or patrons that would go to them, it makes sense They know the general area where they're located They come to expect that in this particular corner of the mall is where that business is and I think it might actually hurt them if they would have to move out of that general area I think there's foot traffic involved obviously so that attracts new customers At the same token older customers, loyal customers, will be able to know where they are and there's a convenience factor as well with it being (a) at the same location as they've been for a long time and (b) there's a convenience factor because it is small and it attracts a lot of people and you can kind of run your errands and get helped with pain or whatever it is that you're coming there for at the same time It's just our two cents Mr Morrow. It sounds like you've watched them grow through the years You've been with them it sounds like right from about the beginning Mr Taylor Absolutely They've grown into a prospering business We've watched them grow from a few employees to many employees now, and it absolutely adds a benefit to the patrons that are coming that aren't necessarily just mall traffic there We come there specifically for that reason Ms Smiley. Just a comment. I noticed your email and that was very nice I want you to know that we do read these That's how I recognized your name, and I appreciate you coming in person to speak because it's nice to connect a name to a face Mr Taylor Thank you We feel very strongly about it. We hope you guys support them as well Thank you for your time Mr Morrow. Is there anyone else? Lesley Knapp, Esq , Kanter & Knapp, P L.L.0 , 31594 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan 48150 Good evening I'm an attorney here in Livonia I'm also a resident of Livonia I'm an attorney and representative for Steven Chen who is from Oriental Chi or 0 Chi, L L.0 Last year Laurel Park Place mall approached Mr Chen because they did not want to renew the lease for the Wu Xing store, and they convinced Mr Chen and his company to sign a seven year 1 June 9, 2015 26862 lease for the property where Wu Xing is currently located in the mall Oriental Chi or 0 Chi is a spa It includes facial massages It includes some reflexology, which is massage with people fully clothed I guess part of the question would be, what do you consider a massage and what's the definition of a massage under the current ordinances of the City of Livonia, but nonetheless, as Mr Taormina said earlier, I believe the two locations are about 250 feet apart and it would require City Council waivers of the 400 foot distance if this is considered massage And again, my client has entered into a seven year lease for that property because, for reasons unknown to us quite frankly, the landlord of Laurel Park Place did not want to renew for Wu Xing So we are speaking out against this I understand a lot of people are very happy with the services that Wu Xing provides, but for whatever reason, their current landlord didn't want them there Steven Chen, Oriental Chi, L.L.0 , 1020 Winfield Court, Southlake, Texas 76092 I'm the Vice President of Oriental Chi, LLC We are in the business for 30 years and we have operations in 16 different states and also we have an operation in nearby city, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for five years now in Briarwood Mall Every year we serve like probably like a million customers nationwide, and we provide a very high quality service to all customers Any petition like we need or we can provide thousands of emails to the City, to the zoning commission guys Any questions you can feel free to ask me I signed like a seven year lease with CBL Property without knowing this 400 feet requirement because we are being all like cities and states and this is the first time happen to us So we feel like we have to come here to explain the situation, you know Ms Knapp If I may, just as an aside, I did speak with Mr Chen about this earlier today Of the 16 states in which 0 Chi has its spas locations, and including in Ann Arbor, apparently Livonia is the only municipality that requires any kind of a use waiver for anything considered massage and has the 400 foot distance requirement. So, again, he signed the lease without, one, knowing that this Wu Xing was going to be so close that they were just going to move basically across a parking lot, number one, and two without realizing that they would have to come before the Planning Commission and City Council for these kinds of waivers And they are now on the hook for a seven year lease based upon the landlord's request that they go in there June 9, 2015 26863 Mr Morrow Well, that's unfortunate that the landlord was not aware of it, that it has to go through the City for the waiver So we assume that you'll be coming with a petition Mr Taormina Mr Chairman, if I may? Mr Morrow Yes Mr Taormina You will have an opportunity to formally review 0 Chi's request as they have submitted not one, but two, petitions to locate within the Laurel Park Place Mall So that is something that we will be reviewing at our next public hearing which is at the end of June Mr Morrow. Right. So you're already in the works to come before us for the waiver Ms Knapp Absolutely We just sort of wanted to give you a heads up, let you know what the status is Again, this is through no fault of 0 Chi They are trying to do what the landlord asks them to Mr Morrow. We'll try to sort it all out when your petition comes forward Ms Knapp Thank you Mr Taylor If I may, just a comment. She mentioned a lot of cities that obviously don't have this kind of a requirement. Ms Knapp Right. Mr Taylor. That's why Livonia is the great city that it is We have some very good zoning ordinances that we appreciate, and that's why this city has been so great for so many years, over 50 years Ms Knapp I would agree with you 100 percent, Mr Taylor, and that's why I live here and have my office here Mr Morrow We appreciate that. Ms Knapp Thank you Mr Morrow. Okay We'll see you further up Ms Knapp Next month I believe Mr Morrow Yes? June 9, 2015 26864 Mr Wang May I make a comment? Mr Morrow. It's your hearing You can make a comment. Mr Wang I think Mr Chen has misinformed his attorney with regards to the CBL approached him to open a massage therapy in Laurel Park Place We have been there since the beginning We were never late on rent. We've been there for nine years Obviously, we renewed our lease more than once What was told to me, if they are going to use hearsay, I can use hearsay Okay? The contract was signed with the corporate headquarters, not the local Okay? The local representative have fought on our behalf to the point where he's almost fired because he said, they're good operators, and they're in the service corridor which no business really never survived and they have thrived there Not only survived, but thrived Okay? So I really think that the attorney is misinformed but then again it's only hearsay Okay? Now, with regard to business practices, we're only looking to service the residents of Livonia and surrounding cities We're not looking to service a million customers outside of this area Okay? That's number one Number two, massage therapy is a very small niche market and the people know each other We understand Mr Chen's business practice Okay? He hostile takeover businesses, and that's what his practice is He goes to a place He scopes it out. They have more than five employees or six employees, so Mr Morrow. We don't want to Mr Wang But I'm just simply stating that's his business practice, and on top of that, none of his employees are licensed through the State of Michigan Mr Morrow. We'll sort that all out Mr Wang I'm just going to inform the City that his practice and how he's going about doing business Mr Morrow. When they come before us, we can Mr Wang Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mr Morrow. Okay Anyone else? Seeing no one else, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion Mr Bahr I appreciate all the comments I always try to make it a practice to try to isolate the extraneous circumstances and just look at June 9, 2015 26865 the issue on its merits, and the way I see this is you have a business that's operated at a very highly professional level for a long time within Livonia and Laurel Park Place in particular and is now looking to move its space Based on those merits, I would like to bring forth an approving resolution On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-27-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 9, 2015, on Petition 2015-05-02-06 submitted by The Health & Fortune, L.L.0 requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11 03(u) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a massage establishment (Wu Xing Acupressure Massage) at 17800 Laurel Park Drive, located on the northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-05-02-06 be approved subject to the following conditions 1 That this facility shall comply with all of the special waiver use standards and requirements pertaining to massage establishments as set forth in Section 11 03(u) of the Zoning Ordinance #543, 2 That this facility shall conform to the provisions set forth in Chapter 5 49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances pertaining to massage establishments, and 3 The Petitioner shall not engage in any form of solicitation for business within the public right-of-ways of Six Mile or Newburgh Roads Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons 1 That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19 06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543, 2 That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and 3 That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area June 9, 2015 26866 FURTHER, the Planning Commission recommends the approval of a Conditional Agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council Mr Morrow Is there any discussion? Does the Petitioner agree to that condition? Mr Wang Yes Mr Morrow' You do approve of the last notation that he made, that approval is a Conditional Agreement? Mr Wang To? Mr Morrow. Limiting the waiver use to the user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council Mr Wang Yes Mr Morrow. Okay Thank you Mr Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution Thank you coming tonight. Good luck. ITEM #3 PETITION 2015-05-02-07 PANDA EXPRESS Ms Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 05-02-07 submitted by Panda Express, Inc requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11 03(c)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Panda Express) at the Livonia Commons shopping center at 13507 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26 Mr Taormina This proposal is to construct and operate a full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities within the Livonia Commons shopping center located at the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads Going back a little in the history of the development of this site, it was a couple years ago, in December, 2013, that plans were officially approved for June 9, 2015 26867 the redevelopment of what was at the time a vacant commercial shopping center The project involved renovating the exterior of the shopping center, constructing an addition to the north end, as well as constructing a new freestanding multi-tenant retail building in the southeast portion of the parking lot adjacent to Middlebelt Road The plans approved at that time also showed the future development of an outparcel in the northeast corner of the site that was identified as a "future restaurant" This is what the Planning Commission approved back in 2013 It's a blow up of the future development of a restaurant on the outparcel that we're reviewing tonight. The proposal before you is to develop the outparcel with a full service restaurant, Panda Express It would have 56 interior seats as well 16 outdoor patio seats for a combined total of 72 seats In addition, the restaurant would include the operation of a drive-up window It is a one-story building with a gross floor area of 2,593 square feet. It would be setback roughly 70 feet from Middlebelt Road The drive-up window is shown on the south side of the building The traffic lane serving the drive-up would commence on the west side and loop around to the south side of the building The ordinance requires that there be a sufficient amount of waiting or stacking spaces provided at the drive-up at a rate of at least four spaces, not including the car at the window This plan shows eight spaces, so it complies with the ordinance The drive-up lane is required to be 10 feet in width The current plan shows it at 12 feet, so that too is in compliance The drive-up is required to have a bypass lane or other suitable means to access a public street for vehicles that choose not to use the drive-up window The latest plan shows a bypass in the form of a curb opening that would be provided before the order window This opening will allow cars to exit from the drive-thru queue without having to wait. The landscape plan probably shows this best of all You'll notice on the plan the opening on the south side that would allow cars that are using the drive-thru lane to exit from that lane before actually committing to go all the way to the order board or the pickup window That lane would exit into a two-way aisle that provides for exits to other portions of the mall as well as to Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads There are no additional curb cuts shown to either Middlebelt or Schoolcraft Roads The development of this site would rely on access from all the existing drive approaches at the Livonia Commons shopping complex. This is a plan that shows the location of the restaurant in relation to the existing buildings on the site It also shows you where those drive connections are to each of the adjacent roads, Schoolcraft and Middlebelt. There are a number of connections as well as Industrial Road on the south side of the property In terms of required parking, this is based on a group June 9, 2015 26868 commercial shopping center requirement where there are more than four establishments That requirement is 1 space for every 150 or 160 square feet of useable floor space where 15 percent or less of the gross floor area is devoted to restaurants When you add all the space together and divide by those factors, the total number of required spaces is 793 Provided on the plan is 701, leaving a deficiency of 92 parking spaces Of that shortage, 62 of the 92 were previously approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals as part of the original site plan, which would leave a deficiency of 30 spaces and require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals Just to recap, required are 793, proposed overall 701 The Zoning Board of Appeals previously approved a variance for 62 parking spaces That leaves a remaining deficiency of 30, which will have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval In terms of the landscaping, this too is an improvement over what you saw at the study meeting They've added a number of trees, including four Red Oaks and three Sergeant Crabapples, for a mix of full size trees and ornamentals, as well as a variety of shrubs, mostly along the perimeter of the site All the lawn areas shown would be sodded and maintained with an underground irrigation system There is no separate stormwater detention required for this development because that was provided with the plan that was approved in 2013 Following comments and direction provided at the study meeting, the exterior of the building has been modified to include more maintenance-free materials, especially along the lower part of the building This includes a combination of both dry stack stone as well as red brick, brick that would match some of the brick already in use at the shopping center There is also ACM or Aluminum Composite Material, both a silver and a red finish The horizontal banding on the elevations rendering, that would be the ACM and then the red around the entranceway, that was changed from EIFS material to now include the ACM The CMC tile is shown in some of the darker areas along the site That area where the vertical pattern is, that is what is referred to as CMC tile material In terms of the height of the building, it is 22 feet. The ordinance allows for buildings in this zoning district to be up to 35 feet. We're uncertain if any of the roof-mounted equipment will be exposed and how that will be covered or if the parapet is tall enough to cover all the equipment or whether or not they'll use additional shielding, but that will be a condition that we recommend Lastly, in terms of signage, the renderings show the extent of wall signage that is proposed for the restaurant. They are allowed one wall sign not to exceed 40 square feet in area The plan shows two wall signs, one on the east or front side facing Middlebelt Road That appears on the rendering as a circular sign on the shorter wall of the building facing Middlebelt Road That sign is roughly 38 square feet in area Then there is June 9, 2015 26869 another sign shown on the north side of the building facing Schoolcraft that is 65 square feet. That's where it says "Panda" on that side of the building That's the north elevation where the entrance is located When you add those together, it totals 103 square feet. What that doesn't include is the panda mural that you also see in these renderings on the northeast corner of the building above the entranceway The plan also shows a 25 foot high pole sign, which would exceed the ordinance limit of 6 feet. All the signs shown with this proposal would have to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals With that, Mr Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence Mr Morrow Mark, before we leave that and we're waiting for Margie to come back with the material board, I notice that they put in some new traffic control signage Mr Taormina. That's correct. Mr Morrow- Would you point that out? Mr Taormina. Yes And I'll let the architect do that as well, but I'll just go over it very briefly The staff analysis that we provided you late last week included correspondence from the architect that identifies all the signage, but they're shown both at the exit as well as from the drive-thru There's "do not enter" signs provided where there's that bypass lane to prevent cars from going in because that's a one-way direction They're going to be discouraging cars from turning right as they exit the drive-up window Some signage will indicate "left turn only" and we've had a discussion with the engineer on the possibility of modifying the alignment of the curb by extending it a little further to the north, creating what the industry calls a "bullnose" curb in order to direct vehicles to turn left out of the drive-up as opposed to right. So what that would do is help cars as they leave the drive-up to turn left and circulate all the way around the site to exit out one of the driveways, either to go to Schoolcraft Road or to the drive aisle on the south side of the property The reason for that is, and you'll see the difficulty that would be created, the County required this elongated median at the main drive approach coming in off of Middlebelt Road So you can see the problem that would be created by vehicles exiting the drive-up, wanting to turn right, and then loop around that narrow curb in order to exit out of the site on Middlebelt Road going south To prevent that, again, what we're suggesting is taking this island and modifying its shape to kind of force vehicles to push them left. That plus the signage should address that situation hopefully to your satisfaction June 9, 2015 26870 Mr Morrow. Okay Thank you Mr Taormina. I'll leave that for the architect to describe We now have the material sample board Mr Morrow. So please go ahead and read the correspondence Mr Taormina. There are four items of correspondence The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 22, 2015, which reads as follows "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time The legal description provided with the petition appears to be an older version of the entire Livonia Commons development and should not be used The legal description included on sheet C- 1 0 of the Supreme plan set appears to be the current legal description for the development and should be used in conjunction with this petition The existing parcel is assigned a range of addresses from #13417 to #13701 Middlebelt Road. The address of#13701 Middlebelt Road has been assigned to the proposed restaurant location The proposed parcel is currently serviced by private utilities that were placed during the Livonia Commons development. The utilities were designed with a restaurant planned for the outlot, so no adverse impacts should be seen Since the development will not be disturbing public utilities, and no work is planned within the road right-of- way, it appears that no Engineering Department permits will be required We would request that the developer submit plans to this department prior to construction to determine if Engineering Department, or Wayne County permits will be required " The letter is signed by David W Lear, P E , Assistant City Engineer The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 2, 2015, which reads as follows "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate a full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) Chapter 12, New Assembly Occupancies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways and Extinguisher Requirements, NFPA 101, 2012, (2) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE— NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction, (3) We recommend the installation of a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver June 9, 2015 26871 from Ladder Tech, LLC or an equivalent." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 19, 2015, which reads as follows "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition I have no objections to the proposal " The letter is signed by Joseph Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 9, 2015, which reads as follows "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed The following is noted (1) Two parking spaces are required to be designated for drive thru customers. (2) A bypass lane is not provided for the drive thru lane This may be waived by a super majority of Council (3) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the excess signage proposed The pictures of the panda located above the entrance will be considered as signage also This Department has no further objections to this Petition "The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection I'll note that he based his letter on a previous proposal before there was a bypass lane shown So the curb outlet is now provided so I think that addresses his concern Thank you Mr Morrow. Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr Taylor. Through the Chair to Mr Taormina Mark, what is this ladder they're talking about? Mr Taormina, I think that's the same thing we had a couple weeks ago It's just an access to the building to get to the roof Mr Taylor They have to get up on the roof or something? Mr Taormina Yes, they typically will provide it on the backside of the building Mr Taylor. They have a pylon sign, also Right? Mr Taormina They do show a pylon sign which is something that would not be permitted at the height shown In fact, I've got to check with our Inspection Department because we're treating this as an overall shopping center that was entitled to a certain number of monument signs The development may already have their maximum number of signs allowed We're going to have to check back on what they're entitled to in terms of a monument sign I don't know if you want to treat that item as a callback item or refer that to the City Council or Zoning Board of Appeals, but I don't have the answer on that sign I will tell you that given its height, it definitely exceeds the ordinance June 9, 2015 26872 Mr Morrow- Anything else before we call on the petitioner? Please come forward and we will need your name and address for the record please Todd Fleming, GreenbergFarrow, 630 Freedom Business Center Drive, Third Floor, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 I'm here on behalf of Panda Restaurant Group With me tonight, I have two employees of Panda Restaurant Group, to my left, Hakim Yala as well as David Wang First off, I appreciate your time tonight. I can honestly say I have nothing to add based on Mark's introduction there He covered everything Just to reiterate a couple of key points here We went back, based on the comments of the work session last week. We did add in that bypass lane We did add in some traffic control signs to further address the concerns with traffic coming out of that drive-thru I did speak with Mark earlier, I believe yesterday, about adding what we'll call the bullnose coming out of the driveway We had no problem complying with that. That makes sense In terms of the architectural side, we did understand your comments about incorporating some red brick. We have incorporated a lot of red brick. To be honest with you, this is something I've never seen from Panda, so we have made a lot of progress with that. Some other concerns you guys had with the building elevations was the El F S extending down to the ground level We have remedied that by installing in some areas six foot high dry stack stone with cap Other areas we've extended a 2'2" band along the bottom to eliminate that concern as well In terms of Panda as a whole, they are based out of Rosemead, California There's not too many stores in this general area, but company- wide, they have roughly 1,800 stores across the country Of those 1,800 stores, 500 are free-standing drive-thrus like you'll see here In terms of their growth plan, we're very excited to be affiliated with them They're looking at doing 120 stores per year across the country So these guys are really looking to grow You may not be familiar with them now Give them another year or two, you guys will be very, very familiar with it. Other than that, I did bring you guys some menus so you're aware of what they sell I'll hand them out to you Two new stores were opened in the Greater Detroit area within the last year Four are under construction right now, and eight more are within the colleges in the area So that would be 14 within the general area right now Mr Morrow' Where are the closest ones that are open? Mr Fleming Allen Park opened in December of last year Mr Morrow' Why don't you go over the material board? 1 June 9, 2015 26873 Mr Fleming The primary materials here, we have the E I F S Two colors right here Besides that we also have ACM, the Aluminum Composite Material, which will be the silver bands in that northeast view right there running left to right. There is also a red Aluminum Composite Material around the front door In addition, we did add the red brick. The exact spec I can't give you but I can confirm that we are going to match the exact red brick used in the Livonia Commons shopping center Running along the bottom there, along the band, you see the dry stack stone with the cap Other than that, along the front there is a lot of window, 22 foot height like we talked about, and that's it. Ms McIntyre These elevations where you show the vegetation, and I couldn't collaborate from the landscape plan, those are real Right? Those are live plants I couldn't see that in the landscaping plan and I know in your Allen Park store and I think in the other photos we have seen, you used the very stylized bamboo, you can't really see it. Mr Fleming The bamboo Ms McIntyre The very stylized faux bamboo, right? Mr Fleming Right. That has been removed from the recent prototypes so you won't see the fake Any planters around the building themselves would be real Ms McIntyre I couldn't see that specifically on the landscape plan, but I like that. I thought that looked nice, a little bit of green, but you can't really see it, but that's a faux bamboo Hakim A. Yala, Project Manager, Panda Express, 2242 Downing Avenue, Westchester, Illinois 60154 I'm the construction manager with Panda I'm based in Chicago, and that's my boss, David Wang He flew directly from Los Angeles where we have headquarters there The design for the bamboo, we just every year we try to improve the design and make it a better design So for the bamboo, we eliminated that. We never use fake plants We use real plants with sometimes rocks in them I'm sorry to interrupt in the middle, but just quickly, first of all, it's a family-owned company We are recognized as a world leader in people development to inspire our guests, which means the guests are the customers This great company, what stands out from different corporations, is family-owned and they work really, really hard in improving and developing people and being involved a lot in the community For example, last year they June 9, 2015 26874 gave $10 million for we have a Panda Care, a big organization where we gave $10 million, and just yesterday, what they did, they call it family day where you bring your family, you bring your friends, and I think, I don't remember the proceed percentage, 10 percent, we collected to feed the hungry people and the owners will match the proceeds from the sales And we're looking forward to being in the community By the way, I just started construction in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, Bay City, Jackson, hopefully Sterling Heights will happen this year and we opened Rochester and Allen Park last year Thank you Mr Morrow Thank you Earlier we touched on roof-top mounted equipment. Will they be screened? Mr Fleming Yes, the roof-top units I believe are the parapet is what, 48? David Wang, Executive Director, Construction, Panda Restaurant Group, Inc , 1683 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770 Typically, our roof-top equipment is slightly lower than the parapet wall So from the street view, you will not see the roof- top equipment there It's naturally screened by the parapet wall there Mr Morrow. That's what we wanted to determine, if it was screened Mr Wang Yes It is screened Mr Morrow You came a long way to say that. Mr Wang Yes I appreciate your time Mr Bahr To the petitioner, the big panda sign that is inside the building, the mural I assume that's part of your regular prototype Mr Fleming It is Mr Bahr I actually think it looks nice That being said, we do have ordinances we have to take into account, and there are other businesses that we've had that we've had to address this issue in the past. Do you have alternatives if we did have an issue with that? What would those alternatives be? Mr Fleming There is one other alternative where it is a piece of art work, where the panda itself would be removed and it's more of a piece of art. Mr Bahr- Can I go online and see what that looks like? June 9, 2015 26875 Mr Fleming I can provide copies of that to the staff Absolutely It's not a problem Mr Bahr. Alright. Thanks Mr Morrow I think we had the same difficulty at least with some signage on Flemings, the lobster and I forget now what it was Ms Smiley. Mitchell's Fish House Mr Morrow Oh, yeah Mitchell's I'm sorry They were painted on the side of the building I don't know if you've been there or not but that's art that they put there which wasn't counted as a sign Mr Fleming Okay I will definitely provide that alternate Ms McIntyre Just some comments to the petitioner, Mr Chair? Mr Morrow Yes Ms McIntyre I had a chance to run over to the Allen Park location and these photos are from my site visit last week. I really appreciate the fact that you've eliminated four signs from the package you showed us last week to the package you showed us this week. Also there are fewer signs than the Allen Park location has and also really appreciate the change in the drive-thru traffic flow I think that addressed all of our concerns I'm glad to know you have an alternative because as a former Zoning Board member, I know that there's a lot of consternation about size of signs I will say this That element, and I just took some quick pictures, it really does look very nice I'm glad to see the bamboo gone because that kind of crossed the line to a theme park kind of feel And again, I'm not being critical of your design You want unique branding, so in no way is that critical of the aesthetics but I have to say that that sign, and I know they'll count it as a sign, but it really does look very nice It's not garish and I know it's your logo, but anyway it looks much nicer in person, subtle and more artistic than it does in these renderings So I just wanted to say that, but we can't sway the Zoning Board on that. Mr Fleming We like the positive feedback It's always good to hear Ms McIntyre And I went in too, and I was impressed with the cleanliness and I watched the drive-thru operation and I like the way you had marked "do not enter" so everything you told us about how the business operates seems to have been confirmed by my visit June 9, 2015 26876 over there And obviously they didn't know who I was I just walked in Mr Morrow Thank you for the report. We appreciate that. Anything else? Any other questions? Mr Wilshaw Just a comment. I noticed on Ms McIntyre's photos the use of the cultured stone also in the Allen Park location, which is very similar to what is being offered on the plan here In fact, there are some areas that look like they're actually going to go higher than that, which is attractive I think the combination of that plus the additional red brick elements that the petitioner was willing to incorporate into the design actually to me look like it will probably be a nicer looking building than what we're seeing here even in these pictures It's an improvement. I think the fact that the petitioner addressed virtually all the concerns that we brought up and has been very cooperative, speaks to the kind of company that they're going to be, and I hope they're very successful in our community Mr Morrow. Thank you, Mr Wilshaw Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion On a motion by McIntyre, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-28-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 9, 2015, on Petition 2015-05-02-07 submitted by Panda Express, Inc requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11 03(c)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Panda Express) at the Livonia Commons shopping center at 13507 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-05-02-07 be approved subject to the following conditions 1 That the Layout Plan marked C-1 2 prepared by GreenbergFarrow dated June 5, 2015, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, June 9, 2015 26877 2 That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking and any conditions related thereto, 3 That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed fifty-six (56) interior seats and sixteen (16) outdoor patio seats for a combined total of seventy-two (72) seats, 4 That the Landscape Plan marked L-1 0 prepared by GreenbergFarrow dated June 5, 2015, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, 5 That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydro-seeding, 6 That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition, 7 That the Exterior Elevations Plans marked A-200 and A- 201 prepared by Panda Express dated June 5, 2015, as revised, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, 8 That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by the height of the parapet, or screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building, 9 That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained, and when not in use closed at all times, 10 That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a height of 20 feet above grade and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway; 11 That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, June 9, 2015 26878 12 That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows, and 13 That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons 1 That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19 06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543, 2 That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and 3 That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended Mr Morrow Is there any discussion? Mr Taormina If the maker of the motion would consider the elimination of Condition #3 as that has been addressed in the latest plans I think the change they made satisfies that requirement. And then Condition 9, we addressed that with the height of the parapet. So we're going to slightly modify the language of that condition to indicate that they can screen that by means of the parapet wall Mr Morrow Does the maker and supporter approve of these changes? Ms Smiley. I do Mr Bahr Yes Mr Morrow- The approval is there so it has been modified Mr Taormina And Mr Chair, if I may And this is question that goes back to the petitioner Mr Morrow Yes June 9, 2015 26879 Mr Taormina And that is, is that this resolution limits the number of interior seats to 56 and outdoor patio seats to 16 Does that comport with the latest plans? Mr Fleming Yes Mr Taormina Oh, it does Good I just wanted to verify that. Mr Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution We certainly appreciate you working with us Good luck at the City Council level Do you have any idea what your target date is to have it open for business? Mr Fleming As soon as possible The way these guys like to work, as soon as we pull all the approvals, they'll be on site the next week They want to get the door open, if possible this year, but we're tracking toward early next year Mr Morrow. We appreciate that. So good luck. Mr Fleming Thank you so much for your time Ms McIntyre Safe travels We appreciate your coming to be here ITEM #4 PETITION 2015-05-SN-01 TARGET Ms Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 05-SN-01 submitted by Target Corporation requesting approval for additional signage for the Target store located at 20100 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 Mr Taormina. This is a request for additional signage at the Target store on Haggerty Road By ordinance, this Target is allowed one wall sign not to exceed 385 square feet. The allowable area is determined by the length of the building frontage, which in this case is 385 feet. Also allowed is one ground sign at 30 square feet and a height of 6 feet. In 1993, the City granted special approval through the Zoning Board of Appeals for two wall signs, each measuring 170 square feet for a total of 340 square feet. One is on the west side of the building facing Haggerty; the other is on the east side facing the expressway In 2001, the Planning Commission recommended approval for an additional June 9, 2015 26880 "Pharmacy" wall sign that measured 35 square feet. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the request for the additional "Pharmacy" wall sign on the grounds that the petitioner did not demonstrate that a practical difficulty existed, that the alleged practical difficulty does not entail more than a mere inability to earn a higher financial return, and the proposal was not consistent with the Master Plan for the City of Livonia The current petition seeks two additional wall signs a "Pharmacy" sign that would total 36 square feet proposed on the west elevation facing Haggerty Road, very similar to the proposal that was submitted in 2001, as well as a Target logo or a "bullseye" that is about 144 square feet or roughly 12 feet in diameter that would be placed on the north side of the building towards the west end In addition, the petitioner is seeking to move one of the existing Target signs on the east elevation to the north elevation placing it closer to the east end where it would be visible from the expressway Lastly, Target would like to reface the existing monument sign located next to Haggerty Road The existing Target wall sign on the east side of the buildings would be moved to the northeast corner of the building where the wall is angled and where it would be more visible from the expressway The aerial photograph shows how the building is configured If you look at the northeast corner where that angle is, that's where the existing sign that is further along the east side of the building, along the highway side, would be moved to get better visibility certainly from southbound traffic on 1-275 This again is an overview showing the sign locations This is where the "pharmacy" sign would be located I know it's difficult to see, and bear in mind the setback that this building has from Haggerty Road The sign, while it might be visible from the road, would not be so legible I think it's something that probably serves more of an opportunity to persons that are on the site to actually see that sign These are the minor changes proposed to the monument sign Again, it's a face change so it really is not something that falls under your purview necessarily, but it was part of the overall sign package that was submitted And then this kind of gives you a better idea of where these signs are located This is a vantage point taken from southbound traffic on 1-275 If you can see the oval on the left hand side, I think it's very difficult to see on this, but they are showing where they are going to relocate the existing target sign on the angled portion of the building So it's going from an area that's a little difficult to see along the expressway to an area that is highly visible for southbound traffic Then the "bullseye" logo is going to be placed on the north side of the building, but closer to the west end where the entrance is located The existing main Target sign in the front of the building June 9, 2015 26881 over the entrance would remain as is That's pretty much a summary of the proposed changes And we have one item of correspondence from our Inspection Department, dated June 8, 2015, which reads as follows "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed The following is noted A vanance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess signage proposed This Department has no further objections to this petition " The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection Thank you Mr Morrow Mark, is the 144 square feet sign the one on the north wall? Mr Taormina That 144 square feet sign is the one on the north wall Yes Let me see if they've got another view of that. Ms McIntyre There's also a new 144 square feet sign Mr Morrow Yes, there is it. Mr Taormina That is where the "bullseye" would be located, and again, that's just the Target logo that is placed there Sign 4 is existing and remains as is Sign 3 is the one that gets relocated to the angled portion of the building, and Sign 2 is the monument sign that gets refaced Sign 1 is where they would install the "pharmacy" sign Mr Morrow. So the "pharmacy" sign is new? Mr Taormina The "pharmacy" sign is new as well as the "bullseye " So they go from two signs at 170 square feet each, to four signs, adding the "bullseye" at 144 square feet, adding the "pharmacy" sign at 36 square feet. So the four wall signs would now total 520 square feet. And I know you asked the question at the study meeting relative to Costco signage I think you wanted that for comparison purposes Costco has three walls signs at a total of 449 square feet. Mr Morrow- And what's the total on this one? Mr Taormina This is 520 square feet when we add all four wall signs together Mr Morrow Any others questions of Mr Taormina? Mr Taylor Mark, how far is that building off of Haggerty Road? It's a long way I know that. June 9, 2015 26882 Mr Taormina Several hundred feet. You can see how it's angled to Haggerty Road I'm sorry but I don't have the ability to scale that off I'll see if I can provide a rough estimate I would say it's probably over 500 feet from the road Mr Taylor And then the Michigan Outpatient building might be in front of it. Isn't it? Mr Taormina That's more in front of the Costco Mr Taylor Well, if you go further north, it's gone Mr Taormina Target is further north, yes Mr Taylor. Thank you Mr Morrow. If there's nothing else, this is your moment in time Austin Taylor, 3105 Oshay Court, Fenton, Michigan I'm the store team leader at the location we're discussing at 20100 Haggerty Road I appreciate you taking the time to entertain this proposal this evening I apologize at my lack of professionalism with this I was updated very quickly on this and I might not have all the answers that you need, but I'll try to do the best with what I have But just to give you an overview of Target Corporation as a whole and to give you some insight to what we do as far as the communities that we serve, as of last year, we had over one million volunteer hours in the communities that we have physical locations, and of that 800 hours came from our store specifically in Livonia We've given $1 billion back in our "give back to education fund", $50,000 alone from our store came back to Livonia and the surrounding communities that we serve Five percent given back by our corporation since the year we were founded, which is over 50 years ago now Currently, our location employs over 150 team members, and can exceed 200 during the peak time during the holidays We serve well over 2,000 guests a day that come through our doors and shop with us and take care of our team members and our store I guess with that said, when it comes to the pharmacy sign, obviously the health care industry is growing at a tremendous rate with the aging population We do a nice job We really take great value in treating every single guest that comes in our door as a guest and that is not excluded within our pharmacy business, and we feel that obviously identifying that we have a pharmacy within that location would only help those potential guests and future guests to know that we can serve their health care needs and they do have the option within our building to do that. I guess June 9, 2015 26883 with that I'll close and if you have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them Ms McIntyre Thank you for your update and don't apologize You got sent here to do a job and you're doing it. Austin Taylor I do the best I can Ms McIntyre That's all we can ask. No need to apologize Thank you for the information you did have My question is, I understand the pharmacy sign because not everyone even knows now that some Targets have pharmacies Not all Targets have pharmacies, so I think that's very reasonable Do you know what the rationale is for the bullseye? It's my supposition that Target is really moving towards that bullseye as the brand as opposed to the letters That is a big addition The monument sign, I think, looks great. I think that freshens up the look and I think it's a great idea to move your sign Just full disclosure I was on the Zoning Board and was generally pro sign variances when they helped a business establish who they were or provide directions to customers I think you're well established in that location The building is very visible So I'm just wondering if you know what the rationale is for adding another significant sign? I understand Costco has more signage that you currently have Austin Taylor. It's just to combat the competing environment that we work within The pharmacy sign I agree with 100 percent. Obviously just informing them that we have that service to offer Not moving the sign has a lot to do with those trees that weren't nearly that big when we put that sign in and that's a great way to just take care of that without having to cut down trees The additional bullseye, again from a brand recognition standpoint, I think would be a great asset to us, and again, the environment's changed in the last 20 years since we originally put the structure up So again, just giving us a fair playing field with the other retailers We've got Meijer across the street. We've got Costco in the same parking lot. There's a lot newer structures out there, including another one in Livonia that has more of that just single bullseye logo and as our guests evolve, try to keep up with that so we have consistency across the board Ms McIntyre I feel that the size of it really pushes you from a little bit over to very significantly over, but I understand that Costco has more signage than you do, but that is a large sign It's not our job to vote based on what we think the Zoning Board is going to do, 3I6 3 June 9, 2015 26884 but I do think that will be a significant choke point for the Zoning Board Austin Taylor I would imagine we can probably address that at a point in time Maybe there's a concession - we can size that down a little bit so it's more comparable to the surrounding buildings I'm sure there's something we can come to agreement on with that. Ms McIntyre Thank you Ms Smiley. Only that you'll be like 70 square feet over Costco Ms McIntyre That will push them over Ms Smiley. Yes, way over I love my Target. That happens to be my Target. Austin Taylor Thank you We appreciate your business I appreciate your business and my children enjoy eating because of you So thank you Ms Smiley. But I find the signage excessive I do like your new monument sign It' very attractive, and I can understand why you would take it off of the one side and try to move it, but I think you kind of over-done it, as one commissioner Joe Taylor Mark, was I correct. You said 520 square feet? Mr Taormina That's correct. Joe Taylor. And Costco is 449? Mr Taormina Yes Joe Taylor How large is the pharmacy sign? Mr Taormina It's 2 feet in height by almost 18 feet in length Joe Taylor I guess what I'm getting at is you have approximately 80 square feet difference in sign from Costco If you could bring the pharmacy sign down, because I don't think there's too many people that go by and say, oh, there's a pharmacy over there But when you come up to go to Target, which most people do, they say, oh, they have a pharmacy too Most people know it. It's a good idea but I think it could be smaller If it could conform to the same types of signage that Costco has next door, it might give you a little bit of an argument with the Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 2015 26885 Austin Taylor. I appreciate that. Mr Wilshaw Just listening to the conversation and just my own thoughts, I wanted to share as well I echo many of the thoughts that have already been expressed that the moving of the sign on the east elevation makes total sense to make it more visible to the freeway, and I have no problem with the pharmacy sign The bullseye is the one that I have an issue with because it's in excess It's something new and different that we haven't seen before on this particular site I understand that Target is wanting to go to that image for their signage in the future and they're using that on some of their other facilities That being said, if they were to come before us and wanted to change their existing letter sign to a bullseye or incorporate a bullseye into their lettering sign that's a more appropriate size, I would be fine with it, but this package as it stands right now, I'm not in support of in its entirely The elements of the ground sign, the moving of the east sign and the pharmacy sign, those I'm perfectly fine with Thank you Mr Morrow Anyone else? Any comments Austin Taylor No Again, I appreciate your time today I appreciate the feedback on that and I think, at least from my perspective, it's very reasonable I like the fact that we're not having an issue with the pharmacy sign necessarily, which is one of the main things we really wanted to address with this issue, and I'm sure we can come to a solution, whether we downsize the bullseye, whether we change the lettering out to just strictly the bullseye as we move it or if we just eliminate the bullseye altogether I'm sure that one of those three options is more than feasible and something we can come to an agreement on Ms Smiley Should we table this? Mr Morrow Let me see Well, there's no one in the audience so we don't have to cross that bridge With that, I guess we'll leave that up to the Commission and ask for a motion Ms McIntyre I'd like to table this I don't feel like we can give enough conditions I don't know Mark, what's your guidance on this? Mr Taormina My question would be to the petitioner and how comfortable he feels with the Commission making design changes We're making a recommendation on the design Since he understands what the concerns are, maybe it would be better to allow him to June 9, 2015 26886 go back and make the changes to something that he can agree with the corporate folks and the designers because, again, if we start making conditions about size, remember, these things are fabricated in certain dimensions and so it's probably better that he get the input from the sign contractor as well as corporate Do you agree with that? I mean we're just talking probably a couple weeks Austin Taylor Yes, I'm sure we can come back. The main issue, kind of going back in the history, was the pharmacy sign It sounds like that's an okay addition, and the real big discussion is around whether we add that bullseye sign and if we do, what the size is, etc So I'm sure we can come to an agreement. Mr Morrow I would concur with that. Mr Taormina Yes One of the things that I would like for him to take back for discussion with the sign contractor is, on that pharmacy sign, while we don't have a problem with the sign as it's proposed, you're basically proposing the same sign that was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2001 The Zoning Board of Appeals, for the reasons I indicated earlier, had a problem with the sign And when these items come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the first thing they ask is, what has changed? What's different today that wasn't the case back in 2001? So I think he would be well served also to have a discussion about the pharmacy sign I think it was established this evening too that this is a sign that benefits people once they're on the property, not for passerby traffic on Haggerty Road If that's the case, then maybe they can live with an 18 inch tall sign as opposed to 24 inches, thereby modifying the request that I think allows the Zoning Board to reconsider this case I would hate to have them just simply reject this petition by the virtue that nothing has changed between 2001 and today Mr Morrow I'm sure he will take that under advisement. Ms McIntyre I guess the only other option would be for us to remove the approval for the bullseye, but then that would require if he wanted to do that, going through the entire process again Right? Because we could approve it. The other option would be to take out the bullseye from what you've presented tonight, and include just the pharmacy sign Mr Morrow- And we're talking about changing the size of the pharmacy sign too June 9, 2015 26887 Ms McIntyre A whole second process starting from scratch with the bullseye Joe Taylor. This Board can do whatever they want to do, but as you know, it's going to come down to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and as we've done in the past, we can approve all conforming signs, and it's up to them to waive it. I'll go along with the tabling except for the fact that whatever we offer, it's still going to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals Mr Morrow. But what we would be doing is incorporating our thoughts as it moves forward Joe Taylor The only argument I gave you was for Costco All you're trying to do is keep the same amount of signage as Costco has next door It's an argument but I don't know how well it will do with the Zoning Board Austin Taylor. If we eliminated the bullseye from the recommendation, would we be able to go ahead with the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then we could take it from there with them from as far as the total signage square footage goes? Mr Taormina I don't see any problem with that. Mr Bahr I don't know if I've had this situation before, but I'd offer an approving resolution that we do that, minus the bullseye sign Mr Taormina That's fine if he's willing to do that. Mr Bahr Tabling is fine too, but I'll offer that approving resolution I don't know how we handle that procedurally Ms McIntyre There's one other thing, Mr Chair Tabling would give you the option to take everything back to your management and your sign guy and figure out what you want your whole package to look like I think that's the advantage of tabling Mr Morrow The one thing that was introduced was lowering the size of the pharmacy sign height, because as Mr Taormina pointed out, we're just giving them back a sign that they denied once before, but by changing the size of the pharmacy sign, that's something new So I think right now we've kicked it around, so we're just going to see what the motions will produce Mr Bahr Do we have two motions on the table? Mr Taormina You don't have any motion on the table June 9, 2015 26888 Joe Taylor She didn't make a motion There is no discussion on a tabling motion Ms McIntyre I asked if we could do it. Mr Bahr. I'll make the approving resolution minus the bullseye sign On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-29-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-05-SN-01 submitted by Target Corporation requesting approval for additional signage for the Target store located at 20100 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions 1 That the Sign Plan submitted by Target Corporation, as received by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2015 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, minus Sign 5, the proposed "bullseye," which shall be removed from the plans, 2 That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive sign area and any conditions related thereto 3 That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the building or around the windows, and, 4 That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business center closes Mr Morrow. Is there any discussion? Ms Smiley- Did we change the size of the pharmacy sign? Mr Morrow- No, that stays Ms Smiley. Okay Mr Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution Good luck with bringing back the news Austin Taylor. Thank you I appreciate that. June 9, 2015 26889 ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,070TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,070st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 21, 2015 On a motion by McIntyre, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-30-2015 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,070st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 21, 2015, are hereby approved A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES McIntyre, Wilshaw, Bahr, Taylor, Smiley, Morrow NAYS None ABSENT None ABSTAIN None Mr Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,071st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 9, 2015, was adjourned at 9 01 p m CITY PLANNING COMMISSION '1 Carol A. Smiley, Secretary if ATTEST CR, R. Lee Mo row, Chman