Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2012-11-13MINUTES OF THE 1,033 RD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 13, 2012, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,03V 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 Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in wrifing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2012-09-01-05 LORMAX STERN Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2012-09- 01-05 submitted by Lormax Stem Development Company, on behalf of American Community Mutual Insurance Company, pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 39201 Seven Mile Road, located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, from PO (High Rise Professional Office) to C-2 (General Business). November 13, 2012 25430 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone property located at the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads. Its the site of what is commonly referred to as the American Community Mutual Insurance Company. In April, 2010, the American Community Mutual Insurance Company was placed under Rehabilitation and there is a stipulated order authorizing the Rehabilitator to sell the real property at this location. The request is to rezone from the current classification of PO, High Rise Professional Office, to C-2, General Business, in order to facilitate the redevelopment of the property. The property is about 9.40 acres in total area. It includes 715 feet of frontage along Seven Mile Road and 570 feel of frontage along Haggerty Road. In terms of the surrounding land uses and zoning, immediately to the east is the location of the Seven Mile Crossing office complex zoned PO as well as the Andiamo Restaurant, which is zoned C-2. To the north is the site of Romano's Macaroni Gnll, zoned C-2, General Business. Further to the north is the site of the Paragon Entertainment Campus zoned C-2. West across Haggerty Road is Northville Township. Al the northwest corner is the site of Home Depot, and then on the southwest corner is the site of the High Point development currently under construction. To the south of the property is SchoolcraR College. Submitted with the rezoning application is a conceptual site plan that shows how the site might be developed under the proposed C-2 zoning category. The plan shows four buildings. The largest is identified on the plan as Retail "D" and that's 50,000 square feet shown at the east end of the properly. The next largest is Retail "C" at 11,382 square feet and that is shown in the southwest corner of the site with frontage on Haggerty Road. The other two buildings shown, Retail "A" and Retail "B", are both 9,939 square feet and 5,000 square feet, respectively. Retail "A" is nghl at the comer of Seven Mile and Haggerty, while Retail "B" fronts on Seven Mile Road. Patio areas are shown on the three smaller buildings next to the footprints of the buildings indicating a strong likelihood that one or more full service restaurants would be part of the redevelopment of this property. Access to the site is shown from both Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road near the mid -points of the frontages along each of these roadways. Parking and ciroulation would function both jointly and collectively for this site. There is a total of 462 spaces shown on the conceptual plan, which breaks down to a ratio of about one space for every 132 square feet of useable floor area. We would obviously receive more details on the layout of the retail development and restaurants at the time a site plan or waiver use is applied for, assuming approval of the rezoning moves forward. The Future Land Use Plan curenlly shows the site as Office, which reflects the current use of the November 13, 2012 25431 property. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll read out the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated October 30, 2012, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced rezoning request. The legal descriptions provided are correct. The address for this site is confirmed to be 39201 Seven Mile Road. Should this project proceed to the design phase, the following parameters will govern the design. Both Haggerty and Seven Mile Roads are under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. If any work is to take place in the road right-0f--ways, plan reviewsrpermit matters will have to be addressed with that agency. The existing storm water detention area will need to be brought up to current Wayne County standards. The existing ditch, which serves as an outlet for the storm water management area, is a natural water course. Therefore, the City of Livonia will be the review agency for storm water management. Each new building will contain a water meter. The Wayne County Sewer Ordinance requires that any new sanitary sewer become public once it serves more than one building. The City of Livonia wants to avoid having to take jurisdiction of additional sewers. For that reason, the design should have each building take its sanitary sewer lead all the way to the public sewer. If for some reason this is not possible, please schedule a meeting with the Engineering Division to discuss the matter during the early design stage. We are providing the petitioner, for informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, unless written approval is obtained to exceed this amount. This Ordinance also provides information on grease trap6nterceptor requirements. The Ordinance can also be viewed on our website at wwwci.livonia.mi.us." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Law Offices of Gary Bloom, dated November 1, 2012, which reads as follows: "The undersigned is the owner of the historic building located at 39040 W. Seven Mile Road. 1 have reviewed the Notice and want you to know that as the owner, as well as one of the occupants of the building, 1 have no objection to the requested rezoning request of the American Community Mutual Insurance Company building located on the southeast comer of Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road." The letter is signed by Gary M. Bloom, Esq. That is the extent of the correspondence. November 13, 2012 25432 Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there anyquestions forthe staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Kad Zarbo, Lormax Stern Development Company, 6755 Daly Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. Good evening. I'm the Director of Operations for Lormax Stern Development Company, and we are the petitioner. I would like to thank the Planning Commission for this opportunity to speak to you about this rezoning opportunity. We appear before this honorable Commission for two requests, the rezoning of this properly on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty. The request, as Mark indicated, is to rezone from the current high rise office to C-2, commercial. The property is a multi -story 110,000 square foot office building. It currently sits on approximately 9.4 acres, and the office building was home, as indicated, to Amedcan Community Insurance. With the exception of four to six people a day, this site is essentially vacant and has been in a vacant stale for over two years. The property has been on the market attempting to retrofit for office for a considerable pedod of time now. This is a fairly unique building, both from its layout and really from its design. That uniqueness really has presented some challenges to any potential office user. This is a single tenant facility and the reason we're spending the time to kind of illustrate that is because we think that's very important with the direction that we'd like to take the real estate. We believe that the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty is functionally obsolete and economically under achieving. Lormax Stern Development Company is requesting consideration to rezone this property, as it is an under -performing asset, from its current Professional Office to commercial, C-2. We respectfully request this change for what we believe are very sound business reasons. Number one, Lormax Stern Development Company believes that the C-2 commercial zoning is the highest and the best use of this real estate. Number two, we believe that the market interest, and that's the driving factor behind this request, is really what has us here this evening. The retail marketplace has identified this as a good commercial location. The C-2 commercial would really be a compatible use when you evaluate the surrounding uses and when you evaluate the land use pattern. This really would not be a deviation or driven by a spot user. This request to rezone, we believe, more accurately reflects really what the current market forces are that are in play today. We believe that we can deliver an attractive retail site in a campus -like atmosphere. We believe that we can deliver a functional retail site. We believe that we can deliver a compatible retail site. One of the things that we think is very November 13, 2012 25433 important is that we can produce an asset that will restore the taxable value both to the City of Livonia and to its residents. We think in today's climate that is very important. And again, we believe the C-2 commercial zoning is the highest and the best use of the property. Also, our plan, and we are in the early stages, but a sample of the plan was in your package. Our plan really is a downsizing and it unloads the site. By that I mean that we are looking to reduce from the multi -story 110,000 square feel to something in the neighborhood of 77,000 - 78,000 square feel. That's about a 30 percent reduction. While we are here for rezoning, we would like to tell you at this stage of the game at lead, what our future plans are. We plan to demolish the exisfing office building. We plan to rebalance the topography. We will land balance the site. We believe that all of the requirements for utilities can be met within the site. We plan, as you can see, somewhere between three and four buildings - not actually in concrete by any means. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but that's a sample of what we are looking at. With a successful rezoning, we would plan to move forward towards the site plan approval process. I would make the assumption that as you went through your packages, that you had some questions. I guess one of the questions that I would suspect you might have is, why would we demolition the building? What we attempt to do is be proactive in attempting to answer that question for you. We believe the building as it sits today is functionally obsolete. Additionally, we believe that there is enough office space available in this area. We also have determined and believe that the cost to retrofit the building, whether it's to sell or to lease, has become prohibitive, and we think that's why the office market really has and continues to pass on this location. We also believe that there is some reasonable salvage value that would offset our cost to rebuild. I think, as importantly, is that we take a look at what we did at Livonia Mall. Not only was it about salvage, but it was about reusing some of the materials that were there. If you can remember back when we first started that process, the steel was all reused. We milled the asphalt in position. We look many of the materials on that site and made sure that they could be readapted either on the site or knew where they were going before they left the site. We think that's important today. We also believe that the removal of this office product from the market really will enhance the absorption rate in the office field, and certainly we believe that's important to Livonia. I think the next question you may have is why C-2 or, probably more specifically, why retail, and we think there's some pretty good answers to that also. Certainly Lonmax Stern Development Company, we develop really only retail and we like to believe that we do it well. You have a couple examples of that in your November 13, 2012 25434 community, and certainly we have millions of square feel out in the marketplace. I certainly would invite you to lake a look at what we have done and continue to do in the marketplace. But I think what's important is that we listen to the marketplace. Really what we're attempting to do is to respond to its direction. And the interest in this dirt clearly is retail. We think that the location of this site is very, very important to the retailers. You'll hear the term "hard corner." This is a hard corner. There's not a lot of them around. That becomes very, very desimble when retailers look at their scoring for site selection. The site also has some unique features, and the site has very, very strong a.m. and p.m. drive times. By that we mean that the traffic counts for this site are pretty amazing. I've had the pleasure over the years to speak to some of you about other locations, and we've talked in the past about the importance of rooftops. This is not a site where we're really here telling you that, oh, this site is being selected for retail because of rooftops. It's the reason that we really believe this site has some uniqueness. It really is about the drive time that skews statistically very high, and what we're finding with that dnve time is this site becomes on a habitrail. A habitrail is very important to retail, certainly as opposed to site selection for office. What we're finding is with all of that traffic - by the way, it's in excess of 27 minute drive times. It's good statistical information and it tells us that the home to work, work to home, home to school, school to home, that traffic will be there and will look to put this type of a user on their habitrail. The site also has great visibility, and again we would point out how cntical that is to retail. You might drive by a shopping opportunity, but you certainly will go to the office in the morning if its located 100 yards down at the end of a cul-de-sac. This is maximum visibility and that's why the retailers have targeted this. Our research also indicates that there are still retail voids in the trade area and of course our goal is to satisfy those voids and certainly to continue to enhance merchandising mix. So really with all of that staled, we would respectfully request a favorable consideration for this rezoning and certainly would attempt to answer any questions that the Commission may have at this time. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Zarbo. A very fine presentation, and now we'll find out if we have any questions that haven't been answered by you so far. Does anyone on the Commission have a question or comment to the petitioner? Ms. Krueger: This is a big concern of mine, and that's traffic. You mentioned this being in route to office and work and home and school. That's a very busy area. How will this site, being commercial zoning, impact that traffic in the area? November 13, 2012 25435 Mr. Zarbo: Again, one of the things that we illustrated is that what you're looking at, and again, it may not be in the final stage, but the concept is there. That actually unloads this project. Again, if you take a look what 110,000 square fool office building would do, it would put extreme load on a.m./p.m. drive time. Now, if you go back to my earlier comments, what we talked about is, we're interested in the a.m./p.m. drive time, but retail doesn't have that peak load kind of a concept to it. So really, this type of a site, as opposed to office, would balance that. The second piece is, certainly whatever is required for improvements on Haggerty and Seven Mile, we understand we would have to do. We've seen plans of what's being done across the street. We certainly have some anticipation. We have met with staff both from Mark's position and from the engineering, and we believe that's all achievable. We don't see any of that as hardships on us as a developer, but I think more importantly to your question, we don't believe that we will load that traffic. We really believe if you go back several years when this office building was fully occupied, there was way more load there than what we will ultimately end up with on this site. We're really looking at unloading this site. Ms. Krueger: When was the Iasi lime the current building was fully occupied? Mr. Zarbo: Two to three years ago is my understanding. Ms. Krueger: Okay. In my opinion, the traffic has been increasingly worse in the last two to three years. If this has been vacant since then, there's more traffic coming from somewhere. I guess my other question is, are those drive approaches something that you're considering at this point? Mr. Zarbo: The drives are in locations conceptual at this point. They will be reviewed by the City. I also believe that the County will have input as it relates to the distance to the signals and tum lanes if they're required. So that whole concept will be reviewed both by the City and I believe the County also, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Ms. Krueger: Backtothe traffic issue, have you done any traffic studies? Mr. Zarbo: We have not done a traffic study at this point. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Mr. Taylor: Do you know all the zoning across the street in Northville, Karl? November 13, 2012 25436 Mr. Zarbo: I do not Mr. Taylor: Thats one of the things that is kind of bothering me, is what's going on there. If I remember correctly, Schostak had something like 80 acres there that they look. It just bothers me what's going to go in there. I know one thing that the rumor is going in, and I don't think it's a rumor, but it's the Michigan Hospital and how much more retail is going in there, is what really bothers me. I don't think we could gel a better developer than Lonmax Stern. For that piece of property that we're talking about, I'm just a little worried that it may be a little premature of what's happening across the street and how much traffic we really are going to have because whoever you talk to, and your lmffic study might say, and I know the traffic studies will say whatever the person who pays for it will want it to say. We've been around long enough to know that. I'm afraid though that because we also have rezoned some properly next to Costco for restaurants. The tenant was three different restaurants and other retail there. I'm just wondering how busy we're going to make that corner. Right now, Eight Mile and Haggerty is a nightmare. I think everybody wants to avoid that if they can. They line up for half or a quarter mile trying to gel through that intersection. I just don't know if we're a little premature at rezoning this piece of property when actually PO is coming back a little bit from what we're hearing. The office properly is coming back. Housing is coming back. The cost for housing is coming back. I'm just a little worried about acting loo quickly on this property. I think someday it might happen, but right now I'm not fully convinced that l want to support it. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Zarbo, is Lormax Stern considering seeking a brownfeld on this property? Mr. Zarbo: No. We've had conversations from day one with the City, and we aren't looking for any type of incentive, grant, whatever the term would be, because we fully understand that, unlike Livonia Marketplace, our nickel. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. The reason I ask is you use the term 'functional obsolescence" which is a phrase that is obviously very specific to that type of incentive, so I was just curious. I will say at this point, like some of the other Commissions, traffic is probably my greatest concern for this site. It's not often a commeroial developer comes to us and says that we're going to reduce traffic in an area. Typically in a retail or commeroial area, those types of developers want to increase traffic because they want as many cars as they can get in an area for retail purposes. So November 13, 2012 25437 traffic is a concern of mine. The other concern is oversaturation of some of the uses on Haggerty Road. We have of course turned into something of a premier restaurant rightof-way in southeast Michigan along Haggerty Road, both in Northville and in Livonia. There are a number of fabulous restaurants available to ft just about any palate. The problem is that there's going to be a point, and I think we're probably going to get there soon, in which every restaurant that shows up, new restaurant that shows along on Haggerty Road, is not going to be successful. Right now every single one somehow manages to be successful, but there's going to hit a point where we're going to oversalurate the market, and at some point we're going to start having failures of restaurants. I kind of have concern at this point that we may be nearing that oversaturation point, so to add additional commercial to that area does concern me. Is there an oversaturation of office in the area? I don't think so. Not at this point. There is certainly some under use of office space due to the market conditions, but as Mr. Taylor pointed out, some of the office developers have indicated to us and the agents have indicated that there is an increase demand in this area for Class A and prime office space. Anyways, those are some comments for now. I was going to ask you a question why you didn't reconsider maybe redeveloping this as a more functional office space because of your experience in redeveloping sites, but it sounds like Lormax Stem does not really do offices. Mr. Zarbo: I think there's more to it than that. Number one, again, if you've been through that building, it is cleady a single user building. What does that mean? I suppose if you took a look at the way this building functions, to think there would be a business that could use this without really gutting it and starting all over again just doesn't make any sense. I don't know how much time and money you would exhaust to try and find that single user. One of the other things if I may, a great point on competition. Its a strange thing to stand here, but I've told Commissioners across this country, ignore what I say because the toughest cdteda I've seen in 30 years is a retailer score card. And they use a score card for site selection and whatever their criteria is. If their criteda is 100 and this site gets to 99, they're going to pass. It really has become a fairly sophisticated science, and we would just tell you with the amount of retail contacts that we have across this nation. that's cleady where the interest is. We've got a project on Seven Mile and Middlebelt. We've got a project on Six and Haggerty. We really wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think there was retail interest and certainly wouldn't knock the building down if we thought it would retrofit from a cost effective standpoint. November 13, 2012 25438 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you for that information. I appreciate it Mr. Bahr: For my education, you used the lens "hard corner" earlier. I'm not familiar with that term. Can you explain what you mean by that? Mr. Zarbo Hard comer is basically curb to curb. That term basically started years ago with the banks and the drugstores. They believe there is an absolute site selection advantage to being on a hard corner. As you can lake a look through Livonia, there are very, very few hard corners lett. Now, that certainly means more to a retailer in their site selection scoring than it would to an office user. Again, as I say, you'll gel up and go the office lomorow almost in spite of where that office building is located, but you'll pass by a retail location if it isn't convenient to gel in and out of. I think that also speaks to the traffic. We certainly wouldn't invest what this will take to build if we didn't believe we can gel you in and gel you out. Today, it is about convenience. Its the reason we look the roof off and knocked down almost a million square fool down the street on Seven Mile because what the public has told us today is their time is precious. We've got to gel you in; we've got to gel you out. If we can't do that successfully, they won't shop there. So we're really driven to make sure we attempt to salve whatever your concerns are from a traffic and a flow standpoint. Mr. Bahr: A question for Mark, and Mark, I apologize. I should have asked you this ahead of time, so if you don't know the answer then I understand. Do you know how the parking on this, what they're proposing here, and I know we're just looking at a rezoning, but do you know how it compares to what the parking is today at that office building? Mr. Taormina: No, I do not know how many parking spaces are on the office properly. I'm not aware that there was ever a shortage of parking at American Community Mutual Insurance. The concept development plan shows a slight deficiency in the amount of parking based on what the ordinance requires. As I indicated in my report, it translates to a ratio of about 1 space for every 132 square feet. The problem is, if three of those four buildings are full service restaurants, those typically park closer to 1 space for every 50 square feet when you look at the amount of seating and the number of employees. You probably have an issue with parking under a scenario that would provide three full service restaurants. Even with two full service restaurants it becomes difficult to meet our parking requirements. From a practical standpoint, that's another issue November 13, 2012 25439 because not knowing what the 50,000 square fool user is, you don't know how the peak hours of demand actually relate to one another. As I indicated, this is all joint circulation and parking shown on this plan. Mr. Zarbo: It certainly would be our plan, if we were to go forward, to meet all of that criteria. Without giving you exact numbers, I think what we're showing there is somewhat north of 200 parking spaces less than what it currently has. Additionally, again, if a traffic study is required or even suggested, if this is to move forward, we certainly would be pleased to provide that, or on a worst case scenario, work with staff to see what's there and to see what we need to do to freshen from point A to point B to try to gel you some comfort level with that. Mr. Bahr: Another question I have is, do we have an idea what the vacancy rate is for office space for Livonia, but then also specifically for that Six to Eight Mile area? Mr. Taormina: It depends on category of office, but generally speaking, its up around 20 plus percent. Mr. Bahr: Vacancy? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Bahr: For the last two or three years, have you been actively trying to market this property to office users? Mr. Zarbo: We have not. We looked at the site because we deal with retailers all day long, and as we're showing them sites across southeast Michigan, this just keeps coming up. It just keeps coming up for all of the same reasons - the hard comer, the traffic counts, the ability that they believe to fl in this environment without being dismpfive. So the retailers have really brought the site to us. This is the second office building that we've looked at since I've been with this organization, and again, this is not for us to look alfor office use. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. I'm really struggling with this. I'll be honest with you because I think you make a lot of really strong arguments and I share the traffic concerns with the rest of the Commission. I appreciate your thorough presentation. Thanks. Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark Taormina. Do you happen to know what's going on the Northville site? How many acres are there? Is it zoned commercial? Bradley Scobel, Seyburn Kahn Ginn Bess & Sedin, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 1500, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening, councilmen. I'm an attorney. I represent the Receiver of the Seven Mile Crossing properties. If you don't know, if you look at the properly, Seven Mile Crossing properties lie directly to the east over there. There are actually three office buildings and Andiamo's. I'd like to express some of the concerns that we have regarding this proposal, most of which you've already talked about, so I'm just going to briefly menfion them. The two main categories, again, are traffic and parking. All the people who know this area already know that this is a horrible intersection. The problem is we feel that the retail is going to make this problem worse. In going through this, one of the things the petitioner had said was the fact that people will pass by a retail center if It's inconvenient to try and gel in and out of. Well, that's exactly what we think is going to be created here. Its already a nightmare that people try to avoid and that brings me into the next portion that we've got a problem with, and that's parking. Parking in this corner with traffic both work together. It's already an issue. We've only been the Receiver over this property for approximately a month now, and when we've been there, we've already seen a problem with people avoiding this intersection by cutting through the parking lot through the buildings. They cul back and go around to get out of here. We feel that's going to be worse and that's creating November 13, 2012 25440 Mr. Taormina: The development of that property is really under a consent agreement between the developer, R.E.I.S., and the community. It is my understanding that the permitted uses allow for a combination of both retail and office zoning on the property. The first phase of development, as you indicated, is the office component involving the University of Michigan facility. Beyond that, I don't know. I can tell you that the majority of the comer area will be developed most likely with some form of retail, whereas the office part is located a little further west along Seven Mile Road. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: That was a fine presentation. We're familiar with your firm and what you've done in the City. We know you have the wherewithal and the connections to develop that site should we change the zoning. That's why we're here primarily tonight, to decide whether or not we want to change the zoning to your request. If there are no other questions, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speaks for or against the granting of this petition? If so, please come to either podium. We'll need your name and address for the record. Bradley Scobel, Seyburn Kahn Ginn Bess & Sedin, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 1500, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening, councilmen. I'm an attorney. I represent the Receiver of the Seven Mile Crossing properties. If you don't know, if you look at the properly, Seven Mile Crossing properties lie directly to the east over there. There are actually three office buildings and Andiamo's. I'd like to express some of the concerns that we have regarding this proposal, most of which you've already talked about, so I'm just going to briefly menfion them. The two main categories, again, are traffic and parking. All the people who know this area already know that this is a horrible intersection. The problem is we feel that the retail is going to make this problem worse. In going through this, one of the things the petitioner had said was the fact that people will pass by a retail center if It's inconvenient to try and gel in and out of. Well, that's exactly what we think is going to be created here. Its already a nightmare that people try to avoid and that brings me into the next portion that we've got a problem with, and that's parking. Parking in this corner with traffic both work together. It's already an issue. We've only been the Receiver over this property for approximately a month now, and when we've been there, we've already seen a problem with people avoiding this intersection by cutting through the parking lot through the buildings. They cul back and go around to get out of here. We feel that's going to be worse and that's creating November 13, 2012 25441 problems. Right now, we are roughly between 65 to 85 percent in our office space depending on the building. It probably is not a pronounced issue at this moment because everyone cutting through and parking there because of the occupancy, but we are increasing occupancy at this point in time, and this is going to become a real concern to us. Both of these things, we believe, will have a negative, a faidy substantial adverse effect on our ability to operate the property. A couple other things to mention is the Master Plan and the Future Land User Plan both identify this properly as office. We believe it is necessary to maintain this as a very strong Class B office corridor. The Master Plan correctly notes that it was reserving certain office spaces right around where the freeways come because that's where the offices want to be. That's where they need to be. Retail is a destination location. People will drive for that. Offices will not. They want to locate by the freeway and that's the way we attract it. The one thing about this is that it's an excellent location for office uses. The bigger problem comes up when we change this use to something that, to be quite honest, this property seems to be ill suited for this development. We're not against development. Everyone likes development, but in this case, the construction of disposable big box stores does not seem to be the right move for this properly. If we want to stabilize the area, the best way to do this is to keep this as an office corridor. The development across the street is also something that we believe is very likely to increase the desimbilily of this property for office purposes. With the hospital offices coming in, it's going to create more businesses, more office space that need to be by there, and that's one of the reasons why we feel that if we want to not be short sighted and look to the long term stabilization, we will be much better off with having more available office space making this an office corddor, which will now feed off the development, which if you've ddven by there, you've seen it has started. There were a couple questions about what is the desire right now for office space, and I'd like to invite Henry Nirenberg, who is the Receiver, to talk a little bit about what we've encountered so far with concems from tenants and the interest in office property in this immediate area. Henry Nirenberg, Seyburn Kahn Ginn Bess & Serlin, P.C., 2000 Town Center, Suite 1500, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening, Council. I'm the court appointed Receiver appointed by the Wayne County Circuit Court over this Seven Mile project. Generally, I do not appear in public that much. I have my counselors or my partner do it for me. My job for the last 25 years has been to receive these appointed special projects by the courts, to go ahead stabilize the situation between the November 13, 2012 25442 owners and the banks, bring the projects back and restore them to as much as full occupancy as I can, and then get them ready for either the owner to come back and take them over, work out their problems with the banks, or find a new owner. I've been successfully doing it, and this is a very interesting project. I do it in the lncounty area. From my experiences, the building that I've taken over, the Seven Mile project, is a project that we see is going to come along rapidly and increase the tenancy in there. The issue has been market pricing. Because of the issues between the owner and the banks, market pacing is not getting resolved. Now, my job as a Receiver, and I have the authority of the Court to adjust market pricing to get the tenants excited, and I can already announce there's several tenants that want to expand, pick up more floors, and we haven't begun marketing. What I find unique about this corridor, as my counsel has already said, is that Class A, Class B look from that highway that has the attraction. When I'm in the market talking to prospective tenants, they identify Seven Mile by that look already, and they already identify the Amencan Community building by its unique zigzag looking shape as an icon mark. That you'll never gel back. There's no other properties that have the characteristics along Seven Mile that you can repeat. They are all gone. As the neighbor next door, my interest would be to preserve that building to gel the synergies between both buildings to capture and hold onto that market and also, with the right pacing, build up from Schostak's development because obviously it is existing market and new financing. We have the freedom to market price our rents to make it more attractive. So that's what I'm looking forward to, and it's been a successful method of operation that we've used to increase tenancies. I have nothing against the petitioner tonight. Lonmax has a fine reputation but they are retailers. They are in the retail market. I'm in the commercial market. I wouldn't be here tonight if I didn't believe in this. By commercial meaning office market. I truly believe in this project. I've done my homework when I've taken this project, part of the problem with the American Community building, it's been repeatedly marketed to developers of commercial only. It has not been marketed to office users. I gained that knowledge by looking at the Lansing matter that's in the Lansing Circuit Court for Ingham County in which there is a history on the file of the PA's. All of the PA's, except for one, failed. They were developers speculating on this property trying to do retail developments, ran into the bene problem, which has extensive underground that's the most complicated engineering scenario. I called up their prior counsel who explained it to me and it was a logistic nightmare to go through that berm. So I don't think it's accurate to say that it's been marketed to an office user. One office user came in. November 13, 2012 25443 However, when that office user also reported to me, because I asked why they walked away, is because it was on pricing. It's a price issue. It is not a market issue. It's a pure price issue. And office users, theyre out there. It's a beautful building. It can be done. I'm doing it next door. But if you use deterrents on pricing not to lel an office building to sale, it's kind of a self- created problem, and that's what I see. And that was the problem with Kojaian and his bank. It started to become a self- created problem, and tenants not staying, tenants not coming. You know $20.00 a square fool days are gone and you've got to price back and the projects flow and they're great. And then with market timing, as the economy gets better, the prices come back. So l think the comer is a viable project. Its just that it has to be marketed that way and you can self -create your own problem. It's a beautiful building. There are people interested out there, but again, if you want to focus and market to the commercial retailer out there, then you've created your own problem. It's not a problem inherent in the economy. And I gathered that knowledge if anybody wants to look at the court files from Ingham Circuit Court. It spells it out by every user that came in. The other thing, there was a question about the retail chains and restaurant chains. There's a failure just down the street, the Chee-Burger that sits on the big pad. You're right. You're hitting maximum capacity, and I guess from my standpoint, I would like to see that Seven Mile establishes a first class zone, followed by Northville having a first class day hospital, another facility where you now have a whole different look to the city because once the buildings go down, you'll never get it back, and these are icon buildings that bang up that class. Theyre valuable. They just have to be marketed and we're starting to do it next door. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of this gentleman? Mr. Scobel: My conclusion from what has been said before is simply retail is easy. Bulldoze a building. throw up a couple pad sites, move on to the next one. This is nothing against Lonnax Stern. They're a fine developer and what they do is wonderful. But what we have to be careful of is that we're not going to place short terms gains ahead of long term goals. And office property, office use, will be the best long term gain for the City of Livonia and this immediate area. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyquestions of this gentleman? Mr. Bahr: I do have one question. What is your vacancy rate at Seven Mile Crossing right now? November 13, 2012 25444 Mr. Scobel: It depends on which building. We have one building, the worse building is at 65. We have a building at 65. I think we have 73 and 77. And that's actually increasing. We have a number of tenants expanding space. Mr. Bahr: Occupancy rale or vacancy rate? Mr. Scobel: Oh, that's occupancy rale. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Mr. Scobel: The worse one is 65. Mr. Bahr: Sixty-five percent occupancy. Mr. Scobel: Correct. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. James Gerber, C.F.E., Director of Receiverships, Supervisory Affairs & Insurance Monitoring, Stale of Michigan, 611 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909. I'm the court ordered Receiver for American Community. My direct boss is the Commissioner of Insurance for the Stale of Michigan. I have worked for the Slate of Michigan for 31 years solely with the insurance department. I've also been a Receiver for 16 years, and I liked to speak in support of Lonmax Stern's rezoning of this properly. This property has been listed since August, 2010. We have never received one written offer from that point to this time for office space from anyone. Let me assure the Commission that there were people that have been touring the building, looking at it as office space, but there was no interest in that. It is true that's not going to be reflected in the Ingham County court records because every time we show a building, we don't go to the court and ask them for permission to show the building or advise them when somebody doesn't put down a written offer. So basically, at the time that I look over, it might help the Commission to know there were 350 employees. We are down to five. At the height of the employment at Amencan Community, there were 600 employees that came on a daily basis onto the property. There have been a number of redevelopment proposals. The first one that fell through was with Agree Realty, a very fine publicly traded company. We had another offer recently, towards the end of this last winter, that fell through, and then we have Lormax Stern. We have lned very hard to benefit the creditors of American Community. The last remaining creditor are two funds that invested $30 million of individual investors cash into Amencan Community. They will November 13, 2012 25445 not get 100 percent of that money back under any scenario. This is the last major asset to sell to recoup their funds, and they have been waiting for over two and a half years for me to find a buyer. Basically what I'm trying to say is, I am a fine believer the highest and best use of this property is for retail. We have tried to maintain the building as best that we can, but there hasn't been really any interest in @ in office space. I'm trying to do the best job as a fiduciary under Judge Platt over in Ingham County to get the highest and best use for my creditors, in this case the $30 million that was invested by the two parties. So I think getting it rezoned to a different use than what it currently is, is my best opportunity to actually capitalize on that for the benefit of the creditors. Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions for Mr. Gerber? Thank you for your presentation. Chins Brochert, Senior Partner, Lonmax Stern Development Company, 6755 Daly Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. I'd like to make a few statements. Our firm has built over 25 million square feel of shopping center space in the last 25 years. I think that the City of Livonia has personally, or whatever you would call them, a municipality, benefitted by our developments. Seven Mile and Middlebell where we redeveloped the Livonia Mall. I think that you all know that we did an excellent job with that mall. We did everything that we said we were going to do with the mall, and then some. The landscaping is beautiful and we added, well, we subtracted square footage just like we will be at this particular development. I want to point out that we do not just frivolously go after sites on a speculative basis. We have substantial holdings in the Northville/Livonia area. We know when we go after a site like the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty that we will be able to tenant the property properly. Our plans, which will come up at site plan approval because, as you know, we have to go through the City Council, and then when we go through the process, part of the process is that we have to submit to you guys and you have to approve our site plan. At that time, I would like to address all of our concems regarding traffic counts. We will engage services of a professional traffic engineer to perform the tests and studies that will either prove or disprove the viability of our development and the ability to create more or less traffic in the area. The fact of the matter is, the building is 110,000 square feet. When it was fully occupied, there were 650 employees at that site, which if, in the unlikely event that another office user were to come into place and occupy the entire space, the chances are pretty great that there would be 600, 700 people working at the building. That means that between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and November 13, 2012 25446 between approximately 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., you're going to have 650 cars going in and coming out of that parking lot. That's a fad. There's no way around R. Our retail developments spread evenly throughout the day the traffic. So that means you will not have in a two hour period in the morning and a two hour period in the evening 650 cars going in and out of that site. They will be spread out all throughout the day. We, unlike the gentleman who previously spoke, do not look at the adjacent office in the area as a negative. We look at it as a positive. Our developments provide a service for all the residents. Whether it's a daytime resident. meaning that a person who comes into the area to work at an office building or a facility, or the residents that surround the area, in this case because you're on the border of Northville and on the border of Livonia, you have residents from both communities that are going to frequent this development. In terms of the development across the street where the Schoslak's are, they are building a U of M hospital facility there. I don't know whether it's an office building or an urgent care or whatever it is, it's supposedly over 100,000 square feet, and there will be ancillary uses there. I would also like to point out that the retailers, restaurants or other type of users that would come onto this site, we're not leasing space to Cheeburger Cheeburger. We're leasing it to retail tenants and restaurateurs that have hundreds of locations throughout the county. Not only do we do our research, but each one of these individual retailers and/or users also do a substantial amount of research. They also are interested in the traffic because they're not going to just locate a facility in an area where the traffic patterns are such that you can't get in and out of the site. I'd like to close byjusl saying that we still have a ways to go here. If you grant us a recommendation to the Council for approval of our rezoning, remember that we still have to come back before you again for site plan approval where we will have to demonstrate to you that all of what we plan to do will be viable for the community, and you guys will have another choice, another opportunity to look over the plans because right now we are . its been said this is all speculative. We are not speculators. We are here because we have certain plans in mind and we are planning on coming before you once again with these plans for your consideration. Obviously, we will have to comply with whatever the requirementsare. Thank you very much. Ms. Krueger: I have a question. As you are aware, our Future Land Use Map shows this property as it's curenlly zoned. Mr. Brocherl: Yes, I am aware of that. November 13, 2012 25447 Ms. Krueger: So I guess my question is, in a nutshell, why do you believe that a C-2 zoning is better for the City? Mr. Brochert: Well, what I believe is that this property is located square between Six and Eight Mile on a major commercial thoroughfare. Whether or not it's office or retail, the site is a very, very viable site. Okay? For our purposes, we're retail developers. We think that this is one of the best locations for retail in southeastern Michigan quite frankly. The Haggerty Road retail corridor is one of the strongest. We are a partner in the project at Six Mile and Haggerty. We have consistently had 100 percent lease up in the Phase One, and we're in the 90 plus lease up in Phase Two, where the P.F. Chang is. We're here because we think that this is a viable opportunity, and I think viable opportunity for us is a great opportunity for the City of Livonia. Ms. Krueger: Why though? Mr. Brochert: What do you mean why? I dont understand. Ms. Krueger: Why do you think its a viable opportunity for the City? Mr. Brochert: Because we think it's better to have the site occupied and generating tax revenue for the City than sitting there because I can promise you that the office market . . . I have many associates and friends who are office developers who are in dire straits at this time, and especially up this 1-275 corridor. You yourselves know what's going on at the corner of Six Mile between Newburgh and 1-275 north of Six Mile. There is a substantial amount of vacancy there and that is very similar office space to what this is. So where you are right now, you're silting with a property that's generating little lax when we're going to come in and we're going to create a much larger tax base for the community. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brochert: Sure. Anybody else? Mr. Wilshaw: I don't know if you can answer this question or not. The issue of the bene came up. I think it is a worthwhile question. I didn't ask it the first time around. Do you plan on grading this site or changing the site lines of the site to make it better for retail, because right now as it stands the building is hard to see from the road? November 13, 2012 25448 Mr. Brochert: Yes. First of all, it was mentioned earlier that there was a substantial amount ... I think I recall it was said that there was a substantial amount of utilities in that berm. That is actually incorrect. There are no utilities in that bene that would have to be relocated or moved. The bene was built up when they built the office building. Its a boomerang shaped bene. It's deceiving when you drive on the street because it looks a lot bigger than it really is. Our plans would be to definitely cut the berm down because we definitely want to have visibility to the street. When we create our shopping center, we're going to have substantially enhanced landscaping than what is there today, which you'll see when we come through for site plan approval. Our projects are not bad on the eye. Six Mile and Haggerty is a very ... I mean all you have to do is take a look at that development and you're going to have something similar here as well. Mr. Wilshaw: I will say, just as a comment, that when it comes to retail development, Lormax Stem is certainly a premier developer and you've done a great job with the former Livonia Mall site, the Livonia Marketplace, and even Six and Haggerty in Northville is a beautiful site. We know what we're going to gel when we deal with you, that's for sure. Mr. Brochert: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mr. Bahr: One other question. As I'm thinking about the Six Mile and Haggerty site, I've just been driving that condor through my mind as we've been talking here, and related to the traffic again, part of the reason the Six and Haggerty site works, I think, I'm not an expert in your industry like you are, but I think part of the reason that works from a traffic standpoint is that there's room at that site to locale the ingress and egress into the site quite a ways away from the intersection. How does that compare to this site because as I'm looking at this, and I've not measure this out but, I'm not as concerned about the traffic coming in and out of the site as much as I am about where the traffic is coming in and out of the site relative to that intersection. Is it even possible for you to do here what you've done at Six and Haggerty and the Livonia Marketplace and others? Mr. Brochert: Well, it's not because of ... the Six Mile and Haggerty site is almost 40 acres. This site is 9.4 acres. The Six Mile and Haggerty site has a number of additional means of ingress and egress and, unfortunately because its only 9.4 acres, we can only have one means of ingress and egress on Seven Mile, which we do not plan to change the location of; and we only have one means of ingress and egress off of Haggerty, which November 13, 2012 25449 we only plan to move marginally. I might add, one more time, that in addition to coming before you al site plan approval, we're going to have to go the Wayne County Road Commission and get their approval to do any improvements. I can assure you that we are going to be required to add improvements - accel, decel lanes to Haggerty for sure and most likely on Seven Mile as well. Mr. Bahr: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Thank you Mr. Bahr. I think that's Mr. Brochert: Okay. Thank you. Jason Horton, Lonmax Stern Asset Advisors, 6755 Daly Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. I'm General Counsel to Lonmax Stern Development Company. I recently joined the company. It's been about three to four years now. In my prior life, I retired as Executive Vice President of REDICO, which I think people here recognize as the largest office building developer in southeast Michigan historically for decades and decades. In addition to that, served myself as Receiver for several landmark office buildings, high rise office buildings. I just want to make it beef. This is designed as a corporate headquarters building. It is economically obsolete. The amount of cost to make it a multi - tenant is, in my estimation, cost prohibitive. Notwithstanding it's a landmark like that. I'm frustrated to hear someone thinks, well it helps their development next door by having an image there. Well, maybe you should buy it if that's the case, but that property is going to slay vacant. The first time I went through it, it was explained to me that dozens and dozens and dozens of people have been through there. Yeah, you want somebody who wants 25,000 - 30,000 square feel maybe, but then you've got to divide up a floor. You have to re -tenant lobbies. Its just not viable any more unless there's a single corporate user out there who is willing to take the entire building. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Anyquestions? Jerome Meeker, Summit Commercial, 2900 Wildwood Drive, Southfield, Michigan. Summit Commercial is the company that represents American Center in the marketing of the property. I'll be very brief because I think everything has pretty much been stated, but the one thing that I specifically wanted to address was the marketing of the property. It was indicated that it was marketed specifically to developers only. I'm not quite sure how you do that. I'd like to patent that if that's possible, but we certainly marketed the property in the traditional ways through Costar, November 13, 2012 25450 through office users, through developers, retailers and with great consistency. We've probably shown the property from anywhere from 2510 30 limes in close to a two year period and with great consistency, the predominant interest has been from developers. We've shown the property multiple times to potential office users as well, as the general sentiment was that the cost of retroffling the property to accommodate a multiple tenant use elevates the properly to a point where obtaining tenants is not economically feasible. So the balance between looking at it to retrofit it to do office in comparison to a developer that's looking at the project to do it as retail, he is looking at demolishing it and determining, again, if that's economically feasible. Once he does that to generate clients on a retail level to make the project feasible. On the other side from an office development side, the general consensus was the cost to retrofit the building to make it a multi -tenant use was not economically feasible because the rents needed to be generated to do that is not currently in the marketplace right now. And so we by no means excluded anybody from this process. We simply received the feedback. We provided to our client the best offers. They evaluated that and they elected to go with who we are and where we are today. And everything as related to office is always consistently less than what a retailer developer is prepared to bring to the table. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Any questions of the gentleman? Thank you. Glenn Cerny, Vice President and CFO, Schoolcraft College, 18600 Haggerty Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 just wanted to spend a couple minutes just explaining how vested we are in the property because of the location of where it is. It's adjacent obviously to our front door to Haggerty and Seven Mile. We've evaluated it over the last two and half years because it's been vacant since 2010. We were involved in actually looking at the building at points in time. We still have interest in the building, but today we want to talk about the safety of our students and the egress in and out of our parking lots that are essentially located very close to where Lonmax is right now. Our north parking lot where students go out onto Haggerty is very difficult for them to navigate based on the traffic patterns today. There is elevation on Seven Mile where its very difficult for people to see from the intersection as theyre traveling at 35 - 45 miles per hour to see people coming out. We've had a significant amount of traffic accidents. I've got the SEMCOG data that I'm going to provide to your group that provides some of your traffic information that you guys were asking for in terms of studies because we're very concerned about the safety of our students going in and out. In November 13, 2012 25451 order for us to see development on Schostak's side, which is on the Northville side, and we know that's going to happen. We know there's a 100,000 square feel of ambulatory care facility. We know they have another 10 acres worth that they can develop, and all of the frontage on Haggerty is going to be retail. So we know there's going to be more ingress and egress. From our standpoint, safely is a major concern for our students getting in and out of that facility, especially with the elevation on Seven Mile. So I think we just wanted to alert you to that and bring that to your attention. Here's acopy. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of this gentleman? Mr. Taylor: Just a statement, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I was wondering where Schoolcraft was on this. I was going to ask the question, have they ever been approached? Mr. Cerny: We were approached originally in 2010. The price was significantly higher. We were not interested in a $6 million figure. As we've seen the development as it went through the process from developer after developer, and failed developer after developer, we became very concerned about the vacant nature of that property because, again, it still represents our interests. If it isn't maintained, it actually affects us in terms of our presentation. We were involved in a process about two or three months before, actually looking at the building and actually were going in for a bid before it got pulled. So that's all I can say about that. We were never offered or had the ability to put a purchase agreement in because it was pulled, and that was after we had evaluated it with about 10 people in building. Mr. Taylor: Of course, we all aware that PO property is not as valuable as C-2 property, commercial property. So if it stands at PO, it will probably be the same price, but at C-2, it suddenly rises up because obviously with the square footage you can rent out much more at G2. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Any other questions? Mr. Gerber: I would like to indulge you for just a moment. Schoolcraft was shown the property even before it was officially listed. They have been through numerous limes. There have been multiple offers received on the property, and as I previously stated to the Commission, I have received no written offer in two and half years from any party expressing an interest in buying the property as an office property and that includes Schoolcraft. So with that clarification, l will nowsildown. Thankyou. November 13, 2012 25452 Mr. Morrow: I see no one else coming forward. Before I will close the public hearing, I want to thank both sides of the question. It is a question of zoning. I think through the conversation we drifted a little bit off the zoning issue in its entirely and got into some of the site plan concems, but I have no problem with that because it's hard to separate the two. I see no one else coming forward or no other comments. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Mr. Taylor: Again, before I make the motion, it is this body's job not to say is it better for a person to put commercial here or PO. Actually, what we want to do is what's best for Livonia and the Future Land Use Plan. As I staled eadier, we couldn't get a better developer than Lonmax Stern. I just don't think at this time it's at the right time to do that type of development. With what's going on across the street, it's going to be, again like I said, grid locked. So I'm going to ask for a denying recommendation. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #11 -96-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on Petition 2012-09-01-05 submitted by Lormax Stern Development Company, on behalf of American Community Mutual Insurance Company, pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properly at 39201 Seven Mile Road, located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, from PO to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-09-01- 05 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That this area of the City is already well served with commercial zoning, and the proposed rezoning is not needed to serve the neighborhood or community; 2. That the anticipated commercial use would unduly tax and conflict with the established and normal traffic flow of the area; 3. That the existing PO zoning is more consistent with the established pattern of development and character of the adjacent properties; and 4. That C-2 zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office use in this area. November 13, 2012 25453 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. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Smiley, Krueger, Wilshaw, Scheel, Morrow NAYS: Bahr ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chainnan, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. This will be sent to the City Council with a denying recommendation. They will make the ultimate decision as to the rezoning of the property. I want to thank both sides of the equation here tonight for coming. We appreciate the input. ITEM #2 PETITION 2012-10-02-26 MN EXPRESS (TRUCK TERMINAL) Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10- 02-26 submitted by MN Express Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a truck terminal at 13520 Merriman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and SchoolcmR Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Taormina: This is properly situated on the east side of Meniman Road between Industrial Road and SchoolcraR Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26. This is the site of the Okerslrom Construction Company. The new buyer is seeking to change the primary use to that of a truck terminal, which is treated as a waiver use under Section 16.11(b) of the M-1 District Regulations. This property is 6.9 acres in area. Its depth is about a third of mile, so it's almost 1,800 feet in depth. The width of the property varies. Closer to Meniman Road, where it's narrower, the site is about 100 feet in width. The easterly three-quarters of the property widens out to about 200 feel. Buildings on the property include Okerstrom's main office which is near Meniman Road, as well as some other shops and storage buildings that are located directly behind the office. As you move further east on the property, there is a fenced in area that is about 200 feel by 600 feel that is used for the storage of recreational vehicles. The current owner, Mr. Okerslrom, received approval for this RV storage yard in 2001. November 13, 2012 25454 In 2002, under a separate pefifion, Mr. Okerslrom received approval to use a portion of the property for the outdoor storage of trucks in connection with a truck rental business. The site was permitted three rental trailers and three rental trucks within the area that is between the construction company and the storage yard. The surrounding land uses and zoning are all M-1, industrial uses. The truck terminal as proposed is shown in the westerly two-thirds of the site where Okerstrom Construction is located, as well as a portion of the existing RV storage yard. The office building is located adjacent to Merriman Road. All of the area to the east would be used for the parking of trucks or other vehicles. The truck terminal would occupy the main part of the site. The eastedy portion of the site is just under 500 feel; it is curently undeveloped and is covered with natural vegetation. In a related petition, the petitioner is seeking to clear this area and use this for the RV storage yard. What they would do is take the RV storage yard and shift it to the eastern end of the site and use the middle portion of the property mostly in connection with the truck terminal business. The main office building would be maintained on the property, but all of the storage and outbuildings that are located behind the main office would be demolished and a new maintenance garage would be built, set aboul450 feel from Merriman Road. This is a two story building. It would have a gross floor area of just over 9,000 square feel. Its primary use would be truck repair operations in connection with the terminal but it would not be open to the general public. Access to the building would be provided by means of six overhead doors which would be located on the north and east side of the building. There is a mezzanine area that would be used for storage. The other uses occurring on the first floor are a kitchen break room and a small office. The truck terminal area has the capacity to accommodate roughly 98 trucks and trailers, including 59 spaces that measure 12 feel by 80 feet. Those would be used for tractor trailer parking. About 39 spaces are shown measuring 12 feet by 35 feet to be used for tractor parking only. The surface where these vehicles would be parked would be gravel. There is an area up front that is currently paved in concrete and that is where the employee and customer parking would occur. Landscaping is very limited on the site. The new RV storage yard really eliminates all the green space on the site. There are some minor plantings up front near the office building. There is a small storm water detention area shown on the south side of the property adjacent to the RV storage yard, but we're not sure how that's going to be maintained at this time. Pole mounted lighting would be provided in the yard. It is shown along the perimeter of the site. With that Mr. Chairman, I will read out the corespondence. November 13, 2012 25455 Mr. Morrow: Please Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 31, 2012, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use approval request. 1 have attached a copy of the legal description on record with the City. It varies from the information shown on the plan. The difference can be further investigated and corrected during the design phase, should the project proceed. The address for this site is confirmed to be 13530 Merriman Road. Merriman Road is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. Any work in their right-of-way must be done under approva*ermit from their office. Stormwater treatment/ detention is required for this project, and the City follows Wayne County standards in this regard. These plans are too preliminary to indicate the storm water discharge point from this parcel. It is noted that there are two storm water easements (taken under City Council Resolution #117956 and #650-88) that are between this parcel and a large diameter storm sewer south of this site. Perhaps these are currently being utilized to drain this site. It is important that storm water drainage changes associated with this project have no negative drainage impact to any property. These matters can be addressed during the design phase of the project by the petitioner's design professional should the project proceed." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 24, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans for approving this proposal to constmct and operate a truck terminal located on the property at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 24, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. November 13, 2012 25456 Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, then this will be strictly for maintenance and storage of tractors and trailers, and there will be no freight involved al this operation? Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding that there will be no off-loading or loading of freight, but I think we need to get that confirmed by the petitioner. Mr. Morrow: There may be something inside the trailers, but we'll clear that up. Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Tom Crabill, 40816 Delta Dnve, Northville, Michigan 48167. Good evening Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Mark, good to see you. Thanks for doing my job. You did a pretty good job of it. Mr. Morrow: We'll lel you add to it. Mr. Grabill: Again, I'm Tom Crabill, Medora Building Company, and I'm here to represent Oliver Slojanoski from MN Express, Inc. He is also with me here to answer any questions you may have regarding operations, and I'm here to answer any quesfions you may have regarding development of the site. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Do you want to go right into the questions, or do you want to add anything before we gel into that? Mr. Grabill: Well, I think Mark did a pretty good job of covering everything. In addition to the storm water improvement, right now there is some leaching basins on the site which we would have to remove and incorporate a full-fledged slormwaler detention system to handle the slormwaler. There is also added fencing and currently the RV storage as proposed would be moved to the easterly porfion of the site, and that would be separated from the trucking operation via fencing and an electronic gale so that the occupants could enter at their will. Mark, I think you covered it pretty well. Mr. Morrow: We'll see if there are any questions. Mr. Wilshaw: I'll try to start off with some site questions and work my way into more operational questions since you're up here first. The building itself has a very distinct appearance to it right now based on the way it's colored and so on. Are you planning on painting the building or changing the appearance of the main structure that's there? November 13, 2012 25457 Mr. Grabill: The building up front would be repainted to match something similar to the building that we would be constructing in the rear. Mr. Wilshaw Okay. So there would be sort of neutral colors? Mr. Grabill: Coned. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The building that you're going to build in the back, the purpose of that building is for maintenance of your trucks. What type of maintenance work is going to be done there? Mr. Grabill: Well, I can probably have Mr. Slojanoski reference that, but my understanding is that there will be a wash bay installed. There will be open maintenance bays and there's a deeper portion of the building that could bring a trailer in that could be worked on, and then there's the 50 fool portion of the building that would be mainly used for the tractor side of the maintenance. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So replacing belts and fillers and oil changes and brake pads and all the basic stuff you'd have to do to keep a trucking running safely and smoothly. Mr. Grabill: Coned. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Now I'm going to get into some of the operational questions so you might need to get your partner up here. One question is about the off-loading or storage of freight on-site. Is there going to be any of that taking place on this site? Mr. Grabill: Oliver. Oliver Stojanoski, MN Express, Inc., 6211 N. Silvery Lane, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. You asked me about maintenance, nghl? Mr. Wilshaw: Will there be any off-loading or storage of any freight on the site? Mr. Slojanoksi: No. There will not be any off-loading, loading or anything like that. We won't have a dock over there. Mr. Wilshaw: So the trailers that are going to be stored on the site are primarily going to be empty then most of the time, nghl? Mr. Slojanoksi: Yes. That's right. Usually the operation is over the road. The tractors, when they go out, they stay a week, two weeks out. They just come back for a weekend. Just park the trucks there and after two or three days they go out again. November 13, 2012 25458 Mr. Wilshaw: We were asking about the type of maintenance is that is going to be done in that building. It's going to basically be the ... Mr. Stojanoksi: Like you said, oil changes, belts, pads, brakes, tires. Right now, we are in Dearborn Heights. We are renting and we don't have a lot of things that we can do over there. We just have the office. We are renting the office and the yard. The yard is very small. Its very lough for us to work over there so I decided to move onto this location. It's a pretty good location. I want to build a good job. Mr. Wilshaw: That's a great segue to my Iasi question which is, can you tell me a little bit about your company? How long have you been in operation? What do you do? Mr. Stojanoksi: We've been doing this for about two and a half years. Before that, I just had my own trucking company, which wasn't the one like we're doing right now. I had my own trucks. I was leasing the trucks to the other carriers. So two and a half years ago I opened up my own. Altogether, I'm about nine years in business. Mr. Wilshaw: And how many trucks do you have now? Mr. Stojanoksi: We have 35 trucks. We have 40 trailers. Mr. Wilshaw: And you're going to be growing as well? Mr. Stojanoksi: Yes. That's why we're doing this. Mr. Wilshaw: I was going to say because you're asking for a lot more spaces for more trailers and trucks. I assume that's a good sign that you're growing. Mr. Stojanoksi: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: That's excellent. It sounds good. I appreciate you answering my questions and I think you'll be a great fl for this site. Mr. Stojanoksi: Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? As far as the storage of the RV's or whatever you keep in there, will that be part of your operation or is the person that's handling that now going to retain that? Mr. Stojanoksi: That will be part of our operation. November 13, 2012 25459 Mr. Morrow: Okay. So you'll lake over the whole site and ran that site? Mr. Slojanoksi: Yes. Mr. Morrow: For either operation. Mr. Slojanoksi: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I'm going to go to the audience and find out if there is anyone wanting to speak for or against the granting of this petition. Seeing no one coming forward, if there anything else before I close the public hearing? I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-07-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on Petition 2012-10-02-26 submitted by MN Express Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a truck terminal at 13520 Merriman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, which properly is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-10-02-26 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP-01 dated October 17, 2012, prepared by S3 Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the outdoor storage of trucks and tractor trailers shall be limited to the designated locations as shown on the above referenced Site Plan and shall be maintained in an orderly manner; 3. That the maximum number of trucks and tractor trailers parked on the site shall not exceed a total of ninety eight (98); 4. That the parking areas for the truck terminal shall be hard surfaced with crushed rock, gravel or other material as approved the Engineering Division prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the Inspection Department; November 13, 2012 25460 5. That the parking areas for the truck terminal shall be maintained in a dust free condition, and shall be properly graded and drained to dispose of all surface water in a manner as approved by the Engineenng Division; 6. That the visitor and employee parking spaces shown on the site plan shall be double striped, including the provision of barrier free parking, and all regular parking spaces shall be len feel (10') wide by twenty feel (20') in length, as required; 7. That there shall be no outdoor storage of vehicle parts, equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products, junked, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles or trailers, or other similar items in connection with this operation; 8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No. SP -03 dated October 17, 2012, prepared by S3 Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 9. 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; 10. That the landscaping along the front of the property between the existing building office and Merriman Road shall be enhanced to the satisfaction of the Planning Department; and 11. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for the Certificate of Occupancy. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. November 13, 2012 25461 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: I have one thing. I was noticing that they have no landscaping at all on this site except in the back. Are there any plans to do anything about landscaping? Mr. Taormina: There are no plans for landscaping on the site. Ms. Smiley: Can we have a little bit? Mr. Taormina: The only landscaping they are showing is a small amount in front of the maintenance building that they propose to construct. I think there may be planting beds. Really the only opportunity would be to enhance what's there along the front of the property between the existing building office and Merriman Road. Ms. Smiley: Can I suggest that we enhance what's already there? Mr. Morrow: Would you address the maker of the motion with that? Ms. Smiley: Mr. Wilshaw, would you have any objection to the enhancement of the landscaping in front as much as they can? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. I think we could put a provision in that landscaping should be enhanced. We'll leave it to the Planning Department to approve that. Mr. Morrow: How aboulthe supporter ofthe motion? Ms. Scheel: I'm good with that. Mr. Morrow: Okay. So we'll include that. Anything else? Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. November 13, 2012 25462 ITEM #3 PETITION 2012-10-02-27 MN EXPRESS (STORAGE EXPANSION) Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10- 02-27 submitted by MN Express Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(d) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the existing RV storage yard at 13520 Merman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and Schoolcmft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, do you have anything to add to this? Mr. Taormina: I'd like to point out that he is moving that storage yard to the easterly portion of the site, and with that, he's expanding the area. It would accommodate a total of approximately 192 RV's, and the parking layout would mirror that of the existing lot with parking along both the north and the south sides of the properly, plus there's a single row located between those that runs down the middle with aisles on either side. He is proposing to maintain this with gravel. The ordinance requires that it be hard surfaced, either with concrete or bituminous asphalt. In order to waive that requirement, that is going to require a two-thirds majority vote by the City Council. The area would be fenced as required by ordinance. There are a couple items of correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 2, 2012, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use approval request. 1 have attached a copy of the legal description on record with the City. It varies from the information shown on the plan. The difference can be further investigated and corrected during the design phase, should the project proceed. The address for this site is confirmed to be 13530 Merriman Road. Merriman Road is under the jurisdiction of the Wayne County. Any work in their right -0f --way must be done under approva*ermit from their office. Stormwater treatmentldeten- tion is required for this project, and the City follows Wayne County standards in this regard. These plans are too preliminary to indicate the storm water discharge point from this parcel. It is noted that there are two storm water easements (taken under City Council Resolution nos. 1179-96 and 650-88) that are between this parcel and a large diameter storm sewer south of November 13, 2012 25463 this site. Perhaps these are currently being utilized to drain this site. It is important that storm water drainage changes associated with this project have no negative drainage impact to any property. These matters can be addressed during the design phase of the project by the petitioner's design professional should the project proceed." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 24, 2012, which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal" The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The entire lot or parcel shall be hard surfaced with concrete or a plant mixed bituminous material. This may be waived by a super majority of Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Would the petitioner like to come forward and add anything? Tom Crabill, 40816 Delta Drive, Northville, Michigan 48167. The petitioner has nothing to add. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Let's see if there are any questions relative to this use. Mr. Wilshaw: One of the problems with RV storage areas is that they can sort of be an attractive nuisance for people wanting to gel in there and mess around with things that are in storage. As you move the storage area further back, there's actually a road that goes slightly near the back of your property. It maybe will make that a little bit more visible to anybody messing around back there. What plans would you have for making sure this area is secure as possible? Mr. Grabill: We hadn't entertained barbed wire. I don't even know if that's permissible. Mr. Wilshaw: That's not allowed. Mr. Grabill: We did include fencing which I think is necessary for the site. I don't know really what else we could do. Right now, the existing RV storage backs up to a woods and some adjacent parcels; to the south, a storage unit. I'm not sure about the history if there's been any break-ins or problems with the site, but one November 13, 2012 25464 thing that we have added is sufficient site lighting, pretty extensive and all to code obviously. So that would be certainly one thing that would be beneficial. Mr. Wilshaw: That's a good answer because certainly lighting is an effective mechanism. Is there any plan for any cameras or anything at this point? Mr. Grabill: There is. Mr. Wilshaw: Even better. That sounds good to me. Obviously we can't do barbed wire. Fencing, the gate, lighting, cameras, that's all reasonable tome. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: There's a business in the front now. What are the hours that they can go back in and out if somebody wants to bang a boat in or bring an RV in? Are there certain hours that they can do that? Mr. Grabill: Bob, do you want to comment on that? Mr. Taylor: You have a business in the front. I don't know whether that business stays open all night or not. Mr. Grabill: Right. Of course, with the electric gales, it could be 24/7, but I think it's reasonable to limit those hours to the tenants. So lel me ask the current owner and operator what he does. Mr. Taylor: We haven't seen him in a long time. Robert Okerstrom Trust, 15005 Lyons, Livonia, Michigan 48154. We've operated that RV storage for about almost 10 - 12 years. We've never had a problem. Probably incurred by the Livonia Police Department, have several people back there. So they visit the site often. It's 24 hour access at this point. It's well lit. You could read a newspaper in the middle of the night back there. And if a burglar wants to get in, he's going to gel in no matter what you have. We don't seem to have that in Livonia at this point and time, so I'm going to say it's very secure. If he purchases this property from me, I don't know anything about his ideas of what he's going to do. So I guess you'd have to ask him that question. Mr. Taylor: I assume your trailer business goes all night. Is it open all night? Oliver Slojanoski, MN Express, Inc., 6211 N. Silvery Lane, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. Yes. November 13, 2012 25465 Mr. Taylor: Would there be access for someone to get back at 9:00 p.m. and drop an RV off or something? Mr. Stojanoksi: We have a dispatch office. The main office is going to be up front. It's going to be dispatch for 24 hours. Mr. Taylor: Would each person that rents a site back there have a key to get through? Mr. Stojanoksi: Yes. An electronic gate. Theyll have a card. Mr. Taylor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: So there will be personnel on site 24 hours a day? Mr. Stojanoksi: Yes, because there's going to be a dispatch office up front, the main office, and they will be 24 hours over there. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Is that seven days a week orjusl work days? Mr. Stojanoksi: Saturday loo, but not all night, but pretty much only just Saturdays. Sundaylheyslarl until Saturday morning. Mr. Morrow: So most of the week there will be coverage 24 hours, somebody on site observing what's going on? Mr. Stojanoksi: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this pefifion? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-08-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on Petition 2012-10-02-27 submitted by MN Express Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(d) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the existing RV storage yard at 13520 Merriman Road, located on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and SchoolcraR Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, which property is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2012-10-02- 27 be approved subject to the following conditions: November 13, 2012 25466 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP -01 dated October 17, 2012, prepared by S3 Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles shall be limited to the designated location as shown on the above referenced Site Plan and shall be maintained in an orderly manner; 3. That the maximum number of vehicles parked in the designated storage yard shall not exceed a total of one hundred ninety two (192); 4. That the RV storage yard shall be hard surfaced with either crushed rock or gravel as approved by the Engineering Division, subject to the City Council waiving the requirement under Section 16.11(d)(3) that the enfire lot or parcel be hard surfaced with concrete or a plant -mixed bituminous material by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 5. That the storage yard shall be maintained in a dust proof condition and shall be propedy graded and drained to dispose of all surface water in a manner as approved by the Engineering Division; 6. That the visitor and employee parking spaces shown on the site plan shall be double striped, including the provision of barrier free parking, and all regular parking spaces shall be ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in length, as required; 7. That there shall be no outdoor storage of disabled or inoperative equipment and vehicles, scrap material, debris or other similar items; 8. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; and 9. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for the Certificate of Occupancy. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: November 13, 2012 25467 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject property 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-10-02-28 DAVE & BUSTER'S (RESTAURANT) Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10- 02-28 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(c) and 11.03(s) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant (Dave & Buster's) with mechanical amusement devices at 19375 Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Taormina: This is property located on Victor Parkway between Doc's Sports Retreat to the south and the soon to be completed Infneon Technologies building immediately to the north. The property in question is in the process of being rezoned from PO, High Rise Professional Office, to C-2, General Business, in order to facilitate the development of this site. Council gave first reading to the rezoning at its Regular Meeting Iasi Wednesday. This item, together with a companion petition involving a request to utilize a Class C Liquor License with the restaurant, is the next step in the process for obtaining final authorization. The property is about 6.4 acres in area. It has a developable width of about 365 feet. It has 180 feel of frontage along Victory Parkway and roughly 630 feel of frontage along the 1-275/1-96 Expressway. The site plan shows a one story building containing a gross floor November 13, 2012 25468 area of about 40,500 square feet. The overall dimensions of the structure are roughly 250 feet as measured in an east -west direction by 160 feel measured in a north -south direction. As you can see, the building is positioned near the northwestedy part of the site showing a setback of roughly 75 feet at its closest point from the right-of-way of 1-275. There is an effort to have that building repositioned on the site a little further to the east, but we do not have the plans showing the final location of the building. Primary access is by means of an entrance near the midpoint along the site's frontage on Victor Parkway. The new driveway is situated between the main ddves leading to Infineon to the north and Big Daddy's restaurant to the south. Secondary access is also available via connections between the parking lots of the adjoining restaurants, Big Daddy's to the east and Doc's Sport Retreat to the south. In the case of the Big Daddy's, there is a cross access and parking agreement in place that dates back to the development of the odginal restaurant, Lone Star Steakhouse, and what was going to be an Incredible Universe electronic superstore on the site where Dave & Buster's is proposed. Parking is shown on three sides of the building, including the east, west and south sides. Vehicular circulation would be provided completely around the building. There is a 26 fool wide access drive aisle that would be made of heavy duly asphalt. It extends from Victor Parkway and continues in a westerly direction on the north side of the building to the northwest comer where there is an enclosed service yard that would be provided in the building. The site plan shows a total of about 400 off-street parking spaces. Required parking is calculated as the sum total of the various uses including customer seating, number of employees and the number of mechanical amusement devices. Overall, the facility has sealing for about 600 persons. There are 70 employees dudng the largest working shift. There would be about 200 mechanical amusement devices in the midway. Thus, a total of 570 parking spaces are required to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance, but because the plan is only showing about 400 spaces, the deficiency of about 170 spaces would require the approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The floor plan shows the interior space of the building subdivided and used for all the various activities. With respect to the sealing areas, there is the main dining area which would contain 172 seats located in the northeastedy part of the building. There is a circular bar and dining area consisting of about 167 total seats. There is a billiards room with 14 seats located on the east side of the building. There is a separate sports lounge with about 72 customer seals, and then there are private meeting and dining rooms containing a total of 176 total seats. The midway occupies about 14,000 square feel of the building or about 35 November 13, 2012 25469 percent of the overall floor space. Additional interior spaces include a large kitchen with dry and cold storage, men's and women's locker rooms and restrooms, a prize area, a mechanical and tech room, an employee locker area as well as administrative offices, an enclosed service yard with a trash compactor, and a reception area near the main entrance and vestibule in the southeast comer of the building. Under Section 11.03, mechanical amusement devices are permitted when they are located in a regional shopping center having a gross floor area of 500,000 square feet. For this project to be approved, this requirement, as well as four others that are imposed under this Section of the ordinance, have to be waived by the City Council. These include a modification on the number of permitted devices, a modification of the minimum age of personnel in charge of monitoring the game area, a waiver to the prohibition of serving food and beverages in connection with a business that operates mechanical amusement devices, and modification to the permitted hours of operation. Again, these are all items that would have to be modified by the City Council. In terms of landscaping, they are showing about 20 percent of the overall site being landscaped. This is mostly in areas around the perimeter of the site, as well as the interior of the site within the parking lot landscape islands. We have made some suggestions in terns of changing the landscape materials to be more consistent with our approved list of tree species. Elevation plans submitted provide information on the exterior finish of the building. Masonry would be the primary material used in the construction. This includes glass fiber reinforced concrete panels as well as concrete tilt wall panels and stone veneer. Aluminum would be the other primary exterior finish material and that's shown mostly around the accent components of the design, including some panels that would go around the stone veneer as well as trim around the windows, the store front and the canopy. The latest rendering shows what the main entry would look like. The stone elements are shown in the while color. As I indicated, there are composite aluminum panels. It may be difficult to see with this rendering, but this is actually aluminum cladding around the exterior of the stone. Aluminum cladding is used mostly on the canopy and around the windows. The beige areas are the glass reinforced concrete panels and the concrete tilt panels are shown in the various shades of orange. It's mostly a building made of masonry products, maintenance free products, which is what the Commission looks for when approving these items. The tallest point of the building is shown at about 35 feel. There is discussion about increasing that slightly. They are allowed to go up to 38 or 40 feel with parapets, and that would be consistent with the construction to the north with the new Infineon building. Actually, that's a two story building but the November 13, 2012 25470 overall height is right around that same number. So it's going to be very consistent in terms of its scale and mass with the adjoining office building to the north. Lighting is shown in the form of parking lot lights that would be 20 feel in height, also consistent with what we normally look to have done with exterior lighting. Lastly, wall signage is shown in the form of these Dave & Busters logos. These are 11 foot diameter logo signs shown on the south, east and north elevations. They are permitted one sign only totally 170 square feet. They are showing four signs totaling 380 square feel altogether, so these signs will require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. With that Mr. Chairman, I'll read outthe corespondence. Mr. Morrow: Yes, please Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 2, 2012, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced preliminary plan approval and SDM liquor license request. The legal description provided needs only one very minor revision which can be addressed during the design phase. More specifically, in the sixth line from the bottom of the written description, the value of 87.5 feet is indicated. On the drawing, it is shown as 87.55 feet. The address for this site is confirmed to be 19375 Victor Parkway. Public water main, storm and sanitary sewers are located within the Victor Parkway right-of-way. Permits must be obtained from the City for any work in the right-of-way. Storm water retention has already been provided for the Victor Park Place Condominium Development. We are providing the owner, for informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City Ordinance. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, unless written approval is obtained to exceed this amount. This Ordinance also provides information on grease traprinterceptor requirements, and is available on our website at wwwci.livonia.mi.us. The petitioner is hereby notified (via copy of this comespondence) that any site changes which would impact public utilities, road right-of-way, easements, orchanges in storm or sanitary sewer volumes must be approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works. Should this project proceed, it is important that the developer's architect/engineer address storm water drainage changes as a result of these site changes to ensure that there is no negative drainage impact to any property." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 26, 2012, which reads as November 13, 2012 25471 follows: "1 have reviewed the plans for approving this proposal to construct and operate a full service restaurant with mechanical amusement devices, and to utilize a Class C liquor license and an SDM liquor license located on the property at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: An on-site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings that are set back more than 150 feet from a public road or exceed 30 feet in height and are set back over 50 feet from a public road. Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 26, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This review was performed with the assumption that the property will be rezoned from PO to C-2. (2) The parking spaces are proposed to be nine feet wide where a minimum of ten feet in width is required. The number of parking spaces proposed will be deficient. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required to maintain a deficient number of parking spaces. (3) The proposed use does not conform to the current ordinances regarding mechanical amusement devices. (4) Only one wall sign and one ground sign are permitted. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for additional signage. (5)The petitioner is located closer than 1000 feet to another Class C establishment and closer than 500 feet to another SDM licensed establishment. These requirements may be waived by Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. Quickly I'll point out that there is that in these letters a couple references to an SDM license which involves the sale of packaged beer and wine products. That was pad of the original request on the companion petition that we will hear next after this item. The SDM request has been removed, and we're only going to be addressing the request for a Class C Liquor License at this location. Thank you. November 13, 2012 25472 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, I know you've worked extensively with the petitioner on the site plan. Is it at a point, as far as the building appearance and materials and so on, that the Planning Department is satisfied? Mr. Taormina: Yes, and there's still some changes being undertaken. This plan reflects the latest thinking on the appearance of the entryway. But overall, the materials shown are consistent with the office park environment. The low maintenance materials would be in keeping with that area. Ms. Smiley: Mark, did they stagger those buildings so there's more visibility? Weren't we talking about that? Mr. Taormina: That is one of the issues that is still under review by the owner as well as Dave & Buster's, and that's to find the right placement of the building on the property that protects the view of the buildings to the north along 1-275 and at the same time provide visibility to the Dave & Buster's building. That will provide a very nice visual effect for persons traveling that corridor. Right now, the building is about as far west on the site as you could possibly place it. There will probably be a shift further to the east. There is indication that the issue is close to being resolved, and you should see that plan shortly. Ms. Smiley: Great. Mr. Morrow: Maybe we can gel an update from the petitioner. Ms. Scheel: Mark, can you go back to the previous screen that was up that shows where the building is? If the building slides further east, it's just going to slide the same way? It's not going to rotate at all? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. John Cadin, Carlin Edwards Brown, P.L.L.C., 2855 Coolidge Road, Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. 1 am the attorney for the applicant. Loretta Reeves is also here, as is Mr. Sosin. What were the questions that you have? November 13, 2012 25473 Ms. Smiley: I don't know if this is your specially, the architecture, but you know those balls out in front of the building? Are those like a safely thing so people don't hit pedestrians or come loo close to the building? Is that what those are? Mr. Carlin: I assume that's what they are. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Carlin: To keep vehicles out. Ms. Smiley: We were just curious about them. I'm not offended by them. I just wondered what their purpose was, but that's to keep vehicles away from the building. Mr. Carlin: Loretta is shaking her head yes. And you were right, that's not my field. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Mark, did we finally gel rid of the parking problem that we had with the nine fool spaces? I know they've got 70 employees so 70 of them could be 9 fool, but what about the rest of them? Mr. Taormina: I've seen a couple of plans following our study session. Yes, there is substantial movement towards addressing your concern about the size of the parking spaces. In the final design, you're going to see a majority of the spaces meeting the 10 foot width requirement but still providing some at the narrower dimension for employees. Mr. Taylor: Well, there's 70 employees. They said they could have 70 spaces that are narrower. Mr. Taormina: Yes, and then there's some shift change, so I'm not sure what the final number is going to be. Mr. Carlin: The total number will probably be reduced, but we'll accomplish what we need to do. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Carlin, what is the status of the site plan revisions as they stand? I guess we were kind of hoping to see them here tonight, but obviously there's still a little bit of work to be done. Mr. Carlin: I'm going to defer to Loretta. Loretta Reeves, L.D. Reeves and Associates, Inc., 1889 Manana Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida 33950. Good evening. I'm a development November 13, 2012 25474 company that works with Dave & Buster's on a national level. Yes, we hoped that we would have a site plan that we could bring this evening. We still are trying to work with the seller. Matt is here and he can speak to you as well. I think we have come up with an ideal placement. Now we're just trying to work with it and massage it to try to appease Commissioner Taylor and also try to work with operationally what we need to have to operate with, as well as to have the access around the building and be able to park the cars that we need to park. So we're unfortunately not able to share with you the site plan this evening. I'm disappointed because I flew all the way up here from Punta Gorda, but we're still working with it. We think when we do get it done it will be a huge improvement over what you saw the last time, and I know that Mr. Sosin will be very pleased with the placement of the building as well. Mr. Wilshaw: Are you thinking that you'll have the ability to have these plans ready within a couple weeks for our next meeting? Ms. Reeves: Absolutely. That's our goal. Mark has asked us if we could come back to you guys at the next meeting, that we have our package in to him by the 20th, and we certainly will have that in completion with the materials board and everything else. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Okay. One question I have just looking at the plan. I don't want to make any radical changes because you've been really good at working with us and accommodating the requests that we have had so far is signage. You are asking for something that is roughly a little over double what our normal signage is allowed. Is there any room for change there or is there a reason that you need that much signage? What's the thought process? Ms. Reeves: To be honest, I'm not sure we've even thought about that. We've been so focused on working on the site and trying to make it work that we really haven't given a lot of thought to the signage. Obviously, as in most cases, with any kind of commercial project, more signage is always better in our eyes. I know its not the case with you guys but we want to work with you. We want to come back with a reasonable sign plan and be able to justify why we're asking for this, and it goes along with the whole placement of the building as well. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, something to just think about because there are some of us that have been historically pretty hard on petitioners on signage, and I'm one of them. I'm willing to certainly look past our sign ordinance as far as the number of signs and the square footage given that this is going to be a destination off the November 13, 2012 25475 freeway for people that are going to be trying to find this building. So I think there's going to be some arguments in justifying your signage, butjust start thinking about those things and what you need and tryto be as reasonable as you can. Ms. Reeves: We certainly will. Thank you. Any others questions that I can answer for you? Mr. Morrow: Did you mention the meeting of the 20th? Ms. Reeves: The 27v. The plan deadline that Mark had asked us to gel our plans to him and you guys by the 20' so that you'd have plenty of time to review them before the next meeting. Mr. Morrow: That would be good. That particular meeting on the 271h would be a study meeting, and if the plans are complete enough, I would have no objection to schedule a Regular Meeting to move that forward if you're under any kind of time restraints. Ms. Reeves: Oh, yeah. We are, and I'm pretty sure Matt is as well. Mr. Carlin: We'd like to keep on that time schedule that we've got. Ms. Reeves: That would be awesome. Thank you. We'd appreciate that. Thank you so much. Mr. Morrow: Mark will make those arrangements. Once he sees that the plans are complete, he'll make the necessary publication and we'll convene a special regular meeting for you. Ms. Reeves: Right. Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Is that permissible by you, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We're satisfying the requirement to hold the public hearing this evening, so it's at your discretion in terms of the dale for a tabling motion. We suggested having that meeting on the 27'. We have that night reserved for a study session. We can still hold the study session should we have other items to appear on that agenda. Otherwise, we will either have a regular meeting or a special regular meeting. Mr. Morrow: We were hoping that things were going to be jelled tonight, but we'll lryto accommodate if everything falls into place. Ms. Reeves: Us loo. November 13, 2012 25476 Ms. Scheel: I have a question regarding the dales. Next week's meeting is the201h. Wouldn'tthat be a study meeting? Ms. Smiley: We don't a have meeting next week. Ms. Scheel: Oh, we don't have a meeting because of Thanksgiving. That answers that question. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything to add before I go to the audience, or any other questions? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. Mr. Wilshaw: I'm going to make a tabling resolution to table this item until our next meeting, which will be November 27. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-99-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on Petition 2012-10-02-28 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(c) and 11.03(s) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant (Dave & Buster's) with mechanical amusement devices at 19375 Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item until November 27, 2012. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. We just discussed the schedule, so we're all onboard with that. Mr. Taormina, as far as the next dem, should that move forward concurenlly with the other petition? Mr. Taormina: Yes. A tabling motion would in order for that item as well. ITEM #5 PETITION 2012-10-02-29 DAVE & BUSTER'S (LIQUOR LICENSES) Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10- 02-29 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(h) and 11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10- 08-07 submitted by Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., on behalf of McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 15399 November 13, 2012 25477 consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Dave & Busters) at 19375 Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, is there anything you want to add? Mr. Taormina: Nothing at this time. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and request a motion. Mr. Wilshaw: I am also going to make a motion to table this item until our next meeting of November 27th assuming the petitioner can be prepared for that meeting. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-100-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on Petition 2012-10-02-29 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(h) and 11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) and an SDM liquor license (sale of packaged beer and wine) in connection with a full service restaurant (Dave & Buster's) at 19375 Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item until November 27, 2012. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. We will look forward to seeing you on the 271h, and good luck with working the details out. ITEM #6 PETITION 2012-10-08-07 McDONALUS Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10- 08-07 submitted by Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., on behalf of McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 15399 November 13, 2012 25478 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebett Road between Five Mile Road and Puntan Avenue in the Southeast 114 of Section 14. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to remodel the exterior of an existing McDonald's restaurant, as well as make certain other site modifications. This propertyis located near the northwest comer Middlebell and Five Mile Roads. is on the west side of Middlebell between Five Mile and Puntan Avenue. The property is about 1.14 acres in area. It has 317 feel of frontage on Middlebell Road and a depth of 150 feet. The parcel is zoned G2, General Business. There are commercial and office uses completely surrounding the property. The restaurant currently has 74 customer seats, so it is classified as a full service restaurant. The original approval for this restaurant occurred back in 1971. It was at that time that the 74 seat limitation was imposed. There was an addition in 1994, but that really did not change the seating count. I think that only involved the addition of the playscape area. The proposed exterior remodeling would not increase the current seating count. In fact, there would be a slight reduction in the number of seats in the restaurant. As you can see from the next couple of photographs, the exisfing design really reflects the 1974 style. It shows you the McDonald's trademark red mansard roof as well as these yellow accent beams. The new plan is to "reimage' or rebrand the restaurant according to McDonald's latest branding. It's very similar to some of the other renovations projects that we've approved over the last couple years. The mansard roof would be removed completely. The brick would extend upward on the facade of the building and give it a flat roofline appearance as opposed to the mansard roof. Aluminum and stone would be used to accent and define the main entrance and provide the building with some architectural relief. The stone is depicted as the while color on the building. There would be aluminum trellises provided on the building with other accent features as well. The site plan shows how the drive up would be modified. They would like to add a split drive-lhru lane and provide a second menu board similar to what theyve done at other restaurants here in the city. To accomplish this, the removal of four parking spaces will be necessary. The circulation for the drive up is around the west side of the building and then the menu boards and order stations are located here. Currently there's only one traffic lane for drive thru traffic. At this point, they're going to split that and bring a second lane a little bit further to the south. In order to accommodate that additional lane, they have to relocate the adjacent drive aisle and to do that they have to eliminate these four parking spaces. It's kind of shown at an angle which minimizes the impact of parking. November 13, 2012 25479 Theyre going to replace that area with landscaping. To address the parking issue because they removed some of those parking spaces, they're going to reduce the seating count to 70 in order to comply with the parking requirements. We have not analyzed this site with respect to signage. They are allowed one wall sign not to exceed 35 square feet. They are showing on their elevation renderings multiple signs and logos. Those are going to require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The primary sign, McDonald's, is located on lop of the cap of the front of the restaurant on the south side. And then they have the McDonald's logo on either side, one on the east side and one on the west side of the building. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated October 12, 2012, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced plan approval request. The written legal description provided is correct. The address for this site is confirmed to be 15399 Middlebelt Road. This project is primarily a building renovation project, with only minor site work changes. No work is anticipated in rtght-0f--ways or easements. Therefore, no permits will need to be obtained from the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works. We are providing to the petitioner, for informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils, and Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight and provides information on grease traplinterceptor requirements. This Ordinance can also be viewed on our City website at www.ci.livonia.mi.us." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 15, 2012, which reads as follows: 7 have reviewed the plans for approving this proposal to remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant located on the property at the above referenced address. I have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 18, 2012, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. Designated parking spaces shall be required for drive up window patrons. These are to be in November 13, 2012 25480 addition to the required number of parking spaces. This will cause a deficiency in the number of required parking spaces. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain a deficient number of parking spaces. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. I will point out that at the time Mr. Hanna drafted this letter, he was unaware of the reduction in the seating count in order to address that parking deficiency. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of the Director? Mr. Wilshaw: Mark, the site over on Farmington Road, do you know by chance, I'm putting you on the spot, if their signage was similar to this site with the multiple golden arches logos above both of the doors? Mr. Taormina: Something tells me it was slightly differently. I do believe they had the McDonald's emblem over the enlmnceway on maybe both sides of that building. Something tells me the design feature here is a little bit different. I don't believe they had this same style of wall sign located above this one tower element. I can't recall whether or not they had an emblem on the front. They may have, but the archway and the signage here is a little bit different, but I think it's very consistent above the two entryways. Mr. Wilshaw: It looks a little different to me in some way. Obviously, the orientation of the building is significantly different from the other site. That may factor into some of that decision making. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Frank Marlin, Dorchen/Marlin Associates, Inc., 29895 Greenfield Road, Suite 107, Southfield, Michigan 48076. Good evening. Ithink Mark went through everything that I would say. Just as a little background, our office has been involved in probably 20 or 30 of these renovations throughout the Slate over the past couple of years. I think the impact of this new design that McDonald's has come up with and we've been able to incorporate with this particular store, will and has made a great difference in the appearance of these stores and brought them more into the 21n Century. The elimination of roof beams is always a big thing, and I think this particular store lends itself nicely to this new design. I'm glad that Mark mentioned the issue of the parking spaces, that we do meet the requirement along with an extra November 13, 2012 25481 couple spaces for the drive-thru. If there are any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them. And if there are any operational questions, with me tonight is Scott Paulus who is the Regional Construction Manager for McDonald's. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of Mr. Marlin? Ms. Smiley: Just one. Is the split driveway effective? Do you have problems with people running into each other coming out of there? Mr. Martin: Actually, McDonald's calls it a side by side. You all are probably aware that the McDonald's and the drive-thru have become a bigger, bigger part of their business. Typically with a McDonald's store, the drive-thru accounts for somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of the business that goes through the store in a typical year. So to make the drive-lhru experience better, more efficient and have less stacking, they developed this side by side operation several years ago. Every new site that we design for McDonald's must have a side by side. There must be room enough to do a side by side because it increases the efficiency, and I think more and more customers and guests to McDonald's become more and more familiar with how it works. Two people can order at the same time. You can have a car full of young children that just came out of a baseball game trying to figure out what they want, and if that's a little slower, the other lane is available to go through. So it really works out well, and it makes a tremendous difference to the whole drive-thru experience. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bahr: I'll admit my question is more out of personal curiosity than anything. That restaurant came under new management within the Iasi year or so, didn't it? Do you know? Here's ultimately what I'm getting at. I'm just curious. Is a renovation initialed by the owner of the restaurant or is this something that's initialed by McDonald's Corporate? Mr. Martin: I'll lel Scoff Paulus address that. Scott Paulus, McDonald's USA, L.L.C., 1021 Karl Greimel Drive, Suite 200, Brighton, MI 48116. I'm sorry. Your question was? Mr. Bahr: Ultimately, what I curious about is, when McDonald's does renovations like this, are they initialed by the management of restaurant? Do they request to renovate and they have to be consistent with your model, or is this something that comes from Corporate McDonald's where they say you have to do this? November 13, 2012 25482 Mr. Paulus: McDonald's is a giant bureaucracy like a lot of big businesses are. We're basically trying to re-image our stores. We went from a walkup window type store. We called them red and whiles to this mansard roof design which we've had since the early 70's. It's a company -wide initiative basically to renovate the stores to bring them up to a current, more modern look basically. It is dictated not by the company, necessarily. The company came up with the design. The operator or the franchisee of the restaurant has the choice whether or not to do R. At some point in time, we will probably make it a mandate, but right now the company is actually contributing some of the funds to be able to renovate the exterior and interior of the stores. Mr. Bahr: Okay. That restaurant has improved greatly in its operations in the Iasi year, year and a half, and I was just curious if this was all just part of that effort or if it was something separate. Personal curiosity is all. Mr. Paulus: Well, we appreciate the comment. This happens to be a company owned store. In Michigan, the Corporation runs about 100 restaurants and the rest are franchised out of about 530 stores that we have in Michigan. So about 20 percent of them are company run. This happens to be a company run store. They probably changed a manager or something like that. I'm on the bricks and mortar side so I don't know the day to day stuff, but I believe that's probably what happened. Mr. Morrow: Did either of you gentlemen have anything to do with the McDonald's on Six Mile Road just west of Haggerty? They just went through a face Ziff. Mr. Paulus: The department I work for actually does all the remodels for the company in Michigan so we handle all the stores in Michigan. Mr. Morrow: Is that a franchise or is that company owned? Mr. Paulus: That is a franchise. It was a company owned store and was sold to a franchisee. Mr. Morrow: And the reason I ask is that's kind of up in my neck of the woods and I notice in looking at your rendering here, it appears they had stone incorporated in that particular one, but I don't remember this one arch in the front. I wasn't looking that close. What kind of material is it? Is thatjusl block? November 13, 2012 25483 Mr. Paulus: What we use is standard. We're obviously a standardized type business so what we use is a product called RockCasl. It has a limestone look to it but it's a masonry product. Every franchisee has an option of about six different materials they can use there. We prefer this material because it has a little more modern look to it and it has a little less maintenance behind it. They have the ability to put on a stack stone, let's say, but over time, water can get behind it and it pops off and it's hard to find 10 years down the road. This is a malenal that will never require any maintenance. Mr. Morrow: Yes, I wish you could have brought some materials so we could visualize it. Just looking at the drawing, it looks like regular block. Mr. Martin: I just passed around some photographs of some projects that we did that are completed photos and it shows that material. It is similar to limestone. It looks like limestone so they're in big panels, one fool by two foot, and they're stacked like blocks and they're very substantial. Ms. Scheel: Will the restaurant be open during the reconstruction phase? Mr. Paulus: Yes, dwill. Ms. Scheel: Okay. And provided it does get approved here and goes through Council and gets approved through Council, how soon would you be expecting to start? Mr. Paulus: Typically its about a six to eight week project. The point of the restaurant being open during the whole process, it kind of depends on the kitchen work, and I'm not intimately familiar with how much work we're doing in the kitchen. If we're not doing any, then it will be open through the whole process. Because the store has a number of masonry elements in it, we probably will start this in the spring around March 1 time frame depending on how hungry the contractors end up being through the winter. We may tent it if that's allowable, and do it through the winter but more than likely, it will be done in March. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Martin: I just want to point out one other thing. The kitchen work is going to be essentially nil, but the restrooms in that particular facility are going to be updated to ADA compliance. It mel the barrier free when it was built, but part of this program is to make R ADA compliant for today's ADA. November 13, 2012 25484 Mr. Morrow: Sounds good. Any other questions? Mr. Wilshaw: The brick that we're seeing on these plans, is that a panel brick system? Mr. Martin: Since we're removing the mansards and we're building a parapet that is being supported by the mansard, it will most likely be a half inch panel brick that would be applied that would match the back that's there. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. A question through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, is that what they did at the Farmington site as well? Mr. Taormina: That is correct, and that's the same product used for the bank on the corner of Five Mile and Mernman. The new technique in applying that material seems to be much better than the older forms of panel back, and actually, that was my question as well. Mr. Morrow: Its a come a long way since our initial experience with panel brick. It kind of got a bad name, but this half inch brick, the way it's applied, its much more substantial. Does that answer your question? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, it does. Great minds think alike Mark. I just want to compliment you on the designs of these new McDonald's. The design of the old McDonald's, if you want to call it that, the old design stood the time of 40 years, which is impressive in itself, but times have changed and this is a very attractive building. We've seen several of them in our community pop up, and I think they will hopefully also stand another 40 years with that style. The design looks very attractive. Mr. Martin: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-101-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-10-08-07 submitted by Dorchen/Martin Associates, Inc., on behalf of McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 15399 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road November 13, 2012 25485 between Five Mile Road and Puritan Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked C1 dated October 11, 2012, as revised, prepared by Dorchen/Marlin Associates, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That this restaurant's maximum customer seafing count shall not exceed seventy (70) seats; 3. That the Landscape Plan marked C4 dated October 11, 2012, as revised, prepared by M.J. Gac & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the Exterior Building Elevafion Plans marked A2.0 and A2.1 dated October 11, 2012, as revised, prepared by Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 6. That the maximum area of each wall -mounted sign and the approximate location of all exterior signage shall be consistent with the previous approved sign package for this site, and that any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolufion shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the fime the building permits are applied for; and 9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. November 13, 2012 25486 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. I would also request that you bring some samples of the building materials for their view so they can see itfrsthand. ITEM #7 PETMON 2012-10-08-06 HOME SENIOR CARE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch Senior Services Company, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing building at 16013 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Puritan Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-102-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2012-10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch Senior Services Company, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing building at 16013 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Puritan Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, be removed from the table. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: As you will recall, this item was tabled previously to allow the petitioner to make some design changes. There were a number of concerns brought out at the last meeting regarding the appearance of the building but also the fact that they weren't addressing the issue of storrmwater management. There was the issue of how the west side of the property, where this abuts single family, was going to be screened. They were showing a wall previously, but there was an area with landscaping that would be impacted. So this is the revised plan. This changes a number of features on the site. The parking has been pushed November 13, 2012 25487 back. They reduced the size of the parking lot considerably and this does a couple things. It helps address some of the cost concems that the petitioner had as well as reduces the amount of impervious area that has to be accounted for with the stonmwater management plan. So what we've come up with in working with the Engineering Division is a conceptual plan that pushes this parking lot back away from Puntan Avenue. It allows for a small detention feature to be created between the property line on Puntan and the edge of the parking lot. This would be considered the side street. But this area denotes where the stonmwaler management feature would be created on the site, and that's achieved by pushing the parking back to a point that's about 26 or so feet from the actual property line and then you have another 10 or 13 feet to the actual street edge. That lines up nicely with the building and it lines up exactly with the proposed addition. They do reduce the parking by four parking spaces which the owner and petitioner feels is adequate to meet their needs. It will require a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals but the other thing it does here, it pushes back the parking also from the property line on the west side and this enables them to maintain 11 feet at the narrowest point and 20 feet plus for a greenbelt area between the edge of the parking lot and the adjacent residential home to the west. They are going to plant some additional trees in order to supplement the buffer, the screening between those uses. Slone is used as the exterior material along this barrier free ramp along the front of the building and along the south side. They're going to carry that same construction material along the base of the addition as it faces Middlebelt Road and they're also going to do the same thing as it faces Puntan Road. So that stone continues along the lower part of the building. The siding would be done in a way that matches the existing siding. There is a rendering that illustrates how that would be accomplished. They've also added three dormers to the west elevation of the building facing the residential structure to provide more of a residential type of appearance. That highlights the changes made to the plan, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Is there any new correspondence? Mr. Taormina: No. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley: Didn't they also have a problem with an elevator? They needed to have an elevator? November 13, 2012 25488 Mr. Taormina: They are addressing that issue with the Inspection Department. They are seeking a waiver before the Building Code Board of Appeals. They have already initiated that process. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Mark, how does this elevation compare with some of the other residential homes in the area? Mr. Taormina: In terms of height? Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Taormina: This would be right at the peak. I can't remember if Mr. Holowicki said 33 feet, but it's either right at or a few feet below what the maximum height allowance would be for a residential structure. Mr. Morrow: If there is nothing else, would the petitioner come forward? We'll need your name and address for the record please. . John Holowicki, Architecturally Speaking, 19931 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm standing in for Glenna today. She's out of town, but as you know, she's been a viable part of the community and the existing structure is a very nicely done Victonan looking house. Her business is Home Instead, and the attempt here is to continue that with the addition. She does not want to leave Livonia but she's out of room in the building. She has to have an addition or a bigger building, or she's going to move. She's going to go somewhere else and she really wants to stay in Livonia. The whole point is to extend the nature of that Victorian house with the same materials, the same window treatments, the same cultured stone. You know, it's just really a bigger house than what she's got. She loves it in Livonia and she's hoping that the Board will approve it. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Are there any questions for this gentleman? Mr. Bahr: I just have a comment. The coloring rendering definitely helps from what we saw a couple weeks ago. Igo by that business all the time. It really is an attmctive building and I think you've done a really nice job of keeping with that theme. As I mentioned here before, I actually am very involved with my church, which is just a few blocks away from where you are. We have a nursing home there. I rememberseveral years back when they were talking about reinvesting here. They did a lot of studies as to what the viability of the Middlebell Road corridor was going to be long term. They did end up deciding to reinvest November 13, 2012 25489 there at Woodhaven. Just to see all the development that's happening along Middlebelt Road, it's almost becoming a senior services corridor. It's a growing market and I think it's great for Middlebell. I just wanted to make that comment and say that I think you've done a really nice job on the building. You guys do a wonderful job of maintaining it. It's very well taken care of and this looks like it's just an extension of that. It looks really good to me. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one here, I'll ask for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Krueger, and adopted, it was #11-103-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2012-10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch Senior Services Company, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing building at 16013 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Puritan Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked S-1 dated November 1, 2012, as revised, prepared by Architecturally Speaking, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Elevations Plans marked A-3 and A-4 received by the Planning Commission on November 7, 2012, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the final configuration and landscaping of the detention basin shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Inspection Departments; 4. 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; 5. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as shown on the approved Site Plan, is hereby November 13, 2012 25490 accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective banier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission for their review and approval or immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department al the time the building permits are applied for; and 8. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Krueger, Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Monow NAYS: Taylor ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Monow, Chainnan, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. We appreciate you bringing in the renderings so we can make sure the two went together, and not just two different states of architecture. ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,032nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,032nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 23, 2012. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and adopted, it was November 13, 2012 25491 #11-104-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,032nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2012, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Taylor, Scheel, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Krueger Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,03V Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 13, 2012, was adjourned at 9:56 p.m. ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary