The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-02-2421019 MINUTES OF THE 8801h PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday February 24, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 880b Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Dan Piercecchi William LaPine H. G. Shane Carol Smiley Members absent: Robert Alanskas Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Scoff Miller, Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; Debra Walter, Clerk -Typist; and Marge Roney, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a pettion is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their 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 2004-01-01-01 GOLF RIDGE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01-01- 01, submitted by Golf Ridge Properties, LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads in the North Y of Section 5 from AG to R4. 21020 Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Poppenger? Mr. Poppenger: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated January 29, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above - referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No right -0f --way dedication is required. The following minor items were noted in the legal description. The fourth line should indicate the South line of Eight Mile Road. The fourteenth line is missing a decimal point in the distance of 50.53 feet. The balance of the description is correct as submitted, but represents a slightly different piece of land than that previously being considered for rezoning. Significant off-site water main and sanitary sewer extensions will be required in connection with this project." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners at this point? Hearing none, if the petitioner would please approach the podium and state your name and address for our record please. Carl Creighton, Esq., Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton and Amann, 33300 Five Mile Road, Suite 210, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Creighton. For the benefit of the audience, I had discussed this matter with Mr. Creighton earlier today as this matter has been subject to a previous petition. There is a great deal of historical data that I thought he could perhaps just give a Iitfle background on, but perhaps spend more time tonight on the current petition, specifically the zoning request. Mr. Creighton: And I will speak to the proposed rezoning and the project to the built in a minute, but if I may, I would like to first yield the floor to Mr. Larry Slone, who is here as a representative of the property owner, to allow him to address the decision by the Glen Eden Cemelary, Inc. to declare the land that is involved in this petition as surplus land and make the decision to liquidate that, and then I'll return to the petition at hand and what it is that we're seeking. Mr. Walsh: All right. Thank you. Lawrence Sloan, 40 Folmsby Drive, Albany, New York. I'm a business consultant to the cemetery. I just want to briefly touch on the fact that we didn't 21021 enter into this decision very quickly or lightly. We spent nearly two years studying the subject and looking at alternatives. The mortality trends in the United States are changing, and what we did in our analysis was to determine that if we did, in fact, sell and redevelop this property, this parcel of 47 acres, for another use, that our remaining property would still give us an active future life as a cemetery in excess of 75 years and likely 100 years. So with those kinds of planning horizons, we thought we were able to turn this non-performing asset into a performing asset, both for the cemetery, for our lot owners and for the City. So it is on that basis that we undertook a very careful bidding process in conjunction with our general counsel, and looking at developers who we fell would develop something compatible with the cemetery. I think a key component of what I want to say tonight is that should this be approved and go forward, and something be developed on this parcel, that the most effective neighbor will be the cemetery, and we recognize that. And this is a deep concern for us, and that's why we've worked so diligenfly to come up with a concept that allows for the development of a detached home condominium -type community with a homeowners association that would give us control of the property edge between the cemetery and this development so that we could have the proper landscaping, the proper berms and barriers to eliminate sight lines in and out of the cemetery. Secondly, we feel that by developing what are called empty -nester or young professional homes, the 2,000 - 2,500 square foot homes, with principal living on tie first floor, that the house would have a low profile, which would eliminate a lot of these sight line issues for us. So we've been I think working diligently to tryto find a project that is most compatible with the cemetery. And we feel that this can be a tremendous improvement to our property which is currently vacant. Its not going to be developed in the long term. We use it as a tree fans, as a spoils area. And we think this can be beautifully done. It will provide us with additional water for our irrigation requirements. It will give us some additional drainage opportunity in the rear of the property. It will give us access to sewer for our maintenance buildings. So there's all these ancillary benefits that we tied into the project. I think we're very proud of the work we've done to dale. The project has been looked at by our board of directors, both the religious and lay members of that board. We've presented it to the some 54 Lutheran churches that actually own Glen Eden Memorial Park at our annual meeting nearly a year ago. So its been a long process and we think a careful process, and that's kind of the message that I wanted to deliver on behalf of the cemetery to the Planning Commission this evening. I know Cad can go through the details of the development 21022 as it now stands, and I'm here and would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: Seeing you're a representative of the cemetery, two questions came up at our study session that maybe you're the person that should answer them. Do you know what the closest cemetery plot will be to the homes? One hundred feel? Fifty feet? Mr. Sloan: Just to put it in context, as you know, the site plan approval is the next phase. Mr. LaPine: I understand. Mr. Sloan: So we'll gelvery precise atthat time. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Sloan: But my feeling is that there will be no graves closer than 100 feet. That's certainly the number. Mr. LaPine: Okay. The second question that came up - was there any notice given to families who have loved one buried there or have bought lots for the future to let them know what is going on, because when they bought these lots, this wasn't even in the plan? Mr. Sloan: There was no notice given. That would have been a pretty burdensome thing to do. But what we did do, it certainly wasn't done in the dark of night or in secret, we did present this to all of our Lutheran pastors and delegates from all of the churches, and as you know, we were before this Planning Commission Iasi fall and the City Council. So this has been a project that's been in the public eye and in the media for some six or seven months. We did, after it was in the newspaper, receive a number of calls, 10 or 12 calls, to the cemetery and we tried to address any concerns that our lot owners have. It's paramount to us that we have satisfied customers. That's our ministry. That's our mission. It is to help these people at a time of bereavement and that's certainly paramount for us. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to ask you one question, sir. Mr. Sloan: Sure. 21023 Mr. Piercecchi: When you originally came here, I think it was 41 acres. Mr. Sloan: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: And you wanted condos with that package, and the Planning Commission and the City Council thought R4 was more appropriate. We're very pleased that you're willing to accept that standard right now. The question that I have in mind is, how many sites do you have in reserve when you're giving up 47 acres in this particular cemetery? Mr. Sloan: By sites, do you mean burial spaces? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. With the earlier package, if I remember correctly, it was talking like they have 14 acres in reserve. Mr. Sloan: No, no. It's more than that. Mr. Piercecchi: I mean that's what was said. I'm not saying its more than that. I'm saying what I was told. Mr. Sloan: Well, I can give ... when the cemetery was originally founded, it owned the City golf course and the park in Farmington Hills. So the vision was quite different 75 years ago than it was 25 and 50 years ago and now today. As these trends continue to evolve, its not certain exactly what shape the cemetery will take in terms of future development, but we feel that there is at least 75 years of space, I think 100, and we're utilizing about 800 spaces a year. You could do the mathematics and that's approximately the spaces of different types of inventory that we believe we have available. Mr. Piercecchi: Exactly how may sites will you have remaining after this? Eight hundred? Mr. Sloan: I would say that 60,000 is a minimum number. Mr. Piercecchi: Sixty thousand. Okay. So you're not putting a handicap on that cemetery being obsolete in the next couple of years? Mr. Sloan: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Creighton: As you've indicated, Chairman Walsh, we have been before you before. This is our second trip before the Planning Commission 21024 and we've also been to Council, but as you're aware, we're requesting a rezoning from Agricultural to RA zoning with a maximum density of 2.5 residential units per acre. If successful in rezoning, we will be back before this board with a site plan with all of the specifics. We do have a conceptual plan to show you this evening to give you some feel for what it is that we're about to do. And we will be coming back with that site plan utilizing the so-called cluster option to adapt to the adjacent uses and the proximity to a major thoroughfare and the geometric difficulties that we experienced with this particular site. What we are about to do, if successful, is develop a premium single family enclave of not more than 118 homes. They're going to be quality detached single family homes. Its going to be a self-contained community with very little demand for public services. It will be governed by a homeowners association that will be responsible for all exterior maintenance, all snow removal, all landscaping, so that there is a uniformity throughout the community and a uniformity with the adjacent lands and the cemetery and with the golf course and park lands that also surround this. We will be developing something that addresses a missing niche in the Livonia housing market, something that is available for tie so-called young professional, double income, no children type of families, as well as the empty nesters or near empty nesters like myself that have adult children that are outgrowing our four bedroom colonials. We'll be able to free those up so that families can move into those residential neighborhoods and utilize the existing schools and make better use of them than my wife and I are making of our four bedroom colonial now. As I say, we're dealing with detached 2,000 to 2,300 square foot single family homes, brick ranch appearing cape cod style houses. They are of a low profile, much like the bungalow style of house that I grew up in northwest Detroit or that populates many sections of the city today. The master suite and all essential living space will be located on the first floor with a Toff like second floor with additional bedrooms and amenities upstairs, but essentially all the living space is on the first floor. We will be having full basements. Some will be walk -outs. Each unit will have a two -car attached garage with two additional off-street parking spaces. We will be discouraging on -street parking. In furtherance of that, we're planning on 81 individually strategically located additional parking spaces throughout the community so that when company comes over or there are gatherings, that we wont have the streets lined. There's an extensive park -like setting throughout the entire community with an integrated system of walking trails that circumnavigate the entire complex and crisscross the complex so that there aren't necessarily needs for sidewalks. It's a park -like selling surrounded by 500 acres of open space, a combination of 21025 two golf courses, the Bicentennial Park and the cemetery on all sides. When this development is done, approximately 70 percent of the 47 acres is going to be open space, meaning not covered by brick, mortar, concrete or asphalt but will rather be green space or detention pond facilities. We will have a limited access single entrance to this subdivision so it will be completely self-contained and will not lax any other community in terms of traffic. It will be well landscaped. There's going to be a significant softening of all edges. We're going to work closely with the cemetery to make sure that our use and their use is homogenous and that the boundaries are not stark in any way, shape or form. We will have two aerated ponds for storm water detention and irrigation of both our development and the cemetery. We're going to work closely with them, and we've already had discussions with the Engineering Department about the use of the detention ponds for storm water use to integrate the City Master Plan and County Master Plan for storm water management. As you may be aware, the land to the north in Farmington Hills is at a higher elevation, and we do take what runs off from Farmington Hills, and we're going to be able to contain that, control that, and help the city with their storm water maintenance needs as well. The minimum setbacks that we are proposing in terms of rear yards - and Mr. Sloan has alluded to the distance to the closest graves sites - the minimum setbacks would be 50 feet from the rear properly where we abut the cemetery proper and 75 feet along Eight Mile Road, so that there is a separation for purposes of noise and visual sight lines along Eight Mile Road. In addition to that distance of 50 feet from the rear of any structure to the back of our properly line, there will be an additional 10 fool buffer between our property line and the cemeteryroads, which follows the contour of the property that we're purchasing. The road itself is an additional 20 feel and then there's the distance between the roadway and the grave sites. And that's basically where Mr. Sloan comes up with his calculation between the 50 feet of setback, the 10 fool buffer, the 20 fool road and the distance between the grave sites and the roads to the nearest grave site. In a minute we will show you the slide that shows the conception of this. Actually, a small percentage of the actual homes in this development will abut the cemetery, something probably less than 25%, approximately 15% to 20% of the total units will actually abut the cemetery, and even less will abut the cemetery that's actually currently in use at this point. Most of them will be on the golf course side or along the Eight Mile Road development, or will be interior space that does not directly contact the development. This is our preliminary concept. As you see, it's detached single family homes, 118 in full compliance with our R-4 zoning with designated park areas interspersed throughout, 70% 21028 green space, connecting walkway and the two private parking spaces for each individual unit as well as the 81 common use spaces interspersed throughout the area. These are just some architectural examples ofwhatwe are contemplating. Again, when we come back with the site plan, we'll have more detail about where we actually are located, but as you can see, it's first floor master suites, second floor additional bedrooms with full basements, walk -out sites, with brick exteriors and attached two and a half car garages. You kind of skipped my first slides. Mr. Miller: I didn't know if you wanted it. Mr. Creighton: We're all set. That will be fine. I will entertain any questions. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Miller, could you put back up the first slide? All the internal roads will be serviced by just that one exit coming in off of Eight Mile Road to the west. Mr. Creighton: That is correct- that boulevarded entrance and exit. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So otherwise, nobody at the cemetery can gel into this subdivision except by going out onto Eight Mile Road? Mr. Creighton: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: The second question, maybe this isn't the time to bring it up, but it's something to look at. Because of the amount of traffic on Eight Mile Road, especially in the morning and in the evening, it might be a good idea to start looking at the possibility of a light at that exit into the cemetery because I think you're going to have some problems there. Mr. Creighton: Well, we would certainly entertain that, and obviously that's for someone else's ultimate decision-making. We could perhaps obtain a light such as they use at the exit to the Farmington Hills Ice Arena. It's a little close to have two lights in that juxtaposition. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. Mr. Creighton: That particular light is actually triggered by vehicles crossing over a sensor in the pavement and it activates the street light. That might wreck havocwith Eight Mile Road trafficduring the rush hour. Mr. LaPine: I think everybody has at least two cars. With that many homes, that's a lot of cars. People getting out of there in the morning, 21027 especially if you want to go west by making a left hand turn, they're going to have a problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Creighton, would you like to continue? Mr. Creighton: I think that's it, other than entertaining any questions that you might have. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions from the Commissioners? If there are none, we will now hear questions from the floor. Interested persons are invited to speak for or against this petition at this time. If you will, please come to one or the other of our podiums, and I will ask that you stale your name and your address. Dennis Behrendsen, 20012 Wayne. I'm the President of the Deer Creek Homeowners Association. I think most of you know that Deer Creek is the commonly understood name of the subdivision that runs along the east side of Glen Eden Cemetery. With me tonight is Bob Moore, who is the Vice President of the Association. As in the previous meetings on this subject, I'm on record as saying our Association would have much preferred to see the cemetery remain as a cemetery for the indefinite future, but we realize that we can't control that and it's not likely to happen. We argued before in that event, that R4 would be the appropriate zoning, and indeed Golf Ridge is asking for R-0. So that leaves just one remaining issue that I've got, and that's the water pressure. I would request that the Planning Commission request the Engineering Department to run their water pressure model for heavy use conditions to see whatthe result would be for the north end, particularly the Deer Creek and also the Chestnut Grove subdivisions. At one time, there was a proposal that the water spur that would have to feed east from Newburgh to the Golf Ridge property be extended all the way to Deer Creek, which would definitely take care of the problem, but I dont think the City has the financial wherewithal to do that anytime soon, and I'm guessing that Golf Ridge would not volunteer to lake on that expense either. So I think it's only fair to ask that the water pressure be verified because I know that we already lose water pressure pretty badly in the high watering conditions. Not in the winter, we're great right now. And then just one additional note, really aimed at Gotf Ridge. The one thing that I think, if you're talking condos in Livonia, that we really need and lack and something Northville Township has is luxury condominiums in the ranch style, single level, 2,200 to 2,500 square feel with attached two car garages. I dont think you can find that in Livonia right now, and it's something for you to consider. Thank you. 21028 Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Behrendsen. I can tell you that the Council will certainly address the engineering issues as they do with every petition. Lee Morrow, 37773 North Laurel Park Drive, Livonia. I'd like to address one of the questions that Mr. LaPine had. I have a loved one buried in close proximity to this development. As a matter of fad, my plot is in close proximity to this development. I want to go on record as saying that I have no concern about this development from somebody on the other side of the dividing line. Thank you. Rick Wilk, 14089 Riverside, Livonia, Michigan. I've been a Livonia resident for 15 years, and I'm definitely against R. When Geoffrey Feiger became an attorney, he used to admonish his critics and the media alike. He used a phrase which is appropriate for tonight's meeting: Shame on you. Yes, shame on you Glen Eden Cemetery for not being truthful and upfront when my wife and I purchased three plots as recent as January of 2004, one of which has already been used to bury our son. Common courtesy would have been to inform us of a pending rezoning hearing and a property sale, but that would have been the right thing to do. In today's world and culture, we don't do things of that nature. Rather, we have to find out from Channel 7 Action News (thank you Val Clark) and the Livonia Observer as to what is going on. However, when it comes time to sending out notices that memorial markers are going to have a price increase after March 1, then we are notified. My question is, what do you have to hide? Lost sales, perhaps. As far as Golf Ridge development is concerned, shame on you also. I realize your motive is profits, profits, profits, but have some decency. Do we have to disturb our loved ones because of the dollar sign? Dont you have any conscious or vision whatsoever as to the families who have loved ones buried in a quiet setting that would like it to remain that way, or is your vision distorted by the prospect of mega millions. And I don't mean the lottery. As many funerals as I've attended in my lifetime, I've yet to see the Brinks truck follow the hearse. After all, you can't take it with you. Finally, shame on you, the governing body here in Livonia for your main and only concern is tax revenue, tax revenue, tax revenue. What happened to the good old days of by the people, for the people, and listening to what the Livonia residents have to say? In 2003 and 2004, this too has gone the was of the Edsel. The need for more, more, more tax revenues is the new battle cry. Yet lake a drive up Farmington Road between Seven and Eight Mile Road, as an example, and count how many commercial buildings have "for lease" signs in front of the properties. The majority of them are offered by Ventura Properties in most cases. As Sonny and Cher used to remind us 21029 from the music of the 60's, the beat goes on. And regardless of where the vacant properly might be or where a controversial business establishment can come in and set up shop over the protests of the people in the neighborhood, namely Hooters, the prevalent attitude is, go for it for the sake of tax revenue. In closing, I realize that our loved ones that are buried in Glen Eden do not pay taxes and they do not generate revenue, but they have already paid their dues and should be allowed to rest in peace. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who desires to speak on the petition? Seeing no one approaching the podium, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-18-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2004-01-01-01, submitted by Golf Ridge Properties, LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone properly located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads in the North % of Section 5 from AG to R4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-01-01-01 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of the subject properly for single family residential purposes in a compatible manner with other developed properties in the area; 3. That the use of the subject properly for single family residential purposes as allowed under the proposed change of zoning will be enhanced by its proximity to adjacent uses which provide large areas of open space; 4. That the proposed change of zoning will promote the orderly development of the subject properly; and 5. That the proposed rezoning to the R-4 classification will allow for development of homes that would be more in keeping with standards of new construction throughout the City. 21030 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Creighton: Mr. Walsh, if I may? We would appreciate a public hearing being schedule before Council at the earliest available dale. We would ask that you consider waiver of the seven day rule as of the effective dale of the action of the Commission tonight that would permit us to get on an earlier public hearing date at the Council level. Mr. Walsh: Is there a motion to that effect? Mr. LaPine: Has Mr. Taylor talked to you about this? Mr. Walsh: I have not spoken to Mr. Taylor about this. Mr. LaPine: Normally we don't give the seven-day waiver unless the City Council approves of it ahead of time. That's what we've done in the past. If the Council has no objection, because they have to look at their agenda, and if the seven days don't fall into their category, it would do no good to give you the seven days because you have to wait until they get you on the agenda anyways. Mr. Walsh: That's a good point, Mr. LaPine. Mr. Creighton: If I may, I think that this matter was already slotted. There was a meeting with the administration and with Mr. Taylor, and this was already slotted for a public hearing dale that is coming up toward the end of this month and this would ... the end of March, I'm sorry, we're still in February ... and this would facilitate us gelling on for that dale. Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine, did you attend that meeting? Mr. LaPine: Yes, but that was not brought up about the seven-day waiver. Mr. Walsh: Did they discuss the scheduling? Mr. LaPine: They did not. No. Now there might have been another meeting after the one I attended. 21031 Mr. Creighton: Mr. LaPine, I believe itwas slotted for Wednesday, March 31. Mr. LaPine: It was discussed at that meeting. I think it was brought up when Mr. Taylor looked at his calendar and he couldn't really tell for sure until he checked with Karen. Mr. Shane: Is it possible to approve the seven-day waiver subject to concurrence by the Council or something of that sort? Mr. LaPine: I have no problem with that. If Council agrees with it, I dont have a problem. Mr. Walsh: And Mr. LaPine is absolutely correct. I had not spoken with Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor did not call nor did I call him. I think if we do what Mr. Shane is suggesting, we could accomplish your goal. Mr. Creighton: That would be wonderful. Mr. Walsh: Do I have a motion to that effect. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-19-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2004-01-01-01, submitted by Golf Ridge Properties, LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads in the North % of Section 5 from AG to R4, subject to approval by the City Council. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 200401-02-01 HARRY KZIRIAN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01- 02-01 submitted by Harry Kzinan requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate an automobile repair facility at 13175 Newburgh, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between SchoolcraR Road and Amrhein Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30. 21032 Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Poppenger: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 20, 2004, which reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description is connect for the development of the two buildings. No right-of-way dedication is required. The rear of the northerly building is located at 63 feet from the west property line. The original plan for the southerly building indicated a detention area on the parking lot over the westerly 90 feet of the site. The loss of this detention area will have to be made up for somewhere else on the site." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 22, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval to construct and operate an automobile repair facility on property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Schoolcraft Road and the C&O Railroad in the Northeast of Section 30. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 4, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the proposed plans in regards to the proposal to construct and operate an automobile repair facility on the west side of Newburgh Road between Schoo/craft Road and the C&O Railroad. The plans are not clear as to the type of `auto repair' the two lease units will be. A transmission repair facility will require additional parking spaces currently not available on this site plan. Due to the site plan indicating four separate offices and waiting areas, we recommend that consideration be given to creating a fourth handicap parking space closer to the auto repairAease unit #2. This will alleviate the necessity for a handicap person to walk or wheel past four vehicle bays in order to get to the door. We also recommend adequate lighting on the west end of the site for security reasons should vehicles be left on the property overnight. All handicap parking spaces must be properly posted per ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 9, 2004, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request of January 12, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The employee and bay counts seem low. In unit #1, an oil change business, there would 21033 typically be more than one employee per bay and there would be 'front office' employees. In units 2 and 3, the area north of the bays is at an indeterminate usage. (2) This split -zoned site will need to be divided with separate tax identification numbers and cross easements for access and parking. (3) The landscaping plan is incomplete if the south site is attached to this Petition. (4) With or without the auto body shop, the parking is deficient for the north units and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking. (5) As this property abuts a major thoroughfare, the required front yard depth is 100 feet, therefore, this site will require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front yard setback and deficient front yard landscaping. (6) The interior side yards are required to be 20 feet This will also require another zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient side yards. (7) These proposals both require the entire site, except the front yard, to be enclosed by a fence of a type approved by the Commission and Council. A zoning variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be necessary to construct these sites as proposed with the complete fencing. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. We have also received a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Kzirian from the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated March 31, 2003. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: To the staff in regard to that Zoning Board action, that was with respect to the southern building, wasn't it? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Shane: And if you take that southern building all by itself, it meets the front yard landscaping requirements. Is that true? Mr. Miller: No, that's not true. The southern building is the one that's deficient in front yard landscaping. Mr. Shane: Okay. But the Zoning Board requires that the landscaping area be complied with. Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Shane: And they were going to do that by adding a new building and combining the two properties together. Is that the way lheywant to do it? 21034 Mr. Miller: You'd have to ask the petitioner, but with the two buildings, it is 50%. Mr. Shane: If they don't split the property, then the southern building is in violation of the Zoning Board? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for the staff? Hearing none, would the petitioner please approach the podium and state your name and address for the record. Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger, Livonia, Michigan. I'm here on behalf of Richard Zischke. He hurt his back so he asked me if I would kind of cover for him tonight. I designed the building to the south of this site. Anyway, I was going over some of the comments here and they were talking about being short parking. Well, with 50 plus parking spaces between the two buildings, and that's the way the owner is planning on addressing it because he's going to be in the building to the south with the body shop, and another gentleman behind me here is with an oil change place. We have an agreementthat we're putting together on this parking because like your letter says, we're about len parking spaces short up front, but we've got an extra ten on the south side of this site. So between the two, I don't think that's going to be a major problem. In any event, with them developing this site with the costs what they are today, approximately $1.4 million for the building costs themselves, they're definitely not going to build something where they're going to be short parking, so I don't feel parking is going to be any type of a problem to them. With the landscaping on both sides, I don't think that's going to be a problem because we're just there. I can't see us being anything short, but we're not over it either. I look the 15%, calculated them and came out pretty close to where we're suppose to be. I do have a letter here that Harry Kzinan put together and you might just pass this down to everybody. That's on the sharing of the parking on both these sites. Other than that, there was a note in one of these things about a fence. There are some fences on that site right now in the back. Whatever we have to do in that aspect, we will. We obviously have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the two setbacks, the one on the north which is ten feet and is supposed to be 20, and the setback on the front. We have to cross that hurdle yet, loo, so in any event, are there any questions? 21035 Mr. Piercecchi: Good evening, Mr. Gallagher. How much consideration was given to combining those two buildings inasmuch as they're all automotive oriented? You wouldn't have any setback problems; you wouldn't have any parking problems, just by joining them. Mr. Gallagher: I dont think so. Mr. Piercecchi: Has any thought been given to that? Wouldn't it be a lot more effective for you to do it that way? Ray Bedouin, One Woodbridge, Dearborn, Michigan 48122. 1 own Big Ray's Quick Lube and I have multiple locations. In the quick lube business, we don't really need many parking spaces other than the employee parking spaces. For this particular building, I only need like three parking spaces for my employees. So there won't be any problem with parking. Cars dont stay overnight. It's a drive-through so we don't really need any additional parking, three or four maximum. Mr. Piercecchi: You haven't answered my question, sir, about combining the two. Mr. Bedouin: There won't be any problem with that. Mr. Piercecchi: Pardon me? Mr. Bedouin: There won't a problem. There will not be a problem. Mr. Piercecchi: Have you considered it then ... combining them? Mr. Bedouin: Yes. Mr. Walsh: I think Mr. Piercecchi is addressing the physical combination of the buildings. Is that correct, Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, sir. Mr. Walsh: He's talking about a physical connection of the two buildings as opposed to two stand alone buildings. Mr. Bedouin: Oh. Oh, physical. No. Mr. Piercecchi: But you're using up basically all of those lots, and if you combined them, I hadn't seen any drawings, I would think that you could position it more or less right in the center of those two lots, have a lot more space and really have an improved looking area. My question was, have you considered it or will you consider it? 21036 Harry Kzirian, 26675 Wembley Court, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. I'm the owner of the property, and we don't know exactly which buildings you are talking about, south side, the oil change? Mr. Piercecchi: You've got a north and a south building. Mr. Kzirian: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm saying, have you considered making it one building inasmuch as all the operations that are going to be performed in these two buildings are automotive oriented? I would think lhallhere could be an arrangementfor one building. I'm sure Mr. Gallagher could lay it out. Mr. Kzirian: Obviously, we've got a block wall in between the oil change and the west side of the building. Unless my tenant wants to operate the whole thing, you know, that's possible of course. But right now he wants only the oil change, the four bay. In the future, he might be able ... like, he's got another store on Telegraph Road in Redford. He's operating as a tire shop. In the future, he might be interested in the whole thing, but right now, we don't have any plans. Mr. Piercecchi: Right now, you're planning on building twoseparate buildings. Mr. Kzirian: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: On Lot 36 and Lot 37. Mr. Kzirian: Well, actually, it's three buildings, or one is the body shop, which is on the south side. Then on the north side, we have additional two buildings. One is going to be a four -bay oil change and the other one is going to be a four -bay automotive -related business, but we don't have any tenants yet for that location. Mr. Piercecchi: You don't think we have a problem here about two pounds of coffee in a one pound can? Mr. Kzirian: I don't see a problem. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Gallagher, how would you address that? Mr. Gallagher: I'm sorry. Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think it feasible that the petitioners would be better off if they combined them both. 21037 Mr. Gallagher: You mean combine all three uses in one building? Mr. Piercecchi: It seems to me they're using up this land to its entirety. They have all kinds of close setbacks, especially on the sides. The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted some. I know you got some relief there, but there's still one or two. Mr. Gallagher: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm just saying, has any thought been given to combining these two buildings, or three buildings now I guess, and eliminating all this close proximity to boundary lines? Mr. Gallagher: Well, I personally haven't given any thought to that. Number one, I came through here and got the building on the south approved the way it was with the setbacks and whatever we had to do with the ZBA, but as far as adding a second building on this site, its still only one building. There might be two uses in that building, but @'s still only one building on the north side. So we're talking about two buildings and two separate sites, and I seem to think that's a pretty good way of going with this. Mr. Piercecchi: So you think the two sites, developing 36 and 37 individually rather than combining the two lots together and putting d in the middle is the way to go? Mr. Gallagher: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Thank you Mr. Shane: Do I understand that the pefitioner is going to retain ownership of both of these buildings? Mr. Gallagher: Yes. Mr. Shane: He is? Mr. Kzirian: The body shop I want to operate it myself, and Quick Oil Change, Ray is going to operate it. The other building, we don't have a tenant yet. We're trying to find a tenant in the automotive -related business. Mr. Shane: We keep asking questions about whether this is going to be one property or two. 21038 Mr. Kzirian: As it is, it's under one lax I.D. and I'm trying to keep it that way unless the City recommends otherwise, you know. I'm willing to do that. But right now its under one tax I.D. Mr. Shane: Thank you Mr. LaPine: Al this point, all you're going to build is the oil change and the two buildings behind the oil change will not be built, or will they be built at the same time as the oil change? Mr. Kzirian: Everything will be built at the same time, the body shop, the oil change and the other building. Mr. LaPine: All three will be built at one time. Mr. Kzirian: Yes. We're trying to get an okay. Mr. LaPine: Now, on my plan, it says auto repair lease unit 1 and auto repair lease unit 2. That makes me believe there's going to be two different auto repair people in here, or is that going to be just one tenant for both buildings? Mr. Kzirian: It depends on the tenant. If we have two different tenants, we're willing to split by pulling a block wall or a dry wall, whatever their requirements are, but right now, we're going to keep it open. But we're planning, like as far as plumbing and electrical boxes, we're going to plan for two tenants. It depends on the tenants, again, what kind of tenants we can get. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions from the Commissioners? If there are none, we will now hear questions from the floor. Interested persons are invited to speak for or against this petition at this time. See no one, I will now close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-20-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2004-01-02-01 submitted by Harry Kzirian requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate an automobile repair facility at 13175 Newburgh, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Schoolcmff Road and Amrhein Road in the Northeast 1/4 21039 of Section 30, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-01-02-01 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Sl dated January 5, 2004, as revised, prepared by R.A. Zischke Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That in the event the properly is split, a reciprocal parking and ingress/egress agreement shall be recorded, subject to the review and approval of the City Law Department; 3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS -1 dated January 5, 2004, as revised, prepared by R.A. Zischke Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated January 5, 2004, as revised, prepared by R.A. Zischke Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick or in the case a precast concrete system is used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards; 9. 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; 10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all limes; 21040 11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 12. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front and side yard setbacks and any conditions related thereto; 13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 14. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 15. That repair work conducted at this facility shall not include bumping, painting, spraying and rust -proofing, ortransmission repair; 16. That there shall be no overnight outdoor parking or storage of vehicles on the site; 17. Thalall auto parts, equipment, scrap material, debris or similar items generated by the subject use shall be stored inside the building or inside a dumpster or othertype oftrash container; 18. That any lighting equipment provided on the subject site shall be shielded and shall not exceed 20 feet in height above grade; and 19. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. 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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21041 ITEM #3 PETITION 200401-02-02 HEALTHY CHOICES CAFE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01- 02-02 submitted by Ty Nuottila requesting waiver use approval to operate a operate a limited service restaurant (Healthy Choices Cafe) at 33623 Eight Mile Road in the Northridge Commons shopping center, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 114 of Section 4. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Poppenger: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 28, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No right -0f --way dedication is required." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 28, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval to operate a limited services restaurant on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 4, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plans in regards to the proposal to operate a limited service restaurant on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads. We have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 6, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 26, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) As this is a change of use, this space must meet the current barrier -free code in its entirety, including the point-of-sale counter and exterior door. (2) There are elements of this plan that will not pass plan review. The Department will address those issues at our plan review when submitted. (3) The barrier -free exterior access ramp needs to be repaired or replaced. (4) The sign over the vacant adjacent space east of this site needs to be removed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex 21042 Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for Staff? Hearing none, is the petitioner here this evening? Ty Nuolfila, 1194 Clearwater, White Lake, Michigan 48386. I have worked in and around Livonia for the past five -plus years in the area, and I'm fairly well connected business -wise with the people, most recently with Quicken Loans. Basically, we're just looking to open a very simple healthy -type restaurant, very similar to the sub shops that are out there, the Subways, the Jimmy John's, the Quizno's and so on. We're not emphasizing sandwiches, although we do plan to offer several of a healthy variety. Our main goal is to provide if not the best, one of the best salads in southeastern Michigan. We have a wonderful chef on staff, and we've been testing and tasting a bunch of some preliminary product, and we have some really good stuff that we're going to roll out, hopefully if you'll let us. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Do you have any restaurants now? Mr. Nuottila: No, sir. This would be the first. We plan on hopefully in the future opening several more. We've actually starling looking at some ... Mr. LaPine: Do you have any experience in the restaurant business? Mr. Nuottila: Not since high school. I mean I did work at Little Caesar's in high school. That's why I interviewed and hired a very good chef to help and aid me in this process. Mr. LaPine: These type of cafes, we've approved about three or four in the Iasi few months. They seem to be springing up all over. I'm just wondering if you did your homework. You sit so far off of Eight Mile Road, way in the back there. I live in the subdivision right near there. Its going to be hard for people to see you, except for the people going to Kroger's and Blockbusters and things like that. Mr. Nuottila: Right. Mr. LaPine: Is there any representative here from your landlord? Mr. Nuottila: No, sir. 21043 Mr. LaPine: I have no objection. The building is empty. There are two buildings right next door to you. Mr. Nuottila: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The one has moved up the street on Seven Mile Road, a brewing place where you can brew your own beer. But anyways, I have no objection. I just hope and wish you good luck. Its just that the competition out there is pretty lough. Mr. Nuottila: Yes. Everywhere I go people tell me that I must be crazy for opening a restaurant. Mr. Shane: My only question is, do you expect that the majority of your business will be carry out or sit down? Mr. Nuottila: I expect at least probably about half. When I did work at Quicken Loans, over a course of about a year and half, I put on 20 pounds simply because we worked long hours and we ordered in, and most the time, you can only order ... they're very few ... you know, pizza, a few places deliver, sub shops, but it's hard to gel healthy food delivered. I know my contacts at Quicken Loans are ready for me to open like yesterday to gel some healthy foods delivered there, but I would expect a good portion. We plan to market aggressively that aspect of the business because like I say, it's just hard to get Subway, a lot of these others quote unquote healthy type food places don't deliver, and we plan on - to all of Livonia and probably some of Farmington and Novi - offering a free delivery range so that we can accommodate anybody that's interested. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, is the healthy choices . .. is that a chain or is that your individual name? Mr. Nuottila: We came up with that name. We do have a lawyer; he's searching as far as trademark infringement goes. It's gotten past Michigan; we're on like to the federal level because there is a Healthy Choice food line in your grocery store that offers like microwaveable-type frozen dinners and actually they have some cold cuts now in delis and whatnot. But I think as of now, we're able to utilize that name, which is nice. We do have a couple backup names like Healthy Eats, Healthy Options, Healthy Styles. We've got some other stuff we're looking at. Mr. Piercecchi: So you'll be operating totally independent. You won't have any support group from a big chain for credit? 21044 Mr. Nuottila: We explored the franchise opportunities and they want loo much control, and to be honest, they want loo much money, especially in this area where we would be bringing our franchise from the one I really explored heavily, it's called Salad Works which is in the Philadelphia area where they're centered. We'd be bringing them here and if there's no name recognition, I'm not really thrilled with the way they run their business and some of their sales practices and they're pricing is a little higher than I really want to go. I want to offer a good healthy food at reasonable pricing. I think our average ticket we're aiming for is about $7.00 with a drink. Mr. Piercecchi: I admire your altitude about going into business like this, but as Mr. LaPine bought up, it could be a lough row to hoe, but I wish you the best of luck. Mr. Nuottila: I appreciate that. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions from the Commissioners? If there are none, we will now hear questions from the floor. Interested persons are invited to speak for or against this petition at this time. See no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-21-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2004-01-02-02 submitted by Ty Nuoltla requesting waiver use approval to operate a operate a limited service restaurant (Healthy Choices Cafe) at 33623 Eight Mile Road in the Northridge Commons shopping center, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 114 of Section 4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-01-02-02 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than 14 seats; 2. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 6, 2004: - That this space shall meet the current barrier -free code in its entirety, including the point-of-sale counter and exterior door; 21045 That the barrier -free exterior access ramp shall be repaired or replaced; That the sign over the vacant adjacent space, east of this site, shall be removed; That repairs shall be made to the brick on the walls located adjacent to the driveway at the far east entrance into this complex and that light fixtures shall be replaced where missing; 3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, I'd like to add under number two a fourth condition. As you go into the far east entrance into this complex, they have low L- shaped walls on each side of the driveway. On one side, the bricks are all falling down. The light fixtures are gone, and it's been that way for quite a while. This is an opportunity, I think, to gel it fixed. So if we can add that in there. Mr. Shane: I'd like to do that, but I don't know how much control the petitioner has over that. Mr. LaPine: Well, he doesn't have it, but his landlord would have. We've done it in the past. 21046 Mr. Shane: Ok. I have no objection to it. Mr. Walsh: Mrs. Smiley? Smiley: No objection. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared he motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2004-01-02-03 KROGER COMPANY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01- 02-03 submitted by Jeffery Scott Architects, P.C., on behalf of The Kroger Company, requesting waiver use approval to expand and remodel the existing Kroger store and construct a pharmacy ddve- thru on the east side of the building at 30935 Five Mile Road in the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Hillcrest Court in the Northwest 114 of Section 23. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Poppenger: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 27, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No right -0f --way dedication is required. The legal descriptions am correct, however, it is noted that Parcel 2 (labeled as an easement) is actually property owned by the petitioner. It may be necessary to relocate an existing private storm sewer and gas main to permit construction of the building addition and truck dock expansion on the south side of the building." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 28, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval to expand and remodel the existing Kroger store and construct a pharmacy drive-thru on the east side of the building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by 21047 Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 4, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plans in regards to the proposal to expand and remodel the existing Kroger store and construct a pharmacy drive-thru on the east side of the building. We have no objections to the plans as submitted. Due to the anticipated cross traffic of pedestrians and vehicles at the northeast corner of the building, we recommend the installation of stop signs and painted stop bars at the intersection creating a 4 -way stop intersection. The height of the proposed awning over the drive-thru window should be indicated by sign." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 5, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 26, 2004, the above - referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) No mention is made of easements, etc., on Spanich Court. Itis not clear if this is an acceptable use on Spanich Court. (2) There is landscaping being removed along the east side of the Kroger building. Is it being replaced somewhere? (3) This petition will require a new variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for parking deficiency as a modification of the current grant. 856 spaces are required, 699 are proposed, for a deficiency of 157 spaces. (4) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. We have received a letter from John and Sandra Mathey, 15222 Hillcrest Court, dated February 17, 2004, in opposition to this petition, and a letter from Gladys Hosey, 14954 Flamingo, dated February 17, 2004, also in opposition to this petition. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Ms. Smiley: Is it actually two issues then: one, the expansion and second, the drive-thm? Are we going to try and split it? Mr. Walsh: It would depend on the direction this evening after the petitioner makes his presentation. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Walsh: We would have to address that separately if there is a desire to do so. If there are no questions for the staff, I'm going to tum the floor over to the petitioner. Jeffery Scott, Jeffery Scott Architects, P.C., 32316 Grand River Avenue, Farmington, Michigan 48336. With me today I also have Chris Rodgers from 21048 Kroger. He is with the Real Estate Department. Ken Reisig from Kroger, he is with the Construction and Engineering Division; Chuck Bludworth with Ramco -Gershenson, they are the landlords of the property, and Jason Fochtman is from my office. As Mr. Miller had mentioned, Kroger's is planning to undertake a variety of new improvements to their existing facility on Five Mile. There's really five different areas that are going to be affected, and Kroger's is looking to implement them all as a single package. What that would be, as mentioned, would be the takeover of the adjacent vacant retail space to the west. In conjunction with that, we would have a small addition added to the front of those existing vacant shops, which would help square off the circulation inside Kroger itself. We are looking to add a loading dock to the rear. Its approximately 500 square feel. Currently the store only has provisions for two bays for trucks to load and unload; that would be the larger semis. This addition would allow only one more bay to be added in. What that does allow for is a more efficient use of vehicles where we wouldn't have vehicles standing waiting for other vehicles to move out. Its a lot more efficient situation. The creation of the drive-lhru pharmacy to the east, the complete remodel and renovations, fixlunng, so forth, to the interior of the Kroger, which is in conjunction with the expansion and other improvements, and then we do have the complete facade renovation to the existing building. Mr. Walsh: If you want to step around, that will allow our cameras to see you and the tripod as well. Mr. Scot: As mentioned earlier, we've got the new addition off the west and this would be the portion where the new addition, approximately 1900 square feet, will be added. The loading dock at this point and then the pharmacy drive-lhru. We'll start back at the loading dock. We met with the neighbors last Saturday. We had a meeting. I believe four of the neighbors did show up. We sent out letters, I think last Wednesday or Thursday. I'm not sure. We sent out a letter requesting a meeting where we might be able to address some of their concerns regarding the proposal. And like I said, we did meet on Saturday and a lot of their concerns had to do with ... there was concern with the noise generated out of the loading dock and then also down along the easterly property line. Based upon those conversations, Kroger is willing to install a screen wall along the edge of that truck well, which would help with the acoustics. The wall would be approximately 16 to 18 feet, sufficient to be above any compressors of a vacant truck, a trailer that would be sitting there with a trailer on it, so to assist in knocking down potential noise which would propagate from that truck well. I 21049 believe the Fanner Jack on Seem Mile was a similar requirement. I think ours will actually be a little bit higher than that. I mean if we're going to build it, we want to make sure that we're going to try to gel the optimum use of that screen wall. So we would estimate it would be about 60 feel long right along the retaining wall of the well itself, and like I said, approximately 16 to 18 feet high. Over on the pharmacy drive-lhru, their concern was with opening up this entrance, which would allow the vehicles to maneuver in this manner. Their concern was a lot of light pollution that would result from that. I think they have a similar situation right now. There is some existing landscaping across there and even if there are just a couple parking spaces at this point, and this photo probably demonstrates the location of the drive. The drive cul through would occur right about in this area here. We would eliminate these two parking spaces, which would line up with the opposite drive. But as you can see, you can see one of the residences down the way, and they did indicate that there is an issue now with lights happening. What we propose to do is provide a precast concrete, stamped with a brick texture, integral color, screen wall along the easterly properly line. That would be approximately seven feet high. I believe that's whallhe city will allow us to put as far as the height of that wall. And then again, like I said, that would run the entire length of the properly line slopping just short, and what we would propose to do is the precast panels thatwere stamped with the tiers every eight feel or so. I think that's a better solution because there is a clear amount of existing landscaping along that area, and my concern would be if we introduced a continuous footing at that point, we may disrupt or kill some of that vegetation, which we really don't want to see harmed. So this would allow us to drop in the piece more in an intermediate fashion and achieve the screening which will help the lights; it will help the noise and a lot of the other concerns. We would run it right down to grade. And I guess when we mel with the owners, other methods of screening were discussed - additional landscaping, alternate types of fencing. But the homeowners had a desire to go with this type of screen wall barrier and, as was mentioned, the adjacent neighbor to the east here was concerned about sound and so forth, and that should significantly help his situation. The drive-lhru, as we go through, vehicles would either enter off of Spanich Court and tum left, maneuver around and utilize the drive-thru, or they can come across the front, meet at the stop sign, continue through and wrap around. I think one thing on the drive-lhru that needs to be clarified is the amount of traffic that it will generale. What we are looking at is, on an average usage, we would have 19 cars per day. The hours of operation are from 9 to 9. 1 believe it's only operable when there's a pharmacist in the facility. So what we're looking at is the 21050 amount of usage is actually going to be quite minimal. We're looking at about a car and a half an hour on an average. I mean you're going to have your peaks and valleys, but that's what they're looking at as far as that type of usage. But its very important to Kroger that their pharmacy have this capacity to be competitive in the marketplace. It's not intended for customers to use it on a regular basis when they're picking up their monthly prescriptions. These are in emergencies or when the mother has sick children and she doesn't want to go in and take her kids, park, go through the center - that it can be called in and she has the capability to pick up a prescription. If you look at it, the use of the pharmacy is typically a very rare occasion. I shouldn't say rare, but it's not a normal situation. But if you look at 19 cars over a whole year, and if a customer were to use it once a year, he or she would want their pharmacy to have that capability. So in case of those events that I would need to want to use the drive lhm, that you look over a whole year, you know, 20 times 365, that's quite a few customers in a year that haven't had the capability to use this. It's not like a fast food restaurant where at lunch it's a destination place that you're going to run through and everybody is getting hamburgers out the window. That's not what it is. It's a very soft use compared to what's happening with the rest of the center. Trucks that are going back here, vehicles that are using the industrial facility behind here and most limes when I've been back there, I have not seen any vehicles moving back and forth, and I've been out there quite a number of limes. So I don't see a lot of traffic movements; it's not that big of an issue because we are only looking at one, two, three cars maybe in an hour having to make this movement in through here. One of the concerns we had, and under previous submissions, was how do vehicles gel in and how do we slop possibly a vehicle from coming further down Spanich Court and wanting to kind of do a flip of a u -turn. That's why we've introduced these raised islands at this point. It will not affect traffic flow straight through and allows only a vehicle to come straight across. One of the additional benefits of putting the drive-thm here and adding these islands in the drive is, there was some concerns where we get vehicles parked in here. Trucks would park here. I believe even fire trucks would park here and go gel lunch further down the center, and that noise from the truck remaining running would reverberate in. I would guess now that this is a more tightly controlled access to and from that drive, that would not happen any more because if that were to occur, they would be blocking the drive. Where right now, due to the infrequency of the use that's there, its no big deal - a car would just go around the other side. So I think as far as noise goes, that would be an additional benefit. As far as the renovation along the front, the two entries - there are 21051 two existing entries right now. We are looking to renovate the entire storefront across the entire Kroger. The materials would be similar in nature and color to the existing, although as you can see, the elements are not matching exactly, but we think the harmony of the composition would be in keeping and we think it would be a great improvement. As you can see by the floor plan, there's a lot greater selection, increased selection from the internal. This whole thing is getting shifted around, and I guess with that, I'd be willing to answer any questions. Mr. Shane: How many other Kroger outlets that you know of have drive-thru facilities for their pharmacy? Mr. Scoff: Chns, do you have a number on that? As far as exact numbers? Mr. Shane: Well, this isn't the first one you've had? Mr. Scott : Oh, no. All their new stores have drive-thrus, all new constructions. Mr. Shane: Your 19 cars per day, is that based on experience from these other stores? Mr. Scot: Based on experience from pharmacies and store volumes of similar size. Mr. Shane: When people get used to the idea of a pharmacy, wouldn't more people than that be apt to use it, especially if they don't need to do anything else in the store? That's convenience. Am I right? Mr. Scot: It is a convenience. Mr. Shane: Yeah. Once people learn that convenience, it seems like it would be used more than that as time went on. Mr. Scott : Its the whole concept of the pharmacy inside the store. Customers do not wail for their prescription. They don't drive up and wail for their prescription. So typically it's called in or dropped off and then they pick it up. I mean ideally, Kroger does not want somebody as pure convenience to use that dnve-thm. The idea would be that they would be in the store. They could shop the store, go get their prescription and leave, but it is necessary that they have that capability in the event that people do want it and have that available. Mr. Shane: That's all I have for this moment. 21052 Mr. LaPine: At the present time, you have one truck well. Is that correct? Mr. Scott : There's a space for two. Mr. LaPine: And this will be the third one? Mr. Scot: This will be the third one, correct. Mr. LaPine: How many trucks would you have there at any one time? Would all three truck wells be used at one lime? The second part of that question is, would there be other trucks wailing for one of those three to unload to gel in? Mr. Scot: Well, I can't give you an exact timing on when the various trucks come in. One of the issues right now with the store the way it is, is that at limes trucks do have to wail. I think that is one of the issues of what's happening. Basically, all the new stores, and this is with their operation to make it more efficient, that they could move the Mr. LaPine: trucks in and out or they would drop off a trailer. All the new stores have the three wells, so this does bring them up to their more Mr. Scot: efficient product line. Mr. LaPine: Now most deliveries are made at night, is that correct, or early in the morning? Mr. Scott : Typically, there are more in the morning. Mr. LaPine: What lime? What would normally be the earliest time? Mr. Scott : I think the earliest time is 7:00. Mr. LaPine: And the refrigeration trucks ... once they pull the trailer in, the truck probably pulls out and they leave the trailer there and the refrigeration unit has to keep going to keep the produce cool until you gel it inside the store. Is that correct? Mr. Scot: It depends on what is in the vehicle. Typically, the one that I think would sit in there the longest might be the produce truck with the vegetables and so forth. That's the one that would stay longest. The meat and the dairy, I believe those are more in and out situations. Mr. LaPine: Are there trucks there every single day loading and unloading or is it just certain days of the week? Mr. Scot: Ken, do you want to answer that? 21053 Ken Reisig: Al a typical store and at this store, Kroger trucks are delivering seven days a week, but the majority of the trucks that come in are from outside vendors. Those are only allowed five days a week. The trucks that are coming from Kroger's are, as Jeff said, the perishable load which is dropped off at the store and left, and then the store unloads it, and then once they have it unloaded, they shut the refrigeration unit off. Mr. LaPine: Now you're from Kroger's. Is that correct, sir? Mr. Reisig: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Well, let me ask you this other question. What percentage of Kroger's business is for prescriptions? Mr. Reisig: On an average, ten percent. Mr. LaPine: It seems to me, the investment you're making there for the number ... when you take into consideration all you're doing just to the east side of the building, cutting in a whole new building, pulling up these concrete pillars, putting in a new driveway to make it circular, seems to be an awful big investment for 19 cars a day, approximately. Mr. Reisig: It's a huge investment. Mr. LaPine: I can't believe that Kroger couldn't afford to lose 19 customers. I guess my position is, we've got so many drugstores in the City of Livonia, and some of them are open 24 hours a day. If somebody needs an emergency prescription, they can use one of those stores instead of us. Once we open the floodgates here, I can see every Kroger store in Livonia where it's possible to put a drive-lhru in, they're gong to want it to add on to il. Every Farmer Jacks will want one and any other grocery store. To me, I just can't see the investment you're making here. But that's my own personal opinion. The other question I have, I'm kind of confused on one thing. On this wall in the back, do I understand they're going to be panels and they're going to be dropped into like a steel beam and they drop down? Mr. Scott: It would be a matching concrete pier similar to what ... Mr. LaPine: You're not going to have 42 inch footings? You're not going to have a poured wall? Because in my experience over the years, these things don't hold up. 21054 Mr. Scott: Well, we'd have foundations. Mr. LaPine: Forty-two inch? Mr. Scott : Yeah, they'd be 42 sized, half cylindrical. Mr. LaPine: That's the perpendicular bands there? Mr. Scott: At these points here. Mr. LaPine: And then these panels drop in? Mr. Scott: And these would drop in between those. That's correct. Mr. LaPine: You've got that situation there on Plymouth Road and Middlebelt, behind the center on the northeast corner. All those things were falling down. They fade over a period of time, not fade, but they sink and they're uneven. I don't think that's a very good solution in my opinion. If we're going to do anything there, if we're going to approve this, I'd rather see a regular poured concrete wall that we normally get when we have residential abutting commercial business. Mr. Scott : Getting back to the foundations, it was an effort to minimize the disruption to the adjacent landscaping which is placed along that area. One factor ... there is no car traffic or truck traffic that is adjacent. This is in a greenbelt, so as far as getting abuse adjacent to it, which you see in a lot of projects where there's a drive right there. That is not the situation. Mr. LaPine: Thalfnish is on the walls on both sides? Mr. Scott That's correct. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm not being adversarial here. I want you to know that. But you said in order to be competitive, who in the world are you competing with for a drive-lhru for your pharmacy that's only going to be for 19 cars a day? Who are you competing with? Mr. Reisig: Its a point of difference. Just like you mentioned, there are the different pharmacy companies that are out there. To be competitive with them, we feel we need this to offer the customers the same thing they offer them. Mr. Piercecchi: But no other grocery store has a drive-thru. 21055 Mr. Reisig: Well, we feel we're better than they are because we are a grocery store, and it is more convenient because everybody does shop. Everybody does get groceries so they can cul an additional trip by gelling their prescriptions at a Kroger store where they can do their shopping, everything else and pick up their prescriptions. And as you pick up your prescriptions, you'd like to have it in one location. You dont want lo, even in a special occasion or an emergency, you don't want to go someplace else where you don't know your local pharmacist and you don't have a good relationship with him. In order to gel that customer's prescription, we feel it's a benefit for our customers if we can offer them this drive-lhm convenience. Mr. Piercecchi: But don't you see what Mr. LaPine was saying? If you have that facility, then Farmer Jacks, all of them, are going to request the same thing. We cannot discriminate. If we give to one, we have to give to all. So you really aren't being competitive with anybody because none of the other stores has that facility, but I don't want to belabor that point. But I do want to talk about the truck loading dock. Al our study meeting, a gentleman came up and discussed that with us about the noise. You talk about a wall. Where exactly was that wall going to be on this? Is it on the lop? Mr. Scott: The wall would be located along that edge. Mr. Piercecchi: And where are the trucks? Mr. Scott: The trucks would be between the building and the wall. Mr. Piercecchi: What's that darker hash mark system up there? Mr. Scott This one? Mr. Piercecchi: Yeah, what is that? Mr. Scott: That's where the trucks back into. That's the well itself. I mean, these are the overhead doors so when the trucks back in, they can gel set inside the enclosure. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm with you. Now, are there any types of materials that can be fastened to that wall to really kill the sound? Mr. Scott: Its with the height. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, the height is .. yeah, that's important too. 21056 Mr. Scott With the height, that will control... Mr. Piercecchi: But if it's at night, that's going to carry all over the place. You know that. Mr. Scott : Well, because it's enclosed on three sides, the sound will be forced to go in this direction. Mr. Pieroecchi: But is there any problem getting material that would really stop all the noise? Is there a problem with that? Mr. Reisig: If there is a material out there that exists. Mr. Piercecchi: There are materials that will do that. Mr. Reisig: But when you're saying at night, there's nothing running in the truck dock at night. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, that's what you say, but you never know. And you may get 190 cars a day if you had the pharmacy drive-thru. Mr. Reisig: We'd love it. Mr. Piercecchi: Nobody knows that. And I challenge your 10 percent of all your sales at that Kroger come from that pharmacy. I challenge that. Mr. Scott: Well, getting back to the pharmacy as far as the count, I think we keep looking at the daily count. You really need to look at it on a long lens basis on what the customers use that for. Customers shop the store weekly, biweekly, monthly. These customers using this drive-lhru, its not anticipated that they would use that. Those are the same 19 people that are going to the drive-thru everyday or every week. We're looking at the people that are going to use it in a once, twice a year situation. When you look at it on the big amount of customers, you lose 500 customers to Walgreens or CVS this year. And then I lose another 500 next year. You know, those are significant numbers at that point. I mean that's where they're trying to compete is on the long term basis. There's the expense as mentioned. There's the infrastructure here, but then along with that, the wall along the easterly property line, that's a great expense also. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, are you through with your questions? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. LaPine? 21057 Mr. LaPine: I guess my point is, if Kroger's was open 24 hours a day, I could see your argument about a sick child or something of that nature. If I understood you right, you said the pharmacy closes at 9:00. Is that correct? Mr. Scot: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So my child gels sick and the doctor says, who's your pharmacy? Krogers. This is the telephone number. They call. The pharmacy is closed, so they can't go to that store anyways. They'll have to ran to find another store that's open 24 hours day. Is that corect? Mr. Scott That would be correct. Mr. LaPine: So the argument that this is convenient for the customer for a sick child, during the day, I can understand that, but after 9:00 p.m., if doesn't do the sick person any good, and that's usually when the child gels sick - in the middle of the night and you call your doctor and he'll call the pharmacy and gel you a prescription. So, I don't want to throw any water on it, but I just don't see the reason for it. I don't think anything has really changed since the last proposal you brought to us a year ago or a couple years ago, and we denied you. In my opinion, nothing has changed. Mr. Scott: Well, I think we've cleaned up the circulation. We've addressed the noise issue with the screen wall. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Scott and Mr. LaPine, if you're through, what I'd like to do, I think we've established our position and heard their responses on that particular issue. I know we have a lot of people in the audience from the neighborhood. What I'd like to do is open the floor to the audience and give them an opportunity to speak. Interested persons are invited to speak for or against this petition al this time. If you will, please come to one or the other of our podiums, and I will ask that you state your name and your address. Kathleen Mangulabnan, 15258 Hillcrest Court. I have several concerns, with me as well as my family with four children. The first thing is traffic, the increased traffic that this will bring. When you said 10 percent of the business, I'm not sure what number 10 percent is of the total population. We have three pharmacies within two miles of this particular location. We have a CVS pharmacy a half a mile down the road; that is a drive-thm pharmacy. We have a 24-hour pharmacy on Six Mile and Farmington. And we also have another one on Six Mile and Middlebell, another Walgreens. When I spoke 21058 with Walgreens' corporate office to find out about how much business a drive-lhru brings, it's more or less their bread and butler. It brings business up 25% to 30%. They couldn't give me particular numbers, but CVS said when they moved from the Arbor location inside the plaza to across the street to their freestanding location, that business went up 25%, and as well as the other locations, the corporate office they couldn't give me again particular numbers, but they said 25% to 30%. So this is not your person that is just going to the pharmacy because of a sick child, and it is a matter of convenience. Its the working person who doesn't want to run into the store, that wants to use the pharmacy. And whallhats going to do is bring a big influx of traffic. There's another problem on Spanich Court which we failed to look at, is the pedestrian. I walk there with my four kids, a double stroller, and I walk in the street next to semi's as I go down Spanich Court. The place that you are designing to open the cross walk is actually where I cross the street and hope that the cars, if there's not a stop on the one way, but there is on the other - they finally put one up - so I cross over there with my four kids and my two older ones have to walk on an island - type berm because I'm afraid we're loo close in the street when you have traffic going each way. So traffic is my concern. When you mentioned about putting a wall, a barrier brick ... I mean originally that's what we wanted as homeowners but Kroger at that time refused to do it. The landscaping that is there has been there for about six years and still we gel headlights shining through. When you said seven feel, I'm not sure if that would be an appropriate height because Kroger's properly lays about three feet or so higher than ours, and that's why we do gel the headlights because we're not on ground level. We're lower than Kroger. So we do get the headlights coming through. So as you open that nook area to divert your traffic, I'm trying to see how am I going to stand on the street with my kids when I've got cars coming, and now I have a dine-thm that has to cul into the traffic of the out -coming traffic from all the cars and the trucks that go to the business behind there. Also, there is a lack of parking. It is nice currently that the Kroger employees mainly utilize that area that is adjacent to our properly and they've been kind because now at least most of them will back into their parking spot so we don't gel as many headlights. But once you open that up, I can't see how all these cars are going to be going because people are now going to start utilizing that space for parking to get into the Kroger store. Whereas now, in order to enter it, you have to enter very close to Five Mile or at the very end. So mainly you are just getting Kroger employees parking there which has helped our position with being adjacent on the court. And then the increased lights - when you do put in the drive- thru, you're going to need additional lights to secure that area. You 21059 know, in wintertime after 5 or 6, it is dark, and we had a lighting issue and how it was resolved is they put the flaps down. So my concern is, again, the additional lights that we're going to have to have because of it. And aesthetics - we can still see right through there. By putting a canopy or whatever over, it's not going to really improve from what we can see from our properly. What I do have is a suggestion. With your two properties that you're proposing to the right, why can't you propose a walk-up pharmacy where you can reserve a couple spots there. Someone could go drop off their prescription and we don't even have to worry about all the driving and all this 25% to 30% of our traffic increase in that area. If you're planning on expanding, make the pharmacy right in front. Make it convenient and someone could just walk up and drop their prescriptions off. That's all I have to say. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, ma'm. Sir, if you could step forward please. Please stale your name and address for the record. John Mathey, 15222 Hillcrest Court. Good evening. My wife, Sandra, and I have the property just east of the Kroger properly. We're probably the people who are going to be the most impacted by the noise issues involved there. Some of the things that were said here in their presentation, really sort of impressed with some of the concessions that they've made, talking about the wall around the truck well because that was a major concern of mine because they do park, I guess there are produce trucks in there with the refrigeration units running. And they do sit there and run for sometimes hours, okay. And it does become quite annoying and that low frequency ramble from those units, and they are extremely noisy if you've ever been around them. It just reverberates throughout our house. So we appreciate that concession for the wall there. I think that would help out that situation. But what they were saying about improving the traffic pattern, bringing the trucks in, they won't have to wail so long because they have additional truck wells. Our experience from living there is not necessarily the trucks waiting to unload, but often times after they have unloaded, the truck drivers will sit back there behind the Kroger store or along the east wall of the Kroger store, especially when they're along the east wall of the Kroger store, that brick wall just makes a real nice sounding board and that has become extremely noisy, okay, at times. And the question is, once they put the dividers in there, put the drive-thru in there, where are these trucks going to stop now? Okay? They're not going to stop out in front of the store; they're going to slop back behind. So there is stilling going to be parking there, and that's still going to be an issue for us. Also, the Fire Department. I can't say anything bad about the Fire Department, but they do, when they 21060 come and park when they do their shopping, they park their emergency vehicles right along the east wall there; they leave their vehicles running, okay. My question is, where are they going to park now? And where they're going to park is in that parking area mostly likely area to the east of Spanich Court right next b our house, which is going to make the situation even worse for us. The seven fool wall there . actually I did some real quick measurements over the weekend. The actual base of the existing fence is at lead a fool below the level of the parking area, so now we have a six fool fence and we look out our windows, it's going to be right over lop. I don't think that wall is going to do us any good as far as noise abatement —the prefab wall that they were talking about. I got my notes here. I want to make sure that I ... Mr. Walsh: I think we do have as of record your letter. Is there anything in addition to your letter? Mr. Malhey: Nothing has been said about lights over the drive-lhru. Are they going to have lights on there? Are they going b be shining out towards us? If so, that would be another issue. Mr. Walsh: We will have the petitioner address that at the end of the audience participation. Mr. Malhey: Okay. I think that's about it. Thank you Sandra Malhey, 15222 Hillcrest Court. I'm his wife. I've heard a lot of talk about the 19 cars a day that there would be if there's a drive-thm pharmacy, assuming they would run their engines for, let's say, ten minutes. Nineteen times len minutes is 190 minutes which is over three hours. That would be three hours everyday, maybe not all at once, len minutes here, len minutes there, of noisy motors, and believe me, you can really hear it when it reverberates off the brick into our house. So 19 cars a day doesn't seem like a lot to them, but to my house, its over three hours of increased noise over and above what we have now. And as my husband brought up about the cars that slop there, we have all kinds of delivery trucks for Kroger. We have delivery trucks and car haulers for the industrial building behind them. What truck drivers do quite a bit is they slop there along the east side facing Five Mile Road, and I have seen truck drivers make telephone calls, do all sorts of things, and as my husband said, where are they going to go now? I'm afraid they're either going to go behind Kroger as he said, or the same thing that I have seen in the six years I've lived there. I'm afraid those trucks might even come right up to our house along the side fence. I do have a lot of concerns and I believe that there is a way for 21061 residential and commercial areas to peacefully coexist, but a drive- thrupharmacy isdefinitely not one way todothat. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience thatwould like to address this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to give the last word to the petitioner. In particular, if they could address the lighting issue and then I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Scott: The lighting that we would utilize would be underneath. It would be recessed lighting in the canopy. It would be a very directional source, so it would not project out toward the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Walsh: If there's nothing else that you'd like to add, I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Scot: We could keep going on about the noise or what we're knocking down. One of their concerns was trucks parking along the side, which radiate the noise, and that's due to the existing configuration and the infrequency of use of that drive that vehicles feel safe pulling along that side, and they feel that they're not disrupting traffic flow by doing so. I believe our proposal would actually eliminate that and where they would park would be further down, much further to the west in that larger parking field down at that point. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Scott, let me ask before I close the public hearing, two quick questions regarding the wall. You proposed the wall on the east side of the property and a wall along the south side or at least a shielding wall where the bays will be. If the Commission this evening were to approve your proposal with the exception of the drive-thru, do both walls disappear or does one wall disappear? Mr. Scot: The wall along the east property line would disappear. Mr. Walsh: Okay. I think it's important for the commissioners to understand that. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-22-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2004-01-02-03 submitted by Jeffery Scot Architects, P.C., on behalf of The Kroger Company, requesting waiver use approval to expand and remodel the existing Kroger store and construct a 21062 pharmacy drive-thm on the east side of the building at 30935 Five Mile Road in the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge Avenue and Hillcrest Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefition 2004-01-02-03 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA dated January 23, 2004, as revised, prepared by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that all improvements related to the drive-thru pharmacy are not approved; 2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SK -1 dated January 23, 2004, as revised, prepared by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick and shall match the brick on the existing building; 4. 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; 5. A masonry wall shall be constructed along the south side of the rear truck well to act as a sound barrier and shall be a minimum of 16 feelin height in orderlo adequalelyscreen any trucks that are parked in the well; 6. That any new light fixtures shall not exceed a height of 20 feel and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 7. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Departments satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 4, 2004: - That slop signs and painted stop bars shall be installed at the intersection adjacent to the northeast comer of the building in order to create a 4 -way slop intersection; 21063 8. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking and any conditions related thereto; 9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 10. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to the building or around the windows; and 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; Furthermore, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for the construction of a drive-thru pharmacy along the east side of the existing building be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the proposed site layout, particularly with respect to vehicular turning movements in relation to routes oftraffic flow and the location and access to adjacent off-street parking facilities, will be hazardous and detrimental to lraffc flow in the neighboring area; 3. That the proposed use will create an unacceptable amount of vehicular traffic on Spanich Court and within the adjoining parking lot, which was not designed for, nor ever intended to handle such additional traffic; and 4. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent residential 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. Walsh: Mark, do you suggest any language to address the south screening wall that they suggested? 21064 Mr. Taormina: The only suggestion is to substitute the language of "such height' to specify between 16 to 18 feet as was indicated by the architect this evening. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and supporter of the motion? Mr. LaPine: I have no problem. Mr. Walsh: Then the motion will stand as amended. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, just a question to Mark. How about this denying resolution for the waiver use? Is that necessary for the drive-lhru, now that we denied the drive-lhru? Mr. Taormina: If you're going to deny the drive-thru, you should embody that language of the reasons for denial in this resolution. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Shane, are you in agreement with the additional language? Mr.Shane: Yes. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. For procedural reasons, we had to combine two actions here. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution for the site plan, but the drive-thru pharmacy has been denied. ITEM #5 PETITION 2004-01-02-04 WADE SHOWS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01- 02-04 submitted by Jeff Williams, on behalf of Wade Shows, Inc., requesting waiver use approval conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of rides, games and food concessions from April 22 through May 2, 2004, inclusive, on properly located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 30, 2004, which reads as 21065 follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time and the legal description is correct. No additional right-of-way is required at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 3, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: All areas marked H&W on the site plan shall comply with the following. Fire Lanes shall be not less than 20 Let of obstructed 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 Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 4, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club. We have no objections to the plans as submitted. We recommend barricades on the south side of the carnival to prevent patronsrchildren from stepping or running into the roadway portion of the parking lot." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 30, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 30, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Hearing none, would the petitioner please approach the podium and state your name and address. Jeff Williams, 31250 Cooley, Westland, Michigan 48185. 1 represent Wade Shows. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything that you can add to our staffs presentation this evening? Mr. Williams: No. It's fine. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Just two questions. Your original letter to us requested four porta- johns, and in the discussion afferourstudy session, we increased it to eight. How many porta-johns did you have Iasi year? 21066 Mr. Williams: It says four, but we had six last year. We'll have six this year if it's approved. Mr. LaPine: Eight is what has been proposed, but you only had six last year? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Last year, were you able to utilize any of the restrooms in the Wonderland Center? Mr. Williams: Maybe some customers might have went in there. Mr. LaPine: Okay, I just was curious. Now my third question is, seeing that Wonderland is just about gone, there isn't loo many places lett there, do you still feel that you're going to gel the same traffic that if Wonderland was going full blast? Do you think the number of people that are going to attend the carnival is going to be less this year than Iasi year because of the fad that Wonderland is pretty much gone? Mr. Williams: I'm concerned with that, but I don't think it's going to drop that much. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest, due to the fad that Wonderland is not there and I feel that they're not going to really generate as much traffic ... he asked for four porta-johns, we asked for eight. I'd like to change it to six if no one has any objection. Mr. Walsh: We can do that when we get to the reading of the motion. Are there any additional questions or comments? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this particular petition? Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-23-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2004-01-02-04 submitted by Jeff Williams, on behalf of Wade Shows, Inc., requesting waiver use approval conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of rides, games and food concessions from April 22 through May 2, 2004, inclusive, on properly located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to 21067 the City Council that Petition 2004-01-02-04 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Wade Shows, Inc., which are April 22, 2004 through May 2, 2004, inclusive; 2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as illustrated on the site plan submitted with this request; 3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be located at least 60 feet distant from the Plymouth Road right -0f --way line; 4. That no fewer than five regular and one handicap portable restroom facilities shall be provided on site during the carnival, and this equipment shall be maintained daily; 5. That all trucks and other transportation -related vehicles and equipment shall be parked or stored within the southwesterly portion of the Wonderland Mall parking lot, but no closer than 200 feet from the adjacent residential properties to the south; 6. That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., including motors on any refrigeration trucks; 7. That there shall be no housing trailers or other temporary living quarters to accommodate carnival employees on the Wonderland Mall site, except for the Security Trailer (limited to security personnel only); 8. That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter dated January 19, 2004, from Jeff Williams, Routing Director of Wade Shows, Inc., which have been approved by the Police Department; 9. That unobstructed access to any hydrants within the carnival area be provided for the Fire Department; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 3, 2004: IifRY:l - That Fire Lanes shall not be less than 20 R. of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 R. 6 in. of vertical clearance; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 4, 2004: - That barricades be put up on the south side of the carnival to prevent patrons/children from stepping or running into the roadway portion of the parking lot Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not impede access to the Wonderland Mall; and 4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use. 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. Piercecchi: Mr. Williams and I had a conversation today, and you said you were going to take five regular and one handicap porta-john? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: That's how we will have the six. Okay? Mr. Walsh: That's fine. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21069 ITEM #6 PETITION 2004-01-03-01 HAROLD HAWLEY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01- 03-01 submitted by Harold Hawley requesting to vacate portions of an existing utility easement in order to construct an addition onto the existing attached garage of the home at 16042 Newburgh Road, located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Myrna Avenue and Bristol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated January 27, 2004, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above - referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No right-of-way dedication is required. There are no city utilities in the easement to be vacated. The owner must insure that the drainage pattern is not adversely altered as a result of the garage construction." The letter includes the legal description and is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Hearing none, is the petitioner here this evening? Harold Hawley, 16042 Newburgh, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Hawley: Well, there s only five feel that I'm going to use. I have nine feel on the side, so I only need the five feel. As far as the level of the ground, it won't change anything. I'll be still like 9.5 feel from that utility pole that's there, so there should be plenty of room. You know, there's no structures. I mean, they can come in for that easement there; they have plenty of room, you know. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to address this item. Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. 21070 On a motion by Ms. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #02-24-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2004-01-03-01 submitted by Harold Hawley requesting to vacate portions of an existing utility easement in order to construct an addition onto the existing attached garage of the home at 16042 Newburgh Road, located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Myrna Avenue and Bristol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-01-03-01 be approved as specified by the Engineering Division in their letter dated January 27, 2004, for the following reasons: 1. That the Engineering Division has no objections to the vacating of the specified portion of the subject easement; 2. That the land area involved in this vacating request can be more advantageously utilized by the property owner if unencumbered by the easement; 3. That the owner shall insure that the drainage pattern is not adversely altered as a result of the garage construction; and 4. That no public utility company has objected to the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#7 PETITION 2003-11-06-08 OFF-STREET PARKING - ZONING ORD. AMENDMENT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-11- 06-08 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #594-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not amend Section 18.38 of Article XVIII, Section 10.03 of Article X and Section 11.03 of Article XI of Ordinance #543, as amended, to change the off-street parking requirements for certain retail and office uses. 21071 Mr. Taormina: This proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance modifies the parking requirements for certain commercial uses, including medical offices, large-sized retail stores, and group commercial centers. In each case, the proposed new standards would reduce the amount of required parking to better correlate with the actual demand. In addition, the Planning Department is recommending that the City adopt a provision in the ordinance that would permit land -banked parking. Under the proposed new rules, a petitioner could request up to 25 percent of the required parking spaces to be reserved for future construction. To qualify, however, several conditions would have to be satisfied, including a requirement that the area be landscaped in accordance with a plan approved by the City, and that there be a showing that the reduction in off-street parking will not have any negative impact on the site or on any adjacent properties. In the case of medical office uses, Livonia's current parking requirement of one space for every 75 square feet of floor space, plus one per employee, is the most restrictive of all the communities we surveyed. Most other communities require medical parking at a ratio of between 1:100 and 1:150, plus one space per employee. The Planning Department is recommending that the Commission relax the current standard by eliminating the part of the formula based on the number of employees and instead assign a single ratio of one space for every 110 square feet of floor space. Group commercial centers are those shopping centers having more than four business establishments. Currently, a single parking ratio of 1:125 applies to all shopping centers that fall into this category. In the case of shopping centers with four or fewer establishments, the parking is based on the sum of the requirements of the individual uses. For many retail businesses, the requirement is usually 1:150. The reason for having a slightly more restrictive standard for group commercial centers is to provide adequate parking for a mix of businesses that tends to change over time. This includes restaurants and other "places of assembly" that typically require more parking than other retail businesses. Unfortunately, this more restrictive parking standard has resulted in surplus parking at many shopping centers. Al several locations, variances have been granted in order to minimize the amount of unused parking. To help address this problem, we're recommending that the parking requirement be reduced for shopping centers that contain a smaller proportion of restaurant services and other places of assembly. For shopping centers with less than 15 percent of their gross floor area devoted to such uses, the Planning Department is recommending a ratio of 1:150. For centers with over 15 percent, we recommend that the current parking ratio of 1:125 remain unchanged. Another concern is the parking requirement currently in effect for large retail 21072 establishments, sometimes called "big -box" stores. Studies show that the parking ratio increases or decreases proportionally with the center's size. Many big -box retailers require parking at a ratio of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area, which translates to a ratio of 1:200. Currently in Livonia, stores over 30,000 square feel in size are required to park at 1:125. The Planning Department is therefore recommending that a new standard of 1:160 be established for large-sized stores, whether they're freestanding, as in the case of Target and Costco, or in the form of "power centers," such as Millennium Park. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this petition? Wes Graff, 33233 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I'm president of the Livonia Chamber of Commerce. I'd just like to express, on behalf of the Chamber and her members, we are very excited and pleased that the City is taking this step. We see it as a positive move in economic development for this City putting ourselves on the same playing field as surrounding communities and making it easier for future development. We appreciate the City's movement in this direction. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here this evening. We appreciate it. Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: I just want to lel the audience know. It sounds like we're moving fast on this item, but we have had a number of study sessions on this subject, so it has received quite a bit of study. I wanted to make sure that everyone knows that we had looked at this in great detail. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Shane. Its a good point. Mr. LaPine: I think the staff did an outstanding job pulling this all together with the input from the commissioners, and I think we have something here that is going to be workable. There's no doubt in my mind that we will run into some problems that we didn't anticipate, but all in all, I think this is in the right direction. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. LaPine. If there are no other comments, I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. 21073 On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-25-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2003-11-06-08 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #594-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not amend Section 18.38 of Article XVIII, Section 10.03 of Article X and Section 11.03 of Article XI of Ordinance #543, as amended, to change the off- street parking requirements for certain retail and office uses, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-11-06-08 be approved for the following reasons: 1. Thallhe proposed language amendment will give the Planning Commission and City Council greater flexibility in the review of site plans by allowing surplus parking spaces to be landbanked under certain conditions, which will increase the amount of green space, reduce runoff, and provide additional buffering opportunities; 2. That the proposed new parking standards will reduce the degree of nonconformity as it relates to the number of required parking spaces that presently exist at several shopping centers and medical office buildings throughout the city; 3. That the proposed language amendment provides new parking standards for certain commercial uses that are more closely related to the actual demand for parking; and 4. That the proposed new parking standards will result in more efficient land use practices. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: I just would like to thank Mark. I did an informal thing and I tried to hit as many malls in Livonia as I could, but Mark's much more scientific and he gave us a great deal of information and I appreciate that. 21074 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #8 PETITION 2003-12-06-09 FEE INCREASES - ZONING ORD. AMENDMENT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-12- 06-09, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolutions #666-03 and #672-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.58 and 18.62 of Article XVIII, Sections 19.03 and 19.08 of Article XIX, Section 20.03 of Article XX, Section 21.10 of Article XXI, and Section 23.03 of Article XXIII of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to increase fees for the review of Site Plans, Site Condominiums, Waiver Use, Appeals brought before the City Council, Appeals brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Cluster Housing and Planned Residential Housing, and Rezoning petitions. Mr. Taormina: This petition amends various sections of the Zoning Ordinance in order to establish new fees for the review of site plans, waiver use petitions and appeals. Most of the fees have not been modified in over 10 years, and in the case of subdivision plats, the last time the fee was increased was over 20 years ago. The following fee increases are being recommended by the City Council: Site Plans: The filing fee for reviewing site plan petitions would increase from its current fixed amount of $300.00 to a fee that increases according to the size of the project. The new fee would be $500.00, plus $20.00 for each 1,000 square feel of gross floor area of new construction proposed. The most the City would charge for the review of a site plan is $1,500.00. In addition, a renewal fee of $200.00 will be charged to pefitioners wishing to extend the expiration dale of a site plan. Waiver Uses: Similar to the fee charged for site plans, petitions involving waiver uses will include a filing fee that increases with the size of the project. The current fee is $400.00. The proposed new fee would be $600.00, plus $20.00 for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of new construction. Unlike the fee charged for site plans, however, there would not be a cap placed on the amount of the fee charged for waiver use applications. Rezonings: Presently, the fee structure for rezoning pefitions varies according to the zoning classification as well as the size of the property or area of land proposed to be rezoned. Also, regardless of the zoning district, a maximum limit of $600.00 21075 applies in the case of all rezoning petitions. Under the new ordinance, the base amount of the fee would increase by an average of 28.5 percent. As proposed, the fee would range from $100.00 in the case of residential properties, to $500.00 for industrial properties. In addition, the multiplier assessed for each incremental unit of land would increase by $10.00, except for industrial properties, which would remain unchanged. The $600.00 cap would be eliminated. And in addition, a $300.00 publication fee would be assessed on all rezoning petitions. Site Condominiums: Currently, the fee for reviewing residential site condominium developments is the same fee being charged for the review of site plans, which is $300.00. Under the proposed language amendment, the fees for all residential projects, including platted subdivisions and planned residential developments, will be the same - $600.00, plus $20.00 per lot or unit. Appeals brought before the City Council: A new $300.00 fee that will be charged to anyone who files an appeal with the City Clerk wishing to have the Council reverse the recommendation and/or findings of the City Planning Commission. Zoning Board of Appeals: And lastly, fee increases are proposed for all the various appeals brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals. For cases involving existing single- family residential properties, the fee will increase from $50.00 to $150.00. For variances involving new single-family homes, the fee will go from $100.00 to $300.00. Currently, all other appeals carry a fee of $150.00. Under the proposed changes, three new categories of appeals would be established each with separate fees: 1) Commercial/Industrial - $350.00; 2) Family & Group Child Care - $300.00; and 3) Use Variances - $500.00. In the event an applicant fails to appear on his/her scheduled hearing dale or requests a postponement after the mailing at the legal notices, a fee of $100.00 will be charged, up from the current fee of $50.00. That is a synopsis of the fee increases. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I don't believe there is anybody remaining the audience to address the petition. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-26-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 2004, on Petition 2003-12-06-09, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolutions #666-03 and #672-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning 21076 Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.58 and 18.62 of Article XVIII, Sections 19.03 and 19.08 of Article XIX, Section 20.03 of Article XX, Section 21.10 of Article XXI, and Section 23.03 of Article XXIII of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to increase fees for the review of Site Plans, Site Condominiums, Waiver Use, Appeals brought before the City Council, Appeals brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Cluster Housing and Planned Residential Housing, and Rezoning petitions, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-12-06-09 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed fee increases will help offset the City's costs associated with the review of site plans, waivers, appeals, and other land development proposals; 2. That most of the current fees have not been increased in over ten years; and 3. That the proposed language amendment will establish fees that are commensurate with the size and complexity of reviewing the various development projects. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Just one thing, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to say lhalwe didn'tjust pull these fees out of the sky. Mr. Taormina got in touch with surrounding communities and our proposed fees are now in line pretty much with all the other communities. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: They still vary substantially, but we're somewhere in the mid- to higher range. Certainly, the proposed new fees are not as high as the fees in some communities, but we're no longer the lowest, which I think we were in many cases prior to these changes. Mr. LaPine: Very good. Good job. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Public Hearing section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Items section of our agenda. 21077 ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8787 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. REGULAR MEETING Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 878" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 27, 2004. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-27-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 87W" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 27, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Pieroecchi, Shane, LaPine, Smley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: Alanksas Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 389TH SPECIAL MEETING Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the 3W Special Meeting Minutes held on February 3, 2004. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-28-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 389" Special Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 3, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Smiley, Piercecchi, Shane, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 21078 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 880" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 24, 2004, was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary