Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2011-09-20MINUTES OF THE 1,014TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 20, 2011, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,014`h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Scott P. Bahr Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a pefifion 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 len 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 pefifions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Item #3, Petition 2001-08-01-06 submitted by Ashley Capital, L.L.C., has been removed from the agenda tonight at the request of the petitioner. All affected properly owners have been notified. If there is anyone here on that item, it will not be heard at this time. We apologize for any inconvenience. ITEM #1 PETITION 2011-07-01-04 DANILO JOSIFOSKI Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2011-07- 01-04 submitted by Danilo Josifoski pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone properties at 37600 through 37706 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road September 20, 2011 25789 between Newburgh Road and Chase Boulevard in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF (Rural Urban Farm - minimum 1/2 acre) to R-94 (Housing for the Elderly - maximum 4 stories). Mr. Taormina: This item was previously discussed at our August public hearing. Al that time, the Planning Commission was considering the rezoning of this land to the R-9, Housing for the Elderly, classification, which would allow for the development of senior housing in buildings that would have a maximum height limitation of two stones. Al that time, the petitioner indicated his desire to construct a three story building. That required sending out notices again and re -advertising this petition for tonight's public hearing. This evening we are looking at basically the same petition as far as the land area is concerned. Again, its on the north side of Plymouth between Newburgh and Chase Boulevard. This is properly that measures about 4.90 acres in size. It consists of five contiguous lots. Immediately to the north is City -owned properly that was recently before this Board for a requested rezoning from RUF to R-9. That petition is now before the City Council. They have given First Reading on the rezoning of that properly, and Second Reading and Roll Call is expected to finalize the rezoning of that property to R-9. The land area that we are discussing this evening is situated just to the south of the properly that is in the process of being rezoned to R-9. Lying to the east are other single family homes under the RUF zoning classification, as are the properties to the west. The green shaded parcel on the left hand side of the subject area is a fire station. The north or rear portion of that property is encompassed within the yellow outlined area. That is land that the City intends to include with the rezoning and the development of Phase II of Newburgh Village. With the R -9-I classification that is proposed, this would increase the height allowance to four stories. Again, the petitioner's intention is to construct a three story product. There have not been any plans submitted with the application. There are some changes, in addition to the height area requirement that go along with the R- 9 -I. One thing that does not change, however, is the maximum permitted ground coverage. That remains at 25 percent. There is a slight increase in the density allowance as it relates to one bedroom dwelling units, whereas with the two story or less product, it was 2,500 square feet of land area required for each dwelling unit. That is lowered to 2,200 square feet per dwelling unit that has one bedroom. So that would increase the overall density permitted if they were all one bedroom units by about 11 units altogether. So it's not a substantial increase in terms of density. Again, it only affects the one bedroom units. A little bit September 20, 2011 25790 more significant than that is the setback requirements. For two- story buildings or less, the front yard requirement is 50 feel, but for three or four story buildings, that front yard setback requirement increases to 75 feet. The rear setback stays the same at 50 feet. Again, though, that's going to be eventually bordering the second phase of Newburgh Village. The side yard setback requirements increase from 50 feel to 75 feet, similar to the front yard requirement. The City is still in the process of negotiating with the owner the feasibility of developing a shared access road that would most likely be located on the east side of the properly and would connect Newburgh Village to Plymouth Road. Lastly, we'll indicate that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan which does show this area for medium density residential. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated Jan 30, 2011, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal descriptions provided for these parcels are correct. The addresses am confirmed to be 37600, 37630, 37660, 37690 and 37706 Plymouth Road. It should be noted that the Engineering Division welcomes the opportunity to meet with the future developer of this site to provide and discuss City of Livonia design standards. We trust that this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second item is an email received by the Planning Department on September 19, 2011, from Pauline Drabicki, 37863 Chase Court, Livonia, Michigan 48150, which reads as follows: 7 am a resident of the Hunter's Pointe Subdivision on Plymouth Road in Livonia. It has been brought to my attention that a petition (#2011-07-01-04) for rezoning for senior housing will be presented tomorrow night at the Planning meeting. It is believed that this is to be a separate project from the extension of Newburgh Village by the City of Livonia. It also seems this individual is requesting permission for a facility that could be 'up to four stories'. 1 am writing today to express my disapproval of this type of project in my neighborhood. Then= are no other buildings this high in the area and it would be an eyesore, as well as an increase of the amount of traffic in the area. 1 am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow night but would like my concerns to be taken into consideration. Thank you for attention to this matter." That is September 20, 2011 25791 signed by Pauline Dmbicki. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we'll go right to the petitioner. We'll need your name and address for the record please. You've seen the presentation. Is there anything you want to add to what you've heard so far? Danilo Josifoski, 37630 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1 am proposing three stories. Looking at the site plan right now, you can tell that on the north side of the property is going to be the Livonia Newburgh Village. There is an easement in the back of the property for 40 - 50 feel, and then the setbacks are going to be 75 feel. So practically it's going to be 115 feet away from any object on that piece of property. Looking on the east side of the property, the road is going to be on that side. The road is going to be 60 feet, plus the setbacks. So, again, its going to be over 100 feel setbacks from that side. Then we have the Newburgh Road, again, with whatever setbacks have to be mel there. On the west side, we have RUF property which I already spoke with the owner there. I told him about the setbacks. I said there's two stories. The setbacks are going to be 50 feel. There's three stories, the setbacks are going to be 75 feel. Whats your opinion on that? He says I don't have no problem with going with three stories, 75 feet setback. The owner of that property is Mr. Doug King. I don't know if he's here or not. He said he's going to be here. I think by having the Newburgh Village expanding that and what I'm proposing here, I think that's going to add a value to that section of that corner of Plymouth and Newburgh over there. There's going to be setbacks there. I think by having a three story building, I don't think is going to change anything there. It's going to be more cost effective for us. We're going to have higher density. Like Mr. Mark said, another 11 units are going to be added to R. We're looking forward to building something similar to the project they did on Middlebell between Five and Six Mile. I think everybody is going to gain here. The lax base is going to increase. I don't see no problem, and every other property around there, they're further away. You know, everybody's saying is, you know what, I'm in a subdivision. I have a nice house and I want to keep it the same around, but progress is coming. We're all getting older. It's as simple as that. I'm not getting younger; I'm getting older. By having 80 million baby boomers getting older, I think every city is going to need more facilities like these. Somebody told me in Wayne County there's like 80 facilities like this all together. I don't think that's enough to supply the demand which is coming. It's going to be like a big wave coming for the September 20, 2011 25792 whole country. By doing projects like this, I think the City is going to gain from it. Everybody's getting older. I can complain that I dont want older people, but guess what? I'm getting older. That's all I have to say. You can't slop progress. Mr. Morrow: Let's see if the Commission might have some questions of you, sir. Ms. Krueger: Ijust have a couple questions. Have you considered other parcels that are already zoned R-9-1 for this project? Mr. Josifoski: You're talking about the same parcel? Ms. Krueger: Have you considered other parcels in the City that are already zoned R-9-1 for this type of project? Mr. Josifoski: No, I haven't. Ms. Krueger: What's your reasoning behind wanting three stories as opposed to two stones? Mr. Josifoski: The reasoning is because the density is going to be higher. What we're planning is having three stories. The first story, we're planning on having a dining room and a kitchen. There's going to be like a small shopping area for the people that are going to be living in that object. Same thing, there's going to be a pharmacy there, and a small swimming pool where there's going to be therapy for the people. We're trying to cash in on the R-9-1 from Newburgh Village. Newburgh Village already has 150. Another 150 units are coming in there. So total there's going to be 300 units. We want to try to provide monthly services for feeding the people in those 300 units. Putting a road there, having sidewalks, those people don't have to go nowhere else. They want to have a monthly food service. They can come and dine in there for reasonable paces. Same thing, we're planning on putting a pharmacy there. They can pick up their prescriptions right on that spot. They won't have to drive nowhere. Ms. Krueger: And you can't do that with two stories? Mr. Josifoski: Probably can do it with two stones, but considering the two stones, I'm going to have less units, and then the cost is going to be much higher for developing the project. September 20, 2011 25793 Ms. Krueger: Okay. Your response has actually led me to have a question for Mark. He mentioned having a pharmacy and stores in the building. Is that permitted within the R-9-1? Mr. Taormina: Yes, as long as it is an ancillary use and is limited for the benefit of the residents of the senior housing community. Anything that was open to the general public though probably would not be allowed. But to the extent that it serves the needs of the residents of the senior housing complex, then it would be allowed. Ms. Krueger: Does that change parking requirements or anything? Mr. Taormina: No. It would not. Ms. Krueger: Thankyou. That's all the questions I have. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? If so, please come forward. We'll need your name and address for the record. Jeanette Lang, 11711 Hunters Park, Livonia, Michigan. Good attemoon. I live just south of the red box. First of all, aesthetics. I agree with you. Two stones would be plenty. It's not in conformance with the area. Second of all, @ will put a demand on traffic, utilities. I don't know what the water situation ... if he has to create a retention pond or not. He mentioned the building on Middlebell. I was wondering if he was also proposing parking underneath like they did at Five and a half and Middlebelt. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: If you plan on speaking, it might be helpful to come down and queue up as they say in England so we can keep it moving. David Christensen, 11735 Rosalinda Dnve, Livonia, Michigan. I lived in England. I know what queue means. I am I guess southwest of the location there. My only concern was and I think I've talked to a number of neighbors in our neighborhood, what its going to look like. Everybody I have talked to is against the three or four story building. They're concerned with the look. They want to keep our neighborhood, and we love our neighborhood, kind of all the same. Want everything to be smooth. Okay, people's facilities, two story, one, we understand that, and we'd like it to look nice. We're concerned also with the increase in traffic but, of course, I think as we know, we need progress. There is nothing wrong with progress as long as we have the right roads there, the right controls and stuff there. Our biggest concern is what its going September 20, 2011 25794 to look like, and we feel very adamant that a three or four story building is way loo big for our neighborhood. Mr. Morrow: Sir, let me just respond a moment to you because this is a zoning issue. It is not mandatory that he bring a site plan that you're referring to as far as how its going to be developed. In the past, some pefitioners have brought plans forward so we can kind of see what's going in there, but based on input from the petitioner, we're probably still a couple years away from any type of site plan as to see how the zoning would develop. Should this go through, somewhere down the road, you'll have the opportunity to see that development but not tonight. Mr. Christensen: If it's going to three stories, we'll be back. Just solve it now, then he can plan his building for two stories and maybe gel it done sooner. Gel the old people a home sooner. Mr. Morrow: Okay. I just wanted to lel you know your main concern of what it was going to looking like ... Mr. Christensen: What it will look like and how its going to feel in the neighborhood, and also, there's also the idea ... I have no data. I have no nothing. Will the value of our homes go down by having a bigger building? Less people will want to buy because there's a big building there, and that's a concern. Our homes have already gone down enough in our neighborhood. Mr. Morrow: You have all valid concems, but tonight it's just strictly zoning. Mr. Christensen: Okay. Yes, I understand that. George Hudock, 11783 Hunters Park Court, Livonia, Michigan. It's a new subdivision that's just south of Plymouth Road right across from the proposed site. As the gentleman said, we are all getting older. We bought our home in Livonia looking forward to getting older in that home in the community as it is right now. He talked about adding value. It will add value to his retirement. Maybe he will stay in that home or maybe he will be able to afford a nicer place to stay. The value that he's talking about adding is at the expense of the people that live in the newer houses that we bought. We were the first ones to move into that subdivision in 2006. We really like the area, chose the area for the aesthetic reasons. Our lot borders Hines Park. Across from the road, it has that rural look. I can understand that things change. Our subdivision came in and changed the look of the area, but when you're talking about especially a multi-story home or facility like this, that is a significant change to the way the area looks. I understand it's a zoning issue. I don't understand all September 20, 2011 25795 the details about that, but I believe what we're talking about, we're not talking about single family residential, so I am opposed to that. I think that speaks directly to what you guys are considering here today. I think those are my main concerns here. I'm definitely against this zoning change. I'd prefer to see single family homes. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you very much. Well said. Vivian D'Agostino, 37825 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan. I live directly across the street, so I'm all for it. No. I live in the 1925 house on the corner across from the Fire Department, sort of kitty corner. I bought that house because I like it because it's old. I like the view that I have now. I like that it's kind of maintained the rural look to it. I just want to preserve what I have there. It's just a personal preference. I'm a little bit eccentric. I'm trying to preserve the house also. Its not going lobe directly in my view, but it's just a matter of rezoning. I understand that old people need somewhere to live, but they don't have to live directly across from me. There's plenty of traffic there right now, and to put the old folks right on the main road, for one thing seems kind of odd to me, that they'd want to be on the main road there. Mr. Morrow: So you're opposed to any type of ... Ms. D'Agoslino: I don't want to rezone it. I like it being rural. It's just a personal preference. In my lifetime, I don't want to see it changed. Mr. Morrow: Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Ms. D'Agoslino: Yes, its just an opinion, and I bought that house because I like the area obviously. I like the house and I like the view that I have and that it's kind of preserved the way it was way back when. It's just a personal preference. That's all I have to say. Mr. Morrow: We appreciate your input. Ms. Smiley: I don't think you gave your address. Ms. D'Agoslino: 37825, just west of where it's going to be developed. Its Hunters Park but I'm not part of that subdivision. I'm like on the corner but I'm not part of the sub. I'm separate from the sub. Ms. Smiley: So your address is on Plymouth Road? Ms. D'Agoslino: Right on Plymouth Road. September 20, 2011 25796 Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Jeff Lytle, 11891 Newburgh, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I also own 11911 Newburgh. It would be the two lots coming off of Newburgh with a little notch out of this gentleman's plan in red. That's where the back end of it would be. I have a lot of concems about this rezoning. The main one would be, I bought Rure1 Urban Farm property to have Rural Urban Farm property. My family's been fanners in the City since way back when, and I able to obtain a small portion of what used to be an ancestor's property. That's why I bought it because I have a 500 and some fool deep yard. I look back at woods and I can see a sunset. I dont see the sun going down behind a three or four story building facility or even if the plan for the Newburgh Village 11 goes up to two stories, which I'm pretty sure that's the plan. I got here a couple minutes Tale, but that's going to be another obstacle. The thing is, as far as banging Jughandle through and running it through, if you notice where the C-1 is on your map there, and if you bring that straight through, it would run right directly through the back of my properly and my neighbor's properly. There's two neighbors to my north there. Now, Mr. Josifoski here has approached me about buying the back end of my property but has never made an offer on it. I'm concerned about the road coming in and especially the person next to it to the east. Ron Carozzo was unable to attend. He starts work at 6:00. That road would run right directly next to his property. He has not had a chance to submit a letter or email. His mother has been very ill. But he is opposed to that and so are the neighbors to the east of that as well as the north of me. But bringing Jughandle Road through there at any variation, whatever you want to call it, right now, that's used as a left turn for northbound Newburgh Road. If you're going northbound on Newburgh, you cannot turn left at Plymouth. You have to turn left onto Hines, and then right onto Jughandle, and then loop back onto Plymouth, and then, I'm sorry, left to go west onto Plymouth Road there. So now all that traffic at rush hour that's using that is going to add to that coming in and out where the seniors are, and if it connects with Newburgh Village I and 11, then you're going to have those people that want to cul through there come in and out. It may not seem like it might cause that big of a congestion problem with the traffic, but it will. And also, retention ponds, that was brought up by my neighbor Dan inquiring about that portion of my properly to square up his for some type of possible retention pond, and maybe even possibly buying a little bit more. So then I end up with a road running through the back and then a pond, which I call it a cesspond because to me it would just be mosquitoes at some portion of September 20, 2011 25797 the year and then a dried up hole other parts of the year. A lot of kids come around there, a lot of kids in the neighborhood loo. Other concems I have are why can't we use up some of the ... there were 36 elementary schools. I believe now that there's 16 and what about all the empty property for that as far as rezoning those. They are already in the neighborhood. They already have the improvements. They have the roads. They have the traffic lights. They were set up for that kind of stuff. Other than rattling on and on and on and on, there's a laundry list. There are a lot of neighbors that do not want this to go through, and they like the way it is now. We're trying to work with the City with Newburgh Village 11 to make that nice for everyone. As far as progress goes on, well, why does it always have to go on? We have all this empty school property sitting around and why doesn't it gel used? So that's all I'll say for now. Thank you for listening everyone. Theresa Pyle, 37862 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan. Hello. Several years ago we also purchased 37824 and 37820 Plymouth Road for my sister. So we are definitely also invested in the area. My husband and I grew up in Livonia. We went to school in Livonia, college in Livonia, and our children go to school in Livonia. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you all tonight. I do believe that senior housing is very important to our community. The City has done a commendable job over the years with the senior centers, and I feel that the City is a better administrator of R-9 zoning than say a homeowner or a businessman. Rezoning these lots would not fl in our residential and rural community. The proposed three to four stories is too much development. Rezoning to R-9 by an individual could open the door to apartments, to blight, to bankruptcy, or he could just sell it. Who knows? I don't begrudge Mr. Josifoski for wanting to capitalize on the situation. However, I feel it would lead to over development of the land. My neighbors and I have made substantial personal investments in the area and we do not want to see the rezoning. When Chase Park was being developed 5 to 7 years ago, the builder Craig wanted to change the zoning then too. He hoped to maximize his profits by squeezing in apartments or condominiums. This Planning Commission flatly denied his request stating that this is a special area of our City, Hines Park, Lake Newburgh. The Commission member addressing the meeting then called our neighborhood a gem and supported only single housing residential, which some of them you heard from tonight. I do support the Newburgh Village development although, unfortunately, it is a loss of a lot of natural beauty. I dont know if you have a picture showing what R looks like now. This was right after Consumers came through, September 20, 2011 25798 but it's the only wooded area. It is a good spot for the senior center, however, it does kind of deter from the land. I am opposed to the road going through to Jughandle to accommodate Newburgh II traffic. It makes sense from a planning perspective, but not if it's in your backyard. A new road would increase traffic substanfially in our mainly residential area with 125 to 150 units flowing in from the new facility onto Plymouth Road, plus construction, plus maintenance. It would multiply the noise level substantially. Livonia has no shortages of roads or traffic lights to use instead. In summary, I think our goal has to be to find an equitable balance, and I'm confident that this committee will do so and hopefully not rezone or allow the road to go through. Thank you for your time. Patricia Seleski, 11778 Roselinda Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. It's hard to follow someone who staled everything so eloquently. She did her homework for sure. My husband and I are not against senior housing. In fact, we moved there specifically because my parents lived in Newburgh Village for almost 20 years. The City does an excellent job. We were fully prepared for additional housing to be built by the City. We weren't surprised to see a sign come up on Plymouth Road because we have seen heavy earth moving equipment at that site for weeks and weeks and weeks now. This has been in the planning, at least the thinking stages for a long time we believe. Again, we're not against senior housing. We see no reason for three stones. One of our concems is since this zoning would allow for four stories, what would prevent him from coming back and say, I have my plan now and I've decided four stories. That would be allowed. Am I correct, because it would have been approved. Mr. Morrow: Without any type of condition to three stories, you're exactly right. He could build three or four stones unless it were conditioned forthree stones. Ms. Seleski: Okay. Again, nothing in our area is that high unless you go west quite a ways to Brose. We are a residential neighborhood, and its a nice quiet neighborhood. West of Newburgh, Plymouth Road is wonderful now. Ian is shaking his head. I know you were on the Traffic Commission at one time. Am I correct? You know about Jughandle and how important it is to traffic flow. You connect to something from the north and the whole complexion changes. We are concerned about traffic if a road comes out to Plymouth. Just an aside, it's my understanding, although I guess I'm assuming here, that the September 20, 2011 25799 petitioner would then vacate the home he lives in. Would that be part of this development? Mr. Morrow: I'm quite sure he would, but as I said earlier, we haven't seen anything. I would assume anything on that property would be razed. Ms. Seleski: Okay. Its also my understanding that he owns the while house on the south side of Plymouth just west of Roselinda. I don't believe anyone lives there. It looks like it's been used for storage, but its my understanding that whoever lives at his house owns that house. That's been a problem for some time now as far as keeping that maintained for the benefit of his neighborhood because he is our neighbor. As far as broken windows that stay broken until a call is made to the City. Seeds that grow in the gutters until they're mini trees until a call is made to the City. Debris on the roof until a call is made to the City. Right now, it looks about as good as its looked in a long time, which one would expect, except that the bushes cover the front of it so you cant really see. It's not beautiful, and he's our neighbor now. I under he's a businessman, and it sounds like this is going to be a real business if you're going to have people coming in and providing all of these services for the residents. I guess my question is, are you looking at, you know, senior housing like we've been expecting and enjoying in that area, or is this going to be a big business with additional people who don't live there traveling in and out on a daily basis. This is on top of the residents. The additional 11 units is in addition to how many? We don't know. Is that correct? Mr. Morrow: That's correct. Ms. Seleski: And that number is in addition to how many that the City has there already. So you have the possibility, even for a one bedroom apartment to have two drivers. You have family members. You have caregivers. Now you're going to have cooks, and whoever else is going to be coming to this facility. Its a lot of traffic. It will change the complexion of the neighborhood and that's what I want to point out to you. Again, my husband and I are not against senior housing. We thank God for senior housing in Livonia. Thank you. Doug King, 37818 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I live just to the very properly to the west. I border Dan's property and the Newburgh Village. I've got to gel up and talk just because my name was mentioned. I believe it's his property, and I'm not here to tell people what they can do with their properly as long September 20, 2011 25800 as it stays nice, and I guess I leave that up to the City. If I had my way, I wouldn't have it behind me or next to me because I like it the way it is, but I understand progress. You know I understand. My one question is, the taller it goes the farther it slays away from the property. Is that right? Mr. Morrow: There's a variation in the setbacks about 25 feet as far as the side yards. Mr. King: I guess like for my own concern, what happens on the west side? Is it going logo according to how he turns the building? Ms. Scheel: If it's a two story, what's the setback? Mr. Morrow: Two story, I believe, is 50 feet. Is that correct? If it goes through with multiply stories above that, it's 75 feel. Mr. King: Its going to get farther away from the property. Correct? Mr. Morrow: It goes up, it gets closer. Mr. King: It is what it is. My big thing is, and I know I'm speaking ahead of time, as long as we have some sort of a buffer because I know we're getting the one behind us, and that's really my view. When I walk out the back, I look to the back. I kind of feel like I've already lost my view. What happens on the side of me, you know, if it goes along with what's there and the whole thing is . . . I'm not really going to say, as long as it's nice. I know this is just a zoning, so I guess I'll have to gel more involved when the actual planning happens. I just want people to know where I stand on it since I think I'm pretty well affected right here in both ways. Mr. Morrow: We appreciate your input. Mr. King: I'm leaving it up to the City to do the right thing. Ms. Lang: I came back to make one more comment. When we talk about the zoning, if he slays at two stones or less, he can put in more units. Correct? Mr. Morrow: If he goes to the one we're studying tonight, he would have more units. Ms. Lang: Well, he'd have to set back 75 feel. Mr. Morrow: In other words, he can build an extra story. September 20, 2011 25801 Ms. Lang: I understand he can build up more, but if he doesn't build as far back, he can build closer and so he can get his units in and that's what a lot of people are afraid of, is this three or four story which potenfially could occur. Mr. Morrow: If I follow you correctly, he'll have more units because its taller. Ms. Scheel: She's saying if he slays with the R-9, he'll have more room to spread out on the properly. Correct? Mr. Morrow: Oh. I see what you're saying. You would have fewer units spread over a larger piece of land. Ms. Lang: Correct. Instead of going up, because, again, it's not in conformance with the area, and that's where a lot of people have a problem. Mr. Wilshaw: One factor that would apply here, as you're looking at two or three stones, is that on a two story building, with at least one bedroom units, there's a requirement for at least 2,500 square feel of land area per unit, where on a three story building, only 2,200 square feel of land area is required per single bedroom unit. So that's one way we can help mitigate the number of units with a two story building and notjust have them spread out across the entire property. Ms. Lang: Okay. Thank you Mr. Lytle: I have a question for the Board here. Are there going to be any more study meetings on this or is the Zoning Board going to have a vole soon? What is the next step on this and what is the exact process, please? Mr. Morrow: What we will do tonight is we will make a recommendation. We will have a motion and we will vole on it. It will be forwarded to the City Council with that recommendation. If you were notified of this meeting tonight, you would also be notified when it comes before the City Council for their study meeting. We're only a recommending body. The next step will be the approving body. It's not like you won't have another shot at it after tonight regardless of how it comes out. Mr. Lytle: Okay. I just wanted to know the process. One other thing I wanted to mention is the Fire Station right next door. Everybody here is running day and night. Right about where they pull out and start their sirens, would be right in front of that. So I don't September 20, 2011 25802 know how much of a peaceful retirement area that would be because they have to clear the light at Newburgh and Plymouth. As soon as they pull out, the sirens go on and it is day and night, sometimes a couple times an hour. I was wondering with all this stuff on the first floor, the swimming pool and all the exercise stuff and all that, wouldn't that cul into some of the City revenue with our Senior Center and the Rec Center and all that we have set up over there. The other thing was, Pick -a -Bone restaurant. I don't know what happened to that, but that was another one of his venues that didn't work. So I just want you to maybe take a good close look at how things have done in the past. I know he's giving it a new shot down on Plymouth Road with the other place. That's it for tonight. Thank you very much again. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. I see no one else coming forward. The pefitioner has one more opportunity to address the Commission. Mr. Josifoski: I would like to answer a few of the questions from my neighbors. First of all to the lady right on the left here, the lovely lady, the first question was, she was concerned about having a garage for the building. There will be no underground garage. The last time she came up here, she asked for the two story, what's the difference between the two story and three story. If you build something three story compared to two story, its going to be more cost effective. So that's for that. For the second gentleman that was in line here, he was concerned about the three story height. The present house that's right on 37630, that height is about 20 feet. Same thing for the houses south of Plymouth Road. There are two story houses, and I bel you some of those houses are 35 feel. So when you have a commercial building, you're looking at three stories plus the roof. How much we're talking about? We're probably talking a few feet, 30 to 40 feel in total height. Compared to the other houses around, its probably going to be 7 or 8 feel higher. The third person was concerned about the value. He mentioned something about the value. Yes, I'm going to receive a value for the property. Yes, sir, you're right. I'm going to be receiving a value because that's going to be my effort, my investment. At the same time, the City is going to be receiving value, taxable value. And we need the taxes here for the City. Of course, all of you, you guys need service for the kids, bussing them to school, for picking up the garbage, for cleaning the streets, for the water supply and all that sluff. All that sluff costs money. So somebody has to pay for it. People like me, they're trying to develop properfies. They're trying to add value to those properfies and lax values. So I think the City is going to be September 20, 2011 25803 gaining value from that. To the third person, she was concerned more about the view. If I'm looking at the view, I mean I would like to be a baby right now, with this brain, young, strong. My parents would take care of me and all that sluff. But you know what? I'm getting older. So the point is, things start changing around. The City of Livonia is changing. Thirty years ago the City of Livonia was an extension of the Detroit suburbs. Now we have South Lyon, another 20 miles away after 30 years. Twenty years ago there was nothing, all country. It changed. We're all moving out. Change for the good or better or worse, R's happening. I understand the view. Everybody wants to have a nice view, but who's going to pay the taxes? The fifth person was concemed about the traffic and the pond. I'm not a lmffic person. I'm not a traffic expert. I will leave that to the lmffic experts. Lel them decide what the tmffic flow on Plymouth Road and lel them decide what the traffic flow on Newburgh Road. You know what? That person, Mr. Jeff, he lives right on Plymouth Road. It's going to lake him five minutes to gel outside the door, sit at 5:00 outside on Newburgh Road, and just look at those cars sifting there in front of his house. He's looking al the driver and the driver is looking at him. That's going to answer the traffic right there on Newburgh Road. But if I look on Plymouth Road, I just see the houses. I don't see no lmffic at all. I don't see how Plymouth Road is going to be all jammed up. Same thing to I believe number six. She had something to do with the road and RUF. RUF, it's a nice thing, you know what I mean? It's nice to wake up in the morning and look at the trees, but somebody is paying taxes for those properties. And if people are paying taxes, like we have six acres there, we are paying property taxes. And I think we have the right to develop those properties. We have the right to change from RUF to R-9, whatever is the case. We have the right because we have been paying taxes. We have been on that piece of property there for 21 years. We see changes. We live with those changes. The development came across on the south side of Plymouth Road. We never went and complained. Change. Newburgh Village in the back changed. We never complained. We figure its good for everybody. But now, I see people are complaining. In my belief, change is good. Like the President of the United Slates, Obama said, change is good. I don't know how good it is, but it's good because if you don't try to change something, nothing is going to happen. Its going to slay the same thing. So I think we need change. Simple as that. The seventh person discussed about the three story or four story. Here, I'm hearing from the Planning Commission and I'm willing to sign a condition that I would be going for three stones, not less, not more, three stories. Then Mr. Doug King September 20, 2011 25804 next door neighbor, he came here and he said his view on the development of the property. He has the right to say it. I don't have nothing against him. He has the concerns and he has the view and that's what he said. Change, on the north side Newburgh Village is coming in. On the east side, this project is coming in, and we're going to try and make a buffer zone there. With the setbacks of 75 feel, I don't think there's going to be any problems there. One more question. Somebody mentioned about the properties down on this piece of property. There's two houses. Those houses are going to be coming down. The whole piece of properly is going to be cleaned. There is going to be one piece of building there. The road is going to be going on the east side of the properly. Newburgh Village is going to benefit from that road because they can exit on that road and they can go wherever they want to go. They have the bank there. It's going to be very good for the bank. The next thing you know its good for the fire station. If the ambulance goes there, they can gel in the building much quicker especially when there is a big time of traffic. The Newburgh Village is going to benefit from that road there because it's going to connect to Plymouth Road. The elderly people they don't have to wail to gel on Plymouth Road because Plymouth Road there's no traffic. The only time its in traffic is early in the morning. Most of the traffic on Plymouth Road is just pass by traffic, people going towards Plymouth or towards the City of Livonia. Where on Newburgh, it's heavy traffic because everybody is going from 96 down south of 96 toward Westland. As I said, I'm not an expert in traffic. I will leave that to the experts in the traffic business. I'm looking forward for this committee to vole for R-9-1, with condition for three story. I promise you this project is going to look nice. I don't think it's going to have that much impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Certainly we recognize you're the property owner. You have every nghl to petition for this change. We'll see where it goes from there. So if that's the final wrap up, if there are no further questions ... Mr. Taylor: This property is recommended by the City as medium density property. That's the Future Land Use Plan that we have throughout the City. I talked to Jim Inglis who, for those of you who don't know, is head of the Housing Commission. He has no problem with R-9, but he does have a problem with R-9-1, three or four stones. Actually, that's not what he's going to put up to the north. He has a problem with that, and I have a problem with three stories in that area. The petitioner can certainly say that he will limit it to three stories, but who's to say September 20, 2011 25805 if he sells the property, and even though there's a condition on it, the new property owner could say, well, wail a minute. It's zoned R-9-1 so why cant I go ahead and go with it? And he may go to court and do it. But that's down the line. All we're talking about now is zoning. That's the main thing. None of know what the project is going to look like. However, I do think three stories in that area or four, whatever it might be, is out of character for the area. For that reason, I'm going to ask for a resolution if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taylor, if you're ready to make a motion, I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Taylor: Okay. Mr. Bahr: I just have a quick question of Mr. Taormina. If this was approved R-9-1 zoning with the three story height condition, does that condition slay with it regardless of who might own it in the future or is that just for this particular use? Mr. Taormina: He has voluntarily offered a condition to limit the building height to three stories. The City Council ultimately, if they concur in that, can approve this with a conditional agreement that would limit the building height and which could run with the land in perpetuity and with the zoning. Any desire to modify that beyond the scope of that agreement would be reason for the change of zoning back to RUF or to some lesser intense zoning classification. There would be built-in safeguards, if that responds to your question. Mr. Bahr: Yes, it does. And I want to clarify one other thing too relative to what some of the residents said. Mr. Taormina, if you could just confirm, the road proposal, about the road going through there, R-9 versus R-9-1 doesn't make any difference relative to that proposal, correct? Mr. Taormina: I think materially no. It does not make any change. Mr. Morrow: If there are no further comments or discussion, I will close the public hearing. Mr. Taylor, I believe you had a motion. Mr. Taylor: I do, and I would answer that, but I've also talked to Jim Inglis and they are talking about the road, negotiating the road there for future use. Now what will happen to it, I don't know. As far as the signing of a three story pack, I mean if someone else bought that, they'll say, well, I didn't sign that. I didn't say it was that way. So there's a lot of problems that could come in. For September 20, 2011 25806 the other reasons, I'm going to offer a zoning of R-9. The petitioner has told us that he wouldn't develop it at R-0, but I think R-9 is the correct zoning for it. Whether he will develop it or not, I don't know. For that reason, I'm going to ask for the approving resolution for R-9, which is two stories maximum. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0949-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 23, 2011, on Petition 2011-07-01-04 submitted by the Danilo Josifoski pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone properties at 37600 through 37706 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Chase Boulevard in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R -9- I, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-07-01-04, as amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to R-9 for the following reasons: 1. That R-9 zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That R-9 zoning would provide opportunities for a greater variety of uses to serve the area as well as the City as a whole; 3. That R-9 zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; 4. That R-9 zoning would provide for the development of the subject property in a manner that is consistent with its size and location; and 5. That R-9 zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends medium density residential use in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Josifoski, you will still have your petition for R-9-1. Our recommendation is for plain R-9, but you September 20, 2011 25807 will be heard on the R-9-1 petition. Thank you very much for coming. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I'm sure there's a lot of people in the audience that don't understand when it goes to the Council, what they will do. With their decision, they will make a First Reading at Council level, whatever zoning they want to do, R-9 or R-9-1. But the First Reading tells everybody in the area that there's going to possibly be a change in zoning. There is no vole taken at that meeting. Al the Second Reading, that is when the vote is taken. Its going to be at lead another couple of months before anything happens. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much ITEM #2 PETITION 2011-07-01-05 SREP HAGGERTY ROAD Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 08-01-05 submitted by SREP Haggerty Road, L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone properties at 19750 and 19790 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, from R -E (Research-Engineedng) to C-2 (General Business). Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Taormina: The property altogether is about 10.86 acres. It has 543 feel of frontage along Haggerty Road and a total depth roughly 870 feel. The requested rezoning to the C-2 classification is in anticipation of redeveloping some or all of the site for service, commercial, retail and/or entertainment purposes. This is the site of the Haggerty Tech Center. It is comprised of three one- story buildings, as well as the associated parking facilities. Directly to the north is a U -M Center for Specialty Care. This is a site that is zoned OS, Office Services. Further to the north is a C-2 zoned area that is the site of a Costco warehouse store as well as a Target. Directly to the east is a PO, Professional Office, zoned parcel that is located adjacent to the oil wells, which is owned by the same entity, which is Livonia Land Partnership and Weslbay Exploration. West across Haggerty in Northville are single family residential homes, and then directly to the south is the Pentagon Entertainment Complex, and this September 20, 2011 25808 includes the AMC 20 Theatres as well as a Hyatt Place Hotel and several restaurants, including Champps, J. Alexander's and Bahama Breeze. The proposed rezoning to the C-2 classification would allow for a wide range of commercial uses including full service restaurants, other retail services and sales, medical and general office, as well as recreational, research and many others. The conceptual plans submitted with the application show how the site might be developed. The options include either a full retail or some combination of office and retail including retaining one or more of the existing buildings. This particular plan, which is identified as Phase I, shows how the south and westerly portion of the site could be redeveloped. That would involve removing one of the three buildings that is on the southerly portion of the site and replacing that with parking and, in this case, two or three full service restaurants. So that's one possible development option where you'd see a combination of retail and office. Alternatively, this option shows how the site might be developed should all of the buildings be removed and be redeveloped for all retail purposes. This particular scheme shows a retail building about 12,000 square feel in the northwest corner of the property as well as two or three full service restaurants with frontage on Haggerty Road in the southwest corner, and then towards the rear of the property a larger entertainment center or retail complex that could be as much as 30,000 square feet in size. Haggerty Road in any case will serve as the primary entrance to the site regardless of how it's developed. There is a private driveway to the south that could serve as a secondary access. This runs around the north end of the AMC theatre complex. I think this plan as well as the other plan I showed you shows how there could be a connection between that development to the south as well as what is developed to the north. The Future Land Use Plan currently shows this site as office. Subsequent to any rezoning, ultimately what we'd like to do is modify the Future Land Use Plan to make it consistent with the zoning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated September 14, 2011, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal descriptions provided describes both parcels adequately for the purposes of a rezoning request, but contain minor error(s) which should be identified and corrected as a part of any future plan submittal. As to addresses, the General Property Information sheet September 20, 2011 25809 containing the legal description and the parcel number for the easterly parcel (023 99 0005 001) bear the Property Address of 19700 Haggerty Road. This is incorrect. The address originally assigned to this parcel is 19750 Haggerty Road. The building on the parcel bears addresses ranging from 19750 through 19790. 19700 Haggerty Road is the address of the southerly building on the westerly parcel. I've indicated this on the attached address sketch. The petitioner is hereby notified (via copy of this cromespondence) that any site changes which would impact public utilities, road right-of-way, easements, changes in storm water handling or routing, or changes in storm or sanitary Flow volumes must be approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works. The petitioner may find it beneficial to schedule a meeting at the earliest convenience by calling the undersigned at (734) 466-2608." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, I'll go to the petitioner. We will need your name and address for the record. Frank Jonna, SREP Haggerty Road, L.L.C., 39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 150, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. Its a pleasure to be here. Its been a long time. This property is, unfortunately, a casualty of a downturn. We acquired it about three years ago and have looked at numerous redevelopment options. Specifically, we had a strong plan for a medical redevelopment here that unfortunately looks like it might be moving across the street. We've had enormous success with the Pentagon project and have had interest in numerous retail types of uses. We're excited about the opportunity to maybe look at this thing in phases, look at it as a true mixed use. We have a great relationship with the folks at West Bay and talked to them about integrating their property into this and taking advantage of the synergy the two properties create. Mr. Taormina has done a fabulous job describing it. These are concept plans. We're certainly open to questions, comments, suggestions. We'd love to make a deal here. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Jonna. Are there any questions of Mr. Jonna? Mr. Taylor: Mr. Jonna, now we're going to put you through the wringer here a little bit. Mr. Jonna: I'm ready September 20, 2011 25810 Mr. Taylor: I've known Frank since he used to come to the Council meetings in short pants. Mr. Jonna: That was before I was collecting social security. Right? Mr. Taylor: That's right. Al one time, all of this property was Research and Engineering. That was many years ago when this Commission decided they were going to do something a little different in that area. Then, of course, it was developed across the street and that changed the whole area. One question I have, Frank, is will you connect that ring road from the theaters into this complex so you don't have to go out onto Haggerty Road to go to another restaurant or whatever if that's possible? Mr. Jonna: Its a vision we've had since the day we developed the property to the north. It's something that we definitely want to pursue very aggressively. I feel confident that the other property owners that have to be involved will see the benefits as well. We do currently manage the Pentagon property although it's a condominium. The theater is a major stakeholder in that. We think they'll see a benefit in this, and like I said, with West Bay we also have this very strong relationship. The well that goes through to A123 is controlled by the Pentagon Condominium Association, but both the West Bay parcel and A123 have an easement over it. Mr. Taylor: And I know we're just talking about zoning, which I have no problem with because it will just continue on the greatness of Haggerty Road as far as I'm concerned. You've got a couple restaurants I've never heard of. I don't know whether you're talking to those people or that's a name you made up. Mr. Jonna: Actually, we were approached recently by a representative of these restaurants. They're part of something called the Landmark Entertainment Group. Black Finn has a property in Royal Oak right now. They like the idea of integrating the three concepts on one site. It's very early in the process, and we've had Granite City in the past, a brew house which is not represented in this market, another interesting concept. All of the restaurants along Haggerty Road, and that's the magic - you're absolutely right about that, Haggerty Road. The only ones that have failed have been off Haggerty. Everything on Haggerty Road has done well, so we're very confident that we can attract quality operators, a variety of uses, and continue to make Haggerty Road the destination for not just Livonia, but this whole southwest portion of the County. September 20, 2011 25811 Mr. Taylor: The other question I'm asking is not about zoning, but about a gas station for Costco. I know you talked about it on your property many years ago. I just wonder if there's anything happening there? Mr. Jonna: We have no plans whatsoever for fuel operation of any kind on our properly. Mr. Taylor: So Costco hasn't talked to you about that? Mr. Jonna: I didn't say that. Mr. Taylor: Okay. I won't go any farther. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are you all set, Mr. Taylor? Are there any other questions or comments to Mr. Jonna? I don't see any so I'm going to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-50-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 2011, on Petition 2011-08-01-05 submitted by SREP Haggerty Road, L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone properties at 19700 and 19860 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, from R-E to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-08-01-05 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That C-2 zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That C-2 zoning would provide opportunities for a greater variety of uses to serve the area as well as the City as a whole; 3. That C-2 zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 4. That C-2 zoning would provide for the development of the subject property in a manner that is consistent with its size and location. September 20, 2011 25812 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chainnan, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2011-08-01-06 ASHLEY CAPITAL Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 08-01-06 submitted by Ashley Capital, L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone property at 28101 Schoolcraft Road, located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Inkster Road and Middlebell Road in the North 12 of Section 25, from M-2 (General Manufacturing) to C-2 (General Business). NOTE: Item #3 has been removed from the agenda at the request of the petitioner. ITEM #4 PETITION 2011-08-02-11 GARDEN PARTY STORE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 08-02-11 submitted by N.H. Enterprises, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with a party store (Garden Party Store) at 27405 Grand River Avenue, located on the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Taormina: The SDD liquor license is allowed as a waiver use under Section 11.03(r) of the Zoning Ordinance. This store currently has an SDM license which allows them to sell packaged beer and wine for consumption off the premises. The proposed SDD license would be transferred from the former Rite Aid located at 37681 Five Mile Road, Livonia. That license is presently in escrow, and it is requested that it be tmnsferred to this location. There are several special requirements that pertain to SDD licensed businesses in the City. One is that it not be located within 1,000 feet of any existing SDD licensed establishments. September 20, 2011 25813 There is an SDD licensed business within 1,000 feel. This is the Redford Food Mart, located on the north side of Grand River in Redford Township about 650 feel from this particular property. Thus, approval would be subject to the City Council waiving the separation requirement. That waiver can take place by the MLCC by virtue of the fact that there is a major road that separates the two, but unlike the Slate statute, which excludes that requirement anytime there is that kind of banner between the stores, our ordinance does not have that, but this is something that the City Council can waiver. There is another requirement that it not be located within 400 feet from any church or school building. This petition does comply with that requirement. And then lastly, there is the no direct public access rule. This only applies to certain businesses depending on the volume of sales that they have involving liquor products, but it really is a moot point with respect to this petition because he is going to comply no matter what. He has presented a floor plan which shows that all of the SDD licensed products will not be in direct contact with the public. They will be placed behind the cashier area on display shelving. Everything on the left hand side of the plan is the sales and display area that is open to the public. This is the cashier area and everything behind that is restricted to public access. These are the shelving units where all of the SDD products will be stored. I have several items of correspondence if you'd like me to read those out, Mr. Chair. Mr. Morrow: Yes, please Mr. Taormina: There are four items of conespondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated September 16, 2011, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced liquor license request. The written legal description for the parcel is correct. The address is confirmed to be 27405 Grand River." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 12, 2011, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to utilize an SDD liquor license in connection with a party store on property located at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 12, 2011, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth September 20, 2011 25814 letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 13, 2011, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, CBO, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina? Seeing none, is the petitioner here? John B. Carlin, Jr., Carlin Edwards Brown P.L.L.C., 2855 Coolidge Highway, #203, Troy, Michigan 48084. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am John Cadin, the attorney representing the applicants. This store has been there for a while. The family has owned it for a while. This is an effort on their part to improve the service to the community. There is, as Mark indicated, another competitor, but that is across Grand River, which of course is huge at this point. It's a lot safer for these people in the neighborhood to be able to gel full service at this store. We do ask that you waive the 1,000 fool resldction. The store has been improved, its looks. Its clean. Its nice. Its been owned by the family, continued to be operated by the family. They've been here a long time. They have an excellent record. They've got no problems with the Liquor Commission or anything like that. Its a good store, clean, and I think, as Mark indicated, he's definitely going to comply with the City's requirement that the spidt sales be behind the counter. We're here. He's here. If you have any questions, we'd be glad to answer them. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Lets see if we have any. Does anyone on the Commission have any questions of Mr. Cadin or the petitioner? No, I dont see any. So I'm going to ask if there is anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition. Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Krueger, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-51-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 2011, on Petition 2011-08-02-11 submitted by N.H. Enterprises, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21 % alcohol) in connection with a party store (Garden Party Store) at 27405 Grand River Avenue, located on the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, which properly is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend September 20, 2011 25815 to the City Council that Petition 2011-08-02-11 be approved subjectto the following conditions: 1. That the proposed use of an SDD liquor license at this location shall be subject to the waiving of the 1,000 feet separation requirement between existing SDD licensed establishments as specified in Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council; and 2. That public access to SDD products shall be restricted, as stipulated in Section 11.03(r)(4) ofthe Zoning Ordinance. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use of an SDD liquor license at this location 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 subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 4. That the granting of this petition will not increase the number of SDD liquor licenses in the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2011-08-03-02 LORMAX STERN Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2011- 08-03-02 submitted by Lormax Stern Development Company pursuant to Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate part of an existing drain easement on property located at September 20, 2011 25816 the Livonia Marketplace at the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Taormina: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that the pefitioner did notify me yesterday that he had a conflict, and I indicated to him that I would try to handle this matter this evening on his behalf and also recognizing that this is an action that is required by the City in this particular case in order to allow the already approved project to move forward. With that, I'll just briefly describe what this is. It involves the vacation of a drain easement located at the Livonia Marketplace on the north side of Seven Mile between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook. As you all know, this is a Planned General Development that, when it's completely built out, will be about 320,000 square feel of new retail space. In order to complete what was identified on the original plan as Buildable Area "A", and that's the building pad that's located just to the west of Walmart, it was necessary for the developer to relocate about 260 lineal feet of existing city - owned storm drain. This is a large diameter drain that runs in a north -south direction along the westerly half of the Marketplace property. The drain was moved about 100 feel further to the west in order to accommodate this Buildable Area "A". It was on April 26 of this year that the Planning Commission approved the plans for a new Kohl's Department Store to be built at this location. The original site plan showed a building pad that did not interfere with the drain easement. However, because the size of the building area increased, it was necessary to move the drain. Work on the drain relocation has been completed, and upon the vacation of the old easement, a new easement will be recorded that encompasses the relocated section of the drain. In fact, I'll show you two drawings that will show you exactly how that will look. The first drain easement is highlighted in yellow. You can see it's basically a straight shot right through the properly. The next drawing shows the offset that was provided to move the drain. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of corespondence from the Engineering Division, dated September 12, 2011, which reads as follows: "The Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Storm Drain Easement for the recently abandoned portion of storm sewer can be vacated, as a new relocated storm sewer has been successfully installed. The legal descriptions which were provided are correct. The addresses assigned to this parcel are 29576, 29578 and 29580 Seven Mile Road. From the info provided, it appears that the Kohl's September 20, 2011 25817 department store will be utilizing 29578 Seven Mile Road, which is comect." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? As Mr. Taormina indicated, the petitioner is not here tonight. This is kind of a housekeeping situation in vacating this easement. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-52-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 2011, on Petition 2011-08-03-02 submitted by Lormax Stern Development Company pursuant to Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate part of an existing drain easement on properly located at the Livonia Marketplace at the northwest comer of Seven Mile Road and Middlebell Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, which properly is zoned C-2 and P, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-08-03-02 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That this vacating is needed in order to complete Buildable Area "A" located at the Livonia Marketplace; 2. That the work has been completed, and upon vacation of the old easement, a new easement will be recorded that encompasses the relocated section of storm sewer; and 3. That no reporting City department or public utility 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, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. September 20, 2011 25818 ITEM #6 PETITION 2011 -08 -SN -01 MISSION HEALTH Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 08 -SN -01 submitted by ASI Signage Innovations requesting approval to replace the ground signs of the medical center (Mission Health Livonia) at 37595 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I do not see the petitioner here. I don't know if it's really worth it for me to proceed with the report. Mr. Taylor: It has been our process in the past if the petitioner doesn't show up, we move it to the next meeting. Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission concur with that? Based on that input, we'll move this from the agenda this evening and schedule it for a subsequent meeting. ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,013TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,013'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 23, 2011. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Krueger, and adopted, it was #09-53-2011 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,013th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 23, 2011, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Wilshaw, Krueger, Bahr, Smiley, Taylor, Scheel NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Morow Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,014'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 20, 2011, was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. September 20, 2011 25819 CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman