Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2014-07-29MINUTES OF THE 1,058m PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 29, 2014, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,058th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Scott P. Bahr Kathleen McIntyre R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in 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 ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2014-07-02-09 STARBUCKS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2014-07- 02-09 submitted by Middlebelt Retail Development, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full service restaurant with drive -up window facilities (Starbucks) within a mulfi-tenant retail building at 12691 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26. July 29, 2014 26507 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a full service restaurant with drive - up window facilities. The property is located on the west side of Middlebelt Road just south of SchoolcraR Road and north of the CSX Railroad right-of-way. This is the zoning map that indicates the location of the property in relationship to the surrounding land uses and zoning. The site is located directly in front of the Menards home improvement store. It was on December 2 of last year that this site, along with the adjacent property to the south, received site plan approval for the construction of two multi - tenant retail buildings. Starbucks will locate in one of the three buildings that will be built on the outparcels that were created in front of the Menards store. Goodwill Industries is the other building. They are constructing a free-standing building on the southerly most parcel. The other two multi -tenant retail buildings will go on the remaining northerly parcel. The north building is the one that we're considering this evening with respect to the restaurant proposal. That building is about 6,900 square feet and it shows three possible tenants located within that structure, including the Starbucks. The south building is about 12,200 square feet. Its larger as you can tell from the plan and you can see too that it has about six possible tenants that can occupy that building. Starbucks is set to occupy the south end cap unit of the building that is closest to the Menards access drive, which connects Middlebelt Road with the sites here as well as the Menards store. The building is currently under construction. This unit faces Middlebelt Road. It's just under 1,800 square feet in total size. They provided a seating plan for the restaurant. The interior layout of the restaurant is depicted on this floor plan. It shows a total of 44 interior seats. The plan includes some outdoor seating. Those are the three tables shown on the east side in front of the building. They are showing three tables with four chairs each for a total of 12 outdoor seats. The proposal also includes drive -up window operations. You will recall from the approvals last December that they did show one of the buildings would eventually contain a drive -up operation. At that time, they weren't sure who the tenant would be or precisely where it would be located. In fact, it was shown on the south side of the other building, but through their negotiations with the tenant, in this case they've opted to locate that drive -up operation on the south side of this building. The pickup window is on the left hand side and the stacking for the vehicles wraps around the south and west side of the building. There is ample stacking space in terms of complying with the Zoning Ordinance. We require a minimum of four car spaces in addition to the one at the pickup window. This plan easily meets that requirement. In terms of overall parking, the plan is fully July 29, 2014 26508 compliant. In fact, we looked at this overall as a group commercial center because of the number of tenant spaces. We applied the parking ratio of one space for every 125 square feel of useable floor area, in which case they would be required to have 122 spaces. The plan shows 138. So it is in full compliance with the City's parking standards. There are no planned exterior modifications to the building. They presented architectural details of the building at the time the site plan was approved, and other than maybe a wall sign that would be installed on the front of the building, there would not be any exterior changes to the building. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Yes, please Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 10, 2014, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition. Per the petition, the project will consist of placing a business within a building already permitted through this office. As the proposed layout has not changed from the permitted plan set, we have no objections to the proposal at this time and the project will not require any additional Engineering Department permits. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be comect and is acceptable to this office. The existing building is assigned an address range of 12691 Middlebelt Road. The proposed store is to be located within Unit A of the building has been assigned an address of 12679 Middlebeft Road." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 10, 2014, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full service restaurant with drive -up window facilities within a multi -tenant retail building at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 9, 2014, 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 Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 21, 2014, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. Two parking spaces must be identified for drive thru customer waiting. This Department has no further objections to this July 29, 2014 26509 petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, on the overhead view can you show us where the order board is? Mr. Taormina: Where notations five and six are located, and I'll lel the architect verify this, but six is more than likely a preview board, and then I'm guessing five is the actual order station. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. I didn't see that. Mr. Taormina: Its on the west side of the building. Its a little difficult to read and I don't have the key with me, but we'll lel Mr. Flinloff verify that that is what those represent. Mr. Wilshaw: Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? Mr. Taylor: Mark, does the 44 seats include the outdoor seating? Mr. Taormina: No. It would be the 44 plus the 12. 1 counted the seats. There are exactly 44 shown on this plan, and then add to that the 12 exterior seats, which they are entitled to as part of the plan. I don't have details on fencing. However, the plan does indicate that there is going to be some kind of a barrier around the outdoor seating area. I'll lel the petitioner describe what kind of prolective fencing they'll have in that area. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? Mark, I have one. Are the two parking spaces designated for the drive-thru window for parking by customers? Mr. Taormina: Its not shown on this plan. I don't think its going to be a problem to just choose two spaces somewhere along the front of the site. They can designate two spaces anywhere in front of the pickup window for that purpose to satisfy the ordinance and it would not present any kind of a shortage in terms of parking. They have surplus parking so they could choose any two that are in close proximity to that southeast corner. Mr. Morrow: And they'll have appropriate signage. July 29, 2014 26510 Mr. Taormina: Yes. Correct. Mr. Morrow: And they do have a bypass lane. Mr. Taormina: Yes, and I failed to mention that. You'll notice on the south side of the drive-thru lane, there is additional space available that would allow for customers to bypass that area. I'm assuming that's going to be one-way traffic only. This will be phase one of the construction. The hatched area on the Iefthand side, that part is not even being built. So there's going to be a curb that runs along the side as part of the initial phase of development that would eventually be removed when the second building is constructed. The drive aisle is 12 feet plus 10 feel. So they have 22 feet with ample room for cars to bypass the drive -up lane. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Will the petitioner come forward? We will need your name and address for the record please. Tim Flintoff, Stucky Vitale Architect, 27172 Woodward Avenue, Royal Oak, MI 48067. Mr. Morrow: Do you have anything to add to the presentation? Mr. Flintoff: Yes, I can further clarify item six and five. Six is the pre -order board and five is the order station, which is earlier than the required stacking for four. As far as for the metal fence, that will be a black metal fence 48 inches high to protect the customers while seated at that area. Mr. Morrow: Will there be any gates on it? Mr. Flinloff: No gates. It would be open to the end that faces the store. Mr. Morrow: No other exit or entrance other than the north end? Mr. Flinloff: No, just the area that will follow the edge of the curb just to protect them as they're seated there. And then we would have no problem identifying even where that number eight is and the second one next to it for Starbucks drive-thru customer parking. Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any other questions of the petitioner? July 29, 2014 26511 Mr. Wilshaw: I'm just curious about the stacking requirements of Starbucks. You look like you have about six cars worth of stacking between the order window and the order board from where its located. There's not a lot of room before the order board to slack cars in this particular parking lot. I'm thinking early in the morning when you have your main rush, do you lend to find you need more people to stack between the order board and the order window or is the slow point really placing the order? Mr. Flintoff: I'm not really sure about that, but this design is based on Starbucks' standards so this was implemented with direct contact from Starbucks. Them dictating the distance that they require as a corporate standard. So they didn't go into the specifics of their operations, but this is what their tried and true method has presented them over time and developed. They prefer that distance for their queueing. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I just speak from experience looking at some of the other local coffee shops around here that have drive-lhrus like Tim Horton, Dunkin' Donuts and so on. It's not unusual to see in the morning eight, nine cars before they even gel to the order window backing out onto major roads. Obviously, you're not going to be backing out onto a major road in this development, but I could see you having a line of cars stringing all the way out to the Menards access road. I'm a little bit concern about that. Otherwise, it seems fine to me. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou, Mr. Wilshaw. Does anyone else have any comments or questons? Mr. Bahr: I share Mr. Wilshaw's concern. I just wanted to clarify again. So it's a four car slacking requirement between the order window and where they give you your coffee, in this case, right? Mr. Wilshaw: That's the City's requirement. Mr. Bahr: I'll ask Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina: It doesn't specify how many cars are to be stacked between the pick-up window and the order board. It just says that it has to have four total stacking spaces in addition to the vehicle at the pickup window. Mr. Bahr: I guess I'm wondering. I understand Starbucks' standards and they do this all the time, so who am I to step in and tell them where their window ought to be, but I agree with Mr. Wilshaw. I've seen the same thing, and it seems like there would be July 29, 2014 26512 plenty of room to move that order board further to the south. You've got one, two, three, four, five, arguably at least five car spots right now between where orders are placed and where they pick up their coffee, and probably just two before that. Would there be an issue with moving the ordering point further to the south? Before you answer that, I'm sorry, there is one other issue loo that relates to this, is just the fad that you're potentially going to have cars coming from both the east and the west into that point too. I can almost see them coming against each other stacking in there. It just seems like it would be helpful to have more queueing space before the order window. Mr. Flintoff: Sure. Gary.. . Mr. Morrow: We'll need your name and address, sir. Gary David, 1332 Roselyn Road, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan. This is exactly what Starbucks requests of us. It's already been agreed on with them per our lease. So it's not something that they would like changed. Mr. Morrow: I think what you're saying is that your tenant has agreed to this. I guess from my standpoint, Starbucks is certainly not new to this game. I'm assuming that based on what you're telling us that they reviewed this, that stacking will not be an issue. Would you concur with that? Mr. David: I concur, yeah. Mr. Flinloff: I think Mr. Taormina had a comment. Mr. Taormina: I think maybe in terms of Mr. David's response to the question is whether or not the owner would have a problem with relocating the order board in the event that Starbucks finds that it improves their drive -up operations. So while Starbucks is applying its standards to this site, that doesn't mean that they might encounter a unique situation here and it would improve things by making an adjustment. If that is the case, then I guess really the question would be, could that accommodation be made at this site? So maybe that's a more appropriate question for the petitioner. I'm not sure. Mr. Bahr: That would be exactly my question and I'll just say, obviously, again, Starbucks knows what theyre doing but so does Dunkin' Donuts, and the Dunkin' Donuts I pass each day on the way to work has this problem out onto Middlebell. I shouldn't say each July 29, 2014 26513 day, but its enough that I've noticed it. So that would be exactly my question. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bahr. Ms. McIntyre: Just to clarify what Mr. Wilshaw and Mr. Bahr are asking for, is to move the order point further south but it wouldn't change the number of cars that could be slacked up against the building. Mr. Flintoff: No. Ms. McIntyre: Okay. I'm not following then how that would alleviate the problem. Mr. Bahr: Mr. Chair, I can answer her question. Its a fair question. It wouldn't change the number of cars. Right now you have the majority of the cars that are slacked against the building between the order point and the window. This would even it out a little bit more so there's more slacking before the order point. Again, from what I've seen at other coffee establishments, things move relatively fast between the order point and the window. Where the stacking happens is behind the order point. So if you can just move that order point forward, yes, it's the same amount of cars, but I think what you're going to have in this situation is you're going to have slacking behind the order point and then you're going to have a big gap with not many cars actually in it between the order point and where they're getting their coffee. Again, it's just a concern. I trust Starbucks knows what they're doing. I don't know this is a reason to hold it up. From a layman's perspective, it seems like it would be an easy thing to move the order board further to the south. That's it. Mr. Morrow: I'm not arguing with Mr. Bahr, but you know, another side of the coin as it were, that it will give more time to make sure there's not a big holdup at the window. They'll have a little more time to gel the order placed and ready for the customer when it comes around. I'm no expert on it either, but maybe that's what they're looking at. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether they're just talking about coffee or not, but I know if there's other things that need to be ordered, they have to be prepared, and I would think that the order board down farther gives them a chance to prepare what they have to prepare. July 29, 2014 26514 Mr. Wilshaw: A question for the petitioner. Does Starbucks prepare food or do theyjust serve pre -prepared foods like Danish and bagels? Mr. Flintoff: They serve prepared food as well. They have a heating oven, and they will serve breakfast sandwiches and lunch sandwiches as well as coffee and sluff. So I think the point that it gives them more time to prepare is probably very correct. I frequent Starbucks probably three times a week at a drive-thru location. Most times I go inside, but you see two or three people with headsets on taking orders. So they are moving the orders through pretty quickly and processing them. I think that's probably where this is coming along. It gives them more time for preparation and to prepare the orders so that they have time to stage them versus the ordering point. Mr. Wilshaw: I understand the concem. I think that the nature of Starbucks' business, and I'll preface loo by saying that I'm hardly an expert in Starbucks operation, as none of us are, but I think the nature of their business is that R's fairy rapid delivery services as opposed to say going to a restaurant where they're preparing burgers and chicken sandwiches and several things for a family of four who are coming through. It's generally one person in a car asking for a cup of coffee or maybe a breakfast sandwich or something. My concern, like Mr. Bahr mentioned, is that I don't want to have a situation where there's eight or nine cars stacked up behind the order board and having a gap of three or four cars in front of the order board going unused causing a traffic jam. So that's where my concern comes from based on just antidotal experience I've seen around the area. I would think that if we slide that order board down south a car length or two it would probably help a little bit during those peak times because, frankly, you only have one order board. So you could have three or four people with headsets on, but they can only take one order at a time. Someone wailing to gel their order is going to wail either before the board or after. They're still going to wail if there's a line, but anyway, these are my thoughts at this point. Thankyou. Ms. McIntyre: Mr. Chair, I would be reluctant to prescribe changes to Starbucks. My sense is, from doing a little bit of reading about their business, they have a pretty good sense of their average time. They know almost to a science, I think, the average time to prepare the average order. I would assume theyve arranged this because they want to optimize the number of cars through and they think that's the right number of cars between an order point and delivery. So I would be reluctant with the information July 29, 2014 26515 we have at this point to prescribe a change to the layout or the positioning of the signage and order board. Mr. Morrow: Any other comments? I think you can see our concern is the slacking, nothing to do with the operation, because if you look at the plan, there really is no place to slack. Any slacking would interfere with the flow of the things. That's where our concern is coming from. We're relying very heavily that they can move the cars right along. Now Mark, as far as you're concerned, if they should decide to move those things, you're thinking that the properly owner would have to make some sort of a decision in that direction? Mr. Taormina: You could ask the property owner what degree of flexibility they have in making those changes. Theyve got two other businesses they have to deal with so it's probably something that would have to be prescribed in the lease upfront or maybe adjusted later on. Maybe that's a question for Mr. David in terms of how flexible they are later on in the event that they wanito move things around backlhere. Mr. Morrow: If you could explore that with the properly owner. Mr. David: I will. We can look into it. Mr. Morrow: Worst case scenario, if they think that will cure the problem, do you have the flexibility to do it upfront, but we're not anticipating that is going to happen, at least at this level. Mr. David: I can look into it. I don't know exactly the flexibility that they have with regard to it, but its something I can look into for you. Mr. Morrow: All right. If you would because it might come up at the Council level. They may share the same concerns that we're doing here tonight, so you'd have an answer to keep things moving. Mr. David: Okay. Mr. Morrow: If there are no other comments or question, and if there is no one in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition, I'm going to close the discussion and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McIntyre, and adopted, it was #07-41-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 29, 2014, on July 29, 2014 26516 Petition 2014-07-02-09 submitted by Middlebelt Retail Development, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full service restaurant with drive -up window facilities (Starbucks) within a multi -tenant retail building at 12691 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, which properly is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-07-02-09 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Architectural Site Plan marked Sheet SP1.1 prepared by Stucky Vitale Architects, dated July 2, 2014, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed forty four (44) interior seats and twelve (12) exterior seals; 3. That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A3.1 prepared by Stucky Vitale Architects, dated July 2, 2014, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 5. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 6. That two (2) parking spaces located beyond drive -up windows shall be designated for use of drive -up window patrons; 7. The Petitioner shall work with the operators of the restaurant to determine if the order board should be moved forward—closer to the pick-up window—by approximately one (1) stacking space in order to reduce the chance of vehicles entering the drive -up lane from backing up into the main drive aisle; and 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits. July 29, 2014 26517 Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: I'm going to be voting no on this petition. It's not that I have any problem with Starbucks or their operation. I think it's a fine operation, and I think located in this development is a good location. I just don't know if this is a good location for this development, this particular tenant in this development, given the fact that we're knowingly putting in a traffic jam into this. Parking spaces will be blocked. Other tenants may have issues because of the layout that's proposed and the inability of us to change that layout in any way. The original site plan showed an operation like this being located in the other building where there was sufficient room for slacking and lineup of cars. This is creating a potential traffic hazard that I cannot approve. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I would like to add condition 7 because we had not seen it on the plan. I would like to make sure we designate that there will be two drive-thru parking places for the customers if the maker of the motion and supporter agree. Ms. Smiley: Certainly. Two drive-lhru parking space. Okay. Fine. Ms. McIntyre? Ms. McIntyre: Yes. Mr. Bahr: I'm going to propose something. I hope this is okay procedurally. I wonder if we could propose an amendment to this that they would look into moving the order point up at least one car length and just present that back to the Planning July 29, 2014 26518 Department before moving forward. I don't know that it has to come before us again, but I think as long as there is just some accountability that they can at least look into the possibility with Starbucks, with the owner, about moving that up a car length that would probably alleviate my concern and I'd be comfortable just knowing that they had to present that back to our Planning Department before moving forward. Can I put that type of language in as a condition on the approving resolution? Mr. Morrow: Another way to stale it would be that it be resolved by the time it gets to the City Council. Mr. Bahr: That's essentially what I'm saying, yeah. Mr. Morrow: And that they know our concern about the stacking, and we will keep it moving, but if they would explore again that possibility of moving it up one slacking spot. Mr. David: We'd have no problem with that. Mr. Morrow: And try to have it resolved by the time you gel to the City Council and keep Mr. Taormina in the loop, and he can keep us apprised as it moves along. Would that satisfy you? Mr. Bahr: Yes. I'm proposing adding that as a condition to the resolution. Mr. Morrow: Doyou concurwilh that, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We'll fashion the language to capture exactly that. Mr. Morrow: That would be condition 8. Mr. Bahr: Do we have to check with the maker of the motion for that? Mr. Morrow: I guess we better check with all of them. Ms. Smiley: That's fine. Do you have a problem with that? Ms. McIntyre: No. Ms. Smiley: Okay, we're fine. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou, Mr. Bahr. Mr. Bahr: I've learned a few things in three and half years. Mr. Morrow: Well, you are the resident expert on Middlebelt. July 29, 2014 26519 Mr. Bahr: That is true. Mayor of Middlebelt. I like that. Mr. Morrow: Any other further discussions, additions or subtractions? With that, we'll have the vole. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McIntyre, Bahr, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: Wilshaw ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution and the conditions we discussed. We appreciate your coming tonight and good luck as it moves forward. Mr. Flinloff: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Mr. Bahr: Mr. Chair, if you can indulge me for about 30 seconds. I just have to make a comment that when I was on the Livonia Marketing Consortium, when we would talk about future advancements for the City and what Livonia needed to do to remain relevant, my good friend, Donna McDowell, who was the Chairwoman on that committee, would repeatedly come back to the fact that Livonia has got to gel a freestanding Starbucks. So Donna, if you ever see this video, we're on our way to getting a Starbucks. Mr. Morrow: Now, we're on the map. Is that right? That concludes that petition. ITEM #2 PETITION 2014-07-06-01 LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2014- 07-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #174-14 and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03(p) of Article XI of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to require as a condition of the granting of any waiver for a retail building or space of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or more intended to be a single unit, a statement that the building as proposed will July 29, 2014 26520 be attractive to other tenants in the event the initial tenant ceases its occupancy of the building, including a description of the features of the building which will make it attractive to prospective replacement tenants. Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment adds a provision to the waiver use regulations in connection with big box retail stores. The intent is to influence the design of such buildings so that features are included to make the building more attractive to subsequent users and tenants, when and if the original tenant vacates the premises. The Ordinance was prepared by the City Law Department, and presented to the City Council, which has referred the matter to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and thereafter submit a report and recommendation. The primary purpose is to promote quick re -occupancy of big box stores, and thereby prevent any prolonged vacancy of such buildings by requiring architects to contemplate potential subsequent tenants during the design phase. This is an issue that our Law Department has been looking at closely, along with our Assessing Department, as they address the valuations and tax appeals involving these properties and the fact that often times the argument is made that the buildings were only intended to serve a particular use or business and because of that, the value of the property is substantially diminished. In an effort to try to cure that, it is hoped that this language would prompt much more discussion and review or at least consideration at the time of review of what would be the long term prospects of one of these buildings in terms of this tenant or any other tenant and what features of the design would then make that building attractive to subsequent users. That's really the intent of the ordinance. It's simple language. You have a draft copy of it. With that, I'll answer any questions. There is no departmental correspondence related to this, other than the original letter from the Law Department that was submitted to the City Council in connection with this matter, and I think you have that in your packets. Mr. Morrow: Yes, we do. Any discussions or questions of this particular ordinance amendment? Mr. Taylor: I've been around for a while and I know there's a few buildings that I can think of that are vacant and they are attractive but nobody is going into them unfortunately right away. I just don't know whether you're going to have seven architects on the City Council that are going to try and design a building that everybody is going to be happy with. I just dont know how that's going to work because if you have a petitioner coming in and July 29, 2014 26521 he's got a tenant for a building, he's going to build it the way the petitioner wants it. To put this or that on the building so if Ma's Dress Store comes in, it has to address Ma's Dress Store, I don't see how its going to work. I'll support it but I don't understand d. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of this ordinance is really not that ft's going to dramatically change the way the buildings are built or the architect of the buildings as much as its going to cause the properly owner or the developer to indicate ways when they're developing a parcel that this particular building, if its a big box store, could be reused in smaller segments or subdivided if necessary so that if that particular business was to go under and the building sat vacate, and then they want to gel a tax break saying that this is essentially a dysfunctional building, this gives the Law Department and the City some ammunition to say, hey, when you first developed this parcel, here's how you indicated that this is a functional site that can be used in other ways for tax purposes. Is that really what this amounts lo? Mr. Taormina: I think that summarizes it very well. Remember loo, you don't wail until the building is empty to then have this fight about the taxes. As recent history has shown, that happens almost immediately when the tenant moves in. The appeal is fled and they argue that the value is not set by who is in there currently, but by how attractive the building is in the event that it's empty and it's marketability beyond that. So yes, the admission alone helps the City's position under such circumstances. And I think it will help us, during the design phase, to consider those features that might be more universal in terms of tenants and some of the things you mentioned, like how it could be subdivided in the future, column spacing, and things like that might very well play into our review during the site plans and waiver use process. Mr. Morrow: I would concur with that. To me, it also makes the property owner aware of our concerns and he's aware of it going in so he's not surprised that perhaps he's having difficulty in finding new tenants, and he understands where we're coming from. When I served on the City appeal board, if it's still in place, it's been a number of years, but once an assessment is reduced, it slays reduced. You cannot increase the assessment on the building even if he has 100 percent occupancy. Do you know whether or not that's sfill in effect? Mr. Taormina: The increase is limited by the rate of inflation July 29, 2014 26522 Mr. Morrow: Once you lower the assessed value, it stays there. That's my opinion. Anything else before I ask for a vote? There is no one in the audience, so I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-42-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 29, 2014, on Petition 2014-07-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #174-14 and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03(p) of Article XI of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to require as a condition of the granting of any waiver for a retail building or space of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet or more intended to be a single unit, a statement that the building as proposed will be attractive to other tenants in the event the initial tenant ceases its occupancy of the building, including a description of the features of the building which will make it attractive to prospective replacement tenants, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-07-06-01 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment will help promote re -occupancy of big box stores by making the building and spaces more attractive to subsequent tenants; 2. That the proposed language amendment will help reduce vacancies and the potential for blight, and therefore help maintain properly values; and 3. That the proposed language amendments are in the best interests of the City and its residents. 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. July 29, 2014 26523 ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,057T"Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,057^ Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 1, 2014. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #07-43-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,05Th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 1, 2014, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Smiley, McIntyre, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bahr Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,058th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 29, 2014, was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman