The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2015-12-15 MINUTES OF THE 1,080TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,080th 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: Kathleen McIntyre R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw Scott Bahr (7:50 p.m.) Members absent: Gerald Taylor Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Mr. Michael Fisher, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Mr. Morrow had two additional announcements. This is the last time Kathleen McIntyre and Scott Bahr will sit with us on the Planning Commission. The next time you see them they will be seated with the City Council, and Kathleen McIntyre will assume the duties of President of the Council. Secondly, Commissioner Bahr is attending an event in honor of his father's retirement and is thus unable to be with us for the start of tonight's meeting. He intends to join us partway through the meeting. December 15, 2015 27278 ITEM #1 PETITION 2015-10-02-23 PANERA BREAD Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2015-10- 02-23 submitted by Panera Bread, L.L.C. seeking waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to add a drive-up window facility to an existing full service restaurant (Panera Bread) at 28551 Schoolcraft Road within the Millennium Park retail center, located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Middlebelt Road and Inkster Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to add a drive-up window facility at an existing Panera Bread restaurant located at Millennium Park. In 2000, the City granted waiver use approval to construct and operate this full service restaurant. Panera occupies a 4,200 square foot unit which is at the north end of a multi-tenant retail building that is located just north of the Home Depot and south of Schoolcraft Road. The maximum seating capacity of the restaurant was approved at 156, and this includes 129 interior seats as well as 27 outside patio seats. Other tenants that are within this retail complex include Leo's Coney Island, a Wing Stop restaurant, Weight Watchers as well as a Great Clips. The proposal to add the drive-up window will be on the north side of the restaurant where there is an existing aisleway between the building and Schoolcraft Road. The traffic lane serving the drive-up would commence on the east side, which is the rear of this building, and then loop around to the north side. In order to facilitate the drive-up operation, a small addition would be constructed to the building. This addition is about 350 square feet and it would be located on the north side of the restaurant. The addition includes a kitchen that would be used primarily for preparing and delivering the drive-up orders. Creating the drive-thru lane behind the building will require relocating the existing dumpsters to the other side of the parking lot. The drive-up lane would be offset about 16 feet off the back wall of the building, and the unused section of pavement would be cross-hatched to help direct traffic flow. There is some landscaping that is presently located on the north side of the building that would be removed to accommodate the turning radius and provide an area for the menu board and ordering station. The plan does show sufficient stacking room in the traffic lane serving the drive-up, and the existing drive aisle would serve as a bypass lane. The existing parking spaces along the east side of the property would be restriped in a diagonal pattern. Currently, the spaces are at a 90 degree angle offset from the drive aisle. The reconfigured parking arrangement would reduce the number of parking December 15, 2015 27279 spaces by approximately seven. However, the overall parking is adequate to meet the needs of the restaurant as well as the shopping center. The addition would be constructed out of materials that would complement and match the existing building. These include primarily brick, split-face block and E.I.F.S. Some additional changes to the plan that we looked at in the study session include relocation of the dumpsters, additional landscaping, screening of the dumpster areas, as well as the addition of four parallel parking spaces that would provide patrons of the drive-up whose orders are delayed an opportunity to park and wait for those orders to be sent to the vehicles. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll answer any questions or I'll go to the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Let's read the correspondence first. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 29, 2015, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. There was no legal description included with the petition or submission, so we have attached a description that should be used for the subject parcel. The parcel address of#13100 Middlebelt Road contains a number of address ranges for the individual buildings and plazas. The Address range for the subject plaza is #28511 to #28551 Schoolcraft Road with an address of #28551 Schoolcraft Road assigned to the existing Panera Bread restaurant. The existing building is currently serviced by public utilities which are not indicated for alterations under the proposed project. Should the owner need to alter the existing service leads to the building, plans will need to be submitted to this department to determine if Engineering permits will be required."The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 3, 2015, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to add a drive-up window facility to an existing full service restaurant on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Fire lanes shall be marked with post signs or wall signs on the northwest corner sidewalk or pillars that have the words: FIRE LANE— NO PARKING painted on both sides, in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 18.2.3.5.1 NFPA 1, 2009. (2) Chapter 8 & 9, Fire Protection and Alarm Systems, shall be followed NFPA 101, 2009. (3) These issues and other December 15, 2015 27280 code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 29, 2015, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 11, 2015, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. We received an email communication on December 11, 2015, from Donald Kleinknecht, which reads as follows: "I'm assuming that this new drive-up window facility will be on the north side of the existing building with drive-thru traffic headed in a westerly direction. The City Planning Commission may want to review this westbound drive-thru exiting into an eastbound traffic lane. Have a good day." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, would the petitioner please come forward? We will need your name and address for the record please. Matthew Diffin, Diffin-Umlor & Associates, 53115 Grand River, New Hudson, Michigan 48165. We are the civil engineering consultant representing Panera Bread. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you would like to add to the presentation? Mr. Diffin: We've made the changes that everyone discussed. We worked with staff. I think we worked out the few issues that we did have. The dumpster areas, we've added a third dumpster. It's the same area we were proposing to take out, so that shouldn't be an issue any longer. The four pull-up parallel parking spaces, I think that's a real added bonus. It will be more like, if you guys have ever been to Culver's, all their spaces are like that where they give you a number and you pull up to the parking space and then they come out and bring your food. That will help out a lot with big orders where they're not quite ready yet. Staff can give them a buzzer or bring it out where they're waiting, or they can pull back around if the buzzer goes off. I think those issues have been worked out. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Let's see if the Commission has any questions. December 15, 2015 27281 Mr. Wilshaw: I noticed on the plan there is an indication that the disturbed lawn area shall be hydroseeded. Typically we ask that those areas be sodded. Is that a problem? Mr. Diffin: That's fine. They are such small areas that's probably what they would do anyways. We can take the hydroseed note off there. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That's the only question I had. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by McIntyre, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-87-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 15, 2015, on Petition 2015-10-02-23 submitted by Panera Bread, L.L.C. seeking waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(1) City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to add a drive-up window facility to an existing full service restaurant (Panera Bread) at 28551 Schoolcraft Road within the Millennium Park retail center, located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Middlebelt Road and Inkster Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-10-02-23 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Grading/Soil Erosion Control Plan marked Sheet No. C-2.0 prepared by Diffin-Umlor & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2015, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That pavement markings be provided across the drive aisle and drive-up lane leading to the rear entrance on the east side of the building for pedestrian safety purposes; 3. That the Exterior Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet No. A-5.1 dated October 9, 2015, prepared by LK Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the relocated dumpster enclosures shall be located within a practical walking distance from the building and the exact number, locations and screening shall be approved by the Planning and Inspection Departments; December 15, 2015 27282 5. That the walls of the relocated dumpster enclosures shall be a minimum seven feet (7') in height, constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 6. That two (2) parking spaces near the drive-up window shall be designated for drive-up window customers; 7. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated November 3, 2015, from the Fire Marshal, including those relating to the requirement that the proposed addition must conform to current NFPA 101 standards, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department; 8. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 9. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 10. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydro-seeding; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 12. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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? December 15, 2015 27283 Ms. McIntyre: Do we want to make the change requesting the sod in lieu of hydroseeding as indicated on the plans? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Good luck with your project. ITEM #2 PETITION 2015-10-02-24 ACTION PAINTBALL Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 11-02-24 submitted by Action Paintball Park, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate an indoor recreational facility at 11845 Mayfield Avenue, located on the west side of Mayfield Avenue between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate an indoor recreational facility within an industrial building that is located on Mayfield Avenue just north of Plymouth Road. This property is roughly 0.08 of an acre in size. It includes 140 feet of frontage along Mayfield Avenue and has an average depth of 265 feet. The zoning of the property is M-1, Light Manufacturing. Approval to operate an indoor recreational facility within an industrial building falls under the provisions of Section 16.11(f) of the Zoning Ordinance. Indoor recreational uses and athletic training facilities are allowed in the M-1 District subject to waiver use approval. Such uses can be allowed provided that all parking and ingress/egress to the facility is designed so as not to interfere with industrial traffic in the area. To the north, south and east of this property are all industrial uses, and then to west is the Fountain Park condominiums. That's the open space area and storm water detention facility for that condominium complex. It's a wooded area directly behind this property. The property contains a 10,000 square foot industrial building. The parking lot would be reconfigured to accommodate roughly 40 parking spaces. The front part of the building would include the main entrance, lobby and offices for Action Paintball. The warehouse space in the back is the largest portion of the building and would be used for the main paintball activities. There is a mezzanine that overlooks the warehouse and that would accommodate a breakroom as well as an observation deck. No exterior building modifications are proposed in connection with this petition. Parking for indoor recreational facilities is based on one parking December 15, 2015 27284 space for each employee plus sufficient off-street space for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of patrons of the business. As I indicated earlier, the petitioner is proposing to restripe this lot and provide a total of 40 parking spaces. The groups of players are typically scheduled by appointment only. We were told at the study meeting that typically they have about 10 players per session. So if they have an overlap between a group coming in and a group leaving, that would roughly result in about 20 patrons, and the parking should be adequate when you also include the employees that are needed to operate the facility. We can get additional information from the petitioner regarding the needs of the parking. The layout of the building shows the mezzanine space on the top portion of the drawing and then the floor plan of the lower part of the building. The petitioner did provide some examples of what the facility would look like. This is the party room and viewing area and it shows some of the obstacles that are provided within the main paintball arena. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll 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 November 19, 2015, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The legal description included with the petition appears to be correct, and should be used for the subject parcel. The address of #11845 Mayfield Avenue is correct for the parcel. The existing building is currently serviced by public utilities which are not indicated for alterations under the proposed waiver use. Should the owner need to alter the existing service leads to the building, plans will need to be submitted to this department to determine if Engineering permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 7, 2015, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the petition for a waiver use approval on the property at the above referenced address and have noted the following: (1) This proposal is a change of use for the address in question. This requires that the location must conform to current NFPA standards for New Assembly use. (2) Chapter 12, New Assemblies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways, Occupant Load, and Extinguisher Requirements. (3) Chapter 8, Fire Barriers, states December 15, 2015 27285 that firewalls must be maintained and inspected to preserve their rating. This includes any door, window, or penetrations in this wall. We advise that no use of this facility be conducted prior to inspections and approval of any/all NFPA codes relating to New Assemblies. Providing that all details in regards to New Assembly Occupancy are followed and inspected prior to tenant use, this department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, November 18, 2015, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 11, 2015, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) The fence on the south side of the building will need to be removed to allow for the flow of one-way traffic around the building. (2) The parking spaces located on the south side of the building shall be removed or a cross-access agreement would need to be in place between the petitioner and the property located to the South. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. James Michael, 36031 Elmira, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you would like to add to the presentation? Mr. Michael: No. He pretty much covered it all. I'm just here to answer any questions that you might have for me. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the petitioner? Ms. Smiley: What would your hours of operation be? Mr. Michael: They plan on being closed Monday and Tuesday, and then during the week when they operate, Wednesday through Sunday, they will be closed before 8 p.m. and then anytime playing will be happening won't happen until after 4:00 p.m. That way the businesses around the area will be all cleared out so we won't have a lot of traffic for cars coming through the area. December 15, 2015 27286 Ms. Smiley: I haven't had an opportunity to do paintball. Could you tell me a little bit about it? I take it people dress up in gear and shoot paintballs at each other. Mr. Michael: Yes. Like the photos you had seen, pretty much what's going to happen is when you show up, whether you own your own equipment or if you need to rent, we provide any protective gear that you're required to have by insurance. You'll have your equipment as you go into the field. It will be on astroturf. Everything will be netted off so the people playing versus the people that are there just spectating, parents dropping off, everything is netted to keep everything clean and organized. The people that will be on the field, they will just enter on in groups of five, play a game of five on five. When they're done, they can come off and another group of people can enter the field, play, and then they just rotate through the games. Ms. Smiley: I assume that's a special kind of paint? Mr. Michael: Yes. It's all made to be biodegradable. So as far as anything for the environment, it's all easy to clean up, wash off the bunkers and be disposed of. Nothing is toxic in any way. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Ms. McIntyre: I assume, based on what you told us, you have an existing paintball facility that you're familiar with the NFPA, the fire protection requirements. Mr. Michael: Yes, we've had a field for 14 years in Taylor. Ms. McIntyre: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: How are patrons supposed to find your location and know about your business so that they know to schedule? Mr. Michael: We've been using an online system to register for the past year. As far as the business itself, through 14 years, as far as the community of people that play paintball on a regular basis, we're very well known within that. And then as far as other patrons looking to pursue it, we have a Facebook website and other forms of social media and that's just kind of how we've always had the word out there. Mr. Wilshaw: Is this normally for corporate parties and events like that, or do you actually set up leagues? December 15, 2015 27287 Mr. Michael: We've done all the above. We've had everything from kids' birthday parties, corporate events, bachelor-bachelorette parties. As far as leagues, we've done leagues before at our other facility on Wednesday nights, and stuff on the weekends. Mr. Wilshaw: And you plan on operating this business in a very similar way to the way that the one in Taylor has operated? Mr. Michael: Similar, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: The one thing I will mention is that as we've had these opportunities to take some of these warehouse properties and industrial and manufacturing properties and turn them into athletic facilities in some form or another like this, the struggle that we have is often that the parking is isn't adequate for these facilities for large groups of people. They are designed for five or six or seven employees of a warehouse, not for 20, 30 people to show up at any given time. This particular location is unique in the sense that you do have adequate parking clearly. You have good traffic flow around the building, and I think it's a good location and a very good fit for this particular building. Thank you. Mr. Michael: Thank you. And as far as concerns about it filling up too quick, the reason why we do use the online registration system is that we can, once we fill up, that cuts off time slots. That way no one else can come in and register for that time. So we can really manage the amount of people we have coming and going for the business. Mr. Wilshaw: It sounds like you have a very well thought out business plan. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Asgeir Sigurdsson, Century Instrument Company, 11865 Mayfield, Livonia, Michigan 48150. We own the building just to the north of this proposed facility. I think it's a great concept. My only concern is, it's paintball. When people get there before they go in, are they going to use my building as target practice. Am I going to come in every morning and there's additional spots on my building? Mr. Morrow: I'll ask the petitioner to come back and he can respond to that. December 15, 2015 27288 Mr. Sigurdsson: That was my only concern. I think it's a great concept, but I want to protect my building as well. Mr. Morrow: Okay. We'll keep the hearing open until we have the answer. Sir, would you come back, please, and respond to that concern? Mr. Michael: Generally when players come and go from any paintball facility, most of them keep their gear that they're using. It's all like packaged up and no one really takes their stuff out into a parking lot. Also, a lot of people that do come and experience it for the first time, are renting equipment and everything stays inside there. So we're not having people walk around with paint or equipment. Nothing will be exiting the outside of the building. If for some reason if any mess did come, I'll come over myself and clean it for you. I don't foresee anyone coming out and trying to do damage to the other business because all the playing and all the efforts of anything that's going to happen with the paintball is going to be staying inside the building;. There is no one coming and going with loaded equipment out that door. Mr. Morrow: In all your years of experience, have you ever encountered that at your Taylor facility? Mr. Michael: No. The paint is expensive. So when they're playing, they want to play the game. No one goes out and shoots it off in the parking lot as far as not using it for what it's designated to be used for. If a problem ever arises, I will be the first one to step up and take care of it. Mr. Morrow: I'm sure you'll be good neighbors. He's got your answer so just be good neighbors. Ms. McIntyre: May I ask one additional question? Mr. Morrow: Certainly. Ms. McIntyre: How is this priced and can you give us an idea of pricing and how that works? You said a team can come or you can play individually? Mr. Michael: Yes. If you're coming by yourself, you already own your own equipment. The price is typically around $20 unless we're running a special promotion. And then they have different rental packages that will come with all the rental equipment you'll need and some paint to start playing the air for the markers and that starts at $30.00. December 15, 2015 27289 Ms. McIntyre: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? With that, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-88-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 15, 2015, on Petition 2015-11-02-24 submitted by Action Paintball Park, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate an indoor recreational facility at 11845 Mayfield Avenue, located on the west side of Mayfield Avenue between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, which property is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-11-02-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Plan marked Sheet No. C-01 dated November 17, 2015, as revised, prepared by D.S. Wright & Associates, P.C., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained, and when not in use closed at all times; 3. That the hours of operation, parking, circulation and all other aspects of this business shall be conducted in a manner that the use of this facility for recreational purposes does not conflict with nor detract from the normal operations of the surrounding industrial properties; 4. That adequate lighting be provided in the parking areas and walkways as determined by the Inspection Department; and 5. 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. December 15, 2015 27290 Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Michael: Is there any way we could get that expedited to the earliest possible date for the Planning Commission due to our due diligence for the agreement for the business? Mr. Morrow: I'm going to go to the Planning Director but because I think Council met for the last time this year last night, I don't think we would gain any advantage. Mr. Taormina: The advantaged gained in this particular case is that the item could appear on the January 4 as opposed to January 11. So a seven day waiver would give him the benefit of one week. Mr. Morrow: But it would still be at the option of the President of the Council whether or not it could be handled? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. And our ability to get the material to the Council office by Monday. Mr. Morrow: We can give you it, but we can't determine if it will do you any good because we're at the end of the calendar year. Mr. Michael: Thank you very much for your time. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was December 15, 2015 27291 #12-89-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2015-11-02-24 submitted by Action Paintball Park, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate an indoor recreational facility at 11845 Mayfield Avenue, located on the west side of Mayfield Avenue between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. 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 #3 PETITION 2015-11-02-25 JIMMY JOHN'S ITEM #4 PETITION 2015-11-08-18 SHELDON CENTER Mr. Morrow: Before I ask the Secretary to read the two next petitions, the way we're going to handle this, is I'm going to have Mrs. Smiley read the waiver use under the public hearing and then the miscellaneous site plan all at one time, and the Planning Director will present it all at one time, but then we'll vote on it individually for each particular petition. Is that okay with you, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes. If I can just explain this a little further. There are two petitions related to this property this evening. The first item is a restaurant proposal for a site that would undergo substantial redevelopment. What I would like to do is talk about the redevelopment of the property first, and then get into the more specific details about the restaurant. The way the agenda is ordered, the restaurant appears first. But for the purposes of presentation, I'll just go through the overall development and then provide information regarding the restaurant. Mr. Morrow: And then we'll come back in the order it's on the agenda, but they will have all the information by that time. Mr. Taormina: Correct. So this is a request to renovate and expand an existing shopping center complex that is known as Sheldon Center. The property is 10.94 acres in size and includes 640 feet of frontage along Plymouth and 666 feet of frontage on Farmington Road. The zoning of the entire property is C-2, General Business. The December 15, 2015 27292 site presently contains two multi-tenant retail buildings. The main shopping center building, which faces Plymouth Road, is about 79,000 square feet, and that is divided currently into several large tenant spaces including a Rite Aid, Larry's Foodland, Chris Furniture, a Dollar General and a Bingo Hall. There is a smaller second building on the property which faces Farmington Road and that's about 9,600 square feet in total floor area. Looking at the site plan, the larger retail building is at an angle on the property to Plymouth Road. The smaller rectangular area represents the smaller retail building. Upon completion, the rebranded name of the shopping center will be "Shelden Park Village." The initial phase involves building a new exterior façade on both the main shopping center building as well as the smaller retail building along Farmington Road. Changes involve the entire storefront elevation facing north, plus the two side elevations, east and west on the large building, as well the entire storefront elevation facing west and side elevations, north and south, on the smaller building. The design includes a symmetrical combination of façade elements with varying heights and shapes. There is one non-symmetrical component and that would be the grocery store, which would contain its own unique storefront and would represent the highest point along the façade. The critical aspect, not only to the investment pro forma and equal to that of the facade renovation in terms of the project's impact from a design perspective, is the planned construction of three freestanding commercial buildings. These three buildings would be located in front of the shopping center along Plymouth Road. The buildings include a known tenant, Jimmy John's, plus two speculative retail building pads with users that have not yet been identified. In C-2 zoning, full service restaurants require waiver use approval. I'm going to discuss the Jimmy John's next. Looking at this plan, you will see the three buildings on the top part. The one furthest to the right, which is east, is the proposed Jimmy John's. This is a one-story building about 1,800 square feet in size. The restaurant would have 55 seats, including 43 interior seats and 12 outdoor patio seats. It would not have direct access to Plymouth Road. Instead, ingress and egress would rely on the existing driveway approaches. The design features an outdoor dining patio on the front of the building and drive-up window facilities that would be located on the east side of the building. The traffic lane serving the drive-up window would commence on the south side of the building and then loop around to the east side. The plan includes sufficient stacking room as well as a bypass lane. The primary exterior building material would be brick. Cast stone would be used below the storefront windows along the base of the building December 15, 2015 27293 extending across a portion of the building's front and side elevations. The top of the building would have a decorative E.I.F.S. cornice and fascia to match the cast stone on the bottom of the building. Additional architectural treatments include a prefinished metal wall coping, two bands of brick soldier course, as well as canvas canopies above the windows. The proposed concrete outdoor patio area measures approximately 10 feet by 59 feet and would accommodate three tables and 12 customer seats. The patio would be enclosed by black aluminum railings as well as balusters. The plan shows the dumpster enclosure located behind the building near the southwest corner of the restaurant. The enclosure walls would be 6 feet in height and would be constructed out of the same brick material used on the building. The two westerly outparcel buildings are identified on the site plan as "Future Buildings." The pads represent only approximate locations and footprints of these structures. Once the users are identified, more detailed plans would be submitted for site plan review. The building pads are shown approximately 110 feet apart and are separated by parking and maneuvering aisles. A drive-up facility is shown only as a potential for the middle building pad, as this feature would first require waiver use approval. Neither future building pad would have direct access to Farmington or Plymouth Roads. The approximate footprint areas of the westerly building is 1,500 square feet, whereas the easterly building is 2,475 square feet. Another major part of the redevelopment includes reconfiguring the shopping center's parking and circulation pattern. The existing angled parking spaces would be replaced with 90 degree parking, and bisecting the parking lot is a curvilinear drive aisle that would connect the main driveway off Plymouth Road to the drive aisle that runs along the front of the shopping center. Parking and cross access is provided on both sides of this drive aisle without interfering with the planned drive-up operations of either the Jimmy John's or the middle outparcel building. The existing curb-cuts, one on Plymouth Road, two off of Farmington, and one off Van Court, would remain the same as they are today. So there would be no additional curb cuts on any of the main roads. In terms of parking, the submitted site plan shows a total of 539 parking spaces. The required parking for group commercial centers having more than four establishments is based on either of the following: 1 parking space for every 125 square feet of useable floor space where 15 percent or more of the gross floor area is devoted to places of assembly, or alternatively, 1 space for every 150 square feet where 15 percent or less of the gross floor area is devoted to places of assembly. So what distinguishes the two is primarily the amount of restaurant space December 15, 2015 27294 within the shopping center. If it tips over that 15 percent threshold, we require parking at a ratio of 1 space for every 125 square feet of useable floor area. If it falls below that, then the parking is based on the ratio of 1:150. The current shopping center contains a total of 88,880 square feet of floor area. The bingo parlor, which is considered a place of assembly for the purpose of computing parking, is 8,400 square feet, and represents about 9.45 percent of the total gross floor area. If you add the three outparcel buildings (5,800 square feet), this brings the total floor area to 94,680 square feet. Applying the 1:150 parking ratio results in 505 total required parking spaces, and would limit the amount of restaurant and assembly space to only 14,202 square feet, which is identical to both the bingo parlor and the three outparcel buildings. So the parking on this site does work with the additional retail space, provided that no more than 15 percent of the floor area is devoted to restaurant or assembly uses. When we apply the 1:125 ratio, the amount of parking increases to 606 spaces, and unfortunately, this site would be deficient by 67 spaces. Additional landscaping would be provided throughout the parking lot islands and drive aisles as well as and along the perimeter of the site. Along the perimeter, portions of Farmington and Plymouth Road, that is where we maintain the PRDA streetscape improvements The PRDA Executive Committee has reviewed and endorsed this plan, subject to maintaining and enhancing the streetscape improvements along the major roads. In terms of site lighting, the plan includes all new LED light fixtures. The pole height is shown at 25 feet. One of the changes you'll see on this plan from the previous plan is additional lights in the area to the east of the bingo hall to help facilitate parking there. We have not reviewed this plan in terms of signage. That is something that would be addressed at a future date. In terms of more details, I've isolated portions of the shopping center to give you a sense of what the new shopping center will look like. This is actually the north elevation, or the main shopping center, as it faces towards Plymouth Road. This would be the west end of the building and this is what the Rite Aid would look like after completion of the improvements. It will have peaked roof elements, a reverse gable on a portion of the roof and asphalt shingles. The lease space immediately to the left of that is a slightly different design. It has a flat parapet design with an E.I.F.S. cornice. Again, you can see the varying shapes that are provided along the façade. On the far east would be the bingo parlor. You can also see where Chris Furniture is located and then the highest point along the façade would be the grocery store, and that rises to a height of about 40 feet overall. The side elevations, east and west along the main shopping center December 15, 2015 27295 building, contain similar architectural improvements. A floor plan was provided to give a better understanding of where the separate units are located. This is looking at the smaller retail building facing Farmington Road. There is a symmetrical pattern between the ends of the building and then taller elements in the center, with full treatments of brick and façade improvements. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I do have quite a bit of correspondence. Do you want me to read just the Jimmy John's correspondence at this time? Mr. Morrow: We're going to call the third item now. ITEM #3 PETITION 2015-11-02-25 JIMMY JOHN'S Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 11-02-25 submitted by Sheldon Center, 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 construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Jimmy John's) at Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34. Mr. Morrow: And now the correspondence on the waiver. Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 25, 2015, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The included legal description which describes the overall plaza appears to be correct, and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The overall plaza parcel has been assigned an address of # 33111 Plymouth Road, with address ranges of #33111 to #33251 Plymouth Road and #10902 to #10970 Farmington Road for individual stores and suites within the existing buildings. We are assigning a new address of #33299 Plymouth Road for the proposed Jimmy John's restaurant site, which should be used in the future for any issues regarding this site. The submitted drawings do not indicate any proposed improvements or alterations to the existing utilities, so we are unable comment on impacts to the existing systems at this time. The areas shown for the proposed restaurant has storm sewer and water main available for service connections, but sanitary sewer will need to be extended to the site. The nearest available sanitary sewer will require the December 15, 2015 27296 crossing either Plymouth Road or Farmington Road to extend the main to the site. The owner will need to obtain permits from either Wayne County or the Michigan Department of Transportation depending on the route chosen to extend the sewer. We encourage the owner to contact this department to address the storm water and sanitary sewer issues prior to submitting full engineering drawings for permits. We will provide a full review of the proposed utilities once the plans are submitted to this office for permitting." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 4, 2015, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities at the property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (2) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (3) Chapter 12 shall be followed for New Assemblies, NFPA 101, 2012. (4) We recommend the installation of a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver from Ladder Tech, LLC or an equivalent. These and other issues will be reviewed during the plan process." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 25, 2015, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 11, 2015, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) Two parking spaces are required to be designated for drive thru customers. (2) Parking spaces shall be 10' x 20' in length and be double striped. (3) Signage has not been reviewed at this time. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated December 9, 2015, which reads as follows: "At the Executive Committee Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on December 9, 2015, the following petitions were reviewed: Petition 2015-11-02-25 submitted by Sheldon Center, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Jimmy John's) at Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads. Petition 2015-11-08-18 December 15, 2015 27297 submitted by Sheldon Center, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans in connection with a proposal to renovate and expand the existing commercial shopping center, Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), including remodel the exterior facade of the existing shopping center building, reconfigure the layout of the parking lot, construct a freestanding full service restaurant, and obtain preliminary approval for two future commercial buildings, located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads. It was the consensus of the Executive Committee to support the proposed petitions, as presented, subject to compliance with all city codes and ordinances and continued maintenance and enhancement of the PRDA's streetscape improvements along Plymouth and Farmington Roads." The letter is signed by Mark Taormina, Planning & Economic Development Director. Mr. Morrow: Let the record show that Mr. Bahr joined the Commission at 7:49 p.m. Mr. Bahr, we're working on Item 3, and we had a joint presentation of the two items. Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. McIntyre: Mark, do we count in the parking spaces those spaces that are to the east of the bingo hall that are not widely used now? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Those are all factored into the total parking available, and we compare that with what is required by code based on the square footage of the center. Ms. McIntyre: So those are already factored in? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Ms. McIntyre: So I think we had some discussion at our study meeting about enhancements to lighting and some other things to make that more attractive and utilized more by the bingo patrons to now leave the spots to the north of the building available for the other retail businesses. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. I don't have the photometric plan on the slide show presentation, but I'll let the petitioner respond to that. I believe the latest plan does add lights to that parking light to better illuminate it and encourage more patrons to park on that side of the building and to lessen any conflicts with the grocery store. There is an entrance on that side of the building to the bingo hall. December 15, 2015 27298 Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Josh Grenadier, Sheldon Center, L.L.C., 24255 W. 13 Mile Road, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025. This is Cheryl, a franchisee of Jimmy John's. Mr. Morrow: We'll confine our comments now to the Jimmy John's section of the site plan. Do you have anything to add? Mr. Grenadier: No. I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm just here to answer questions. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Are there any questions of the petitioner? Ms. Smiley Did you say the lady had other Jimmy John's or she is buying this Jimmy John's? Cheryl Doelker, 19369 Fairlane Court, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I'm representing Jimmy John's JDC Group Incorporated. Ms. Smiley: You're going to operate the Jimmy John's? Ms. Doelker: Yes. Ms. Smiley: You have other Jimmy John's. Ms. Doelker: We do. Several. Five in Livonia. And the plan is to relocate the existing Jimmy John's that right across the street to the new building in the new development. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Great. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Doelker, you certainly have a lot experience operating Jimmy John's both in our city and outside. You have a couple of them that have drive-thrus and then several that are in strip centers like the one that's on the north side of Plymouth Road. What percentage of business would you say is drive-thru business once you have that facility available to you? Ms. Doelker: Probably between 30 and 45 percent depending on the location and the traffic patterns in the area. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you think the fact that this location does not have direct access to your facility — it's a little bit indirect in the sense that you have to take one of two basic entrances either off of December 15, 2015 27299 Plymouth Road or Farmington Road to get to it, that doesn't hinder the ability for your patrons to get to the drive-thru in any way. Ms. Doelker: From our experience at another location, not really. It's always advantageous to have a curb cut right out in front but not completely necessary. The visibility from the road is, I think, the biggest issue. Mr. Wilshaw: And the reason that you're moving from the center to the north to this one is to get a freestanding facility and a drive-thru? Ms. Doelker: Free standing and a drive-thru and we were just at an opportune time in our lease at the existing location to be able to make this move. Mr. Wilshaw: And the size of this particular location, is this larger than your current facility? Ms. Doelker: A little bit. The current facility is 1,500 square feet. This one would be about 1,750 square feet in the interior. So it will give us a little more room for seating. The existing facility is a little crowded and cramped space. This will give us more like our location on Eight Mile in terms of size and seating. Mr. Wilshaw: Well, certainly based on your past experience running these facilities in our community, you've worked with us a number of times over the years. You've always been an excellent proprietor of these restaurants, very successful, and you've always worked with us very well. So I certainly look forward to you having much success here assuming you're approved. Ms. Doelker: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Morrow: Any other questions of the petitioner? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Dick McLain, 11326 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan. The question I have, since it's going to increase the traffic into that area, has there been any thought to improving the lane divides and turning lane capacity on Farmington Road just south of Plymouth? That seems to be a bit of a bottleneck the way it's designed right now the way you would turn into the Sheldon Center. Mr. Morrow: Mark, can you address that? December 15, 2015 27300 Mr. Taormina: I think what he is referring to is probably the width of the lanes on Farmington Road as you approach Plymouth Road. Unfortunately, this plan doesn't change that configuration. It's not really within the scope of the project or something that we could demand of the petitioners as part of this project. That would be a County responsibility. Part of the limitation is the amount of right-of-way space available. So no, there is no planned improvements directly to the road. In fact, he's not touching any of the approaches to the site. There will be a slight increase in traffic generated to the property. I think that's the whole intent here, but unfortunately, that is not part of the proposal to change the road. Mr. McLain: I just have concerns that it could cause a bit of a problem without an actual turn-in lane there. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: I will close the public hearing, and I need a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-90-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 15, 2015, on Petition 2015-11-02-25 submitted by Sheldon Center, 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 construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Jimmy John's) at Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-11-02-25 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum customer seating count for this restaurant shall not exceed a total of fifty-five (55) seats, including forty-three (43) interior seats and twelve (12) outdoor patio seats; 2. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 and the Enlarge Site Plan marked Sheet SP-2, both dated December 10, 2015, as revised, prepared by J2BA Architects, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the two (2) spaces designated for drive-up window customers may be omitted only if this requirement is waived by the City Council by means of a separate December 15, 2015 27301 resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 4. That the Elevation and Cross Section Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated December 10, 2015, as revised, prepared by J2BA Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 6. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be a minimum seven feet (7') in height, constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 7. That this restaurant shall provide disposal of grease waste in accordance with Section 13.20.380 of the City Code of Ordinances; 8. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated December 4, 2015, from the Fire Marshal, including the recommendation of installing a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department; 9. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 10. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits; and 12. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this December 15, 2015 27302 approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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: Just a comment. One of our conditions is specific to the use of grease waste. I don't know that Jimmy John's makes anything that would produce any grease waste, but in the event their menu changes in the future, at least that's in there. Mr. Morrow: So it's not a requirement unless they use it. Mr. Wilshaw: Exactly. I just wanted to point that out. 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 #4 PETITION 2015-11-08-18 SHELDON CENTER Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 11-08-18 submitted by Sheldon Center, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to renovate and expand the existing commercial shopping center, Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), including remodel the exterior façade of the existing shopping center building, reconfigure the layout of the parking lot, construct a freestanding full service restaurant, December 15, 2015 27303 and obtain preliminary approval for two (2) future commercial buildings, located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 25, 2015, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed site development at this time. The legal description included with the petition appears to be correct, and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The parcel have been assigned an address of #33111 Plymouth Road, with address ranges of #33111 to #33251 Plymouth Road and #10902 to #10970 Farmington Road for individual stores and suites within the existing buildings. The submitted drawings do not indicate any proposed improvements or alterations to the utilities that service the parcels, so we cannot comment on impacts to the existing systems at this time. The existing shopping center is serviced by public utilities that should not be affected by the proposed building renovations. The areas shown for the proposed outbuildings have storm sewer and water main available for service connections, but sanitary sewer will need to be extended to the sites. The nearest available sanitary sewer will require the crossing either Plymouth Road or Farmington Road to extend the main to the site. The owner will need to obtain permits from either Wayne County or the Michigan Department of Transportation depending on the route chosen to extend the sewer. As with any development, the owner will need to provide storm water detention for any portions of the site that are altered. The submitted plans do not indicate any storm water improvements, so we are not able to determine if storm water detention is planned. We encourage the owner to contact this department to address the storm water and sanitary sewer issues prior to submitting full engineering drawings for permits. We will provide a full review of the proposed utilities once the plans are submitted to this office for permitting." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 4, 2015, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate and expand the existing commercial shopping center, reconfigure the layout of the parking lot, construct a free standing full service restaurant, and obtain preliminary approval for two (2) future commercial buildings on property located at December 15, 2015 27304 the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Fire lanes shall be marked with wall or pole mounted signs that have the words: FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted on both sides (for pole mount), in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. 18.2.3.5.1 NFPA 1, 2009. (2) We recommend the installation of a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver from Ladder Tech, LLC or an equivalent. (3) All elevated roof sections must include fire stops." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 25, 2015, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 11, 2015, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) The parking lots on the south and east sides of the building shall be repaired or replaced. (2) The existing drive running along the East side of the building needs to be repaired or replaced. (3) The parking spaces are required to be 10'x 20'in length and double striped. (4) The barrier free parking spaces are required to be properly sized, signed and striped. (5) Van accessible spaces are required to be provided in accordance with the Michigan Building Code 2012. The barrier free parking spaces shown along the east side of the building do not currently meet the barrier free dimensions. (6) The dumpster enclosures located on the south side of the existing building are in disrepair and shall be reconstructed. (7) The south elevation wall of the existing building needs to be repaired and painted including the rusted and deteriorated doors. (8) The storage containers located in the South parking lot shall be removed. (9) Signage has not been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated December 9, 2015, which reads as follows: "At the Executive Committee Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on December 9, 2015, the following petitions were reviewed: Petition 2015-11-02-25 submitted by Sheldon Center, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Jimmy John's) at Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads. Petition 2015-11-08-18 submitted by Sheldon Center, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans in connection with a proposal to renovate and expand the December 15, 2015 27305 existing commercial shopping center, Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), including remodel the exterior facade of the existing shopping center building, reconfigure the layout of the parking lot, construct a freestanding full service restaurant, and obtain preliminary approval for two future commercial buildings, located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads. It was the consensus of the Executive Committee to support the proposed petitions, as presented, subject to compliance with all city codes and ordinances and continued maintenance and enhancement of the PRDA's streetscape improvements along Plymouth and Farmington Roads." The letter is signed by Mark Taormina, Planning & Economic Development Director. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, I'm going to invite the petitioner back up again on this particular item. Do you have any comments? Josh Grenadier, Sheldon Center, L.L.C., 24255 W. 13 Mile Road, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025. No. Just listening to those comments, the south wall of the building is getting painted right now. That's why it looks in disrepair because it's been chipped off. They're going to finish painting that, and the parking lots in certain areas will be replaced with the entire plan. Mr. Morrow: Any questions of the petitioner? Ms. Smiley: That strip to the south, is that currently occupied and do you intend to keep those tenants? Mr. Grenadier: Yes. We have four or five out of the eight spaces filled in that building, and nobody is leaving. We're just going to be getting new tenants. Ms. Smiley: And you intend also to keep Chris Furniture? Mr. Grenadier: Yes. This renovation will not displace any existing tenants. Ms. Smiley: Good. Thank you. Ms. McIntyre: I know in our study meeting we had some discussion about the parking spots and the treatment of the ends of those parking spots that are in front of the big development. I can't tell, because I'm not an expert at reading the codes or the symbols, have you replaced some of those strippings? December 15, 2015 27306 Mr. Grenadier: Yes. We replaced four of them since our meeting. Basically the two and then the two behind that kind of met in the middle. We don't want to put islands in every single row, but we're more than happy to add a few more. Ms. McIntyre: Thank you. We're losing some trees so it's nice to be gaining some green space, but we also understand the challenges those pose for snow removal. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Grenadier, I also appreciate the addition of some of those islands at the end of the rows because frankly with the roadway that's sort of meandering through the parking lot, it's important that it be clear to drivers where the roadway is versus having them diagonally cutting across parking spaces and so on. I think it's a nice improvement. Obviously, you're making significant improvements to the general appearance of the shopping center, which is really welcomed I think by all of us. My question is, are you planning on doing this in a phased approach or is this going to be done all at once? What is your building plan for implementing this? Mr. Grenadier: Generally, the basic plan, pending what Engineering and the Building Department would hold me to, what I would like to do is construct the Jimmy John's outlot building first as soon as we can, and then follow that up with parking lot replacement and three or four different phases so that we can keep access to the entire plaza and the new building and then to follow that up with the façade improvement, all to be completed by the end of next summer. Mr. Wilshaw: And the façade improvement will be for both the large parcel and the smaller parcel on the west end. Mr. Grenadier: Correct. Both buildings. Mr. Wilshaw: With the bingo hall, we've talked a little bit about that parking lot that's toward the side of the property that's near the bingo hall. Is there going to be an effort made to encourage patrons of the bingo hall to enter from the east side of the building as opposed to walking around to the north? Mr. Grenadier: Yes. We're going to have discussions with the tenant. Our idea is to basically use the front door of the building now that's on the north elevation as an exit only or an emergency exit. And then to convert that easterly entrance into the main entrance. It's really going to take the tenant educating his patrons more than anything. We can do what we can as far as making the door December 15, 2015 27307 bigger and the other door smaller. Like you said, we've added a parking lot pole in the parking lot in that southeast corner. We'll do some pathway and other landscaping improvements just to make it feel like if you're going to play bingo, you're going to go park over there and that's the parking spot for it. But we will try to do that internally with our tenant. Mr. Wilshaw: The additional lighting that you're providing I think will definitely encourage use of that space because right now for people to come out late at night or in the dark, which is 5:00 these days, into a dark parking lot is always worrisome. The additional future pads that you have . . . you have two pads that are designated for future expansion. Do you have any tenants in mind for those at this point or are they simply speculative? Mr. Grenadier: I do not have any tenants in mind. We are waiting to get through the approval process before we really pushed and marketed those spaces, but ideally, in the drive-thru space, we would be looking for like a coffee/bagel operation, some type of morning, and then that drive-thru building could be split into two. So possibly the second user would be a regular retail store as well as the building on the corner. So I'm not sure that it will be all restaurants or all food. I think, like Cheryl said, tenants are really stuck on the visibility. I think those spaces will offer that more than anything we have. So I expect people to be interested in them. Mr. Wilshaw: It would certainly be an improvement over fireworks tents or any other temporary thing that's been out there in the past. I'll definitely commend you on what's obviously a very significant investment into this property, and I hope that investment will pay off in terms of allowing those other vacant tenant spaces that are available in the buildings to fill up and have a good full vibrant shopping center there. Mr. Grenadier: We do too. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions or comments? I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? I see no one coming forward. With that, I'm going to ask for a motion. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-91-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-11-08-18 submitted by Sheldon Center, L.L.C. requesting approval of all December 15, 2015 27308 plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to renovate and expand the existing commercial shopping center, Shelden Park Village (33111 thru 33251 Plymouth Road), including remodel the exterior façade of the existing shopping center building, reconfigure the layout of the parking lot, construct a freestanding full service restaurant, and obtain preliminary approval for two (2) future commercial buildings, located at the southeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 and the Enlarge Site Plan marked Sheet SP-2, both dated December 10, 2015, as revised, prepared by J2BA Architects, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and restriped as necessary to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. Parking spaces shall be doubled striped at ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in length; 3. That the Landscape Plan prepared by Stewart Hass & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on December 11, 2015, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydro-seeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That the Floor Plan and Elevations — Large Building Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated November 20, 2015, prepared by J2BA Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the Farmington Road Elevation - Small Building Plan marked Sheet A-4 dated December 10, 2015, prepared by J2BA Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; December 15, 2015 27309 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 9. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated December 4, 2015, from the Fire Marshal, including the recommendation of installing a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department; 10. That a significant number of dumpster enclosures shall be located throughout the development and within a practical walking distance from the buildings and the number, distance and locations shall be approved by the Inspection Department 11. That the three walls of the trash dumpster areas shall be a minimum of seven feet (7') in height, constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the buildings or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the buildings and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 12. That this site shall meet either the City of Livonia or the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, whichever applies, and shall secure any required permits, including soil erosion and sedimentation control permits; 13. That all light fixtures along the front part of the development shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in height and those at the back of the site shall not exceed twenty- five feet (25') in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadways; 14. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 15. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the buildings or around the windows; December 15, 2015 27310 16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 17. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Bahr: I'll echo some of what was said earlier. I really appreciate the response that we got on the landscaping issue and also on the east entrance issue. I think those are both really positive developments and take what was already a nice development to do something that will be even more attractive. I wanted to just briefly comment. There's been a lot of talk around town over the course of the last year about different ways to do developments and how Livonia could maybe do some things differently. This site has come up different times as people saying maybe an opportunity to rethink how we develop some of our properties. When I first saw this about a month ago or so with one of the Rapid Response Teams, I personally was excited because I was dreaming, I'm not the investor or developer, but I was dreaming about different things that could be happening with that and how it could be incorporated with the park behind it and that kind of stuff. So some residents watching this may be a little bit disappointed that it's not something larger scale, a redevelopment, but I think taking into account the needs of the investor, and they've got a building here that's in decent shape and really just needs renovating. It doesn't warrant being torn down and completely redeveloped. I think this is just a really beautiful plan that you guys have put together. I think it's going to take a corner that has done reasonable well and it's just going to take it to a whole another level of vibrancy. So I appreciate what you're doing. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a real brief comment. I know that Larry's Foodland, Chris Furniture and some of the other tenants in there have a very loyal following from the surrounding neighborhood and the community. I'm very glad to see that Mr. Grenadier and his partners have seen fit to make sure that they are accommodated and that they stay in the center as improvements are made. So I just wanted to point that out. December 15, 2015 27311 Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing nothing further, roll call please. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. You have approvals and we wish you all the luck in the world. Speaking as one Commissioner, I appreciate what you're doing to that site. I think it will be nice enhancement, not only to Plymouth Road but also to Livonia. ITEM #5 PETITION 2015-10-08-17 HAGGERTY MARKETPLACE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 10-08-17 submitted by Jonna Realty Ventures, on behalf of Haggerty Marketplace, requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a multi-tenant retail building and obtain preliminary approval for two restaurant pads on property at 19700 and 19750 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to develop a new shopping and dining complex called Haggerty Marketplace. The site is located just south of the Costco Warehouse on Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads. It consists of two parcels that total 10.86 acres in size with 543 feet along Haggerty Road and a depth of 871 feet. The subject properties are in the process of being rezoned from R-E, Research-Engineering, to C-2, General Business. First Reading on the rezoning was given on November 16, 2011, and the Second Reading and Roll Call, the final steps in the rezoning process, are on-hold pending a review of the site plan. Tonight's review is based on the C-2 district regulations. This is the site is the former Haggerty Tech Center developed in the mid-1980's consisting of three "flex- style" buildings that totaled over 150,000 square feet in size. The easterly building, which is about 51,000 square feet, will likely remain as part of the new development. The south building has been fully demolished and the north building has been partially demolished. The future use of what remains of the existing buildings are not known at this time and are not part of this petition. Any substantive changes to the exterior of these buildings or changes of uses will require separate approvals. The plans that we're reviewing this evening show three new buildings: one multi-tenant retail building and two restaurants, all December 15, 2015 27312 of which would be constructed along the front third of the site. At this time, plans are preliminary with respect to the arrangement and location of the restaurants. The petitioner would like to commence the site work needed to establish the building pads for each of the restaurant buildings, including underground utilities, grading, curbs, road access, and parking. Once the users are identified, more detailed plans would be submitted for review. The site plan shows two restaurants side-by-side in the southwest corner of the property. Access would be provided by means of a single curb cut and driveway located midway along the site's frontage on Haggerty Road, similar to where the current driveway is located. The restaurants are labeled "Restaurant #1" and "Restaurant #2" and measure 7,792 square feet and 8,085 square feet, respectively. The building setbacks, which include the area between the building and the right-of- way with landscaping, four rows of parking and two drive aisles, would be no less than 140 feet from Haggerty Road. Parking for the restaurants is based on the overall number of customer seats, computed at a ratio of 1 space for every 2 interior seats, 1 space for every three seats in the outdoor dining patio and the employees. According to the Petitioner's estimates, both restaurants will require a combined total of 242 parking spaces which includes 404 interior seats, 30 patio and 30 employees. The total number of spaces shown in front of and behind the restaurants, south of the main drive aisle, totals 258. In terms of the retail building, this multi-tenant retail building is one-story in height and 16,400 square feet in size. The building is shown divided into six units. An outdoor patio is shown along the building's south elevation, indicating a future full service restaurant in the end cap space. Parking would be available in the front yard between the building and Haggerty with additional parking available on the south side of the building. Required parking for the retail building is based on 1 space for every 150 square feet of useable floor area where less than 15 percent of the gross floor area is devoted to restaurant users. However, we anticipate for this particular building more than 15 percent of the space will be used for restaurants and therefore the parking will have to be computed on a ratio of 1 space for every 125 square feet. When we include that parking requirements, it requires a total of 105 parking spaces. Combined, the restaurant at 242 and the retail building at 105, there would be a need for a least 347 parking spaces. The site plan shows 344 parking spaces available, which is a slight deficiency. However, we feel that the deficiency is probably underestimated considering what the total number of customer seats and employees is likely to be once plans for the restaurants are developed. Thus, it's likely that variances will eventually be needed once we know more about December 15, 2015 27313 the restaurants. All spaces shown are 10 feet in width. In terms of the landscaping plan, this is a change from what you saw at the study session. We asked the petitioner to step it up basically in terms of the amount of landscaping provided. This plan reflects that. It includes many more trees and shrubs dispersed throughout the site. Fifteen percent of the land area as required by the ordinance would be landscaped, so we're happy to see the changes as submitted. Changes were also made to the building elevations of the retail building. The exterior finish of the building is face brick. It will include concrete masonry units as well as "cementitious" panels. The face brick and the cement panels are shown extending above the windows to the building's roofline. The building's façade facing would be divided into three sections: the two end sections, which are basically the face brick, separated by a middle section that would consist of these cementitious panels. We also see some changes to the rear of the building. Instead of a painted block material, it would be an integrated block material or stained block material across that portion of the building that is immediately adjacent to the industrial building to the south. The southeast corner of the building will be wrapped with the same brick that is going to be used along the front and the sides, so it really improves the appearance of the building and gives it a four-sided architecture as opposed to just the three-sided architecture that we saw under the original plan. In terms of stormwater, that would be handled offsite on property that is located immediately to the east of the subject property. Those plans are still being developed. We are not looking at signage as part of this phase of the project. I'll note too that the petitioner has modified the plan with respect to the dumpsters. One of the issues pointed out at the study session was the lack of trash containers. He has added two enclosures on the north side of the retail building to handle the additional needs for that area and additional information was provided on site lighting. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to read out the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 27, 2015, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed site development at this time. The legal descriptions included with the petition appears to be correct, and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The parcels have been assigned a range of addresses from #19700 to #19892 Haggerty Road with the addresses of #19700 and December 15, 2015 27314 #19750 Haggerty Road for the overall parcels. The submitted drawings do not indicate any proposed improvements or alterations to the utilities that service the parcels, so we cannot comment on impacts to the existing systems at this time. We will provide a full review of the proposed utilities when the plans are submitted to this office for permitting. The drawings do indicate that the northerly end of the proposed multi-tenant retail building is to be placed over an existing public utilities easement. The owner will need to have that easement vacated and/or revise the layout of the building to not be located within the easement boundaries. Also, should the owner plan to do any work within the Haggerty Road right-of-way, they will need to contact the Wayne County Department of Public Service for permit requirements." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 3, 2015, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a multi-tenant retail building and obtain preliminary approval for two restaurant pads on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, and on site hydrants shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3) Fire Department Access shall be maintained in accordance with Chapter 18, Fire Department Access and Water Supply, NFPA 1, 2009. (4) In regards to NFPA 13, 2007 edition, Fire Department Connections should be of 2.5 Detroit Standard Thread. (5) These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 28, 2015, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 11, 2015 which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) The parking spaces shall be 10' wide and 20' long. Parking spaces shall be double striped. (2) The dumpster enclosures shall have steel gates. (3) Signage has not been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. December 15, 2015 27315 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Bahr: I have a couple for Mark through the Chair. Mark, one of the things we talked about at the study meeting was the possibility of a connector road to east of this site just to ease some of the traffic on Haggerty with these heavily used areas from Costco all the way down to AMC. Is that something that we can include as part of this, or does that need to be handled totally separately? Mr. Taormina: In hearing the concern and the discussion at the study session, we did incorporate language into the approving resolution that addresses that. So if you look at Item #3 of the prepared resolution, hopefully that will address that to your satisfaction. Mr. Bahr: And then the second one, and I apologize, I'm probably putting you on the spot here. I intended to ask you this ahead of time, so if you don't know, that's fine. Do you know how the setbacks, as shown here for the proposed restaurant pads, compare to what we see at the J. Alexander's or the Champps further south there? Mr. Taormina: These are a little further back. It has more parking. In the case of those other restaurants that you cited at the College Park Development, there is a single row of parking provided along Haggerty Road with one drive aisle. Then there is some additional landscaping before you get to the restaurant building. So I would say these buildings are at least 40 to 50 feet further from the road than what those restaurants are. The primary reason for that is, this design has more parking provided in front of the establishments than does the restaurants along Haggerty Road at College Park. Mr. Bahr: Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Frank Jonna, Jonna Realty Ventures, 39533 Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Jonna: Mark did a great job as always. I would like to point out briefly too that on the rear of the building, one of the concerns we had was the appearance, and one thing we're challenged with is that December 15, 2015 27316 often there's some mechanical issues that occur later on. So we put a concrete curb across the back instead of a sidewalk, and we added landscaping across the back of the building. I think that is a slight improvement that doesn't show up in these renderings, but I think that's going to be good and make sure that we keep our tenants from stacking stuff on the sidewalk in the back. We hope to have nice landscaping edge because we do want this to be viewed as a four sided building eventually. Also, with respect to parking, certainly it's always a major concern with us to make sure our tenants parking needs are satisfied. We do have a lot more land here and we hope that the remainder uses of this property will result in a mixed use and the type of benefits that will create parking opportunities for one use to take advantage of peaks of the others. One of the restaurants we're talking to, for example, is a dinner only restaurant. So we're hoping that that will play into the mix when we have potential office users or medical users or some other users on the site. So we are sensitive to the parking issue. We will continue to monitor that and make sure we park right for our clients and the public. Mr. Morrow: Any questions of Mr. Jonna? Mr. Bahr: So just for the record, this being a public meeting. We talked a little bit about the connector road and Mark alluded to it as well. What are your thoughts in regard to that? Mr. Jonna: It is something that requires a tri-party agreement between Costco, West Bay Exploration and this property. I have started the process of getting that in the works and we'll work towards making that happen. Mr. Bahr: You made the comment at the study meeting, and I'm just going to repeat it because, from a Livonia perspective, this is good for all of us to hear. The comment was made at the study meeting that when high end restaurants are looking to come to this area, the two places they want to come are Big Beaver in Troy or Haggerty in Livonia. I think that's exciting. It's great to hear. Some of those restaurants along Haggerty further to the north close to Six Mile, I'm personally a fan of how those were developed up closer to the road. I love the aesthetic appeal of that and I totally get the desire, from a business perspective, to have visible parking in front, but can you just talk to whether it would be possible to develop these in a similar way, like the Bravo or the Mitchell's or the Claddaugh, where they're up close to the road with parking in the back? December 15, 2015 27317 Mr. Jonna: Well, we must have looked at about 47 different site plans on this site to try to maximize the yield and accommodate the potential tenants. I certainly know there is a trend toward making buildings in suburban settings look more like urban buildings up closer to the road, but here's the reality. Suburban buildings function a little different than urban buildings. Unfortunately, no one will walk to this site. No one may even walk from the restaurants here to the restaurants on the other side. It's just the nature of our site. Even next door, the Pentagon site that we developed, we rarely get people that walk to the theatre from parking by the restaurants. It's just the way things go. So parking is very important. I think people seeing that there's parking available in front of a restaurant draws them to that. Seeing that it's full, let's them know the restaurant is busy and they still want to go there. So while parking and cars aren't always the best thing to see, I think functionally the way we set the driveways back so we have a little queueing area, have the ability for people to circulate through the site, will ultimately be the best use. I think the tenants recognize that. One of the tenants we're talking to just was very happy with this site plan and it's a company that's involved with the J. Alexander's down the street. I think each site is unique and this one seems to work the best with the kind of parking we've laid out. Mr. Bahr: Those are fair points. Thanks for explaining that. I guess I'm even more bullish when I hear about the excitement in this area that you talked about in this particular market for these restaurants. I just really want Haggerty to pop with a lot of wow factor. I have no doubt this will be beautifully done, and I think the improvements that you've made to the landscaping will help provide that as well. So I'm just always trying to think of ways, how can we take an existing asset, which is Haggerty Road, and make it pop even more so that it reflects on Livonia. I totally get the suburban reality and that makes a lot of sense. So thanks for explaining that and thanks again for the upgrades that you made to this since our study meeting. I appreciate it. Mr. Jonna: I will add that the Livonia side outperforms the Northville side. We kind of made it good for them by what we did on our side of the road here. Mr. Morrow: You'll have the opportunity to explain that to him again at the Council level. Mr. Jonna: I'll make sure I do. December 15, 2015 27318 Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Jonna, can you explain a little bit about the design of the multi-tenant center on the north end of this property? I mean as we look at the rendering of it, it's not what we typically see in terms of colors or perhaps design. I was just curious what your thought was to the color scheme, the materials being used and why it looks the way it looks. Mr. Jonna: This is somewhat like a center we recently developed using gray tones versus the reddish brick tones. I don't think they were totally set in steel, but one of the things we did was to come up with a little more of an edgy techy look. The steel is intended to be exposed and galvanized and remain kind of in the raw state. The cement panels, we can color those up. There are some options to add splashes of color. We've also talked to a couple of tenants that may want to do some imaging that would be more distinctive to their use, and we might be able to tweak the elevations to make that happen. So a possible awning of some sort, but you know, simple clean lines I think can be effective. There is probably some relief that you can't see too much. The glass is set back slightly from steel, the panels above are set back about a foot. The panels over the cement panels stick out about 16 inches. So I know it doesn't look like a lot of depth to it right now, especially in the elevation view, but I think it will have some nice curb appeal to it. It may not win an AIA award, but . . . Mr. Wilshaw: It is definitely unique to what we see throughout the city and perhaps in this area, which as you said, may actually make it stand out and pop a little bit. I appreciate the fact that you did wrap around some of these treatments to the backside of the building and provide for some additional relief there because, frankly, the backside of this building, depending on exactly how your other phases occur, are likely to be visible to patrons who are parking in the spaces back there. The fact that you've listened to what we ask for in the study meeting and provided those additional improvements is very appreciated and I hope it's very successful. Ms. Smiley: You said that you've done this before. Do you have an example of such place? I'd like to go on a fieldtrip. Mr. Jonna: Out on M-59 . . . . Ms. Smiley: Well, you're sending me on one. Mr. Jonna: It is a hike. The building used cement CMU units that were stained and these similar cement board panels. We did add December 15, 2015 27319 some accent colors so we went from light gray to dark gray. We haven't fully developed that but I'll try to get some pictures and go out for a coffee. There's a Starbucks in that one. Ms. Smiley: Great. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: We don't want it to look like your R&E building. Mr. Jonna: No, no. Although that building did weather quite well for a building that's, geez, how old is it now— 20 some years. Ms. McIntyre: Almost 30. Mr. Jonna: Almost 30 years, yeah. Mr. Taormina: A quick question to the petitioner if I may. Whether or not you intend to screen the rooftop units using the parapet or if there would be separate screens provided because they're not shown on this rendering. Mr. Jonna: Correct. The building max height is 22 feet. The glass line is at 10. The intent is to pitch the roof from front to back and position the RTU's in the last third. I thought in one of the sections the architect kind of drew a dashed line of where the roof would be. The intent is to use the façade. So the façade at the rear of the building would match on all four sides, and we would not use any foreign materials or additional materials to screen the rooftops. So I think it may have been on the black and white rendering that he illustrated that. But that's our intent. We feel with this size small shop space we can provide 10 foot clear ceilings, about 13 feet to the deck with a 22 foot ceiling, pitch the thing to the back and have plenty of room for screening the rooftops. Mr. Taormina: Thank you. Mr. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. With this being approval of a site plan, I just noticed they have the outdoor patio seating shown on one of these restaurants, which I'm personally a fan of and would love to see more of. It's more of a procedural question. With us looking at a site plan tonight, are we approving that patio tonight, or is that something that comes later with the building plans? Mr. Taormina: That absolutely comes back later with the building plans. So this is just our first look at this. We will see both restaurants come December 15, 2015 27320 back as well as any full service restaurants that occupy any part of the multi-tenant building, including the outdoor components. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will ask for a motion. On a motion by McIntyre, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-92-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-10-08-17 submitted by Jonna Realty Ventures, on behalf of Haggerty Marketplace, requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a multi-tenant retail building and obtain preliminary approval for two restaurant pads on property at 19700 and 19750 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Layout and Paving Plan marked Sheet C-3.0 dated December 10, 2015, as revised, prepared by Bud Design & Engineering Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That any portions of the existing parking lot and drive aisles that will remain shall be repaired, resealed and restriped as necessary to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. Parking spaces shall be doubled striped at ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in length; 3. That final site plan approval by City Council is contingent upon the Petitioner submitting a conceptual plan that shows the development of a road immediately to the east of this site that will form a connection between the Costco fueling facility to the north and the Pentagon Entertainment complex to the south, connecting also with this site and the abutting parcels to the east, and that the Petitioner shall provide a construction timeline for the new road as a required condition of the site plan; 4. That the Landscape Plan and Details marked Sheet L1.0 dated December 10, 2015, as revised, prepared by Bud December 15, 2015 27321 Design & Engineering Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydro-seeding; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7. That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet Al-01 prepared by Bud Design & Engineering Services, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on December 15, 2015, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 9. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated November 3, 2015, from the Fire Marshal shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department; 10. All dumpsters shall be located in walled and gated enclosures (as described below), and the exact location and number of enclosures, as well as landscaping around the enclosures, shall be approved by the Planning and Inspection Departments prior to the issuance of building permits; 11. That the three walls of the trash dumpster areas shall be a minimum of seven feet (7') in height, constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the buildings or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the buildings, and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 12. That this site shall meet either the City of Livonia or the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, whichever applies, and shall secure any required permits, including soil erosion and sedimentation control permits; December 15, 2015 27322 13. That all light fixtures along the front part of the development shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in height and those at the back of the site shall not exceed twenty- five feet (25') in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadways; 14. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 15. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the buildings or around the windows; 16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 17. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina: With respect to Item #7, the building elevation plans and the use of brick along the east (rear) elevation — that was language that was provided before we received the latest plan which shows partial brick. If the Commission is happy with the design as submitted, then we would ask that we strike the second part of that condition. Ms. McIntyre: As the person that offered the resolution, I'm fine with that if the rest of the Commission is fine with that. Mr. Morrow: Okay. So we have that change approved by the maker and supporter. Mr. Taormina: If the petitioner understands as Item #3 was read relative to providing a conceptual plan showing the future road as it would connect this property with the adjacent properties running both to the north, east and south, and then providing to the Council at the time they submit these plans, some type of construction December 15, 2015 27323 timeline for that road that they can review and then embody that into their resolution. That was really the intent of addressing the Commission's concerns that were raised at the study meeting. I just want to make sure that there's a full understanding of what your obligation would be under that requirement. Mr. Jonna: Sure. Mr. Taormina: Thank you. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #6 PETITION 2015-10-02-20 SONIC RESTAURANT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 10-02-20 submitted by Newquest Crosswell Development Group, 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 construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Sonic) at 29622 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Chairman, this has to be removed from the table. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Can I have a motion? On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-93-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 17, 2015, on Petition 2015-10-02-20 submitted by Newquest Crosswell Development Group, 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 construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Sonic) at 29622 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, which property is zoned C-2 and P, the Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the table. December 15, 2015 27324 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: As you know, we previously reviewed this site plan. It was tabled to allow the petitioner time to respond to several concerns that were raised, not only by the Planning Commission, but also by residents that were at that meeting. What I would like to do now is run through the changes to the plan. There have also been some additional changes since our study meeting last week. The most significant change between this plan and the one we saw previously was the elimination of the driveway off of Seven Mile Road. If you recall, the early plan relied on access coming in off of Seven Mile, and because of the potential for left hand turn conflicts with the residential street across Seven Mile, Melvin, it was felt that the issue would have to be addressed either by aligning the driveway with Melvin or eliminating it altogether. That driveway has been removed from the plan and instead a second means of ingress and egress is now being provided from the east via the internal circulation drive that is on the Livonia Marketplace property. Originally the driveway was located almost centrally on the property on Seven Mile frontage. That's been removed. There's a second driveway provided at the north end of the site. So no longer is there any drive approach off Seven Mile Road. The added drive approach is roughly 96 feet north of the Seven Mile Road right-of-way. This has had the effect of flipping the carhop canopy and drive- in operations to the west side of the parking lot. If you will recall with the earlier plan, we had the drive-in operation located on the east side. The canopy that would serve the drive-in patrons is now on the west side of the property where they have one canopy with the capacity to handle up to 10 vehicles to take orders from their vehicles. There is a 30 foot wide landscaped greenbelt still being provided between the church property and the canopy structure. This is something that is a requirement of the Planned General Development requirements for this site, as well as the fact that there is a storm sewer that runs through the property. There are a number of trees that would be planted. There's a total of 13 evergreen trees that are spread out along that side of the property immediately adjacent to where the access road extends from Seven Mile Road back to St. Priscilla's Church. There's also a drainage swale that is located adjacent to these trees. We discussed that at the study meeting. There was a question of whether or not a berm could be created long the west side of the property. The petitioner is planning to incorporate this area as part of the stormwater management plan, and if this drainage swale is part of that design, then the ability to create a berm or raised mound in this area is a little December 15, 2015 27325 more challenging. It's a relatively flat area but it could still be planted. The latest plan also reduces the size of the monument ground sign bringing it into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Landscaping has been added around the patio on the front of the building and also along the backside of the dumpster enclosure. If you recall, there was an issue with the landscaping along the patio. So some landscaping has been added to the front of the site as well as along the southeast corner where the dumpster enclosure would be located. Customer parking spaces on the east side have been shifted east to allow vehicles to maneuver around the cars that would be stacked using the drive-up facility. You'll recall that part of the problem with the plan we looked at the study session was, as cars were backed up here using the drive-up facility, it didn't leave much room for the vehicles to circulate around the site, especially if those cars were backed up. So the petitioner has taken these six or so parking spaces along the east side of the property and moved them further to the east thereby opening this area up to allow for that bypass lane. The most recent plan shows 27 off-street parking spaces, 19 of which are available for customer parking, other than the 10 drive-in spaces. The other 10 are needed for employees and spaces beyond the drive-up window for customers whose orders are delayed. So really this only allows for 17 spaces to be used in the seating count for any combination of interior and patio seating that would not exceed those 17 parking spaces. Generally speaking, that would be 28 interior seats and 9 outdoor patio seats. That is just a quick rundown on the changes to the plan just to refresh everyone's memory. Relative to the appearance of the restaurant, this is the view of the restaurant building looking at it from a southwest perspective towards the west side of the building where the drive-up operation would be. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Did you receive any correspondence on this? Mr. Taormina: There are two items of updated correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated December 3, 2015, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The included legal description appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing property is assigned an address of #29622 Seven Mile Road. The submitted petition does show a general layout of the proposed storm sewer system for the site, but does not include calculations or specifics for the detention system, so we are December 15, 2015 27326 unable to determine any impacts to the existing storm sewer at this time. It should be noted that the outlet for the proposed storm sewer connects to a privately owned system, not a City of Livonia system. Since the City has no jurisdiction over the proposed outlet, the owner will need to obtain easements across the neighboring parcels, as well as providing storm sewer calculations for the existing system to show that the system will be able to handle the additional drainage areas. The proposed plans show that the existing 48" storm sewer that crosses the site is to be relocated for the new restaurant. We believe that the 48" storm line is a dead-end that previously serviced the properties to the east prior to redevelopment. The owner may wish to have the surveyors revisit the site to determine if that is correct, and if so they will be able to remove the dead-end line entirely instead of relocating it. The owner will need to obtain permits from Wayne County for any work associated with the 48" storm line as it connects to the storm drain which is under their jurisdiction. The parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main that the owner will be able to connect to for the proposed building. We will comment on the proposed service leads, and issue permits, once we have detailed engineering drawings during the site plan review process." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 7, 2015, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (3) Chapter 38, New Business Occupancies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways and Extinguisher Requirements, NFPA 101, 2012. (4) These and other issues will be reviewed during the Plan review process." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the new correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mark, we're only acting on conforming signage, right? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Our initial staff review provided information on signs, but as the prepared resolution reads, it only considers conforming December 15, 2015 27327 signage, and anything beyond that would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I believe we discussed this at the study session. We could always treat this as a callback item if that's the desire of the Planning Commission. Mr. Morrow: No. It's not a concern. I just want to make sure we understood that if there is additional signage, they know what the situation is. If there are no questions of the Director, would the petitioner come forward please? Andrew Walters, Metro Consulting Associates, L.L.C., 45345 Five Mile Road, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. Good evening. I'm the engineering consultant for this project. With me is Fred Rafou with Newquest Crosswell Development Group. Thank you for this opportunity to present this project to this body here. We believe we've heard the comments and concerns in the previous Planning Commission meeting and the study sessions, the comments that the neighbors and residents have had, and we believe that we have provided an updated plan which met all of those concerns. I didn't have anything in particular to add to Mr. Taormina's presentation. I did have one question. At one of the study sessions there was mention that the landscaping that's being provided along the 30 foot strip on the western edge of the property was being provided in lieu of a wall and that a waiver was required for this change. I just wanted to make sure if that is, in fact, a requirement that that be included in any approval for this project. I also have a slightly different parking count than Mr. Taormina did. The development proposes 10 drive-in bays. It also has 27 parking spaces which are being provided for either employees or patrons. Stated in our site plan package, there's a maximum of 8 employees expected at this facility. So we believe that leaves us room for 19 parking spaces, which would allow us 34 indoor seats and 7 outdoor patio seats. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, does that concur with your analysis? Mr. Walter: I think the difference was that you seem to be counting on 10 employee spaces. Mr. Taormina: If I may, Mr. Chair. I think what was not factored in was the two additional spaces beyond the drive-up for customers whose orders get delayed. That is a requirement of the ordinance. That can be waived by the City Council with a majority vote by a separate resolution. That's something they can bring up with the Council, in which case they would have 19 spaces available. December 15, 2015 27328 Mr. Morrow: Is that understood? Mr. Walters: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Mr. Walters: I guess that concludes all that I wanted to address here. We are again thankful for this opportunity to present this project, and we are available for any questions that you might have. Mr. Morrow: Do we have any questions? Mr. Bahr: I didn't get the chance to make a comment about tabling this item at the last meeting. When we were looking at this before, I thought there were so many good aspects to this site, but I could not justify in my mind how a curb cut to Seven Mile Road was going to work and that was the reason for the tabling. I just applaud you guys for the way that you've revised this to accommodate that. I think this is a site plan that works a lot better. I think you've done a nice job accommodating that, as well as just taking into account that all the drive-up areas are being moved over to the west side of the property. I mean this thick evergreen shield, I think, will be definitely adequate and is consistent with what we see in a lot of other areas in the city for that type of purpose. I don't really have any questions. I just wanted to follow up since I was the once that offered the tabling resolution before and to have an opportunity to publicly explain that and to applaud you guys for what I think turned out to be a really good plan. Mr. Walters: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Bahr. Anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Karl Zarbo, Director of Operations, Lormax Stern Development Company, 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. Good to see you all again. As you folks know, Lormax Stern Development Company is the owner/operator and developer of the Livonia Marketplace. This is the last piece of the 60 acre site. It's an overnight success that's been eight years in the working. We've also taken seven or eight attempts at this parcel. I think perhaps because it is the last piece and because it is so small, it certainly presents its challenges. Just a little bit historically. If you'll remember, this was the Baker's Square piece and from day one when we set out to redevelop December 15, 2015 27329 this parcel, we attempted to do this with restaurants. Essentially, as these gentleman have found out, stormwater management on a site this small is really an uphill battle. But I think to put in the use that works for whatever particular business, accommodate the parking, accommodate the ordinances and accommodate the stormwater, I think they've been really, really creative. Again, as you know, the site has been vacant for about eight years. We took several years attempting to retrofit that building as the building aged. As we brought the new buildings out of the ground, it became very apparent to us that the building needed to come down and that's what we did. Again, it took a couple of years to resolve that, but we think we're there. A couple things we do want to just remind you, and we know when you went through the process with these folks, you folks still have an awful lot of control that went into this basically 10 years ago. As you know, we put a Planned General Development agreement together and many of the things that you folks asked for would have been and should have been anticipated because we spent a lot of time a lot of years ago with this team making sure that no matter what happened with that property, whether it's a tenant, whether it's a ground lease or whether it's a sale, that we gave you our assurances as owner and developer that uniformity across that property would happen. You have another tool, too, which really causes these folks to put many of the things on paper that you've required. Just as a reminder, you have an ECR that's there and is perpetual and crosses that property, and as happened with the bank when that parcel was sold off, that ECR becomes a document with this team. So I think we took a look 60 acres sites about 9 years ago when we started this. We look at the last piece tonight, and I think hours and hours and hours of work with the developer and this city are what bring you what we hope and believe is a good use for that last piece. I think the aesthetics that they've proposed - also incorporated the aesthetic theme that's required through the Planned Development Agreement and the ECR, they've tried to pull some of those components out of what's there existing and use it in what is, as you folks know, a pretty unique Sonic presentation, but I think you can see the Livonia Marketplace in that Sonic presentation. Hopefully, it's a project that you'll be pleased with. I've attempted to retire for the last two years. Maybe I'm getting there. So we thank you again for your time, and by the way, we want to wish you the best for the holidays. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Zarbo. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Yes, sir. December 15, 2015 27330 Sam Atherton, 11082 Hillcrest, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. I'm also an employee of St. Priscilla's Catholic Church. First off, I commend the petitioner for being able to resolve the Seven Mile traffic situation. We welcome the fact that it's new business for Livonia. I know the City of Livonia welcomes it as a tax base. I have a couple questions that are concerns to the parish itself. I'd like to present them if I may. The existing fence and the separation between the two properties, I haven't talked to any of the builders or anything so I don't know the answers. Is the existing fence going to remain? The trees that are on the west side of the fence, are they going to remain or are they going to be taken down? They've been there for 30 years or more. That's a question. Another question I have is the signage on Seven Mile. Will the signage be in accordance with the City ordinances or will it be larger? We're in the process of redoing our sign. We certainly don't want to spend $25,000 and have it overshadowed by something else that can't be seen by the public. We're asking about that. That's a concern for us. The drainage easements, they've addressed it to a point. Right now, the drainage easements are between the two properties. At times when it rains heavily, I have water standing between the two properties, mostly on my side of the church. So we need to address that when we go to build. If it's a higher elevation, obviously the water is going to run down and we have to have someplace for it to go. There is one drain about 30 yards in from the Seven Mile Road to the site. All the water comes to that. So we need to address that. I probably know the answer to this: this is a seven day operation I presume. They indicated it was from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, and I believe it is seven days a week. That's what it's going to be. Those are the basic comments that I have. The one thing that I would like to say is that with the additional business, there's probably going to be additional traffic that we may need to address down the road as to how we handle the traffic in that area. It could become a problem. We certainly don't want to see any of our residents get hurt. So we need to keep that in mind. That's all I have. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to ask the petitioner to respond to your questions. Could you do that? Mr. Walters: Sure. Thank you for those questions. In regards to the trees and fence, the spruces that are being proposed are in addition to what is existing there. Nothing on the west side of our property line is being removed. In regard to the existing fence, we're not planning on moving that. Your question about drainage, you'll see up there proposed in the northern portion of our property is December 15, 2015 27331 a retention facility. We are also proposing a bio-retention swale along the western property line and also where there is some green space on the eastern side. The intent of that is to capture the runoff generated on the Sonic site to treat it, detain it in accordance with Wayne County's and the City of Livonia's stormwater standards. I will note that the site currently has no stormwater management whatsoever. So the steps that we are taking to address stormwater management should alleviate your drainage concerns. Hours of operation, it is a seven day a week operation. As far as signage goes, the signage package will meet the City of Livonia's requirements and any deviations will obviously require a variance. Mr. Atherton: All right. That answers my questions. Mr. Zarbo: The traffic piece again, if you'll remember, the site was really designed, as was Seven Mile, for the end piece. So all of the improvements on Seven Mile that were done back several years ago, but the other thing we did with this site, if you go way back and Mark may be the only one to remember, but for traffic control so that we're sure we're controlling traffic on this site, there was a shopping center redeveloped south of this and there was some discomfort with how the traffic flowed. So if you'll remember, what we did here, is that the driveway that's between the bank and the Massage Green property, that canoe is as long as you've seen anywhere in the City of Livonia. What we did at that main signalized entrance is make sure we brought the traffic all the way in off of Seven Mile to almost the midpoint of the property and that you had stacking for almost half the property to get out. We've watched this driveway now for five years. As you know from where Happy's Pizza, and now 1000 Degree Pizza, which just opened last month by the way, it was intended to have traffic flow from that building that we refer to as "E" into this property. And I would tell you five years ago, we probably all would have been concerned about that second curb cut at the driveway. But it's really functioned well. We've got five years of watching it. Five years of traffic flow and I think we're very, very comfortable and tried to be really good neighbors. The stormwater for this whole site, if you'll remember again, was designed by one of the best in the nation. It was Dr. Tilton and he did the entire site including Sears, and actually it was taken into account for this site that this last piece had to stand on its own and certainly control the amount of water which flowed, the rate at which it flowed and the quality of that water. These folks fortunately or unfortunately have had to address that as the last site. So we've attempted to be very good neighbors. December 15, 2015 27332 Mr. Atherton: We wish to be. Mr. Zarbo: You guys have been wonderful. The fence really goes way, way, way back. You're correct. That was supposed to have been a wall 51 years ago but both parties agreed to the fence, and as we've developed, all the way back from the piece we own, the Kohl's piece and coming forward, we retained the fence and we've indicated to the church that we would keep the fence as long as they wish it to be there. Mr. Atherton: The only other piece of information I might offer — at one time at the end of Melvin and Seven Mile, there was a street light on the utility pole that's there. That somewhere along the way the last 10 years either fell down, got removed or whatever, but that intersection is not lit up at all. A street light on that pole would probably make a large difference in the traffic going in and out and people being able to see. That's all I have. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Joann Yurgil, 18435 Bainbridge, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. I'm speaking on my own, but I also am a parishioner of St. Priscilla's. I'm glad Mr. Lormax is here because I have one concern. It does regard the detention pond. I don't know who's going to be maintaining it, but the two detention ponds on the property that are there now, the small one between Bank of America and Sears and the larger one, are not really being maintained. The debris and garbage in them is kind of upsetting at times and the smaller one between Sears and Bank of American has been taken over by like ten foot tall marsh grasses. It just looks a little unsightly. And the other one that's nearer to Walmart does have water, muddy at times but a lot of trash and stuff accumulates. So my concern is, if there's now going to be a third detention pond closer to the St. Priscilla property directly to the north of the Sonic, who is going to maintain them? It just looks bad. We don't want to see more bad. We understand this water problem but the detention ponds have got to be kept better. Mr. Morrow: Right. To answer your question, that really doesn't affect this site tonight, but Mr. Zarbo is here. He's heard it. Mr. Walters: She does have some concerns about the detention basin on the side property. I think one of the points that Fred here has made in some of the study sessions is that Sonic is a drive-in facility. Their dining room is the outdoors. The appearance of this property is important to them. December 15, 2015 27333 Ms. Yurgil: If you're going to have dining outdoors and loose trash, we just want to be sure we're not going to have loose trash floating around in the water and that type of thing. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: If there is no one else coming forward, I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Bahr: I just want to compliment the residents that were here tonight. It's always pleasant when we have legitimate concerns courteously expressed. So thank you. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-94-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 15, 2015, on Petition 2015-10-02-20 submitted by Newquest Crosswell Development Group, 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 construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Sonic) at 29622 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, which property is zoned C-2 and P, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-10-02-20 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum customer seating count for this restaurant shall not exceed a total of forty-one (41) seats, including thirty-two (32) interior seats and nine (9) outdoor patio seats, or any other combination of interior and/or exterior seating that does not exceed the 19 available parking spaces; 2. That the two (2) spaces designated for the drive-up window customers may be omitted only if this requirement is waived by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 3. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C2 prepared by Metro Consulting Associates, dated December 11, 2015, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet C5 prepared by Metro Consulting Associates, dated December 11, 2015, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; December 15, 2015 27334 5. That the hours of operation of the restaurant and the drive- up window operations shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week; 6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydro-seeding; 7. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 8. That the landscaped greenbelt along the site's western property line, as shown on the approved plans, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 9. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 10. That the Building Elevation Plans marked A3.01 and A3.02 as received by the Planning Commission on October 13, 2015, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the fiber cement board panels shown on the east and west elevations of the building shall be replaced with brick; 11. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 12. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be a minimum seven feet (7') in height, constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; December 15, 2015 27335 13. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a height of twenty feet (20') above grade and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway; 14. 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; 15. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 16. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, shall be prohibited; 17. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits; and 18. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? December 15, 2015 27336 Mr. Taormina: I would like to add a condition in response to the petitioner's comments earlier about the amount of seating. The two spaces designated for the drive-up window customers may be omitted only if this requirement is waived by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur. Mr. Bahr: I'm good with that. Mr. Morrow: Yes, please add that. We have concurrence here. Mr. Taormina: And if the maker of the motion would like any direction relative to hours of operation. Mr. Morrow: Would you want to add the hours of operation? Mr. Bahr: I think they said 6:00 a.m. to midnight, seven day a week. I don't have an issue with that. Are you suggesting that we write that into the resolution? Mr. Taormina: Yes, I am if that's what the petitioner is offering. Mr. Bahr: Yes, let's add it. Mr. Morrow: Mrs. Smiley, do you concur? Ms. Smiley: I do. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Good luck. Mr. Walters: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. We also would respectfully like to request a seven day waiver to make it to the City Council. Mr. Morrow: Like I said before, it may or may not do you any good, but if there's a member of the Commission that would like to offer that. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously approved, it was #12-95-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2015-10-02-20 submitted by Newquest Crosswell Development December 15, 2015 27337 Group, 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 construct and operate a freestanding full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities (Sonic) at 29622 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. 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 #7 PETITION 2015-11-01-10 McLaren Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 11-01-10 submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 32233 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Parker Avenue and Hubbard Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3 (One Family Residential) to P (Parking), without any conditions. Mr. Taormina: The area of land proposed to be rezoned under this petition is identical to the zoning change that was approved by the City Council on April 28, 2010. It is intended to set the record straight in the eyes of Wayne County Circuit Court and a ruling handed down by the Honorable Susan L. Hubbard. Judge Hubbard in this matter ruled that the land in question reverted back to the original zoning classification, R-3, as a result of McLaren's failure to commence construction of the parking lot within the 12-month time period specified in the 2010 conditional rezoning agreement. The Judge declared that the conditional rezoning agreement became void when McLaren "abandoned the development project," and therefore, in accordance with state law, the rezoning of the property from R-3 to P was automatically revoked and reverted back to the original zoning classification of R-3. The change of zoning, as I indicated, affects the same area of land that McLaren rezoned in 2010. The property is 0.87 acre in area measuring 115 feet by 329.96 feet. In May, 2014 the area in question was site plan approved for the construction of a detached multi-level parking structure. A majority of this structure has been completed and is tentatively scheduled for occupancy in 2016. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. December 15, 2015 27338 Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated November 25, 2015, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time. The legal description provided by petitioner (also included with Petition 2009-11-01- 02) appears to be correct for the proposed parking rezoning and should be used with this petition. The parcel address of 32233 Eight Mile Road is correct for the subject property. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public utilities which are not indicated for alterations under the proposed rezoning, and all proposed improvements have been reviewed by this department in previous submittals." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. Mr. Morrow: Did we have a petition submitted by the residents? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We did receive a petition. It is dated December 3, 2015, and it reads as follows: "The purpose of this letter is to inform the Livonia City Council and any other interested parties that all property owners listed in this letter wish to declare a formal protest regarding the proposed zoning changes requested by Linamar/McLaren at their existing location on Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Merriman. Reference Petition 2015- 11-01-10." That is signed by seven residents on one petition and one signature on a separate sheet. Mr. Morrow: Okay. So this is informing the City Council but it's part of our record now too. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Scott Maxwell, Director of Operations, McLaren Performance Technologies, 32233 W. Eight Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening. I think Mark was fairly succinct in his analysis of where we're at right now. As he said, the parking structure is probably 90 percent complete. The building, which is not subject to this but is part of the project in whole, is about 95 percent complete. We're scheduled, barring any other issues, to move in on the first weekend of February. So the one thing I think that we're concerned with is that while there have been delays for many reasons, the lease in Southfield for the employees that are moving to the new building is up in April. So we do have an end point at which we will have no place for about 100 employees. December 15, 2015 27339 So that's one of the concerns today. We're here to answer any questions you may have. I realize that this is not what everybody wanted, to be back here having to go over this again, but we'll do what we need to do. Mr. Morrow: Any questions of the petitioner? I think the rezoning request is fairly straight forward. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Michael Horton, 20414 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'd like to ask for permission from the Board, if I can give you a handout. Mr. Morrow: Could you explain what it is? Mr. Horton: I'll try to be as brief as possible. We've all been here a long time. I feel like I need a shave. I think it's important to just tell this story again and how we are back here again tonight. In 2010, McLaren petitioned the city to change the zoning on a residential piece of property. The City Council met on it, tabled the issue, I think at least in some part due to the opposition from the neighbors. In the meantime before the next meeting, the neighbors filed a formal protest which would have required a super majority vote from City Council. McLaren knew this. They invited several of the neighbors, including myself, to a meeting at their facility in 2010 and presented us with a very specific plan that looks nothing like the one they are building now. And they told us, if you will not contest this plan at the City Council meeting, we will stick to this plan. So we, as citizens and trying to be good neighbors, withdrew that formal protest. That's part of the handout you just got. In that formal protest, which was submitted to City Council, and everybody involved was aware of what it said, it says in there McLaren has agreed not to pursue further expansion on the site. So the City Council approves it with those conditions. McLaren never completes the project, not only within the 12 months, not within 36 months. They never do the things that they told us they were going to do. In March of 2014, we are all brought back together at the Mayor's office and presented a wildly different plan. It's not even remotely close to what they promised us. We asked at that time, myself and several neighbors, asked the City Council not to allow them to do this. This is not what we all agreed to. They did not. They went ahead and approved it anyway, which I'm sure you're all aware of. What McLaren did do was quietly work in the meantime to strengthen their position by buying additional property, having meetings with City officials without including the neighbors, and basically strengthening, again, their position to continue with this much different plan. So I was left with no December 15, 2015 27340 choice but to pursue it through the Courts. A Wayne County Judge presided over a hearing on this subject and landed solidly on my side, which she doesn't even reference me necessarily. She references the neighbors. She basically said that McLaren misled the neighbors and this ruling is essentially a result of that hearing. She ruled that they didn't keep up their promise to us or their agreement with us and that's why this was back to R-3. She also basically put an injunction that required them to stop working on it, which we basically, out of the goodness of our heart I guess for lack of a better way to put it, went to the Judge when they asked the Judge to lift that injunction, we told the Judge that we would agree to that, providing McLaren tried to work with us to resolve this issue in a matter that's, you know, satisfies everybody involved. They basically didn't do what they promised they would do to get us to vote or withdraw our protest. When we did that, it became parking and then they just did whatever they wanted to do. Mr. Morrow: Okay. We appreciate that input, but it looks like our charge here tonight is a rezoning request to place it back in the classification of Parking, which apparently expired some time ago. Mr. Horton: I'm in no position to argue with that. Yes. I suppose that's correct, but I believe it is within your power tonight to table this until McLaren does what they had promised to do, which was try and work with us to resolve this in some other fashion. Mr. Morrow: I think that, based on at least the Planning Commission's involvement, we saw those plans and we assumed that it was in the correct zoning at the time not knowing that it had expired. My feeling is that we're going to take action tonight, and it will move forward to the City Council. That's where it goes from there, but I think our mission or charge tonight is to see if we agree with that rezoning request and either send it approving or not approving to the Council. Mr. Horton: Well, then I guess I don't have anything further. Mr. Morrow: Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Dan Steel, 11037 Ingram, Livonia, Michigan. I'm also Mike Horton's attorney. And I did want to address the issue that, Mr. Morrow, you just raised. That's not the status. This is not just a formality that we're here about today. I see from the notes at the study meeting, I got a copy of what Mr. Taormina presented at the study meeting and I also heard what he just said. It says that the December 15, 2015 27341 request for rezoning is identical to the petition from 2009, which had been approved by the City Council on April 28, 2010. That's absolutely incorrect. What's here before the Commission bears no resemblance to what was approved on April 28, 2010. So that first statement, which you were informed of in the study meeting and were informed of earlier today, is not correct. What was previously approved by the City Council was a conditional zoning agreement which was based on additional parking that would occur in this area. It was approved because the city, McLaren and all of the surrounding residents had agreed that it could move forward in that manner as a concession to McLaren. It was passed by the City Council in 2010 unanimously. What you have here today, what you're being asked to approve and pass onto the City Council today, has nothing to do with what happened in 2010. What you have now is a three-story parking structure that has already been built. The Court has said that that three-story parking structure violates the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Livonia. It's not just a formality. She made a ruling, a finding of fact, that it violates the Zoning Ordinance. Also, we have no consent here. The residents didn't consent to this as they did back in 2010. The City Council, when they saw the three-story parking structure that was being proposed by McLaren, there was no unanimous vote as they had had before. As a matter of fact, both Councilpersons Brosnan and Toy spoke out passionately against that three-story parking structure. So the suggestion that this is just a formality today is not correct. What we have here today is what is clearly a violation of the Master Plan for the city. The Master Plan for the city specifically addresses this area south of Eight Mile, what they call an industrial zone. It's required and not everywhere in the Master Plan does it say required, but on this particular area south of Eight Mile, what we're talking about today, it says that it is required that there be a buffer in between the industrial area and the residents to the south. And that's not provided for here. So it's clearly a violation of the Master Plan. It also makes no sense. This is a brand new item for this Commission. What's being asked is for you to approve a three-story parking structure in a residential area. There is no precedent for it anywhere in the city. You see nowhere in the city what you see on that map. But more specifically, nowhere in the city is there a three-story parking structure that's being put in a residential area. It's completely incompatible with all the surrounding uses. I hope you'll hear from other people about how incompatible it has become. So again, it's a new vote, and I ask you to vote to protect the citizens, protect the Master Plan, and I ask that you send this back to the City Council and tell them not to approve this petition. I'd be happy to answer any questions. December 15, 2015 27342 Mr. Morrow: The petition from the owners shows a piece of property that we should consider if it should be a parking classification or not. Now there's a lot of detail that you're coming up with, and if anybody wants to offer anything other than that, I'd like to hear it. Mr. Steel: All the detail is what presently exists. Michael Fisher, Chief Assistant City Attorney, City of Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Chair, I think the situation is that the Commission is being asked to recommend the rezoning that will make this conform to the use that's now in place. It would have been one thing . . . I don't really want to get into the merit actually — forget it. I don't want to get into the merits of the lawsuit because I don't think that's pertinent here. All that is pertinent here is whether you're going to say yes or no to rezoning this property commensurate with what's actually on the property today. There are lots of other fascinating topics we could get into and the litigation is hotly contested so we could have real fireworks if you wanted, but I don't see any point in that. It seems like we would get bogged down over nothing. Mr. Morrow: So you're concurring with what I said? Mr. Fisher: Yes. Mr. Morrow: I don't know if this is correct or not, but in my notes, the Court ordered McLaren to cease construction until it obtained a new rezoning of the subject property to P. I think that's what we're doing here tonight. Mr. Steel: I certainly disagree that that's what the Court ordered. The Court said the rezoning reverted back to residential. They said that McLaren could always go back and try to get it rezoned, but the suggestion in here that they told them to go get it rezoned, that's not correct. Like anyone else, McLaren can come into this Planning Commission and ask for rezoning. That's all the Court said. As a matter of fact, I was there. She used the words "fresh start." They can start afresh. That's what they're doing. So I agree with Mr. Fisher, I don't want to get into the merits of the lawsuit. That's an issue for another day. But I also agree with him that what this Commission is supposed to do today is to look at whether or not this is appropriately zoned to include a three-story parking structure. Look at it simply as does the Commission want to put a three-story parking structure in a residential area with no precedent anywhere else in the city. December 15, 2015 27343 Mr. Morrow: Okay. I appreciate your input. Mr. Steel: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone in the audience wanting to speak? Robert Austin, 20306 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I live a little less than 500 feet south of this three-story parking garage. I've been at all these meetings since McLaren has proposed it. I've lived at this address for 30 years. I've been fighting McLaren pretty much off and on for 30 years about different things they want to propose. Two items I just want to bring to your attention. This petition, the last three words "without any conditions," that is preposterous. I've been sitting here for three hours listening to you guys approving things with 14, 16 different conditions on their approval. I've been hearing all the legalese and all of the things about dumpster locations, widths of parking spots. How can this issue get by the Planning Commission and the Council? You have study sessions and everything and yet this issue about rezoning and them building a garage on a residential lot, it just appalls me to think that it got by you and makes me wonder what else gets by. I just want to go on record with that. Mr. Morrow: We were looking at site plans, sir. That is a different type of analysis from zoning. Our charge is, is the zoning appropriate or not in our estimation. Some of us may agree or disagree. Mr. Austin: I understand, but when the petitioner comes with a plan to build this monstrosity that they're building, you have to look at the way the properties are zoned. They had an industrial belt made. They had a piece of property in the back that was zoned residential. You assumed it was zoned parking. Those are your words. And it got by and that's why we're here today. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Anyone else? James Brossard, 20391 Parker, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm the first house off of Eight Mile on the west side of Parker. I live right behind McLaren. I came here in 1965. I think McLaren came in around 1968 if I'm not mistaken. I've seen a lot of changes coming along here. I just ask that you would approve that this would be okay, that you approve the completion of the parking structure. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you for your input. December 15, 2015 27344 Nabil Nouman, 20341 Parker, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening. From what I understand is and, again, according to the way I read the court order and all that, we're talking about the parking structure, or actually the rezoning of residential into parking. At least that's the way I understand it. Now I understand that the last time we came around and the Planning Commission approved or whatever the case was, was it the parking structure itself or the plans or the rezoning, I think everybody looked at the renderings and plans that McLaren supplied. Everybody went up and then we're talking about it's only 18 feet with light poles and all that kind of stuff. But this monstrosity is up. And from what I understand, the Planning Commission's main role is, if this is to be zoned from residential into commercial or parking or whatever the case might be, is to also take into consideration, if not the main reason, at least one of the things to take into consideration is how does that affect the neighborhood, the way and quality of life around this structure. So I brought with me some picture that I've taken with a 50 mm lens, which means it's just exactly the same thing as the naked eye. It's not zoomed in. It's not zoomed out. I would like the Planning Commission to look at those if possible. The first one is out of my bathroom window. So keep in mind this parking structure will be operating 24/7 so people could be seeing through every single neighbor's house, living rooms, bathrooms, what it is. Mr. Morrow: Are you talking about the building? Mr. Nouman: The actual parking structure. Mr. Morrow: I understand. Mr. Nouman: These pictures are from my house, my backyard and other neighbors around it to show how big of an invasion it is on everyone's privacy and how this will significantly impact our lifestyles and the way we live in our neighborhood. I would like you to take a look at those. I put those sticky notes on them. That's from what address they were taken. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else? Mr. Nouman: No. I just wanted everyone to see those and how basically if the vote was to . . . this is not just about the Planning Commission moving things forward to the City Council because I believe that this Commission does take a big, big responsibility of at least advancing this. If this gets shut down, it won't move forward. This is what we're going to see in our backyards. This is how December 15, 2015 27345 we're going to live. The whole neighborhood is really torn to pieces because of that big structure, and this is a golden opportunity to not let it go because just the fact that the structure is up there, should not mean anything because that lot right now is residential according to the court order. So to zone it parking, that parking structure should have no influence on that. Mr. Morrow: We'll see how the Commission feels about it. Mr. Nouman: I appreciate that. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Anyone else? Eric Stempien, 23800 Woodward Avenue, Pleasant Ridge, Michigan. My role here is, I am one of the attorneys that represented Mike Horton, or continue to represent Mike Horton in the litigation. One of the things I want to talk about is something that's not really sort of on the radar and wouldn't be on the radar with regard to the neighbors. And this has to do with the actual existence of a parking structure in P zoning districts in the City of Livonia. And this was not an issue that the Judge even addressed because she didn't have to get to it based on the ruling that she made with regard to the reversion of the rezoning because it's not zoned P. But even if it becomes zoned P, now what you have is a building, a structure, on a P zoned piece of property and in looking at the zoning ordinance, Section 13.03(d), and I would encourage the Commission to sort of look into this and it might be something worth looking into prior to making a decision on it. Section 13.03(d) states that no building shall be erected on any P zoned district, except for the shelter of attendants. And it talks about some dimensions, some very modest sized buildings that would be allowed on any P zoning. When you look at this ordinance, the definitions under the ordinance, it talks about what a building is and what a structure is. The building is clearly anything, and includes the word structure by the way in the definition of building, and a structure is anything that's permanently attached. Under the ordinance, there is just no question that a parking structure is a building, a building is not allowed on P zoning. Now there's another section, and we've gone through this a little bit with the city in terms of the litigation but also in sort of more informal discussions about this, there's another section that talks about how you can have buildings for parking of vehicles. However, I would urge the Commission not to adopt that type of position because what we're talking about here is, and we don't agree with this interpretation, but if the city's interpretation is they've put forth through all this litigation is taken as being what the ordinance says, there would be no December 15, 2015 27346 limits. There would be zero limits on what size of building on any setbacks, nothing like that. Simply putting up a structure, it could be 8 stories, 10 stories, 12 stories, 15 stories high. There would be no limits within your ordinance for how big of a structure, or how big of a building you could put up on any P zoning. That simply cannot be what the ordinance intends. Every other provision within the ordinance, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial, has some limits with regard to building size, setbacks, all of those normal types of limits that you guys deal with on every type of site plan or zoning request. So if the city's interpretation goes forward and McLaren in this example, but it doesn't have to be McLaren, it can be anybody, comes forward and says we want to build a 15-story structure, if they're correct, you would not be able to stop it. You would have these structures that could go up anywhere. Now would it happen? Is there a practical aspect of it? Maybe. Who needs a 15-story structure? But the fact of the matter is that I think the Commission needs to take a look at that and I think they need to decide how that ordinance reads, what is actually allowed or disallowed in terms of the size of the structures that would be allowed in P zoning, and if it needs to be addressed within the zoning ordinance, there may need to be some sort of an amendment that's brought forward, but I think as you sit here today, yes, it's a three-story structure but if you approve it, they could simply slap another three stories on top of it and there would be nothing within the ordinance to stop it. Again, not my interpretation of it. This is the city's interpretation of it. I think when you read the ordinance it's very clear. It simply says no building shall be allowed to be erected on there. This is clearly a building and it shouldn't be allowed. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Stempien. Anyone else? Jeffrey S. Kragt, Esq., Beier Howlett, 200 East Long Lake Road, Suite 110, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. I'm one of the attorneys for McLaren. You've heard from the other side. I would respectfully request that you consider exactly what you specifically pointed out, which is the charge today. What Mr. Horton has said and what Mr. Stempien has said and what Mr. Steel has said, those are site plan issues. These are not rezoning issues. Whether or not, as Mr. Stempien just indicated, they could build 15 stories or however many stories. That's not true. The city has an approved site plan which controls what is built on that site. And McLaren has built according to the 2014 site plan. This is not a shell game going on here. All McLaren is doing is seeking to get . . . the only reason we're before you is because the Judge in the order, contra to what Mr. Steel says, Defendant McLaren is directed to follow December 15, 2015 27347 procedures and go through the rezoning process. We're seeking nothing other than the zoning that was put in place in 2010. While Mr. Horton and others may not like the building, it is the building that is approved in the 2014 site plan. So I appreciate you recognizing this is not a "let's redo the site plan" issue. This is a zoning issue and I thank you, and I wish you to move it forward with a positive recommendation to City Council. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Melissa Wegener, 20445 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm the second house south of the McLaren project on the west side. The City of Livonia adopted Ordinance #543, which was written over 40 years ago, to have a plan to protect the residents and the community. Article I states that zoning is a plan for the purpose of protecting public health, safety, morals, convenience, comfort, amenities, prosperity and general welfare of the community, and of a wholesome, serviceable and attractive municipality by having regulations and restrictions that increase the safety and security of home life, that preserve and create a more favorable environment in which to rear children, that develop permanent good citizenships and stabilize and enhance property and civic values. This plan is to regulate overcrowding of land use and the master plan of the City of Livonia are the methods of protection and promoting the general welfare of this community. This was also enacted to regulate and limit the use of buildings, structures and land use for trade and industry. It appears to all of us that the very document the city created means nothing except words on paper. And you were chosen to serve this Commission to uphold and enforce this very document. How many of you have been out to the site in the last couple weeks? Any of you? Mr. Bahr: I have. Mr. Wilshaw: I have. Ms. Wegener: Have you stood on our front porches? Have you stood in our backyards? Mr. Morrow: Ma'am. Ms. Wegener: It's just part of my statement. I'm not asking you to answer the question. Have you ever tried to sleep during the day when you work nights and you hear traffic all night with the noise? I look out my window and I see three Edison, four Edison poles out my front window. That's really attractive to look at. The sound of constant traffic we hear. How does a parking deck create a favorable December 15, 2015 27348 environment according to this article? The parking deck will create even a greater amount of congestion which we already have. We will see an increase in traffic. Our children can't even play out in the front yard. If you've got trucks and semis coming down and cars, you know, the kids can't play out in their own front yards anymore. They will never be able to play in the yard for fear of increased truck and traffic. We will see the glare of car lights that come off that parking deck. There is nothing to block the glare of the lights coming out of this parking deck. The noise and traffic all day as people come to work, leave for lunch, return, then go home as they use this structure. There will be an increase in pollution with car and truck exhaust, and additional noise besides what the manufacturing will bring. There are 70 some windows on the side of the building. I know that doesn't affect this parking structure, but it's additional lighting which will also come along with the parking structure. We've endured this for months. What we really see unfortunately is a disappointment we have in our city officials who have deceived us regarding this project. You knew the zoning was wrong. We brought it to your attention and you continually ignored us. The big business meant more to you than the community who put you into your position. You protect the city. That is supposed to be your job. And the residents. It's a sad disappointment that you don't care about our property, our privacy, our right to peace and quiet, our children and our quality of life. The traffic on Hubbard is terrible and it's going to get worse with this parking. None of this parking exits on Parker. Parker doesn't have any traffic issues at all. It's all on our street, and I hope you think about this. I just can't understand why you would even allow something like that in the community. You've open the gates for more problems. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Ralph Martin, 20336 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm at the south side of McLaren's property. We're kind of rehashing something we did about five years ago. McLaren, when they asked for the original parking, we couldn't come to an agreement. The City Council said, why don't you sit down with them and try to discuss it between yourselves. Which we did and based on the agreement we got with McLaren at that time, we allowed parking behind the wall on the residential area. Also had an agreement that said no further expansion and that was it. It didn't say a parking structure. It didn't say buy up the lots on either side so we have access to more of this property. When the city approved the zoning to R-3, we questioned that. I called the city attorney and asked him about this when this 2014 thing came up. What about the conditional rezoning? He said it means nothing. He said December 15, 2015 27349 they can do whatever they want on their property from border to border and once you agree to that rezoning, even though it was conditional, nothing. I said how is that possible? He said they changed their mind. How can you have a legal contract? Basically, it's like the old handshake. That was a legal contract, binding. It doesn't apply anymore. I'd like every one of you to close your eyes and picture yourself in your backyard enjoying your yard and then open them up, and look up, and see this monstrous structure 26 feet from your fence. And your kids out there playing, maybe going in the pool, having a barbeque. It's way out of place. The original agreement was, they had three buildings, one on Hubbard, the one in the center, the main building, and the other one on Parker. There was no talk about tearing it down at a cost of I don't know how many millions of dollars. But they put a quarter of a million dollars into it, painted it, made it look nice, and then tore it down. They must have got more money from the state. The next thing that's going on, it's not a nuisance. It's an invasion of our privacy. That property was zoned residential in 1969 I think. When McLaren bought it, it was zoned residential and they tried to rezone it several times over the years. The City Council said, well McLaren bought the property. They should be able to use it. The people that adjoin that property, bought their homes based on the fact that they're buying a house next to a residential area and it's going to stay residential. The people that live there are neighbors of McLaren's, or residents of the city. We ask you guys to represent us and we feel, since 2010, that hasn't happened at all. So I asked the city attorney about this conditional rezoning. He said it doesn't mean anything. Why the hell did you even have a meeting? If what we say means nothing, why invite us here? Mr. Morrow: Well, we don't want to debate that. Mr. Martin: Well, that's what I feel. I told them last time, I feel because we're naïve and ignorant or stupid, whatever you want to call it, we don't know what's going on. But Mr. Horton, luckily he had enough money to do this, to hire an attorney to find out about it. And when the courts say it was zoned and it expired, it expired. The city didn't care about that. I want you guys to think about the residents of Livonia. I know you've got $16 million you're spending. A lot of it is State money. And the other thing is, he wants to widen our street now, which none of this came up. It reminds me reactively of handling problems rather than proactively. I appreciate your time and I hope you use this and this when you make your decision. December 15, 2015 27350 Kathryn Bottaro, 20495 Hubbard Street, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm going to try to keep it short because I think we're all ready for bed. So I'm the property right across the street from . . . I'm on Hubbard Street, the first house. So I'm directly in front of their new driveway. Obviously, I can see the structure right from my home and the lights. I've already been pinned in my driveway. I expect that this will only get worse. Just a whole lot of traffic where I'm already a bus route. I literally have had to call the police a few times, 3:00 in the afternoon, the road was just blocked. But it's construction. Moving on, this is not going to stop. It's just going to get more hectic for me. It's one of the openings. I know there's another opening but this is a pretty useable opening for the 250 or so employees that will be becoming in from another area. Not the residents in our neighborhood but employees from a different area. So they'll be using our street and, in fact, as I heard about the potential opening of the street, but for me, it's a hazard and danger. It's not only do I have lights . . . but you know about this. You've known about this when you approved the structure. But at this point, I have to repeat it though. The exit way where's it's coming, not only will I have to see the structure and all the traffic and the lights, but then they also come out, but they come out in front of house where my driveway is. Even though they may not be allowed to turn left, I think that's a possibility, if they turn right, they're still in front of my driveway. I can't get out. So like I said, there have been issues of literally my driveway being blocked by trucks at 6:45 in the morning, unloading. Seriously. And that's going to be the truck entrance. But I agree. I think the thing for me here today is this is a new situation. This is not just review what was said before and go ahead. This was zoned but at this point, it's a new issue because it is a new situation. But I think my issue is, City of Livonia is family friendly and community friendly. I don't see that in this case. I came to these meetings about a year and half ago. I don't see that it's a family oriented situation going on here. Thank you. Mike Folmer: I own the property on Eight Mile Road just west of the development. I guess the only thing I wanted to say was just simply this, and that is, is that Kathy had an issue with some things that were going on in our property about a year or so again after the baby was born, and she came over. She's really upset. Actually it was about Christmastime. And I said, we'll, I'm going to do everything I can to try to solve that. It was an issue with a tenant and lights at night. They happened to be in the snow removal business and so consequently it was very upsetting to her. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, is that to the best of the city's ability, and I don't know if it comes in the December 15, 2015 27351 form of the development folks or so forth. I know you folks have got a tough task. I'm sure that the business owner and the folks at McLaren have spent a lot of time and money doing everything they can to do it all right. It's disappointing when you happen to be a resident or another business owner that pays a lot of taxes, and you find out the city makes a lot of mistakes, but the mistakes have to be corrected favorably to everybody, and from that perspective, I just hope that the city can get involved to try to put together a positive resolution to satisfy everybody. We had a situation to the west of us where a development went in. The city engineer didn't take into account the water drainage. It cost me $10,000 to fix it after the city had put in a dry well because the city didn't have any money to do it right, but I did it right. My point is, that I think it's important that this organization from a planning perspective make the people accountable on the City Council to try and make things right and help the business owner, help the neighbors, and create a positive environment. That's all I have to say. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. I see no one else coming forward. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Ms. Smiley: This evening, the request that has been put before us is a request to rezone a portion of the property at 32233 Eight Mile Road from R-3, One Family Residential, to Parking. What's on the Parking is not really our charge tonight. The question tonight is about rezoning, and I would like to make an approving resolution to that. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-96-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 15, 2015, on Petition 2015-11-01-10 submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 32233 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Parker Avenue and Hubbard Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3 (One Family Residential) to P (Parking), without any conditions, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-11-01-10 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; December 15, 2015 27352 2. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for a transition or buffer zone between residential uses and more intensive industrial uses in the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning allows the areas in question to be developed in accordance with a previously approved site plan, and, 4. That the proposed change of zoning represents a reasonable and logical zoning plan for the subject property which adheres to the principles of sound land use planning. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: Just to reiterate actually what Mrs. Smiley pointed out, which is that we often say when we're dealing with rezoning petitions that what's before us is the issue of zoning and zoning alone, not the site plan or other elements of that particular piece of property. Those are brought to us in separate proposals. In this case, we already have seen the site plan for this. We know what the conditions were for that site plan. Zoning, on the other hand, rarely is approved with conditions here in the city. It's done as a change of zoning and then the site plan is where those conditions are controlled. There were a number of conditions on the site plan for this parking garage which would prevent it from becoming 15 stories in height or any other such change. So with that, we're looking at a rezoning petition. We're looking at it as zoning only and if that zoning is appropriate for this particular parcel. Based on that, that's how we need to make our decision. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. I thank everyone for coming tonight. ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,079TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,079th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 17, 2015. December 15, 2015 27353 On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-97-2015 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,079th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2015, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Bahr, Smiley, McIntyre, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Taylor ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else to come before the Commission? Mr. Bahr: Seeing as this is my last meeting with the Planning Commission after four and half insightful and educational and enjoyable years, I just want to thank you as a Commission and Mark Taormina and Marge and everybody involved, I've got a lot of things I could thank you for but it's been a wonderful experience and I'm going to miss working with all you guys. I know we'll see each other, but just thank you. Mr. Morrow: I've already considered this like a family. We're happy that you're moving forward, but we're kind of sad that you're leaving us. So you'll be sorely missed but I don't think you're going to move out of town, so we'll be seeing each other, but both you and Kathleen have been a tremendous asset to the Planning Commission during my tenure. I appreciate that very much. Ms. McIntyre: I'd just like to say that it's been a tremendous honor to serve on this Commission, not only because of the nature of the work that we do, but I've learned, like Scott has. I've been here a little bit less time but I moved from the Zoning Board, the tremendous work of Mark and the staff, just consummate professionalism, always there to help us, and I've learned so much from my fellow Commissioners, from the Chair, the way you conduct the meetings with fairness and always a sense of integrity in getting the job done. So thank you and I guess you guys are sending some business over to us. Mr. Morrow: You'll have a full plate. December 15, 2015 27354 Ms. McIntyre: We appreciate the employment security, so thank you for that. Mr. Morrow: I almost felt guilty about all the things we've done for the city. What's that old song, Breaking Up is Hard To do, but I guess we've got to. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I too, would like to thank both Kathleen and Scott for their efforts over the years serving on the Commission. It's been a real pleasure. And I'll get to see as much of them as I have in the past couple years which is great. This is a first. I can't recall when two commissioners have moved up to the Council like this. From my perspective, it is very good. Mr. Morrow: We appreciate that. Mr. Wilshaw: I would be remiss in not commenting as well that both Mr. Bahr and Ms. McIntyre have been excellent members on the Planning Commission. They do their homework. They study the issues. This is unprecedented in having two of them leave at the same time. It's a shame but they are going on to bigger and better things. I wish them very well in that. This is also a special meeting in the sense that this is the last one of the year. So I certainly wish our viewing audience and the citizens of Livonia a Happy Holiday and we look forward to a new year with some new commissioners hopefully coming soon and we'll start this all over again. Ms. Smiley: I'm going to say Merry Christmas. You've both been a gift. I appreciate passing it on to City Council. They're lucky to have you. Merry Christmas Livonia. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,080th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 15, 2015, was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. CI 'LANNING COMMISSION -if) 4 ' Ati1/A. — Carol A. Smiley, Se retary d/V7 ,,-" ATTEST: n =�nl hi11-5114W VICE GH/1I1.1119N