Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2016-02-23 MINUTES OF THE 1,083rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 23, 2016, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,083rd 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: Glen W. Long R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Peter H. Ventura Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in 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. ITEM #1 PETITION 2016-01-01-02 LIVONIA OFFICE CENTER Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2016-01- 01-02 submitted by Livonia Office Center pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 28200 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, from OS to C-1. February 23, 2016 27435 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone a single commercially developed property that is located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Lathers. This property is currently zoned OS, Office Services. The request this evening is to change the zoning to C- 1, Local Business. The property is roughly three-quarters of an acre in area. It includes 120 feet of frontage along the north side of Seven Mile Road and 270 feet along Lathers. The site contains a bi-level office building called "Livonia Office Center." This building is roughly 10,542 square feet in gross floor area. The building is rectangular and it is oriented from north to south with the front of the building facing Lathers. The majority of the parking is located between the building and Lathers. However, there is additional parking located on both the north and south sides of the building. To the north, east and west of the subject property are residential homes that are zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. To the south across Seven Mile Road are a variety of commercial properties, as well as residential properties under the R-1 zoning category. There are no current plans to redevelop or modify the site. The purpose of the rezoning is to expand the potential occupancy of the building to include both office and retail uses. Currently, there are 63 parking spaces on the premises. General retail uses typically require parking at a ratio of 1 space for every 150 square feet of useable floor area. When this standard is applied, it requires a total of 56 spaces. Therefore the parking is adequate to accommodate general retail uses. There are other uses that are permitted under the C- 1 category that demand more parking; however, not knowing what those uses are at this time, it is difficult to say whether or not the overall parking would be complied with. The Future Land Use Plan shows this site as Medium Density Residential. In addition to expanding the range of possible uses, the C-1 district would allow for greater signage. It would allow signage at a rate of one square foot of signage for each one lineal foot of building frontage. It would also allow for an additional ground sign on the property that would be 40 square feet and 8 feet in height. Currently, the OS district restricts the amount of signage to only one group identification sign not to exceed 20 square feet in area. It is important to note that any change of use to the category of mercantile may prompt compliance with current building and other barrier-free code requirements. This could involve the requirement for an elevator, as well as restroom upgrades and compliance under the new energy efficiency codes. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. February 23, 2016 27436 Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated January 26, 2016, 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 included legal description on submitted petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing property is assigned an address of 28200 Seven Mile Road. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main, and storm and sanitary sewers. Should renovations to the building require alterations to the existing services, drawings will need to be submitted to this department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. We The second item is a letter dated February 22, 2016, which reads as follows: "I, Adam Stepczynski, am opposed to the rezoning of the 28200 Seven Mile Road building due to the added traffic it would create. We already have enough traffic from the school, park and pool. Crossing the street has become very difficult because of the increase of business that goes on day and night." The letter is signed by Adam Stepczynski, who resides at 28100 Seven Mile Road. 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. Michael Powell, 4700 Cornerstone Drive, White Lake, Michigan. Thank you Chairman. I'm the civil engineer for the owner. I appreciate the input from Mark and from the letter. I'm representing Mr. Chand Marwaha who is here. He is the owner of the property, has been for a number of years. The reason this is before you is because he has been having a great deal of trouble leasing the space out, and he is looking to enlarge his clientele. With full capacity and being able to lease the property with higher rents, he would be able to afford to be able to upgrade the building a little bit and have a little better clientele. Currently, the building is leased out to individual small little tenants just leasing individual office space inside the building. He is looking for a little larger tenant and he believes he could get that with the rezoning to C-1, Local Business instead. That's really the reason he is here because he has some vacancies that he hasn't been able to fill. So he is looking for input from the Planning Commission and giving him some advice. He's here to answer any questions you might have, and I'm here to answer any technical questions you might have. February 23, 2016 27437 Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Does the Commission have any questions? Mr. Wilshaw: What is the current occupancy of the building as a percentage? S. Chand Marwaha, 3665 Valley View Lane, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48323. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, the occupancy right now is roughly about 60, and people come and go because I cannot get a better clientele. If I had a commercial zoning, it would help me to bring a stable clientele. I've been making tax payments, try to keep up the property. It's kept in fairly good condition. People like the building but the affordability is the main concern. With the zoning to C-1, it would give me a little bigger clientele, which I can bring it in and cover my costs. Sixty percent does not cover the cost of mortgage, outside maintenance, lighting. It's very hard to make it happen. I would like the Commission to help me on this so I can improve the tenant base and try to make more upgrades like Mike said, and also to cover the cost. The cost of snow shoveling, salting, overall maintenance, is extremely high. We do a pretty good job of keeping up the building. People like coming to us, but the base of the clientele has changed. I'd like to have it commercial so I can bring more people and get my occupancy to 100 percent. Mr. Wilshaw: To continue on that line of questioning, what sort of potential users are you considering if this was to be zoned commercial? Can you give us an example of what type of business you would be looking to locate in there? Mr. Marwaha: I've owned this building for 24 some years. In the past, it was easy to bring the accountants, the attorneys and doctors. Now the doctors and attorneys have bought their own building. So what I'm getting as clientele is basically sometimes massage therapists. I'm getting barbers. And that's a service industry but this is what I can get to fill the vacancy. Of course, under desperation I've done things which I've shouldn't. I know it is not the zoning under OS zoning. I can bring the commercial base if I'm given. I can fill the building and I can pay the taxes, insurance, and on and on, other expenses. It's very competitive. It never used to be like this but it's awfully competitive. I think creating a wider base will help me to bring the building to 100 percent occupancy and I can keep it going. Mr. Wilshaw: The other question I have for you is that we heard in the correspondence that there's a potential that if the zoning is changed to commercial, that may require that you upgrade the February 23, 2016 27438 facility for barrier-free requirements and some of the other legal requirements that now exist for commercial buildings. Because you have a split level building with stairs that go between the two levels, would you be prepared to make those types of upgrades in terms of possibly an elevator or ramps and other things to accommodate barrier free patrons and customers? Mr. Marwaha: To a point, I think I can do some of the modifications. I have talked to Detroit Elevator. It's very hard to put an elevator there and it's very expensive. The price I got was about $60,000 to $100,000, and that elevator has to be outside. It cannot be inside because the building is not large enough to accommodate the elevator inside. So it's going to be very difficult, but if anybody can do it, I can do it. The cost is one of the concerns. Also, the feasibility. I don't believe that I could put an elevator in that building. There's only four steps going down and four going up. I think most of the people have no problem with that. In the last 24 years, people have accepted the way it is. Of course I don't have the elevator. As far as barrier-free is concerned, I think the bathrooms and other things are pretty much barrier-free in my opinion. Mr. Wilshaw: The reason I say that is a person in a wheelchair who may be going to one of those businesses, four steps is a lot of steps for them. So you need to be aware of that. Mr. Marwaha: That is true. The way it has been handled - I have an accountant who is in my building, a CPA. Mostly there's not many handicapped people coming. If they do, they meet outside the building or they can meet in the lobby. But putting in an elevator will not only be not feasible, but also would be very expensive and it's not practical. The building is not designed to put an elevator inside, and outside, I don't know how it's going to work out. That was the opinion of the Detroit Elevator Company. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions of the petitioner? Mark, as it relates to the barrier-free restrooms and elevators, isn't that a requirement that is handed down to us to incorporate by the State or is this something that we would have any purview over? Mr. Taormina: I think in the case of a requirement for an elevator, that appeal process is with the State barrier-free authority. I'm not sure exactly what it's called. I don't think that's a local decision that can be made here in terms of any deviation or variance. There February 23, 2016 27439 may be certain other requirements that could be considered by the local construction appeal board, but I don't believe that is one that they have authority over. I'd have to verify that with our Inspection Department. Mr. Morrow: What I was trying to bring out is the fact that these types of things are beyond our control. They will have to make those decision on appeal. Mr. Marwaha: But you have to keep in mind the building is about 40 some years old. If I try to do something with that building, it's going to be a real remodeling, especially the elevator. I've tried to get from Detroit Elevator any way I can get one. Their answer to me was, not only is it difficult to put in, the space is not there to put the elevator. If you put it outside, it's not going to be safe. At night nobody is there watching the elevator. So it's not going to be very easy, but if that becomes mandatory, then I will definitely look into this. I'll talk to many other companies. Under the circumstances, what I've been told, not only it's not feasible, but it's not cost effective. In answering your question, there are some handicapped people coming to the building. Yes, they do, but they are very far and few. The people who are my tenants, they generally meet them outside or service them out of the building. But that's once in a blue moon. It's not an on-going thing. Mr. Morrow: We're just trying to point out that there's nothing we can do. We're trying to make you aware of what you'll run into should this pass. Mr. Marwaha: I don't know whether it's going to be covered under a grandfather clause because the building has been so long there, 40 some years. I've owned it for 24 years. Mr. Morrow: Again, that's something . . . Mr. Marwaha: Something has to be looked at it, and hopefully the board and the other people will understand, the age of the building, the structure of the building, that does not give me opportunity to fix, which I could not do today versus 40 years ago. The building wasn't designed for an elevator. It was not designed for all the handicapped. But we have complied with handicap requirements as much as we can, but under the circumstances, an elevator is going to be just about next to impossible. If that becomes a requirement, it has to be worked out either as a variance or we have to ask the company how they can design something. Plus, we would probably need two elevators on both February 23, 2016 27440 sides of the building. You can't just go through that. That's another issue I will have. Mr. Taylor: It's obvious this is an old and tired building. I think actually the OS zoning is the correct zoning for that area, surrounded by residential. Maybe the building is just worn out and has to come down. I don't know. But it's a big gamble to say we'll give you C- 1 and maybe you can put an elevator in, maybe you can't. But I just cannot support any C-1 zoning. I think the OS zoning is the correct zoning. That's what it was originally and I just can't support C-1. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any other questions of the petitioner before I go to the audience? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? If you would come up to the podium, sir. We'll need your name and address for the record. Gary Williams, 28112 Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening also. I'm actually about 50 yards outside the building that we're talking about right now, 28200. It's been a living hell. I'm going to be real honest with you. I thought the City was letting me down for a lot of years on my complaints and calls and everything. I thought the police department was letting me down. I've been working with Officer Painter in the Intelligence Division. He couldn't talk to me at the time I guess. For the last year and a half that building's been under investigation by several law enforcement agencies. Just a lot of problems, a lot of problems. We have a school down the street. We have residents in the area. We have a park down the street within a block. We have the public pool down there. We have a lot of traffic coming in and out. I did make some notes here and I'm going to try to stick to the facts, get done real quickly for you folks. Mr. Morrow: Yes. If you could hold any comments about your dealings with the police department. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I apologize. Again, I said my name is Gary Williams. My wife is Karen Fisher. She also lives at my residence at 28112 Seven Mile. With the schools, the traffic, the park, the pool, the neighborhood, this guy has no respect for. Okay? He talks about everybody likes the building. I have to call on a weekly basis to get the trash bin emptied. There's been many, many violations regarding that, rats and rodents and things in that nature if you will. People in and out all day and all night. He's right. The type of clientele that's coming and going there, very, very undesirable. We can't even sit in our backyard February 23, 2016 27441 anymore. We applied for a fence variance so we could at least have a little privacy if you will. We got turned town. It was a neighbor's choice and I agreed with it. It's fine. It's a hair and nail place on the north end that is so busy, and I'm talking seven days a week. I was hoping even Sundays I could get out and clean my yard without people coming and going and whatever. And now there's one on the south end on the bottom. It just seems like it gets worse and worse and worse, and all these other businesses that burrow in next to it. It's been bad. It's been very bad. I think this gentleman may mean well. Maybe he's not managing it correctly. Maybe he's having somebody else manage it. I don't know, but what is happening there, it's not good for the neighborhood. And I want to go on record. I will fight this in court with this gentleman, which I planned on anyway. I'm against it. And that's where I'm going to leave it, I guess. There's no point going into the law enforcements, the post master general and all this other stuff, and the deportation of a guy that was leasing from you. I don't know if you knew that either. Mr. Morrow: Please talk to the Commission. Just so you're clear, what we're considering tonight is commercial zoning. We really have no control over what is currently. Mr. Williams: I hear you and I appreciate that. What are my rights when he is in violation on the zoning that he's in now when he continues to keep violating? What are our rights? Mr. Morrow: I'm not sure, other than the inspection. Mr. Williams: It's like it's become a full time job and taking a lot of my time, and it's been stressing me out for five years. I pay my taxes on time. It's getting to a point where I'm out walking. They had a 24 hour massage unit in there where people show up at 6:00 in the morning. So I get out there and I chase them away because I know there's a school there waiting for the girls to show up or whatever. They just had two showers put in the basement over there last year. And the only reason I know that is, the guy that was putting them in. I said, well, what do you charge to do work? What are you doing over here, blah, blah, blah. Well, we're putting two showers in over there. What do you need two showers in an office for? Mr. Morrow: I'm sure if you work with City Hall, there's probably . . . . Mr. Williams: I have. And it's getting to the point, like I told the Mayor's Office, he has a legal responsibility as an elected official not to turn a February 23, 2016 27442 blind eye to that corner of the city. It's not the only problem that I have here, but it's the only problem that I'm going to deal with today. But I am very, very against this, and I'm going to fight this to the State. I've already called Lansing. I've made several complaints to them. I thought maybe possibly that . . . and you don't want to think this. You don't want to think somebody's being paid off. You don't want to think the police are just turning their eyes. Mr. Morrow: Let's not get into that. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. And I apologize again but what are you going to do? I live there. Mr. Morrow: We understand that, but I think, based on your comments, you're not in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Williams: No, no, no. And I did take a Valium before I got here. I'm not very good at this. Mr. Morrow: You mentioned you met with the Mayor. I don't know if it is the new Mayor. Mr. Williams: It has been both Mayors to be honest with you. It's been so long. Mr. Morrow: Then just pursue that through the City. Mr. Williams: Well, I'm going to pursue a lawsuit and I'm going to tell you right to your face. Mr. Morrow: No, you just talk to the Commission. Mr. Williams: The problem is, it's in my face every day over there where I have to . . . I'm ex-military myself. I did nine years in service. Every one of my family members and I have to go out here and police my neighborhood because of the issues that we've had with this building over there. It's getting to a boiling point. Mr. Morrow: All your comments are part of the record. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir, and I apologize for upsetting you. Mr. Morrow: I'm not upset. I'm just trying to confine what we're really talking about. Mr. Williams: That's where I'm at. February 23, 2016 27443 Mr. Morrow: So it's part of the record now. Mr. Williams: Yes. I oppose it. Mr. Morrow: I think we got that. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Thank you for hearing me. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Before I close the public hearing on this, does the petitioner have any comments to make, and keep it strictly to the zoning and to the Commission. Mr. Powell: Yes, the owner has asked me to ask the Planning Commission to table this. He has to evaluate what the Planning Commission has discussed. He'd like to work with Mark on some planning issues. He'd like to evaluate what he's heard from the public tonight. Therefore, I think that he has learned a lot about his building. He appreciates the candor and he'd like this tabled tonight by the Planning Commission. Mr. Morrow: Could you restate the reason for the tabling concisely? Mr. Powell: Tabling is to be able to rethink the advantage or disadvantages of the requested rezoning, and he will then make a decision whether to pursue it or withdraw the request with Mark and the Planning Department. Mr. Morrow: We'll see if there's anyone on the Commission that's sympathetic to your request. This is a public hearing. Can you come up with a date certain should it be tabled? Mr. Powell: It could be tabled or postponed until the very next meeting, and it would either be decided to withdraw the request or to continue with the meeting next month. Mr. Morrow: Mark, what would that be should the tabling go through? Mr. Taormina: If it's going on the next meeting, I believe that's March 15. Mr. Morrow: The next regular meeting? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that's correct. Mr. Morrow: Because the public hearing has already been established. February 23, 2016 27444 Mr. Taormina: Yes. March 15 would be the next available date. Mr. Powell: And that would be fine with us. Mr. Morrow: We'll see what the direction is from the Commission. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a denying resolution On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-12-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 23, 2016, on Petition 2016-01-01-02 submitted by Livonia Office Center pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 28200 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, from OS to C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-01-01-02 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject property as "Medium Density Residential;" 2. That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent residential uses to the north, east and west of the subject property; and 3. That the building on the subject property was uniquely designed and intended for office purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. That will afford you the opportunity to rethink what you want to do. When you have another public hearing with the City Council, you'll be in a better position to speak to them as to what your plans are going forward. They will make the ultimate decision. This is just a recommendation. February 23, 2016 27445 ITEM #2 PETITION 2016-01-02-01 WASHINGTON PARK Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2016- 01-02-01 submitted by Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C. requesting special waiver use approval pursuant to Section 20.02A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop a Planned Residential Development (Washington Park) under the Single Family Clustering option on properties at 9449, 9447, 9445, 9443, 9441 and 9439 Hix Road (former Washington Elementary School site), located on the southwest corner of Hix and Ann Arbor Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Taormina: This request is the next step in the review of Washington Park, which is a detached cluster housing development and condominium subdivision located on the site of the former Washington Elementary School at the southwest corner of Hix and Ann Arbor Roads. The subject property consists of six contiguous parcels that are currently owned by Livonia Public Schools. Together, these parcels comprise a total developable land area of roughly 12.5 acres. The rezoning of the property is being considered under a separate petition. On September 22, 2015, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and forwarded an approving recommendation to the City Council for a change of zoning from the current PL, Public Lands, designation to R-1, One Family Residential. The City Council then held its Public Hearing on October 26, 2015 and gave First Reading to the rezoning on November 16, 2015. Adoption of an ordinance that would officially amend the zoning map is on hold pending the Planning Commission's review and recommendation on the waiver use and site plan. Washington Park Site Condominium is being proposed as a single family cluster pursuant to Section 20.02A of the Zoning Ordinance. Clustering is a development alternative that provides flexible design standards to encourage more efficient use of land as a means of preserving additional open space and providing single family development on sites that would otherwise be difficult to develop. This option allows either attached or detached single- family dwellings, and in the case of Washington Park, the petitioner is proposing all detached home sites, very similar to a conventional subdivision. The only difference is that the lot sizes are smaller, both in width and area. While clustering does allow for smaller lots and greater design flexibility, the overall density cannot exceed what would normally be allowed under conventional design standards. So in an R-1 district, the maximum allowable density would be four dwelling units per February 23, 2016 27446 acre. When you translate that over the 12.5 acres of developable land, the maximum yield would be 50 homes. The plan that we're looking at this evening includes a total of 45 homes. Under the conventional design standards, the minimum lot size would be 60 feet by 120 feet or 7,200 square feet per home site. Under the proposed clustering option, there is no minimum lot size requirement. Most of the lots shown on the plan measure between 50 feet to 52 feet in width, are 115 feet to 130 feet in depth, and result in lot sizes ranging from 5,980 square feet to 6,659 square feet. The plan shows the design of the proposed subdivision. Whenever a single family cluster abuts an existing single family residential district, buffering is required by means of one of the following methods. The petitioner would have to provide open space immediately abutting the single family district, or provide significant topographic features, landscaping or a combination, immediately adjacent to the single family district. For this project, the plan shows buffering in the form of landscaping. At the rear of each proposed lot that borders an existing home, the plan shows three evergreen trees. Access to the new home sites would be from Hix Road only. The plan shows two new streets identified as Liberty Drive and Independence Drive that are spaced about 275 feet apart and run in an east to west direction for a distance of roughly 400 feet. Both streets intersect with a street called Liberty Court that extends for a distance of approximately 900 feet in a north to south direction terminating at the south end of the property in the form of a cul- de-sac. At the north end of the development, the plan shows a common open space that extends across the site's entire frontage along Ann Arbor Road, which is a distance of roughly 565 feet. This general common element is about 150 feet in depth and includes two features: First is an open space park area that is about 0.75 acres in size and is located at the east end next to Hix Road. Adjacent to that is a storm water detention basin. As far as setbacks, in the R-1 district, the minimum spacing between unattached dwellings is 10 feet. The minimum front yard abutting a public street is 25 feet. The building envelopes as shown on the preliminary site plan for all 45 lots conform to these minimum yard requirements. Stormwater detention for the development would be in the form of two separate basins of approximately the same size. Because of the uniqueness of this site, drainage must be provided both at the north end of the property as well as the south end of the property. Serving the north part of the development is a basin along Ann Arbor Road. At the south end, a similarly designed basin is proposed along the west property line between Units 31 and 32. Both of these basins February 23, 2016 27447 would be about 6 feet to 8 feet in depth measured from the top of the slope to the bottom of the basin. They would include a permanent pool of water of approximately 4 feet in depth and they would be maintained with 1 on 6 side slopes for both maintenance and to avoid the need for fencing. Landscaping is shown along both the Ann Arbor Road and Hix Road street frontages. In addition to the trees that would be planted at the rear of the homes, the plan shows landscaping along the major road frontages. This includes a variety of deciduous and coniferous full size trees, including white spruce and white pine. A total of 57 Norway spruce trees would be planted along the outer edges of the proposed development in order to screen the cluster home sites from the abutting existing residential properties. As previously indicated, the plan shows an average of about three evergreen trees per lot. Note that many of the abutting single family homes on the west side of the development contain rear yard detached garages. The plan purposely avoids planting trees directly behind the garages. You'll notice how the trees have been arranged at the rear of the proposed lots, which are on the right hand side of the drawing, in relationship to the existing homes that are on the left hand or west side with the common lot line shown between those. The trees will be planted in that landscape belt between the properties, and then there are some gaps between those trees, but those correspond more or less to the location of the garages on the adjacent properties. The petitioner has also provided a copy of the Master Deed and Bylaws for your consideration. I'll just go over a couple of the main items dealing with the building and use restrictions. As is typical for these new developments, we require at least 65 percent of the structures to be either brick or stone for two stories homes and 80 percent for ranches. The minimum square footages would be 1,300 square feet for a one story home and 1,500 square feet for a multi-story home. The petitioner has also provided details on the landscaping as well as typical elevation and floor plans for the homes that they intend to develop on the property. I'll let the petitioner describe those in greater detail. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Just one question, Mark. Was there something about a walkway? Mr. Taormina: Yes. You will recall in our discussion during the rezoning that a walkway runs at an angle between the adjacent subdivision and where the school was previously located. Where the sidewalk exists on the school property, it would be relocated as part of this development. The walkway already exists within the February 23, 2016 27448 adjacent subdivision in a small right-of-way area that was dedicated as part of the subdivision plat. What the petitioner intends to do is connect the sidewalk and extend it due north to Ann Arbor Road, where it would then tie into the existing sidewalk along Ann Arbor Road. So the sidewalk would be retained. It would just be redirected. Instead of going at an angle across the property, it would go due north where it would connect to the existing sidewalk on Ann Arbor Road. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 26, 2016, 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 development at this time. The included legal description on submitted petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing properties are assigned the addresses of 9449, 9447, 9445, 9443, 9441 and 9439 Hix Road. We have been in contact with the owner and engineer for the proposed project, and they are aware of our standards and requirements for any future utilities. The submitted drawings do indicate a general proposed layout for the future utilities, but do not show any calculations so we are unable to determine if the sizing will be appropriate, or if there will be negative impacts to the existing systems. We will provide comments for these systems once we have a chance to review the full engineering drawing submittal. We would like to mention that it appears that the proposed water main exceed the limits for dead-end mains and will need to be revised to meet the current standards. Also, it may be advisable to have a landscaping buffer between the proposed park and detention basin on the north end of the site."The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 1, 2016, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to develop a Planned Residential Development under the Single Family Clustering Option (Washington Park) on the above referenced addressed. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: Minimum diameter of cul-de-sac shall be at least 110 feet." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Senior Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 28, 2016, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petitions. I have no objections to the proposals. I recommend that a stop sign be required at each exit onto Hix Road, one for traffic on Liberty Drive, and one for February 23, 2016 27449 traffic on Independence Drive. I also recommend a yield sign be required on westbound Independence Drive at Liberty Court." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 18, 2016, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley Has there been an increase in the landscape from the original plan that we saw? Mr. Taormina: We've seen various iterations. From the time of the rezoning, absolutely. From last Tuesday, no, there has not been a change. Ms. Smiley: We talked about additional landscaping and there hasn't been any? Mr. Taormina: We did talk at the study meeting about additional landscaping around the detention basin. While the landscape plan does not reflect any additional landscaping in those areas, we have included it within the prepared resolution. Ms. Smiley: Good. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Mark, through the County, is it necessary that they have two detention ponds? Mr. Taormina: It's necessary that they detain the stormwater in accordance with the County regulations, and the only way to do that is to split the site into two drainage districts. When we met very early on this project, we looked at various options for how stormwater could be handled. Through their engineering review of the site, they determined that it was impossible to meet the County regulations unless they provided a basin at each end of the property due to the topography. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Mr. Long: There was talk last Tuesday when we met about some way of making the water move in the detention ponds. Is that part of this as well in order to control for mosquitoes or other pests? February 23, 2016 27450 Mr. Taormina: We did include some language to that effect in the prepared resolution. I had this discussion with the petitioner. I am being told that because of the very permeable soil conditions on this property, that they don't anticipate much standing water in these detention basins. There's a chance that the water will drain through the sandy subsoils and, as a result, may make it difficult to have any kind of water aeration system or fountain. But that is something that we included in the resolution to the extent that it is feasible to do that. Mr. Long: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Enrico Soave, Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C., 37771 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening, everyone. I'm representing the petitioner tonight. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank Mark Taormina, his staff and the department heads in this project. I know we had a handful of revisions with this, but I think we got it right. We think it's a great development. I'm testing my memory over time. I think this project has the optimal and the most amount of open space, green space and landscaping that we ever instilled in a project. We think it is a benefit to Livonia, 45 new lots coming, and we do think it's going to be a benefit to the area as well. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Soave? Mr. Wilshaw: I noticed on one of the plans there is indication that some of the landscaping or the grass is going to be seeded. Is that just for some of the edges, or is that the entire parcel that's going to be done in seed? Mr. Soave: The seed alone looks to be the portion of the right-of-way, the area between the sidewalk and the curb, but usually that's sod. Mr. Wilshaw: The lots themselves would be sodded? Mr. Soave: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: One thing that we looked at when we looked at the landscaping that you're adding around the perimeter of the property, one thing we deal with sometimes with these condominiums and other developments is, we have this stuff installed for a reason. We have berms and other features that are purposely put in there, and then 10, 20 years down the road when the February 23, 2016 27451 Association is fully running themselves, they seem to have memory block or forget that these things were required. The next thing you know, landscaping disappears, berms disappear, fences disappear and so on. So would you have any objection to incorporating into the actual Master Deed and Bylaws that the landscaping as provided needs to be permanently maintained by the Association as approved by us or as you had originally installed it so that we don't have a problem 10 years down the road with a different association or turnover of people who forget that? Mr. Soave: We have no objection to that. I'm not sure if Mark mentioned it, but we did go above and beyond addressing those exact concerns during a couple of our strategy sessions. There's a 12 foot landscaping easement that goes around the perimeter of the property that will be recorded as part of the condominium which prevents any of the homeowners from actually building anything in that easement area and also from tearing down any existing landscaping that shall be there. Mr. Wilshaw: I see. Okay. There was a little bit of concern over the separation between the park area that you are providing for near the entrance and the retention basin itself. It looks like there's a few large trees there. Would it be difficult to add some additional arborvitaes just to create some sort of a barrier there so that a kid playing would be less tempted to cross over? Mr. Soave: That seems to be a reasonable request, an evergreen screen wall between the two. Mr. Wilshaw: Yeah. Just a small one. Mr. Soave: It's a reasonable request. I have no objection to that. Mr. Wilshaw: The playground structure that you're proposing to put into that space, is this going to be a structure that is owned and maintained by the Association? Mr. Soave: Correct. We're attempting to utilize the existing play structure on the land as it sits, but that's something that is going to be explored further once it is disassembled and reassembled. That will be an obligation by the condominium association for that maintenance. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And then they will also carry insurance that would insure the Association in case there was ever an injury or something. February 23, 2016 27452 Mr. Soave: The Association, especially this is a pretty decent size community, will have to carry general liability insurance and maintain that. It's always problematic when the associations, they're set up properly and then homeowners go in there and think they're saving money by not paying their premiums, and then when they go to sell or refinance their house, and the lenders ask them for evidence of liability insurance and they don't have it. It's pretty difficult to refinance your home when there's no insurance on the common areas. So most definitely. Mr. Wilshaw: Will the Association be just maintaining the common area or are they also maintaining the roads? Mr. Soave: It is a proposed public road. The condominium Association will be responsible for the ponds, landscaping in the common areas and also for the open space in the park area. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you have a sense of what the dues for that association would probably be? Mr. Soave: It's hard to tell right now. Usually on the onsite with the inception of selling homes for the first time from a developer to the builder to the actual third party end user, there is an estimation for the capitalization fees and start-up costs, and then after it's turned over to the Association, they set their initial budget. Mr. Wilshaw: I see. Okay. The homes themselves, you said that there's . . . at least we have in our packet a couple potential designs in it that look like colonials. Are you going to have a mix of both colonials and ranches? Mr. Soave: A definite mix. Ranch, first floor masters, colonials. It would be similar models that we just wrapped up a subdivision, Livonia Manor 2, on Seven Mile and Merriman. There was Richfield Estates that was also wrapped up last year, and for the spring of this year, we have Arbor Trail Estates which the Planning Commission approved last year which is already a model up there now. It would be very similar in size and scope. Mr. Wilshaw: Have you found that there's a demand for ranches or certainly first floor masters, I would think, even with a colonial, but what are you seeing the demand for in your housing stock? Mr. Soave: All different areas of the spectrum. We have people retiring that want ranches. We have single people that want ranches, and also a lot of families, like in my instance with an infant at home or you have kids in high school, they want colonials and cape February 23, 2016 27453 cods, especially first floor masters are popular with middle age people that have adolescent children. They get their own room in the first floor and all the children are upstairs. So it's across the board. We're already getting phone calls on this development. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Just a little follow-up to that. Could you give us about what you're planning as far as brick and percentages of the homes? Mr. Soave: The exterior features will be the same that the Planning commission and Council has approved in the past, similar, same models that we've done for Livonia Manor and Richfield Estates and Arbor Trail Estates. Eighty percent brick for ranches, 65 percent brick minimum for cape cods, colonials. Very tasteful elevations. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted that on the record from you. Any other questions of the petitioner before I go to the audience? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Please give us your name and address for the record. Kim Balhorn, 9339 Patton, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I was here a few months ago when you were here. So I want to say in regards to the planning, first of all, I want to thank you for listening to us because since this first conception of selling the Washington land, we didn't feel like we were being listened to especially by the School Board. So I want to thank you and I also want to thank the developer for thinking of us and putting us into consideration. I do have a few questions in regards to this and I'd just like to get some clarity. These homes that you have here, they're not going to be any HUD homes or state homes or anything else where you're going to use this just for residential only? Mr. Soave: Single family residences. Ms. Smiley: You have to address the Commission. Ms. Balhorn: I'm sorry. My question is, if there is going to be any of the . . . and I'm not exactly sure what they're called, but the houses that the State owns where you're going to have maybe low income come in. So that's what I'm looking for is to make sure it's just going to be bought straight out. It's not going to be State homes or anything like that. February 23, 2016 27454 Mr. Morrow: I don't think it is anticipated, but this Commission couldn't give you any sort of a definite answer. Perhaps I'll call the petitioner back to see if he wants to respond to that in any way. Ms. Balhorn: Okay. Mr. Morrow: But we do know it will be single family residential privately financed. Ms. Balhorn: Okay. The second thing is, around the ponds there that are by Ann Arbor Road, is there like fencing or something like that or is that open? Mr. Morrow: Speak to the Commission. Ms. Balhorn: I'm sorry. Is there fencing around there or is that open? Mr. Morrow: It will be landscaped. Ms. Balhorn: There will be just landscape. Okay. The park, is that open to just that Association or the whole neighborhood? Mr. Morrow: We'll have the petitioner respond to that. Ms. Balhorn: Okay. So I need to know that. The structure also. Now I understand from what the petitioner said that there was a play structure that's existing there, which is one play structure. So that's all they're planning on doing. They're not planning on doing any swings or any other structures. If the structure that's currently there, if that is not being able to be transported there, what do they plan on doing in the play area? What do they plan on putting in there? That's what I would like to know. The timing of this ... the other question is, there is a lot of building of houses around in that vicinity. You have not only on Newburgh Road there, just south of Joy, but you also have new construction right on Ann Arbor Road and Newburgh, right on the corner right by Churchill and Ann Arbor Trail. And then there's also more down the street on Ann Arbor Trail. My question is, although this looks very nice, what is it that's going to be attracting people to these houses to make sure that we fill them and it's not going to go empty lots for a long time? I guess that's my thing. Is there a chance that they're going to start building then all of sudden nothing happens and it just stays that way, mud or whatever, for a long time. I guess that's my concern. February 23, 2016 27455 Mr. Morrow: The petitioner indicated that they are even now receiving interest in the homes. They've done a number of subdivisions and individual houses in the City. They have a very fine track record. During the down turn, they were about the only ones able to survive without too much of a problem. I don't even know if the petitioner can tell you how long it would take to fill out the sub, but if he wants to respond to that, he may. A lot of guarantees we can't give you tonight. Only the fact that they will be quality homes and his subdivisions tend to fill up very quickly. Ms. Balhorn: I guess that's it for right now, but for the petitioner, if he could just ask if it's going to be open to everyone around there. Mr. Morrow: We'll have him respond to that. You're opening remarks were very kind, and the Planning Commission would like to take most of the credit for that, but the developer was there and things you saw tonight is what he heard. Outside of tweaking some of the things and consulting on some of the finer points with the City, that's the type of builder you're dealing with. Ms. Balhorn: This is my first go around with dealing with that. I felt very passionate because this is for my kids. So I appreciate that and I appreciate the builder. You know, not only does it say in regards to your building of your facilities, but also to listening to the neighborhoods that you represent. So nowadays with regards to politics and everything, people like to be heard. So I thank you for that. Mr. Morrow: We appreciate your comments. It's part of the record. Anyone else wishing to speak? Jeffrey Nolte, 9386 Knolson, Livonia, Michigan 48150. In regards to the north and south detention ponds, I know when my original well point was installed, water was only 12 feet deep, is where we hit water. So my concern is that, how they were saying that the water would drain if the detention ponds are only 8 to 10 feet, we hit water at 12. So that would be my concern that there possibly could be standing water in those ponds with the mosquito attraction. My other one is, my house and my neighbor's house are on both sides of the sidewalk. My question is, we're retaining the sidewalk. Nobody has ever maintained it. Nobody has ever plowed it, cleared it, besides us. I know the sidewalk that is at the school is no longer there, so it just dead ends at our fence. But that would be a concern, who is going to clear it in the winter or if it will even be cleared. If the sidewalk is going to be installed, can we move it to the south side of the detention pond February 23, 2016 27456 so that way any kids that come through that want to go to the park are not having to go up to Ann Arbor Road and walk on the side of the road because that's only a foot or two off the road and there's no barrier between them and Ann Arbor Road. So if there's just anyway we can move that sidewalk just to the south side because most of the kids, to be honest with you, if they're going to the park, they're going to cut through whatever property or they're going to be cutting through the south side of that pond anyways. They're not going to be going up to Ann Arbor Road. So those are my comments, and like Kim said, I just thank you guys so much for listening to us and giving us the opportunity to speak. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Mark Jones, 9394 Knolson, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I have one question. Are these going to be residential homes, single family homes? Mr. Morrow: Yes, sir. Mr. Jones. Consideration being that these homes have been here and we've maintained them and paying taxes on them. What I would like to see, the homes backing up to my property is ranches. If they're going to put in ranches and colonials, the colonials facing Hix Road have no effect, but you can imagine if you have a backyard and all of sudden you wake up and open your curtains and there's people in the second floor looking down at you. If you're going to have ranches and colonials and tri-levels, all I'm saying is when they build it, and I've been through subs where all of a sudden there's 40 ranches and then all of a sudden there's 40 colonials. So we're not asking for nothing that's outrageous. If you're going to put 12 homes here that back up to Knolson, could they be ranches because that's what is on Knolson, is ranches. It's only fair to take that into consideration because we were there first. I pay taxes. My house is worth a lot of money and it's going to affect the price of my house when I go to sell it and people say, well, who are them people way up there looking at us. Mr. Morrow: You'd be surprised how often we hear that very concern. I'm not sure that we have the power to dictate what goes in there. It will be up to the developer. Mr. Jones: I'm just asking if he could consider that. Take a look at it and see if . . . I don't know. It would be to the builder's disadvantage if he's selling homes. We offer colonials, tri-levels and ranches. They're all different prices. Ranches are the most expensive. I February 23, 2016 27457 mean, I don't know how that would affect him to say we're going to put our ranches on Hix Road and colonials backing up to Knolson. I don't see the disadvantage or advantage to him. It's going to cost the same amount of money to build out, but it would affect us, is my point. Mr. Morrow: We understand. He's already demonstrated he's a good listener. That's as far as we can go. Mr. Jones: All right. I'd appreciate it if he would consider that. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? I appreciate your comments. They are all part of the public record. Would the petitioner like to respond to any or all of that? Mr. Soave: A little further input in regard to the commentary on the park. It is our goal to offer that to Parks & Recreation to be a public park. If they do accept it, we want it to be a public park not having to be maintained by the condominium association, and it will be higher dues to our residents. The first step is to try to make it a public park, and if not, it will be the condominium association's, but I can't stand up here today and say everyone's welcomed or it's restricted to the residents only. That's something that the condominium association will ultimately have to make that decision once they take it over. We're only there for a short time. The people that buy houses in there are there for many years thereafter. Mr. Morrow: But you are working with Parks & Recreation? Mr. Soave: Correct. I did tell Mark that we're going to offer this as a public park and see how they respond. Mr. Morrow: I appreciate that. Mr. Soave: To reiterate, this is a single family residence like any other community we've done that the City of Livonia has approved, and we're open to sell to anybody. Mr. Morrow: I don't want the neighbors to think that those ponds are for holding water. They are only there to restrict the runoff. As the petitioner and the Planning Director indicated, that should manage most of the water and that it would not accumulate there unless we had a 100 year rain or something, but it's all being looked at by Engineering. Mr. Soave: They are shallow ponds. February 23, 2016 27458 Mr. Morrow: And they fall within the purview of not requiring a fence. Mr. Soave: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a follow up question, Mr. Soave. What do you anticipate the price range of the houses in this development to be? Mr. Soave: In the low 200's starting out at. Mr. Wilshaw: Low 200's. Okay. I think it's safe to assume that based on your track record that you've had in the city, you're interest is, if you're going to make the investment in this property, to make the investment in building out these lots, you want to sell them as quickly as you can to capture your profit from the sale of those homes, right? Mr. Soave: Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: So it's definitely in your interest to price those homes at a fair market price that are going to attract buyers and sell them as quick as you can because you're tying up a lot of your resources and funds until those lots are completely sold. Is that correct? Mr. Soave: Absolutely. Just evidence in fact, Livonia Manor 2 that was developed over last winter, 2015. The roads were in in May and 21 houses to date are built. All but one is left with vacant land. So that went quick. Less than a year. Mr. Wilshaw: Clearly, there's been a huge demand for new development, even what little is left in the city is being built out. It seems to be a very desirable community, and I think, frankly, to have 45 news homes in this area, I know there was discussion at our prior meeting about the school district and how things are going for them in this area and the enrollment within the schools. But to add an additional 45 homes to this area, potentially with new families and young kids, can only help better enrollment and in the schools for this area. I certainly don't see it hindering in any way. I appreciate you listening to the residents and trying to accommodate their request as much as possible. Thank you. Mr. Soave: You're welcome. We think there will be a lot of positive energy there. Forty-five new homes in Livonia we think is a big deal. There is still a big demand for people, families to move into Livonia, and I think that's a credit to Livonia Public Schools and the leaders who run Livonia. So thank you. February 23, 2016 27459 Ms. Smiley: I have a question about the play area. If you can't move the structure, what are you going to do? Mr. Soave: At this time, we're looking at different options. Maybe a couple soccer nets, some benches. First, we're going to try to relocate the play structure and then go from there. Our main focus is if this should go through here and through City Council is to get moving soon. That's job one. Ms. Smiley: And you're timing on that would be that you're . . . Mr. Soave: Timing on this would be, if everything goes according to plan, the infrastructure, roads, and houses will be starting in late fall. Ms. Smiley: Did you hear the question about the sidewalk? Is that where it's going, where that gentleman suggested? Mr. Soave: The sidewalk where it is represented on the site plan is the optimal place to put it. There's an easement there for it and it circles around the development rather than right through the development. As you can see, we took the neighbor's concerns to heart. By the same token, we can't compromise the development by doing things that are unorthodox. Forty five home sites, the cost of land, there are big dollars in certain things, like that could be a big impact, especially for future home buyers there. Ms. Smiley: Everyone is always curious about these mosquitoes. If they had standing water, you could do something to it, but the plan right now is you don't think there's going to be enough water standing there. Mr. Soave: Correct. Those aerators, most people think they are little fountains but they are actually aerators. Those have to be submerged a minimum depth or else the pumps burn out and they become non-functional. Unfortunately, Wayne County wants these open face detention ponds to actually accumulate four feet of water below the inlet for the discharge of storm. We don't agree with that, but a lot of things Wayne County does in relation to storm we don't agree with. So that's one thing. They require it and Livonia adopted Wayne County's requirements for storm water so we're stuck with it. As you can see, we don't want two ponds either and the big expense of having two detention ponds but as you can see, it's part of the plan. Ms. Smiley: And to just repeat, you plan a mixture of ranches and two story homes. February 23, 2016 27460 Mr. Soave: Correct. It goes on market demand. Usually, there are about 25 percent ranches in any development we have regardless of how many homes are in there, about 25 percent. A lot of demand for ranches in Livonia. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: If there are no other questions, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Long, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-13-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 23, 2016, on Petition 2016-01-02-01 submitted by Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C. requesting special waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 20.01 and 20.02A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to develop a Planned Residential Development (Washington Park) under the Single Family Clustering option on properties at 9449, 9447, 9445, 9443, 9441 and 9439 Hix Road (former Washington Elementary School site), located on the southwest corner of Hix and Ann Arbor Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, which property is currently zoned PL and is in the process of being rezoned to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-01-02-01 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated January 18, 2016, as revised, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a playscape shall be installed, and if it is decided the existing structure is not useable, one of comparable size shall be installed or a revised plan shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for their review and approval; 3. That Lots 1 through 45 as shown on the approved site plan shall be co-owners of the condominium association and shall be subject to compliance under the Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws of Washington Park Condominium; 4. That the Landscape Plan marked LP-1 dated January 18, 2016, as revised, prepared by Nagy Devlin Land Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that February 23, 2016 27461 additional landscaping shall be provided around both storm water detention basins; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding, except that the detention basins may be hydroseeded with an appropriate wetland seed mixture; 6. That the Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws shall incorporate language satisfactory to the City regarding the use and maintenance of all general and limited common elements, including the open space park area, landscaping (including all rear yard trees), and the storm water detention basins; 7. That streetlights and sidewalks shall be installed throughout the development to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division; 8. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in the Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws and the requirements set forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail and the petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; 9. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws or a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owner's property pro rata and place said charges on their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia; 10. That the final recorded copy of the Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws shall comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, and that all building and use restrictions shall incorporate the following requirements: - That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four (4) sides; February 23, 2016 27462 - That the total amount of brick or stone on each two- story unit shall not be less than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story dwellings; - That all exterior chimneys shall be brick; and -. That the brick used in the construction of each unit shall be full face four inch (4") brick; 11. That the developer shall install aerators and/or fountains in the storm water detention basins unless it is determined by the Engineering Division to be unfeasible or impractical; 12. That only a conforming entrance marker is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 13. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 14. That the Developer and Condominium Association shall implement an effective and ongoing mosquito control program as approved by the Department of Public Works. The program shall be included in the Master Deed and Condominium Bylaws and shall describe maintenance operations and larvicide applications; 15. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; 16. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development; 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 February 23, 2016 27463 approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. This approval is granted on the basis that allowing the development of the condominium subdivision under the Single Family Clustering option provides a more efficient use of the land to better address the site's natural bifurcated drainage boundaries resulting in the need to construct two (2) storm water detention basins, and the addition of a useable open space play 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. Taormina: There was a reference earlier to the use of sod throughout the development. The only exception we would allow to that would be areas within the detention basins. Oftentimes we create a naturalized landscape along the lowest parts of the basins, which are seeded sometimes, but everything else that's disturbed on the site should be replaced with sod in lieu of hydroseeding. I would like to add that condition. Mr. Morrow: We'll ask the maker of the motion. Mr. Long: Sure. Would we . . . Mr. Taormina: I would incorporate that language. Mr. Long: I would allow for that to be added. Mr. Morrow: And the supporter. Mr. Taylor: Fine. Mr. Taormina: I guess the only other issue is the play structure. Since the play structure is shown on the plan, we would view that as a required element of the site plan. The petitioner indicated this evening that if the relocation of the structure doesn't work out, he's not sure what he's going to do. So I would submit that it is a requirement because it is shown on the plan, unless you want to provide certain language in tonight's resolution that would allow some flexibility in the design of the open space area or require him to come back should the plan change and a play structure not be provided within the open space park area. But as far as I February 23, 2016 27464 view it, the play structure as shown is a required element of the site plan and must be constructed. Mr. Morrow: Now would that still hold up if the City were to take the park? Mr. Taormina: No. The City would then decide how to utilize that open space. That would be under the circumstance that this would remain as an association obligation. Mr. Morrow: I'm sorry, ma'am, but the public hearing is closed. We have to wrap it up. Ms. Balhorn: Okay, I understand. I just want to make sure that you know this has been going on for a year and a half. Mr. Morrow: We understand that. Ms. Balhorn: And that park was a big thing. Mr. Morrow: We understand that. Now, where were we? He said that once he dismantled it and it was satisfactory, they would re-install it. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Morrow: I guess the question is, if it's not satisfactory, is it his intent to put a new one there or do we delete it from the site plan and let him figure out what type of playground structure he wants to put in. Mr. Taormina: I would think, at a minimum, should the structure not be suitable and they want to replace it with some other form of improvement, it would have to come back for your consideration. Mr. Morrow: Why don't we do that? Should the Parks & Recreation Department decline on taking over the park, the petitioner would come back and meet with the Commission relative to what his plans are in the play area. Mr. Long: If the existing play scape does not work. Mr. Morrow: I think his intent is to use it, but if he can't . . . Mr. Long: If that worked, he would not have to come back here. So yes, I would be willing to amend my resolution to incorporate that. Mr. Taylor: That's fine. February 23, 2016 27465 Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, have we nailed it? Mr. Taormina: I think so. Mr. Wilshaw: I was just going to throw in one more thing since we're making changes. If it's okay with the maker of the motion, we could incorporate some sort of language as part of the Master Deed and bylaws that they would incorporate a mosquito control program if there is going to be standing water in the ponds. think we've done this in the past, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina: Yes, we have and we have the language that we can add to the resolution. Mr. Long: Would that be best included in #4 or#9? Mr. Taormina: We would actually provide that as a separate item. Mr. Wilshaw: If the maker would consider that. Mr. Taylor: Usually the County takes care of that, but that's okay. Mr. Long: The maker of the motion would consider that. Mr. Morrow: I think we have it. I want to thank Mr. Long for volunteering for the reading of that. It is much appreciated and it should be acknowledged. Please call the roll. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you for coming tonight, as well as the members of the neighborhood. ITEM #3 PETITION 2015-12-03-02 SCHOOLCRAFT COLLEGE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 12-03-02 submitted by Schoolcraft College, pursuant to Council Resolution #41-15 and Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate the existing sanitary sewer, storm water and water main easements at 39201 Seven Mile Road, located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7. February 23, 2016 27466 Mr. Taormina: This petition is to vacate certain utility easements, and it has been submitted by Schoolcraft College at the request of the City's Engineering Division. It is an offshoot from the recent acquisition of what is now the Jeffress Center and the completion of numerous site and building improvements to that property. This is located right at the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads. The zoning of the property is PL, Public Lands. The size of the land is about 9.4 acres. The easements in question include sanitary, storm and water service. The subject utilities serve only the college now and no other entities or properties. Thus, it is no longer required to be under public domain. Upon approval of the ordinances that would vacate these utilities, Schoolcraft College would assume full ownership and maintenance obligations of the utilities. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please. Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 18, 2016, 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 easement vacations at this time. The included legal descriptions that were included with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The property is assigned an address of #39201 Seven Mile Road. It should be noted that the private utility companies should be contacted to determine whether they may have facilities located within the existing easements. If private utilities are to remain in their existing locations, the owner may need to provide new private easements to the affected utility company."The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from DTE Energy, dated February 19, 2015, which reads as follows: "In response to your letter dated January 21, 2016, this is to inform you that the DTE Electric Company presently has no facilities in the public utilities easement, documented as Grant of Easement, recorded in Liber 20874, Pages 560 through 561. See attached sketch provided by the City of Livonia indicating the area of the public utilities easement. The metes and bounds legal description is described in the Grant of Easement. As this is not a DTE Electric Company easement agreement, we do not have the authority to vacate this easement. Thank you for your assistance in this matter." The letter is signed by Susan M. Campian, Right-of-Way Facilitator, Western Wayne Service Center. That is the extent of the correspondence. February 23, 2016 27467 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Is there any type of presentation, other than what we've heard so far? Mr. Taormina: John Wright from Schoolcraft College is here this evening and he can answer any questions you might have relative to this petition. It's pretty much a housekeeping matter, again at the request of our Engineering Division. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Yes, sir. John Wright, Executive Director of Facilities Management, Schoolcraft College, 18600 Haggerty Road. Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening. As was stated, Schoolcraft purchased this property several years ago. What really prompted this vacation is the southeast entrance to the building became a main entrance for us. When we purchased the building, there was about a seven foot elevation change between the finished floor and the height of the parking lot asphalt. We wanted it to be ADA accessible, and we wanted it to do without it appearing to be ADA accessible. That meant we had to come 110 feet out from the building to make a sidewalk area where the incline would be such to accept all ADA. In doing that, the water main runs very close to the building. That meant it would have been about 14 feet below grade by the time we got done with our changes and alterations. The water line was probably from about 1980, and we were not real comfortable in leaving an older line and putting it at that depth. The means to try to repair it would have been one big hole. So we moved it out from the building, and at that time, that changed what the easement was going to be. We were told that really the preference would be, it is now Schoolcraft College property. It only serves Schoolcraft College and so we should abandon the easement, and we would assume the responsibility and care for those utilities. And so we've accepted to do that. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr. Wright? You did a very fine job explaining what it is. 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 Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-14-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 23, 2016, on Petition 2015-12-03-02 submitted by Schoolcraft College, pursuant to Council Resolution #41-15 and Section 12.08 of the February 23, 2016 27468 Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate the existing sanitary sewer, storm water and water main easements at 39201 Seven Mile Road, located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-12-03-02 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the subject utilities are no longer needed for public purposes; 2. That it is understood by the property owner that maintenance of the subject utilities will no longer be the responsibility of the City; and 3. That no reporting City department or public utility has objected to the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, just one comment to the gentleman from Schoolcraft. You really did a nice job on the Conway Jeffress building. Cutting down those trees really showed off the building, and it looks much nicer than it did many years ago. So congratulations on that. 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 #4 PETITION 2016-01-06-01 LANGUAGE AMENDMENT C-2 DISTRICT REGULATIONS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2016- 01-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, on its own motion, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article XI, C-2 District Regulations, of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to allow indoor, climate-controlled self-storage facilities as a waiver use under Section 11.03. February 23, 2016 27469 Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment stems from a recent rezoning petition involving the former Cloverlanes Bowl property on Schoolcraft Road. It was on January 26, 2016, that the Planning Commission rejected a request from Michigan Property Group, potential buyers of that property, for a change of zoning from C-2, General Business, to M-1, Light Manufacturing, in order to enable the construction of an indoor, climate controlled self-storage facility. As an alternative to the rezoning, the Planning Commission, on its own motion, determined to hold a public hearing on whether a better approach would be to simply allow climate-controlled self- storage facilities in the C-2 District. Currently, warehouses in any form are permitted only in industrial districts. The proposed language amendment would allow climate controlled self- storage buildings in C-2 districts, subject to waiver use approval. By treating the use as a waiver, the City is afforded maximum control over the design and location of such facilities. The proposed draft amendment was prepared by staff with input from the Planning Commission, and includes several special land use conditions that must be met in order to obtain final approval. Typically, indoor, climate-controlled self-storage buildings are multiple stories in height. In the C-2 district, the maximum building height is two stories. Key aspects of the ordinance include the following. (1) That the building must be constructed of maintenance-free materials, such as brick and stone, and designed to be architecturally compatible to other commercial buildings in the area. (2) Customer access to the storage units would be limited to the interior of the building in order to eliminate or reduce the number of exterior overhead doors. This would in turn reduce possible disturbances to neighbors as well as make the building appear more like an office building. (3) Only one storage building would be allowed per site. (4) The hours of operation would be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for the storage building. (5) And the storage units would be for storage purposes only. I know it sounds redundant but no business, hobbies, recreation activities, manufacturing, assembly, etc., would be allowed to be conducted within the storage units, and no storage units could contain any hazardous or dangerous materials. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions. We do not have any departmental correspondence on this item, but it has been reviewed by our Law Department and our Inspection Department. Mr. Morrow: Any questions of the Director? 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. February 23, 2016 27470 On a motion by Long, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-15-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on February 23, 2016, on Petition 2016-01-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, on its own motion, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article XI, C-2 District Regulations, of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, to allow indoor, climate-controlled self-storage facilities as a waiver use under Section 11.03, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-01-06- 01 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment would allow indoor, climate controlled self-storage facilities in a more appropriate zoning classification; 2. That the proposed language amendment would afford the City maximum control over the design and location of such facilities; and 3. That the proposed language amendment is in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2015-12-02-27 VALUE CENTER MARKET Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015- 12-02-27 submitted by Value Center Market requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with the grocery store at 27428 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Inkster Road and Dolores Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12. February 23, 2016 27471 Mr. Wilshaw: Just as a point of order, I'm going to make a motion to remove this item from the table. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-16-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 2016, on Petition 2015-12-02-27 submitted by Value Center Market requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with the grocery store at 27428 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Inkster Road and Dolores Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the table. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: This item has already had its public hearing. It was tabled to this date because the petitioner wanted to have his attorney present. I'm going to see if Mr. Taormina has any remarks. Mr. Taormina: I'll just recap briefly what it is we're considering tonight. This is a request to utilize an SDD liquor license at the Value Center Market located at the northwest corner of Six Mile and Inkster Roads. The market currently utilizes an SDM license. SDM stands for Specially Designated Merchants license which allows for the sale of packaged beer and wine products for consumption off the premises. The SDD license is a Specially Designated Distributor license and would allow for the sale of packaged spirits for consumption off the premises. This is typically treated as a quota license. The City is restricted to a certain number of these licenses. This is our first request that would involve the intra-county transfer of a license, meaning that it would come from outside of the community. This is something that the State allowed a couple years ago, and it is subject to City approval under waiver use provisions. It would introduce an additional license above the current quotas of licenses in the community. We heard concern expressed regarding the proximity of this proposed license to an establishment directly across the street called Belly Busters. They carry an SDD license and, in fact, the distance between the two buildings is less than what the ordinance requires. It requires a separation of at least 1,000 feet between any existing SDD licensed establishment and any establishment proposed to February 23, 2016 27472 carry a new license. In this particular case, the separation between these two buildings is roughly 480 feet, so it is within that separation requirement. That special requirement would have to be waived by a two-thirds majority of vote of the City Council in order for this to pass. Other special requirements in terms of how the products are displayed and the proximity to any church or school buildings, this petition meets those requirements, but it does not meet the separation from an existing SDD license. That's where we're at and with that I'll answer any questions you may have. Mr. Morrow: If there are no questions, I'll go to the petitioner. Is the petitioner not here tonight? Mr. Taormina: We tabled this to a date certain, did we not? Mr. Morrow: That was double checked as a matter of fact. Ms. Smiley: And they were notified? Mr. Morrow: In that case, I know the owner is here and his representative from the Belly Busters establishment. We heard last week all the reasons why they were not comfortable with the petition. As a matter of fact, they objected very strongly. I will allow a recap. Colleen Pobur, Pobur Consulting, LLC, 240 North Harvey, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and panel. I am a consultant representing David Arafat who is the owner of Belly Busters. If you want me to recap everything we said last time, I'm glad to do it. If it's not necessary, I don't think it's necessary, but Mr. Arafat has also been letting his customers know what's going on and he's collected some signatures on a petition. I'd just like to share that with you if that's okay. Mr. Morrow: That would be fine. Ms. Pobur: He has signatures from over 30 people. I'll give one to you. Mr. Morrow: We will enter that into the record. We do have all of your comments as part of the public hearing. Ms. Pobur: Yes. Unless you want me to recap, I don't see the need. Mr. Morrow: No. Ms. Pobur: And I have some copies of that petition if you all would like those. February 23, 2016 27473 Mr. Morrow: I think I said we would remember everything you said. Ms. Pobur: You're magnificent. Ms. Smiley: There is also correspondence from a Donald Kleinknecht. Should we add that into the record? Mr. Taormina: I apologize. Yes, we should most definitely read that into the record. This is an email correspondence from Donald Kleinknect, dated Thursday, February 18, 2016, as it reads as follows: "Will the City be running the little guy, Belly Busters Liquor and Pizza, out of business by allowing a third business to sell liquor in this immediate area? A perfect example would be Fitness 19. They have reduced their joining fee from $19.00 to a measly $1.00 since the Planet Fitness's new location was approved. IMO Fitness 19 will soon go out of business leaving another store front vacant."Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Wilshaw: In lieu of the petitioner not being here and having no additional information, I'm going to offer a denying resolution. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-17-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 2016, and February 23, 2016, on Petition 2015-12-02-27 submitted by Value Center Market requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with the grocery store at 27428 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Inkster Road and Dolores Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 2015-12-02-27 for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That this part of the City is currently well served with SDD licensed establishments selling packaged alcoholic beverages; February 23, 2016 27474 3. That there is no demonstrated need for an additional SDD license in this area of the City; 4. That the proposal is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, are intended to insure suitability and appropriateness of uses; and 5. That the proposal is in conflict with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not to oversaturate an area with similar uses. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. I'm going to ask that the petitioner be informed he has 10 days in which to appeal our decision to the City Council in writing. It was unfortunate he wasn't here, but we weren't going to do it three times. ITEM #6 MOTION TO HOLD A LANGUAGE AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING P DISTRICT REGULATIONS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article XIII by removing Section 13.03(d) of the P District Regulations. Mr. Morrow: We need a motion. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously approved, it was #02-18-2016 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, on its own motion, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Article XIII by removing Section 13.03(d) of the P District Regulations. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Article XXIII of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. February 23, 2016 27475 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,082"d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,082nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 26, 2016. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-19-2016 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,082nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 26, 2016, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, Smiley, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Ventura ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,083rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 23, 2016, was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. CITY PLANNING CO ISSION Cleo/a Carol A. Smiley, :ecretary 4 . l ATTEST: • 0 . R. Lee M.mow, C irman