Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,223 - Decembe 3, 2024 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,223rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,223rd Public Hearing and Regular Meetings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. lan Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Members present: Wafa Dinaro Patrick Droze Glen Long Peter Ventura Members absent: Peter Ventura Sam Caramagno David Bongero Ian Wilshaw Mr. Jacob Uhazie, Planning Director, and Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw 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 2024-10-03-02 Andrea/Benjamin Edwards Mr. Bongero, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2024-10-03-02 submitted by Andrea and Benjamin Edwards, pursuant to Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate portions of an existing storm drainage easement at 18586 Comstock Avenue, located on the southeast corner of Comstock Avenue and Jay Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 8. Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: December 3, 2024 31703 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request to vacate portions of the private storm drain easement located between Six and Seven Mile Roads just west of Levan Road on the southeast corner of Comstock Avenue and Jay Avenue. The existing easement runs along the entire rear property line and encompasses the rear 30 feet of the petition parcel located in the Gold Manor subdivision. The request is to vacate the South 40 feet and East 30 feet of Lot 239, of the Gold Manor subdivision. A letter with the petition application stated the vacated area would be used to accommodate a utility shed of less than 200 square feet in the southeast portion of the property. They also submitted a drawing that kind of shows the general layout of what they are intending to do, and another site plan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 21, 2024, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to the October 28, 2024, request from Andrea and Benjamin Edwards, the Engineering Division has reviewed the easements and utilities located on the property in question. We have determined that the request for the vacation of a portion of the private storm drainage easement is acceptable. As stated in their letter, The width of the easement on the abutting property to the rear, render the easement much larger than needed for maintenance operations, and the existing trees and slope on the property would hinder the City from being able to traverse that section of easement in question. In order to proceed, the Engineering Division respectfully requests that the Planning Commission do all things necessary for the vacation of the following storm drainage easement: That portion of a thirty (30) foot wide storm drainage easement being more particularly described as follows: The south forty (40) feet of the east thirty (30) feet of Lot 239, Gold Manor Subdivision No. 3, a subdivision located in the North % of the of Section 8, T. 1 S., R. 9 E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan as recorded in Uber 91, Pages 100 thru 103 inclusive, Wayne county Records. A map with the original easement to be vacated is attached:"The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated November 26, 2024, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated November 15, 2024, which reads as follows: "Taxes and water bills are current" Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Dinaro: Mr. Uhazie: Ms. Dinaro: Mr. Uhazie: Ms. Dinaro: December 3, 2024 31704 The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Are there any questions for the Assistant Planning Director? A couple questions. So is the easement for the drainage, or is it for utilities? Engineering said it's too large anyway. There are actually two easements. There is a utility easement, I believe, but this petition is for the storm water easement that's in the rear of the property. So, the storm water drain is actually located on the adjacent property here, but the easement extends into the petition property. Got it. Is that easement across all of the neighbors? I assume it would be. It goes the length of the drain down to the south. And then the other comment from the from the engineer, he clarifies how he wants us to refer to the legal description in the resolution? Mr. Uhazie: We can update it to reflect the one identified by engineering. Ms. Dinaro: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: Good questions. Thank you. Any other questions for planning staff? Questions for planning staff? It looks like our petitioners in the audience, feel free to come forward to our podium here. We'II see if there's any questions for you. First, we welcome you to our meeting. Good evening. Andrea and Ben Edwards, 18586 Comstock, Livonia, MI. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you for being here tonight. And is there anything else that you'd like to tell us about your request before we see if there's any questions for you. Ms. Edwards: The shed, it'll be on the northern part of the east, and I think there's like 60 feet, and there's like 30 on the storm green, and then another 30 on to our yard. So, it'd be the furthest east piece of the yard so it wouldn't really impact the storm drain. The shed would not be in front of the neighbor's house who just wrote that. But if you've taken a look at his house, we've looked at his house for 16 years, so where he rounds up the entire yard every year with dirt and lots of legal issues over there. So, he complains December 3, 2024 31705 about absolutely everything. Our children are not allowed to touch his grass, like if they step on his grass. He screams at all the neighbor kids. Mr. Wilshaw: Understood. Is there any questions from any of our commissioners for the petitioner? Mr. Bongero: Good evening. I walked it today, and I walked that whole storm drain, and there's on the, I say, on the north side of the drain, there are a couple homes that have, like, patios and gazebos all the way up to about where you want to go, maybe even further. So, it's not... there are structures down there. And at first, when you go look, it looks like your property goes down into the storm drain, but it really doesn't. But my question was, how far back from your property line are you going to move the shed off...from the back property? Ms. Edwards: As far up as we can? Mr. Bongero: So, typically, it's like six feet minimum, I believe, off a rear lot. Are you guys going to try to stay to the rears or are you going to go up a little more? You know what I'm saying? Ms. Edwards: No, we're going to go up as far as we can. There's also electrical easement right there, so we're aware that there's another five foot. We're going to make sure we stay south of that but pretty much up to that. Mr. Bongero: That's excellent. I did speak to the building department, and they have no issue at all with this. So, after I talked to them, and after I walked it, I don't see an issue with this. On my behalf, I feel like it's a reasonable petition. Ms. Edwards: Would a neighbor complaint stop it? Mr. Wilshaw: Not necessarily. Public comments are always welcome, either for or against. Sometimes people write us in support, sometimes they rise in opposition. But we do take those things into consideration as we make our decisions. But that's not necessarily a determining factor. Ms. Edwards: Like we said before, we have to be able to put this new zero turn somewhere. It doesn't go in the garage. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions from any of the commissioners for our petitioner? Questions? is there anyone else in our audience wishing to speak for or against this item? No one's coming Mr. Edwards: Ms. Edwards: December 3, 2024 31706 forward. I do have one question that I'm going to ask. You shed, I assume you're going to get permits for this through the building department? It'll have, I believe, usually there's a rat wall needed things like that. So you're going to follow all the requirements. This isn't just going to be plopped on the grass, right? Correct. I have the list of the requirements already. We're probably going to hire somebody to set it, you know, the rat wall, and we'll make sure everything's level and set to code. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Okay, very good. Thank you. If there's no further questions anyone, then a motion is in order. On a motion by Long, seconded by Dinaro, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-63-2024 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on December 3, 2024, on Petition 2024-10-03-02 submitted by Andrea and Benjamin Edwards, pursuant to Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate portions of an existing storm drainage easement at 18586 Comstock Avenue, located on the southeast corner of Comstock Avenue and Jay Avenue in the Northwest '/4 of Section 8, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2024-10-03-02 be approved subject to the following conditions and for the reasons stated below: 1. The portion of a thirty (30) foot wide storm drainage easement being more particularly described as follows: The south forty (40) feet of the east thirty (30) feet of Lot 239, Gold Manor Subdivision No. 3, a subdivision located in the North %2 of the of Section 8, T. 1 S., R. 9 E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan as recorded in Liber 91, Pages 100 thru 103 inclusive, Wayne County Records. 2. This portion of the storm drainage easement is unnecessary for utility purposes. 3. Vacating will allow the Petitioner to construct a utility shed that complies with the required yard setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. No reporting City department or public utility has objected to the proposed vacating. Ms. Edwards: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: December 3, 2024 31707 FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Do we come back up on the 18th? You will not need to come back. We're going to make our decision right now and you will move forward with that decision. You'll be contacted when it moves on to City Council. City Council makes the final determination. Yeah, what happens is, once we make...we're recommending an approval or denial that goes to City Council. City Council will schedule a meeting as well. We don't know when that'll be though. It's based on their calendar and their schedule, but they'll notify you, and they'll have a study meeting and a regular meeting, just like we did. Ms. Edwards: Well, we should attend that meeting in case they have questions? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, certainly. Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2024-10-08-08 Soha Kadry Mr. Bongero, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2024-10-08-08 submitted by Soha Kadry, requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 3.10 and 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to renovate the commercial building and covert into a multi -tenant retail center at 17230 Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road between Six Mile and Curtus Roads in the Southwest % of Section 10. Mr. Uhazie: This request is to expand and remodel an existing commercial building, into a multi -tenant retail building. It's located on the east side of Farmington Road, between Six Mile and Curtis Roads. The property measures 150 feet by 230 feet, for total area of 34,500 square feet. The current zoning is C-1 (Local business). It was originally developed in 1971 as a medical office building and had several additions add on. The existing building is a one-story retail building, which is 4,969 square feet. The site borders C-1 properties to the north, east and south. West, across Farmington December 3, 2024 31708 road is N2 (Neighborhood). Access to the site is provided by several existing drives located in the southwest of the property to Farmington Road, and also via a shared drive to two existing driveways on the north side of the site and cross access is also available to the adjacent southern property. Required front yard setbacks for a building in C-1 district is 15 feet. The existing building is located approximately 72 feet from Farmington Road. The rear side minimum setbacks are eight feet from another commercial district. The rear yard setback of the existing building is 96 feet. It has a side yard setback of 25 feet from the north and 35 feet from the southern property line. As part of the petition, the drive-thru on the east side of the building would be removed and replaced with an additional row of parking. The building would be split into four retail suites labeled A through D and a landlord room for a total building area of 5,012 square feet, and then going from north to south. There is suite A listed at 688 gross square feet. Suite B is listed as 1,596 square feet. Suite C measures 1,338 square feet, and suite D is listed as 1,020 gross square feet. Located behind suite A are the two landlord rooms that are accessible through the rear of the building for a total of 370 gross square feet. Since our last meeting, the petitioner has submitted updated elevation drawings that are presented here. A new elevation plan shows that the front facade has a new entryway with taller storefront windows on the western face of the building. A rear access door is provided in the rear of suites B, C and D. The facade brick would be removed and replaced with dark gray colored brick. The parapet design has been simplified and now shows a stucco finish across a uniform height of eight feet and two inches. Surrounding the parapet is a dark gray brick metal finish from the original design. Existing bricks on the east, south and north elevations are shown to be painted dark gray. The three new metal doors would be painted in the back, and the existing rear door would be painted dark gray. A new parapet is shown in dark gray break metal finish as well. The plan shows four wall signs of unspecified size. Retail centers having four or more units are permitted one wall sign for each unit based on one square foot for each one lineal foot of unit frontage. As an addition, the site plan shows a pylon sign is proposed next to the existing shared drive in the northwest corner of the property. The site is permitted one ground sign, not to exceed 40 square feet in area, eight feet in height and a minimum setback of 10 feet from any right of way. No additional details are provided about the pylon sign. The required parking for general retail is based on a ratio of one space for each 150 square feet of usable floor area. The zoning ordinance would require 27 parking spaces, and the site plan shows 51 available parking spaces. The landscape plan requires no fewer than four full size trees, two ornamental trees Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: December 3, 2024 31709 and 26 shrubs, which are required along the site's road frontage. The site does not have available space between the right of way and the parking lot and the petitioner was able to add the required landscaping elements in other parts of the site, including new curbside landscaping islands along Farmington Road. There is also a new dumpster shown on the site plan, which is located in the southeast corner of the site, but no additional information is provided on the enclosure. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 20, 2024, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time, but would like to note the following items: 1. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #17230 Farmington Road. Should additional addresses be needed, the Owner will need to contact this Department once permitting has been completed. 2. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main, and private storm sewer. The submitted drawings do not indicate any proposed utility alterations, so we do not believe there will be any impacts to the existing systems with the proposed project. 3. Any disturbances with the Farmington Road right-of-way will require permits through the Wayne County Department of Public Service." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 19, 2024, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to modify a commercial building on the property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: With no clear indication of who or what tenants will occupy this building, consideration for: Sprinkler suppression system, fire alarm(s), increase in hourly fire rating of walls separating occupancies, and separation distances must be considered. Especially, with the storage or involvement, of lithium ion batteries. A further detailed plan review will take place when this division receives an official plan set" The letter is signed by Brian Kukla, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 21, 2024, which reads as follows: `1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Paul Walters, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated November 26, 2024, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the address connected with the above noted December 3, 2024 31710 petition. The following amounts are due to the City of Livonia: Unpaid water and sewer charges: $ 462.43 Total Due City of Livonia $ 462.43"The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated November 26, 2024, which reads as follows: "As of today, the property owner owes the city $8,591.72 in back taxes." The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Uhazie. Are there any questions for our planning staff? Mr. Bongero: With regard to the back fees, water, sewer and taxes, have they made...has anything become of that? Mr. Uhazie: I'm not aware of anything, but we did just contact them after the holiday, so they had a day to respond. Mr. Bongero: Okay, when were the back taxes from, do you know that? Mr. Uhazie: It does not say. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bongero, any other questions for staff? Mr. Droze: I guess a question...I'm looking at the screen, and it appears this is different than what's in our packet in terms of the site plan. Is that accurate? Mr. Uhazie: Yeah, it's slightly they did send an updated one after the packets went out. Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Okay, do they have hard copies that they could share, or... The petitioner I believe, is here. I don't know if they have hard copies. So, I guess the site plan, the landscaping plan, looks like it's been modified slightly, and then architecturally, some tweeks too? The biggest thing is the change from the facade. Yeah. Okay. They also provided the color renderings, which I do believe they have a poster of if they want to present that. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Wilshaw: December 3, 2024 31711 Yeah, we'll see that when we get to the petitioner's presentation. Any other questions for planning staff? Nothing. Okay, great. Anyone else with questions for staff? All right, if not for petitioners in the audience, feel free to come forward. We're going to start with your name and address. Please.You can set those up there. Camera crew will be able to get those on TV as well. Thank you. Scott Monchnik, 5430 Sunnycrest Drive, West Bloomfield, Michigan. I am the architects that are working with Soha and Samira, the clients and owners of the building, regarding the property at 17230 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan. The existing building was previously a bank, as discussed. It's been sitting vacant since about 2010. My clients, Soha and Samira, purchased the building last year, 2023. They're planning to remodel the building and converting it into a mini strip mall. The property is zoned C-1 (Local business). Retail is a permitted use in a C-1 zoning. My clients plan to demolish the interior of the building back to the perimeter walls. As part of the demolition, they are planning to remove the drive through and the drive through lanes and the drive through canopy. As part of the building remodeling, they plan to replace the glass along the front and the north side of the building, making the windows taller. There'll be some brick work being redone around those windows, and there's some other brick work that needs to be done around the building also. Once that's completed, all the brick will be painted the dark gray color. We're raising up the walls above the existing canopy right now to...that does two things. One, it screens any rooftop units, and the other thing it does is gives it more street presence, and it helps bring that building into more contemporary light than what ifs been. As part of the property improvements, the entire property will be restriped. We're adding the dumpster enclosure, and we're...our required trees couldn't fit in the front, so we are proposing to put them on the south side of the property. In conclusion, we meet all the zoning requirements for this property with this type of use. We respectfully request that our petition be granted to allow us to proceed with remodeling the building and improving the neighborhood, which we will become a part of. Mr. Wilshaw: All right, thank you, Mr. Munchnick let's see if we have any questions for you. Any questions for our petitioner's representative. Mr. Bongero: Just to follow up for the petitioner, or whoever, just for the back taxes and the fees owed to the city... Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Dinaro: Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Wilshaw: December 3, 2024 31712 Taxes have already been paid. Yeah, they were paid on November 27. I was unaware of the water bill, but we'll get to that. I like the petition. I just, you know, it's hard to hear things if there's money owed, and I mean, but that's great. If you did, that's great. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Bongero, Ms. Dinaro, did you have questions? He took it. All right, so go back to the site plan. All right. We've shown on both sides, left or right. I have, I had taken out a parking space on the north and south side of the parking adjacent to the sidewalk. Uh, on further discussions with Soha and Samira, they want to keep those spaces. So, we are wondering, instead of putting the trees there, would the city allow us to put them in the right of way, and to help out with the tree count and to help with the esthetics of getting some trees along the front of the building along Farmington Road? Mr. Uhazie, those need to be on the property, correct? That's not our property between the sidewalk and the street. That's the problem. Yeah, this is one thing that was discussed with Mark was that was a possibility if, I mean, you'd have to work with the appropriate agency, but planning staff would be open to that as a compromise understanding the limitations in the site My clients are...they would pay for the tree, obviously, but they did...there's just no front yard to put it in. So, what I'm hearing is there's potentially an opportunity to, if the commission wishes, as part of their resolution, they could have the planning staff work with petitioner and relevant departments within the city to modify the landscaping plan. Yeah, okay, well, we'll see where that where that goes. No commitments at this point yet, sir. Anything else that you wanted to mention, Mr. Monchink, okay, I see. You would be eliminating those two landscape islands that are on either side of the... Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Droze: Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Droze: Mr. Monchnik; Mr. Droze: December 3, 2024 31713 Yeah, and reclaiming those as parking spaces, because at the end of the day, there's a lot of parking, but the practical parking for the tenants is in the front. Sure. Okay. Any other questions for our petition? Thanks. Mr. Chair, yes, could you walk through the decision to paint the brick? Would you consider keeping it as is? It seems like it's in fairly good condition, and it is, you know, clay red brick, versus a painted I guess, option. So, a lot of the... right now the windows go up I think about seven or eight feet. We're going to go up another two feet with windows. So that's going to take all the brick out along the top above the windows. Right now, there's an ATM hole in the building and a night deposit hole in the brick of the building. When the addition was put on it's a very similar brick. It's not identical. So, what we've got is we'll never be able to match the brick for what we're replacing, and at the end of the day, my opinion, is to paint it all so that whatever oddities are between the bricks, between all the different phases from when it was originally built. The addition of what we're doing, we'll all then just come together in all one color. So, I think the prevailing thought there is, keep the brick, but paint it just for consistency. I guess the other comment that we had at the study session was the height of the parapet above the existing aluminum... The existing canopy right now, we did drop the height from what the study session showed. By how much was it? Think it was...well, at the study session had that one section that went taller than anything else, that was about 25 and right now everything, I believe, four feet roughly, something like that. I think, kind of the comment was, it was striking how, you know, just the, I guess, the ratio of, I'll call it, the facade where the stores are located, to the signs. It was almost like, I mean, if it's 22 feet, I think the actual height of the retail space, I think, was 10 feet on the elevation. So would there be ability to kind of reduce that, so it wasn't so imposing...you kind of look at the cities, you know, it doesn't really apply to this area, but some of the form based, you know, suggestions for other areas of cities that that ratio is, I think like 30% of the facade. Would you consider making that reduction? Mr. Monchnik: Mr. Droze: December 3, 2024 31714 I feel, based on what we've already reduced, that we're in a good proportion for the building, because the existing canopy hangs out so far in front of the existing wall. We're going in line with the existing wall. With our new wall, that canopy hangs out so far that you're not...if you don't have that sign up high enough your sight lines from the road, that canopy will clip off the bottom portion of that sign. If the whole thing was that low, you wouldn't be able to see the tenant signs. So, there's a number of existing conditions that we're dealing with, trying to do the best we can. And the other comment we had was the circulation on the back. I think there's a loading zone on the east side of the building. We talked about potentially reducing the number of spaces to maybe help with that. Did you study that at all? Is that appropriate the way it is striped? Mr. Monchnik: I think it's appropriate the way it's striped, because the striping will clearly indicate where cars go, and then there's a gap between that single row of parking in the back of the building for the loading. And I think that'll clearly delineate both functions. Whereas if you take out all the striping, if you take out that row of striping behind the building, and just leave the perimeter parking. There's too much land for people to just meander. Mr. Droze: The question was really more on the ability for, if you have delivery vehicles, to be able to maneuver on the east side of the building so...that corners pretty tight. I think it's the southeast corner, And I guess that was just the question, is that actually going to work? Mr. Monchnik: We can further investigate that. Tthere are parking spaces to give... we are over parked, but that's also if everything is a retail use. If a restaurant comes in all of a sudden, their parking won't be excessive. Mr. Droze: Sure. Okay, well, I guess we're just reviewing it as retail use. Mr. Monchnik: Yeah, right. The answer would be that we may need to reduce a couple of the spots on the southeast to allow that truck then to turn from the south side of the property to the north. Mr. Droze: I guess just a prevailing comment is, I'm seeing parts of the site plan for the first time on something that's about 25 feet away from me. I'm going to have a hard time supporting. Mr. Monchnik: December 3, 2024 31715 We can eliminate that row of parking. There are 11 spaces. We're way over parked, and we could essentially stripe out what would be the outline of the truck curve. Mr. Droze: Yeah, that's what we I think we talked about, okay. Mr. Monchnik: Yeah, we can do that. Mr. Droze: Okay, thank you. Nothin further. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Droze. Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw: No other questions from the commission. Is there anything else? Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? I don't believe there is. Anything else that the petitioner would like to say before we make our decision? Okay, they're good. Okay, I have just a couple quick questions I'm going to ask. What's noted on the plan is a pylon sign and at the study session it was discussed. Actually, what you were looking for was a monument sign. You know, sits on the ground. Are you... can you clarify what kind of sign that's going to be? Mr. Monchnik: No, at this point. We would have to come back before you, before all the...the signage, the building signage, the setback. Because where I've shown that ground sign, whatever sign it ends up being, it's going to be in the setback for a sign so it's, it's not really an appropriate sign. We need to do something, but we would like some signage for the center, but we'll do that per code so that we don't need a variance, and we don't, we don't want to create a hassle. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. And then, do you have any ideas of what proposed uses would be in this building? Mr. Monchnik: We don't. We're going to market it for retail. And the best -case scenario is a one tenant comes in, takes a whole thing. We've shown four possible tenant spaces. You really couldn't get any more than that, the hope would be that somebody comes in and takes multiple spaces, and then their space can be designed appropriately. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, so you're leaving the potential of less than four tenants in there. If you get... Mr. Monchnik: Yeah, if they get a larger tenant, they'll gladly let them take whatever portion of the building they want, and then whatever's left over, I'll get lease to whoever they can lease it to. December 3, 2024 31716 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, all right, sounds good. Thank you for answering those questions. If there's nothing else from any of the other commissioners or from anyone else, then I can say it's time for a motion. A motion is in order. On a motion by Dinaro, seconded by Bongero, and adopted, it was #10-64-2024 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2024-10-08-08 submitted by Soha Kadry, requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 3.10 and 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to renovate the commercial building and covert into a multi -tenant retail center at 17230 Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road between Six Mile and Curtus Roads in the Southwest '/4 of Section 10, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Site Plan, identified as SPA1.01, dated November 14, 2024, prepared by Scott Monchnik & Associates, Inc., is approved and shall be adhered to. 2. That there shall be striping on the southeast corner of the parking lot to ensure proper turning radius of commercial trucks. 3. All disturbed lawn areas, including road rights -of -way, shall be sodded instead of hydroseeding. 4. Underground sprinklers shall be installed for all landscaped and sodded areas. All planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 5. The Exterior Elevations Plan, identified as SPA1.03, dated November 25, 2024, prepared by Scott Monchnik & Associates, Inc., is approved and shall be adhered to. 6. That the petitioner will work with Wayne County Department of Public Services to have landscaping installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 7. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening, consisting of material December 3, 2024 31717 compatible in color with other exterior materials on the building. 8. The three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of building materials that complement the building, and the enclosure gates shall consist of opaque and durable steel or composite panels. 9. All light fixtures shall not exceed a height of twenty feet (20') and shall be aimed and shielded to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring onto adjacent roadways. All exterior lights shall be turned off or dimmed between 8:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. 10. Only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 11. No LED light band or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. 12. Unless approved by the Inspection Department, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers, or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, shall be prohibited. 13. The plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department with the building permit application(s); and 14. Per Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, this approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval by the City Council. Unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void after the one (1) year period. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Dinaro, Bongero, Long, Wilshaw Droze Ventura, Caramagno None Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? December 3, 2024 31718 Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to the City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,222nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Bongero, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,222nd Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on November 12, 2024. On a motion by Dinaro , seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-65-2024 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,222nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2024, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Dinaro, Droze, Bongero, Long, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Ventura, Caramagno ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,223rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 3, 2024, was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sarri,Caramagno, Secretary