Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,251 -October 13, 2026 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,251st PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 13, 2026, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,251st 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: Patrick Droze lan Wilshaw Members absent: Glen Long David Bongero Peter Ventura Sam Caramagno Wafa Dinaro Mr. Jacob Uhazie, Assistant 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 Mr. Droze, PETITION 2026-08-01-04 Farrukh Moghul Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2026-08-01-04, submitted by Farrukh Moghul, pursuant to Section 13.15 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 15150 Levan Road, from C- 1 (Local Business) to C-2 (General Business), to allow for the development of an electric vehicle charging lot as the principal use, located on the east side of Levan Road between Five Mile Road and Jamison Street in the Northeast'/ of Section 20. Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32742 Good evening. Thank you. And this is a request to rezone the parcel located on the east side of Levan Road between Five and Jamison, shown here. The existing site zoning is C-1 (Local business), and the proposal is to change it to C-2 (General business). The parcel measures 0.29 acres in size, with 100 feet of frontage on Levan by a depth of about 165 feet. The Future Land Use Plan does designate this property as Corridor Commercial, which would correspond with the proposed zoning classification and use. The reason for the zoning here tonight is to facilitate development of a paved parking area with public EV chargers. The zoning ordinance states that electric vehicle charging stations or ports, as a principal use of the property, shall be treated as a waiver -use limited to the C-2 and C-3 zoning, and subject to review and submission of findings by the city planning commission and approval by the city council pursuant to section 6.26 of the zoning ordinance. There is a little bit of history on this site. Before the Livonia Vision 21 Master Plan and zoning ordinance update, this site was zoned OS. As part of that, everything that was zoned OS has been transferred to C-1 zoning. The site also falls under a consent judgment from 2007, where the property was split into two. The City of Livonia agreed to purchase a portion of the site, and then the remainder was approved for a proposed office building. The building and supported parking were not built, but the building is shown here, and the proposed parking is shown on the site plan, shown here of where it would have gone in the consent judgment. The surrounding neighborhoods included to the north and east are vacant parcels zoned C-1. To the south is the pharmacy zoned C-1 as well, and then west across Levan is the Trinity Health Hospital campus, which is zoned C-4 (High-rise commercial). The preliminary plans consist solely of a paved parking lot with two electric vehicle charging stations. This would accommodate up to four vehicles charging at one time. These are level three proposed chargers. There is a transformer located off to the north of the parking area, and there's also an EV service rack in the front of parking space labeled four shown here. The site plan does show 13 total parking spaces, which are double striped, two of which are barrier free. The charging units are located along Levan Road. One thing to note, although this is just for the rezoning, the site plan for the waiver -use if they come back, the zoning ordinance does require EV charging stations to be at least 10 feet from any public right of way, and the principal use of the property should be treated as a waiver -use, as I just mentioned. Access to the parking area would be provided off of the single 24- foot-wide drive located to the south end of the property shown Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32743 here. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 4, 2026, 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 but would like to note the following items:1. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #15150 Levan Road. 2. The existing parcels are currently serviced by public storm sewer and water main. Sanitary sewer is not currently available to the parcel, so the owner would be required to extend a sewer to the property for any proposed improvements if needed. 3. The site plan included with the submittal does not reflect the current proposed use, so we cannot comment on impacts to existing utility systems at this time. 4. Any proposed development will be required to conform to the current version of the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. Storm water reviews for the site may be completed by either City of Livonia or EGLE, depending on the outlet chosen for site storm water. 5. If the project is approved, engineering drawings will need to be submitted to this department and possibly EGLE for review and permitting.." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 8, 2026, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with the new construction and use of the property located at the above referenced address. This division is concerned with future development of this property in terms of other new construction, specifically of buildings and proximity to the EV charging parking lot. If future development of this property does occur, maintaining Fire department access for suppression efforts in the event of an EV vehicle fire is also a concern and requirement. Due to the potential of copious amounts of water utilized in EV fire application, a fire hydrant location in close proximity is critical. Consult with a licensed, certified architect regarding fire code. 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 September 10, 2026, 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 Brendan Adams, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 21, 2026, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to October 13, 2026 32744 your request, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. Exterior lighting sources shall be designed, constructed, located, and maintained in a manner that minimizes light trespass onto neighboring properties and public ways. The light trespass from a property shall not exceed 0.5-foot-candles at the property line, measured five (5) feet from the ground. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated September 10, 2026, which reads as follows: "/ have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Ermon Sims, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 4, 2026, which reads as follows: "The owner of the property is current on the property tax" The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. Mr. Chair, I also received numerous public comments that have been submitted to you for review to consider as well. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, yes, we do. We have received a number of pieces of communication from nearby residents about this. They are all in our packet, and some of them are multiple pages in length, so it's not going to be possible to read those out tonight. But we do have them here, and we have had a chance to go through those and read them, just so the folks in our audience know if they're interested in that. And those will be part of our packet and stay with this item as it moves along in the process, so thank you, Mr. Uhazie. Is there any questions for planning staff from my colleagues? Nothing. Okay. Is the petitioner here? Feel free to come forward to the podium. We're going to have some questions for you, and in the meantime, as you're walking forward, I do want to explain. I do this for all these types of meetings. What we have before us tonight is a rezoning request to rezone this property from C-1 to C-2. It's from a local business zoning classification to a general business classification, which allows a little bit more intense use, including automotive -related uses, which is why this is coming to us for this particular use. Just so you understand how this process works, we are going to be focused on the zoning tonight, so you will hear some discussion about the site plan, but it's going to be fairly limited because the issue that we're trying to resolve tonight is the zoning itself. The site plan that is before us is conceptual; it is bound to change. They will have to come back to us for the detailed site plan. If this moves forward, the process that the city goes through with these types of requests is: we will look at the zoning first. We will make our recommendation either October 13, 2026 32745 approving or denying this item. It will then go to city council. City council has to have a first reading and a second reading. At the second reading is when they either approve or deny the rezoning as well. What typically happens, just so you understand, is that the council will hold the second reading once it gets to that point to allow the petitioner to start the site plan process. We'll see the site plan. It'll come here. We'll have a meeting about the site plan. Again, we'll make a recommendation on that. That will go to city council, and then city council will rule on both the site plan and the zoning, usually at the same meeting, at the same time. They kind of bring those two items together. So hopefully that makes sense. It's a lot to understand, but again, we're going to be focused primarily on the zoning issues tonight, but there will be some, I'm sure, limited discussion about some site plan elements here. Good evening, sirs. Would you like to introduce yourself with your name and address, please? Evan Shimkus, 102 Shore Wood Lane, Howell, Michigan. Faruk Mogul, 1870 Canterbury Court, Bloomfield, Michigan. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you, Mr. Shimkus and Mr. Mogul, for being here tonight. What would you like to tell us about your plan for this property? Mr. Shimkus: The plan is fairly simple. As you've seen, we would just be developing the parcel into that proposed parking area, and then going through the typical site plan review to hash out the details later. Which sounds like the chargers can't go in that buffer area, so they move. And just so everybody's aware, that building on there, we are not proposing to build at all at this current time. We're just proposing the parking lot with two fast chargers. So I saw some concerns about noise and lighting. That's all stuff site plan review... that we would hash out later on. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Is there anything else that you'd like to tell us before we get to questioning? Are you all set? All set. Okay, great. Any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Droze: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For this particular site, what was it about it that led you to this use, and what other uses have you been able to look at as part of looking to develop here? Mr. Mogul: I had contacted Ready Charging and ChargeX about a couple properties that I own, and they recommended this one for developing, and it fit their feasibility requirements. Mr. Droze: Mr. Shimkus: Mr. Droze: Mr. Shimkus: October 13, 2026 32746 Could you speak to that a little bit? Yeah, it's mainly just traffic data that we pulled, showed that this was, out of all his properties, the best property for EV charging, and it showed the most people would utilize this new amenity here. And what we're looking at is two chargers, and I guess what are the extra parking lots or parking spaces for? Mainly was just for traffic flow, and we were just taking the old site plan from the building. So, in all actuality, we probably wouldn't actually do as many stalls unless it was required by you guys during site plan review to meet any sort of minimum. There were other talks of you know later on doing...they make these module bathrooms and vending machine things. So then there could be a bathroom here at some point as well. Mr. Droze: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Droze. Any other questions? Mr. Bongero: Jacob this might go to you. This petitioner has offered a conditional zoning for this. Mr. Uhazie: That's my understanding. Mr. Bongero: Okay, can you explain that so everybody understands what that means? Mr. Uhazie: So, a conditional zoning or conditional rezoning would be if the petitioner is open to it, they could voluntarily say that this rezoning is only valid for whatever these conditions are. In this case, it would be something along the lines of for EV charger or for their ownership as an EV charger. So, if it ever changed ownership or changed use, it would automatically revert back to the from the C-2 to the C-1. Mr. Bongero: So, there's a little protection there. Mr. Uhazie: Yes, and one of the reasons that this is going through the rezoning is just because the principal use as an EV charger. They could do the parking lot in a C-1, but because they're proposing this as a principal use, it does require to be C-2 at least to install that. October 13, 2026 32747 Mr. Bongero: Okay, and then with this petitioner, the C-2 is only for an EV lot. That's it. So they wanted to change the use in the future, it's not happening, right? Mr. Uhazie: They would have to go to... if they didn't come to council, it would automatically revert to a C-1 unless they came back to council and that they amended the conditional zoning. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Thanks for clarification. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Mr. Ventura, Mr. Ventura: Can you tell us what you think the operating hours are going to be what your proposed operating hours? Mr. Shimkus: Typically, a lot of our other sites are 24 hours. Mr. Ventura: So, you want to have the lights on there. You want to have this place open 24 hours a day? Mr. Shimkus: That is correct. Originally, that is what we would propose, unless you guys were stating otherwise based off your ordinances for noise and lighting. Mr. Ventura: Will the will the electrical capacity here support charging trucks, over the road trucks? Mr. Shimkus: Like semi -trucks? Mr. Ventura: Yeah. Mr. Shimkus: No, we weren't planning to do semi or bus. Mr. Ventura: It's not what I asked. Will the electrical capacity here support that? Mr. Shimkus: No, not without upgrades. It needs...DTE would even right now just for you know personal use vehicles, we would need to have DTE come and bring in a new transformer as proposed. So, if we were to say want to do like bigger trucks, that would be a larger service, and it's also not something we're pursuing. Mr. Ventura: Okay, and I guess my last question is: Will this be available to all brands of automobiles, electric automobiles? Mr. Shimkus: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Shimkus: David October 13, 2026 32748 Yes, sir. There will be CCS and NAGS, so all electric vehicles can charge here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for the petitioner at this time from my colleagues? Nothing else. I'm going to go to the audience and see if they have anything to say on this item. So, if you want to just step down for one second, we'll get you back up after we hear from them. Okay. Thank you for that. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item, please come forward to our podium. Good evening, sir. Mulligan, and I'm acting as spokesman for Reynolds Ravine Civic Association. A lot of our neighbors are here this evening. Like on procedure -wise. I'd like to submit a petition that's been signed by 25 residents here for the record. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Mulligan: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Mulligan: Yes, you can hand it to Ms. Reece. Okay. I also have a small version of a poster that I brought today outlining my points. I'd like to submit that also for the record. I'd like to ask for two extra minutes, being a spokesman. Certainly, we'll give you a few extra minutes. Good evening, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is David Mulligan. I live at 15050 Gulfview Drive in the Reynolds Ravine subdivision. I'm here tonight to urge this commission to deny petition 2026-08-01-04. This request to rezone 15150 Levan Road from C-1 to C-2 to build an unattended 24-hour electric vehicle charging lot as a principal use is an illegal overdevelopment that threatens our community. Livonia has proudly stood by its family's first motto, but a motto is only as strong as the foundation beneath it. Our neighborhoods are the true pillars of the family, serving as the safe, quiet sanctuaries where our children play and grow; they form an irreplaceable ecosystem, supported by the essential protection of our police and fire departments, alongside our local schools, our churches, and our community events like gatherings at Greenmead, our neighborhood parks, and our places of worship, where we connect as human beings. High -intensity, 24-hour commercial developments do not belong clipped against these spaces. When we protect our residential neighborhoods from commercial October 13, 2026 32749 encroachment, we aren't just protecting property values. We are actively defending the very pillars that make Livonia a community where families can thrive. The proposed rezoning of 15150 Levan Road directly threatens this exact foundation. Under Section 13.15 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, a rezoning request must be heavily justified and compatible with the surrounding area. All rezoning must be directly protect neighborhood compatibility, match the city's master plan, and preserve local residential character. This property is currently a narrow, quiet green lot. The developer wants to change it from a C-1 (Local business) to a C- 2 (General business) to build a high -intensity, 24-hour commercial EV charging hub. Let's be entirely clear about what a C-2 designation means. It grants unrestricted commercial rights. A 24-hour unstaffed commercial operation introduces a permanent nighttime nuisance directly against our backyards. The proposed lighting and noise barriers will be completely ineffective at filtering out the continuous disruption to our homes. This is not the low -impact local businesses intended by our zoning laws. It's an aggressive commercial encroachment that puts a developer's profit ahead of our community safety. Furthermore, this petition is a strategic regulatory leapfrog by requesting a straight transition to C-2 right now. The developer is actively trying to bypass the neighborhood site plan scrutiny that a C-1 development requires. If you grant a C-2 designation tonight, you give this developer a blank check. They gain unrestricted commercial rights to build or pivot to a high -intensity usage by right in the future, such as the 24-hour drive -through or convenience retail, completely stripping us local residents of any future public hearings or legal say in what gets constructed directly up against our property lines. The city has a long historical precedent of protecting this exact buffer. In 2007, the City of Livonia allocated $30,000 in public funds to settle a zoning dispute on this very property to preserve its quiet neighborhood buffer zone. Reversing course now completely erases that established legal safety net and misuses past public resources. A principal use commercial infrastructure utility hub simply does not belong squeezed into a narrow neighborhood buffer. Do not allow a procedural leapfrog to strip our subdivision of its of its voice. For our safety, our master plan, and our neighborhood's future, I strongly urge the commission to deny petition 2026-08- 01-04. Thank you. My neighbor will now address our serious environmental and public safety concerns. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Mulligan, for your comments. Good evening, ma'am. October 13, 2026 32750 Ms. Malec, 36114 Parkhurst Ave., Livonia, MI. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you for having us. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you, Ms. Malec. Ms. Malec: Mr. Wilshaw: Following my neighbor's testimony, I am here to address the severe environmental infrastructure and public safety threats posed by Petition 2026-08-01-04. Our primary environmental concern centers on the catastrophic threat to the Bell Branch Watershed. Paving over this raw green lot to create a heavy asphalt parking footprint creates massive, unmitigated commercial stormwater runoff. Any proposed retention tank defenses are entirely inadequate for managing high volume flash rain events on a narrow -sloped parcel. This runoff will drain directly into Bell Branch Creek, accelerating rapid stream bank erosion. This directly undermines the historical hard-fought structural investments made right here by our community and the city in 2002 during the Bell Branch Stream Bank Stabilization Project. The first five homeowners at our subdivision's entrance were personally specially assessed $20,000 each out of pocket to preserve and stabilize this creek bank, allowing a commercial developer to swoop in, bypass our transitional buffer, and degrade that exact same watershed, is an insult to the financial sacrifices residents have made to protect Livonia's natural borders. Furthermore, introducing a 24-hour, completely unattended infrastructure asset creates an activity security vacuum right next to our community buffer. An unmonitored charging hub with no storefront, no staff, and dark corners creates an immediate vector for vandalism, loitering, and property theft. High voltage charging hubs left dark and unstaffed overnight invite criminal activity directly adjacent to residential properties where our children play. A transitional zoning layer is meant to protect residents, not act as a shield for a developer to inject high - intensity commercial nuances and security vulnerabilities into a resident ecosystem. The developer sought multiple extensions to avoid your vote because they know this plan breaks the fabric of Livonia ordinances. We thank you and ask you to hold the line tonight for our environment, our families, our property rights. Please deny petition 2026-08-01-04, And remember, families first. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Malec. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? No one else wishing to come up. All right. I'm going to go back to the petitioner. You can feel free to come forward to our podium. There's one more person that would like October 13, 2026 32751 to speak. I guess. We'll go ahead and let her speak. There we go. Hi. Good evening, ma'am. Cecilia Coffey, 15099 Woodside Drive, Livonia, MI. I am especially impacted because this is right behind my house. One of the big concerns is this piece of property that will all be cemented in, and that was going to increase more stormwater and increase the flow of water down the creek, and the creek where I live is very deep, and the water flow during rain is very fast. His property is eroded, all the edges. It's dangerous for children, and especially in high rain and more water, it all goes down the creek and destroys the neighbors who live on the creek, who have lost a tremendous amount of property. One of our neighbors has lost his property up to his deck. It's awful, and so increasing this, not even stopping that flow of water is a crime. It's a crime to the citizens of Reynolds Ravine, and I've lived there 30 years, and I've seen the property diminish in size through the years. It's much smaller than it used to be because it's continually eroding, and it's formed large caverns around the edges. Dangerous for children, it's very deep, and it just causes more insult to this already damaged area that my neighbors have had to suffer, and so I'm here just to tell you to not consider this. It's dangerous. His property has eroded so much now, and this isn't going to make it any better. So, I give you my heart and soul about this, and I hope you reconsider not doing this because it's not safe for Reynolds Ravine or our neighborhood. Oh, and the lights too -light all night, trafficking bathrooms. I mean, this is not a place for the residents of Reynolds Ravine for their safety but thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Coffey. I appreciate your comments. There's one more neighbor there. Good evening, ma'am. Janice Prokopenko, 36126 Parkhurst, Livonia, MI. I guess. I really would like you to stop this development. I am two doors from Cecilia. I've lived in Reynolds Ravine 38 years. I was upset when they extended the car wash, and there's a huge light also. So now I'm hearing voices, people talking, and the light is very strong. If there's more lights going on, I can't imagine what it would look like. I have lost six feet entirely. The deer just goes straight down diagonally from my property. I've lost six feet, and the property goes like this. And I'm the one that gets it the most, most of the erosion, so I just hope you have good wisdom doing this. Thank you so much. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for your thoughts. Appreciate that. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? If not, I am going to close the public hearing. If the petitioner would like to come forward and Mr. Shimkus: Mr. Shimkus: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Shimkus: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32752 speak to anything that they've heard so far before we make our decision, they're free to come forward and have the last word. Welcome back. Anything else that you'd like to say on this item? Yeah, I just wanted to address some of the comments to hopefully help get a better understanding of the project and the effects of it in regard to like security and things, I totally understand with the residents, and I actually side with them on that. There would be cameras at some point just to monitor that area, kind of like the parking lot I'm assuming has cameras for the medical center behind the other residents' homes, and as well as like stormwater and things of that nature, we're also going to have to combat the stormwater. I'm assuming at some point during plan review, and just to all the residents, you know, we'll do stormwater calculations. I'm sure there's stormwater calculations and soil erosion permits and things that would have to be looked at by your engineering team at the City of Livonia, so yeah, this is purely just the zoning. So we just bring it back to that item, and since we are in that commercial corridor, and this being honestly a smaller development than the ones that I'm seeing in that area, we just would like to bring it to that zoning and then go from there. Any more questions for me as well? I can try to answer them. Let me see if my colleagues have any additional questions for you. Any additional questions for our petitioner this time? So, if this were to be approved with a restriction on hours from say 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. what would that do to your business plan? We could look into it, but I don't imagine it would be detrimental to the project. I think we would still be open to doing the project if that was the case. It's definitely not the case for us, we would like to keep them operational as long as we meet your guys' noise, you know, noise ordinance and lighting. Okay, thank you. One other question. Of course. Mr. Uhazie, how far is this proposed development from the Reynolds Ravines subdivision at its closest point? You know, I can probably measure it here. Just a second. Mr. Wilshaw: We have tools for that. October 13, 2026 32753 Mr. Uhazie: The rear property line, is about 120 feet from the nearest residential, where the proposed parking lot would be would probably be around just over 200 feet, give or take, without having a detailed site plan. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Shimkus: Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you. I guess I do have...well, in consideration, no, I don't. Okay, I'm good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's your floor. If there's anything else you want to say, feel free. If not, if there's anything else from any of my colleagues, Just one thing I know was touched on earlier by Mr. Bongero, but this might be a good time to, if you guys have any more detail on the proposed conditional rezoning that they have offered to as a that they are open to participating in, subject to city council approval, where it would be rezoned to C-2 for their use only, but they could probably give you more details of what they're proposing. Yeah, I guess we were just curious if the commission would be comfortable incorporating that as a condition upon approval tonight and then going through the normal process from there. But basically, yeah, that the parcel would be used for the C-2 use of EV charging, and then any other uses in C-2 would not be a part of our project in the future. Okay, so you're comfortable with if this was not successful as an EV charging parking lot, and someone else wanted to use this for another C-2 use, whatever that may be, you're comfortable with not allowing that and having this property revert back to C-1 zoning. Is that what you're saying? Mr. Shimkus: Correct. Mr. Mogul: If it doesn't work as EV, we can't use it for anything else, whatever the other uses are under that zoning. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Mogul: And as far as a couple of the residents mentioned, lighting and pollution from the lighting, I was on the board of a mosque in Rochester Hills, and we went through this and we made the lights...basically put timers on them and motion sensors and infrared sensors to only put them on. And Rochester Hills made us put -I don't know what kind of bulb it was, but it was a special October 13, 2026 32754 bulb that, so to say, you know, the dimmer -it's like that that goes on, and they made it directionally away because we have a subdivision right next to our mosque, literally up against the property, just like this, and I was proposing that kind of lighting, where when there's people there, then you leave it on, and then when there's not there, then you just have two or three lights on to minimize the light pollution from all the lights being on. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Mogul: Yeah. And as far as the water runoff, I'm sure EGLE will have a whole bunch of things that they're going to make us do to prevent any further damage to or any further erosion on this project. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Yeah, as you heard from the residents, those are certainly the main concerns that were expressed. So, I'm glad that you're addressing those. Mr. Uhazie: I just also want to reiterate while we're discussing the parking lots, that this was part of that consent decree. That, as the petitioner mentioned, this is an existing site plan. So that parking lot, by the consent decree, is allowed. Like if they weren't coming for the EV charger, they could build that site. They could utilize this site plan without going through planning. They would still have to follow all the EGLE regulations, but that parking lot has been approved by consent and judgment in the past. Mr. Wilshaw: But that would be a C-1 use at that point. Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Mogul: Mr. Wilshaw: But just saying, as far as the environmental standards are concerned, okay, they'd still have to adhere to those. But it has been approved in the past as far as that site plan and consent judgment process. To piggyback on the comment, that would add a lot more concrete and covered area with the building, and that's already been approved, and the parking lot. This is, I think, 25 or 30 percent of covered area of what was approved back then. All right. Thank you for those comments. Anything else from my colleagues? If not, thank you for coming this evening. We're going to see if there's a motion now. Is there a motion on this item? On a motion by Bongero, seconded by Droze, and adopted, it was #10-66-2026 October 13, 2026 32755 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 13, 2026, on Petition 2026-08-01-04, submitted by Farrukh Moghul, pursuant to Section 13.15 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 15150 Levan Road, from C- 1 (Local Business) to C-2 (General Business), to allow for the development of an electric vehicle charging lot as the principal use, located on the east side of Levan Road between Five Mile Road and Jamison Street in the Northeast'/ of Section 20, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2026-08-01-04 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed change of zoning to C-2 would be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area. 2. That the property involved in this request would be in full compliance with C-2 District regulations. 3. The rezoning is consistent with the Future Land Use for the properties. 4. That the proposed change of zoning to C-2 would cause the zoning of the property to more accurately correspond to the use and size of the property. 5. The proposed zoning change represents a reasonable and logical plan for the subject property that adheres to sound land use planning principles; and 6. The Petitioner has voluntarily offered a conditional zoning agreement pursuant to MCL 125.3405 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, Act 110 of 2006, as amended, which includes a Statement of Conditions limiting the use and development of the subject property; and 7. The Statement of Conditions shall be considered a condition of the rezoning and shall govern the use and development of the subject property in accordance with the terms and conditions contained therein. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 and 13.15 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended. October 13, 2026 32756 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Droze, Bongero, Wilshaw Ventura Caramagno, Dinaro, Long None Is there any discussion? Number six, the petitioner has voluntarily offered a conditional zoning agreement. My question, Mr. Uhazie, can we require a conditional zoning agreement? We cannot require a conditional rezoning. Which means that they can change their mind at any time. They've offered this and they can withdraw. Well, once they agree to it with council and council approves it, then they're locked into it. But we're not at council, Correct? So, between now and council, they could withdraw that? Correct? Okay. So, there's no way really to bind that. Not until council approves. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Yeah, that's a legal requirement that conditional zoning agreements have to be voluntarily entered into by the petitioner. We can't oblige them to do that. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on the motion, Mr. Droze? Mr. Chair, just maybe as a question for Mr. Uhazie, because this would be a waiver -use this would come back to us, correct? And that's the time that we could bring back some of the things about the lighting and lighting hours October 13, 2026 32757 Mr. Uhazie: That would probably be the more appropriate time to discuss those in detail. Mr. Droze: Thank you. 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 2026-09-02-24 Infinity Acquisitions, LLC Mr. Droze, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda Petition 2026- 09-02-24, submitted by Infinity Acquisitions, LLC, requesting waiver use approval under Sections 3.16 and 6.58 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to operate an outdoor storage facility in connection with a special trades contractor at 34426 Rosati Avenue, located on the north side of Rosati Avenue in the southwest'/ of Section 28. Mr. Uhazie: Thank you. This is a request to operate a special trade contractor's yard with outdoor storage. The location is on Rosati Drive, within the Rosati Industrial Park subdivision, located on the west side of Stark Road, just south of the CSX Railroad. The industrial park is a platted industrial park, zoned M-1. It consists of 16 individual lots, including one devoted solely to the purpose of stormwater management. The site in question totals 23,959 square feet, or about 0.55 acres. As I mentioned, it is part of the industrial park and surrounded by other industrial parcels. The closest residential district is roughly 275 feet to the south, and then the closest home is about 400 feet away. The proposal includes an industrial building which is under construction. You can see here, which measures 70 feet by 87 feet, with a gross floor area of about 6,000 square feet. Under the proposed site plan, vehicles would enter along the west of the property line, across with access to the rear of the property. The zoning ordinance does require that the lot be enclosed with a fence for special contractor yards. Landscaping in the front yard is required, and the outside stacking of and stockpiling material shall not exceed eight feet in height. The petitioners site plan does show that the outdoor storage would consist of, along the northern property line, there would be an above ground fuel station, and then storage for small dump trucks, pickup trucks, and trailer storage. And then along the eastern property line, shown here, would be light and heavy equipment. And then exterior storage along the north and west parts of the building would be additional equipment, pallets of salt, landscaping Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32758 material, topsoil, mulch, and the entire site would be surrounded by a proposed six-foot black aluminum fence with a wooden gate that opens and closes. Parking requires one space for each 500 square feet of use. Based on the size of the building, nine parking spaces are required. As I mentioned, there would be a gate that restricts access to the rear of the site, And the building under construction is made out of a combination of face brick and precast concrete panels. The building's height does have a height of 26' 8". Along with this, there is an existing dumpster on site shown in the northeast corner of the site plan. It is enclosed and has solid panel gate. Excuse me, solid material gates that open and close. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 28, 2026, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time, but would like to note the following items.-1. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #34426 Rosati Drive. If additional addresses are required, the owner will need to contact this department once approvals have been granted. 2. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer. There is no information on proposed usage, but we do not believe there will be any adverse effects on the existing systems." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 24, 2026, 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 Brendan Adams, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 6, 2026, 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, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated September 28, 2026, 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, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Ermon Sims, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 22, 2026, which reads as follows: "The owner of the property is current on Mr. Wilshaw: Rino Soave, October 13, 2026 32759 the property tax." The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Alright, thank you, Mr. Uhazie. Any questions for staff? No questions. Petitioner is here. Good evening, sir. Infinity Homes and Company, 42400 Grand River, Novi, MI, Suite 112. Just before I kind of just give you a quick rundown, is that the revised site plan that we sent last week? You know, at the study meeting week. Yes. Oh, it is okay. All right. I guess right there. So, basically, as I indicated last week, we're primarily a real estate development company. We specialize in multifamily, single-family home production, and home building. In the last couple years, we recently acquired a landscaping business. So, that kind of like supplements a lot of the apartments and office buildings that we own, in addition to our neighborhoods that we build, and this is just going to kind of complement it. We already were in the process of trying to build a storage facility for our business. Over the years, you can imagine you start to accumulate a lot of small equipment, heavy equipment. Now with the landscaping business, there's other equipment that we have as well. So, this kind of is going to serve as a hub for us. As I mentioned again last week, this isn't like a nine to five operation. Our people typically will come here on most days, and it's seasonal too, right? So, but we'll have like our internal staff that will be coming to and from. There won't be any employees based out of here. For the landscaping side of it, they'll come start in the morning, usually around seven a.m. They'll pick up their stuff for the day, leave, come back, drop off, and then from our real estate development company, there could be days where people aren't there at all, and there could be days where people are coming there just picking up whatever equipment there is. But as indicated on the site plan, as mentioned, there will be a sliding gate in front for security and for privacy, and we are looking to probably store...obviously, you see the dumpster enclosure in the northwest corner, filed by all like the vehicles, we have a few small dump trucks. There's a couple like when I say heavy equipment, there's like a small loader and like some skid steers and stuff that we use. We have a few dump trucks as well. There's going to be a small fuel station. It's probably over embellished in the picture, but for... in the center of it, there's going to be a fueling station there as needed. And then around the building, we're looking to put a couple storage racks on the north facing the railroad tracks. There's going to be a couple on the side. So, with that being said, I'm happy to answer any questions you guys have. It kind of gives you a quick, brief rundown. But we see it as Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: Mr. Soave: Mr. Droze: Mr. Soave: October 13, 2026 32760 kind of non -intrusive in the fact that one, we're backing up to the railroad tracks, and this isn't like I said for the most part there won't be any employees here. All parking will be limited to inside the perimeter, the premises inside the secured gate. All right, thank you, Mr. Soave. Any questions for the petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the building itself, is like a combination of office and warehouse. What do you anticipate will happen in that? Is it really just more like for storage, or do you expect to have any staff? Because I'm just kind of thinking about the parking spaces and how we square the space number you have versus what the use is going to be? Parking is always a challenge, but again, as I mentioned, it's not a concern to me because we don't really have...there's office space in the front, but it's going to be unfinished. We're eventually going to build like a mezzanine above that for pretty much additional storage. But again, if...I would say if we have anybody here during the day in the next three years, five years, I'd be surprised because it's not that...the building's really not big enough. By the time you think...you have 6,000, 7000 feet, and you start okay, I have all the space now, and you start putting stuff in it. It's not really that big of a space, so that's where we're finding out. You know, we're finding out now as you start planning ahead. Okay, and then at the study session, I think you mentioned, I'll call it like bulk materials, like maybe gravel, wood chips, that sort of thing. Are you planning on having that on site? It's temporary. If we have like certain jobs we're doing, it might be there in the back for a period of time. But again, this isn't going to be like a nursery where you know storing plants and stuff and it's not big enough. First and foremost, that's not really our business either. So, to answer your question, if there is, it'll be limited. And if we have like jobs we're doing, they may come back because they need somewhere to stockpile it. But this will not be a you know full like landscaping business. That's probably like, really on the scale of our business, that's probably like 10% of our business. Mr. Droze: Okay. Mr. Soave: So, there's the landscaping business is made up about maybe eight to 10 employees. Some of them carpool during the day, so Mr. Droze: Mr. Soave: Mr. Droze: Mr. Soave: October 13, 2026 32761 you might see like three guys drive a one car, for example. So, and then it's really like a third of the staff, so we probably have like three, four cars any given day. Okay, and then Mr. Uhazie mentioned it'll be a aluminum fence around. Could you talk about like is that like vertical slats or what is that going to look like? We don't really have a... I mean, right now we have slated to put a six-foot aluminum high fence, and the front's going to have like a sliding gate, as you see, kind of where it's indicated on the site plan. Yeah, that'll be more of a wood front, so it'll be decorative. I mean, right now the place isn't up...it looks like a building under construction. It's been that way for months because we've been waiting on utilities for DTE to connect the power for the last six months. So once that's done, the approach will be done, and we'll finish off. We're hoping to landscape and get everything done by the end of the season. Okay, and that's going to be an automated gate that'll close once people pass through. Correct. The employees will have like access cards. You know, they'll be given out to certain employees, so not each employee is going to have an access card. So, they have an access card, swipe their card. Gate will open up. Gate will close. Mr. Droze: Okay. Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Drose. Any other questions for our petitioner? All right. Anybody in the audience wishing to speak on this item? We do have one person coming forward. Ron Emling, on behalf of well, I start with my address, 24800 Five Mile Road, Redford, Michigan 48239. I'm the current owner of 34430 and 34437 and 34422 on both sides of Mr. Soave. We had developers rights here when I bought this development. We were nearing the end of development. It is an association. Everybody there that's built the buildings are kind of personal. They spend a million plus in each one of their buildings. They're keeping the properties nice and in order. We've had many, many opportunities to bring landscapers in over there, and we deny them. They're just too something where in the neighborhood where they're saying what Mr. Soave is saying. We're not going to bring this in, and before you know, the yard's full of stuff. They're bringing trucks and trailers right now. He's operating out of the business right now without a C of 0, which isn't really nothing to do with this, what October 13, 2026 32762 the meeting's about today, I'm trying to get into that matter right now. How he's working on that building right now without a C of O. So, I would like to either table it, or well, on behalf of Ray Zigmont, who's an owner, Jeff Perry Hill, Dan Cohen, myself, and Phil Monseur are all saying no at this time. As far as this, what he's requesting. He's operating out of the lot across the street, which is his dad's lot, doing landscaping out of there. He's got bulk supplies over there. He's saying one thing and doing another. I'm just saying. So at this point, I want to table it, or I wish to table it, or just deny it completely, the request. It's just not going to fit in the community over there. And I talked to Mr. Rosati today, Enrico, who I bought it from, and he says it's not what his dream was for his development either. So, we just want to bring that to the table as well. He couldn't make it tonight because of his age, but yeah, that's some concerns we're having over there. And I didn't, I'm not in there all the time. I'm in here a couple of days a week because I got other developments I'm doing. So I'll see what's going on over there. But I think it's part of the new construction that's going on. So I'm not really paying that close attention, but then I start getting phone calls from owners saying, "Hey, we got we got concerns. What's going on down here? The building's a mess. It's under construction, and he's working a full- blown business out there, and he's got employees parking down the street, and he's saying that it's not happening, but this is what's happening. So, I don't like that. It's just talking on both sides of his mouth, and it's not a good start into coming into our development. So, with that said, I won't bother you more. Mr. Wilshaw: Well, thank you for your comments, Mr. Emling. Appreciate that. Mr. Emiling: Yep. Mr. Wilshaw: Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Do we have one more person coming forward? David Ingram, 6386 Weed Road, Plymouth, Michigan. I also own two other buildings on Rosati, east of the proposed building here tonight, I've got a good relationship with Rino. You know we've done things back and forth. My concern prior to this evening was the storage on the side of the building. I think it's opening a Pandora's box that you're going to allow storage on the side of a building with pallet racking. When I heard it was only eight feet, I have a little less concern. But especially if it's behind the fence, you know, a solid fence or something. But you know, I own two other buildings in Livonia, and I've never seen you guys allow side storage at a building, in general, you know, it's a light industrial October 13, 2026 32763 area. It's at the end of a dead-end street, but I think you're kind of opening up a little bit of a Pandoras box to allow that to happen behind the building, fenced in, no problem whatsoever. Everybody's doing a little bit of that on the street already, so that's all I have to add to this. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate that, Mr. Ingram. Thank you for speaking. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? I don't see anyone else wishing to speak. Mr. Soave. Is there anything else that you would like to tell us? Mr. Soave: Yeah, just a couple. Just to touch on a couple things. When the building's done. We don't have staff fully occupied in this building. I'm not really sure what he's talking about. He has his facts mixed up, but we don't have a C of 0 yet. We're waiting on DTE. Building's been made aware of it. We don't have power there, so obviously you can't operate a building if you don't have power. As far as like an intrusive use, I'm sure as you know as the commission knows, Ron who was just up here, I think he owns a building next door. You know, if it's an intrusive use, we have a medical marijuana facility. They're growing marijuana next door. Every time our people pull up there, all you smell is weed. So, which to me disgusts me, and then going to the north, you smell weed in the air. You also have, if you guys know or not, you have the scent of dead bodies being burned in the crematorium across from us, where this is emitting black smoke in the air. So, not to water it down, this is a heavy industrial area. think our, like I said, we're not here operating any employees. So, I hope you guys take that into consideration. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: All right, thank you, Mr. Soave. Any questions from my colleagues? Any comments? If not, Mr. Uhazie, I do have a question about the outdoor racking. It does seem a little...1 don't recall ever approving outdoor rack systems like this. Is this something that we have in other sites? Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: I do not recall approving any specifically in the association with the special trades contractor. I'm not aware of any offhand. Okay, those are my thoughts too. I can't think of any time that that's ever been allowed. Usually that's an indoor type thing. Okay, all right. Just wanted to ask that. If there's no other comments or questions from my colleagues, I will close the public hearing, and a motion is in order. October 13, 2026 32764 On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-67-2026 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 13, 2026, on Petition 2026-09-02-24, submitted by Infinity Acquisitions, LLC, requesting waiver use approval under Sections 3.16 and 6.58 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to operate an outdoor storage facility in connection with a special trades contractor at 34426 Rosati Avenue, located on the north side of Rosati Avenue in the southwest '/4 of Section 28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2026-09-02-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan received on October 6, 2026 by Infinity Homes & Co. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2. That a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4. That the dumpster enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times. 5. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadways. 6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 7. That the visitor and employee parking spaces shown on the site plan shall be double striped, including the provision of barrier free parking, and all regular parking spaces shall be ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in length, as required. 8. That the outdoor storage of trailers, cranes, commercial vehicles, contractors' equipment and materials shall be limited to the designated locations as shown on the above October 13, 2026 32765 referenced Site Plan and shall be maintained in an orderly manner; and 9. That there shall be no outdoor storage of disabled or inoperative equipment and vehicles, scrap material, debris or other similar items. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2026-09-02-25 36555 Amrhein LLC Mr. Droze, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda Petition 2026-09-02-25 submitted by 36555 Amrhein LLC, requesting waiver use approval under Section 3.16 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to operate a truck and trailer storage facility at 36555 Amrhein Road, located on the south side of Amrhein Road between Levan Road and Globe Street in the northwest of Section 29. Mr. Uhazie: Thank you. This is a request to operate the outdoor truck and trailer storage facility on several parts of this parcel, or these two parcels in question. The location is on the south side of Amhrein between Globe and Levan. The total site size is about 13 acres with 677 feet of frontage along Amhrein Road by a depth of 326 feet. The existing zoning is M-1. The site does have a large existing industrial building measuring about 140,000 square feet in size. The property includes existing paved parking to the east, drive aisles, loading and maneuvering areas, and access to Amhrein shown here on the existing aerial. The western portion of the overall site consists primarily of open land for parking that is not paved. The site is situated within an established industrial area and is surrounded by properties designated for manufacturing industrial uses. North across Amhrein is an asphalt mixing plant located within the M-2 zoning district. To the south and west consists of various industrial uses that are located within the M-1 district. And then to the east is the Roush Engine facilities, zoned M-2, as well. The ordinance does require that truck stops, truck and trailer rental, and/or storage facilities and vehicle tow yards are treated as a waiver -use in the M-1 district. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32766 And then, if you give me a second to bring this up, okay. So, this is a little confusing, but I will walk through it. There are two parcels as part of this petition, and then as part of it is a connection with a lot split and recombination. So, this is the zoomed -in site plan, showing the three different uses. To the right is the existing industrial building shown here, and parcel one is the eastern half, and then the western portion here is parcel two. Parcel one is proposed to be split into parcel A and B. Parcel A would be the existing industrial building, which would be about seven acres in size, and it would include the industrial building along with the parking to the east, and be occupied by Beaver Aerospace. Parcel B would be five acres in the center of the proposal. It would contain no buildings. They would add an additional drive, so the existing drive aisle is shown here, and then they are proposing additional drive aisle here for access to parcel B. The new drive aisle would provide access directly to Amhrein, and the proposed use is for leasing of truck and trailer storage, and the site plan shows it would fit up to 55 tractor trailers. Parcel two is 1.8 acres in size, all the way to the west. It shows parking for 44 tractor trailers. And it would be leased by Roush Performance. Access would be provided via a new 15-foot drive connecting to the south. There is a proposed fence shown here where the two colors meet, separating parcel two from the rest of the site. There are no other improvements proposed on this site as part of this petition. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Yes, please. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 28, 2026, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time, but would like to note the following items: 1. The subject parcels are currently assigned the addresses of #36555 Amrhein Road and #12318 Globe Road. The parcels are in the process of being combined and split into a new configuration. Once that is complete, the proposed storage lot will be located on a parcel with the address of #36663 Amrhein Road. If additional addresses are required, the owner will need to contact this department once approvals have been granted. 2. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer. We do not believe there will be any adverse effects on the existing systems with the proposed usage. 3. Should the owner decide to pave the existing gravel storage lot, the owner/developer will need to submit engineering drawings October 13, 2026 32767 to this department for permitting. All new paved areas will need to conform to the current Waye County Storm Water Ordinance." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 6, 2026, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with the new construction and use of the property located at the above referenced address. Quality of plan set submitted was low, difficulty deciphering landmarks and intent of use of this property. Plan Property Descriptions were difficult to read and interpret. Concerns listed below: 1. Will the existing building be utilized and what will its use entail and/or what are the contents within the structure? If building is sprinkled and monitored by an alarm company, bring up to current code and maintain operations and certifications of the systems. 2. Truck and trailer storage — How long will a truck and/or trailer remain on site? Will the trailers contain cargo as part of the storage? Lithium -ion batteries may not be stored in trailers. 3. Fire department access roads — If storage areas are not paved, what provisions are being made to support the weight of fire apparatus in the event of a fire or emergency access is required. Code supports Fire Department Access Roads. 4. Need clarity on accessibility for emergency vehicles to various parts of this property. 5. "Proposed Fence" — Any access points (gated) or strictly separation of areas? 6. Fire hydrant location(s)? 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 September 24, 2026, 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 Brendan Adams, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 6, 2026, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. The proposed parking area must be hard surfaced. Pavement type and thickness must be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction, taking into consideration soil conditions and traffic loadings. The requirement of hard surfacing may be waived by Council. If waived, a plan shall be in place to provide maintenance and dust control. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated September 28, 2026, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. The following amounts are due to the City of Livonia: Unpaid water and sewer charges: (Customer name on record - Louis 1884 October 13, 2026 32768 Investments Inc) Total Due City of Livonia $ 346.45." The letter is signed by Ermon Sims, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated September 22, 2026, which reads as follows: "The owner of the property is current on the property taxes." The letter is signed by Susie Nash, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for planning staff? Mr. Bongero: Jake, at the study meeting, the petitioner seemed very apprehensive to have a paved area, and I see Mr. Hanna said it should be paved. Are they proposing crushed concrete? Is that what I understand? Mr. Uhazie: As part of the petition, they are proposing crushed concrete. The ordinance requires it to be hard surfaced. Again, that provision can be waived by city council if they so choose. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for staff, Mr. Droze? Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie. So, looking at the package that's been sent, I understand there's a lot split and different uses. There's work already going on at the building. Is that correct? Mr. Uhazie: Well, the building is under renovation, I believe, to accept their new occupant of Beaver Aerospace. Mr. Droze: Okay. Mr. Uhazie: That part is not associated with this actual petition. Mr. Droze: Not here. Okay, all right. I wanted to clear that up, and I guess, you know, the comment that was made about the plans being difficult to read and you know some of the detail lacking, I would agree with generally. It seems you know things that we would normally looking for fence types and locations and, you know, some discussion about you know about whether hard surfacing happens or not, because I would imagine that's going to have a significant impact on site plan if they have to do hard surfacing because that's going to require stormwater. Do you feel like this is complete enough to be looking at? Because it does feel like there's a lot of big questions that, you know, I mean, they're not really proposing a whole lot here, to be honest. And taking a little Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32769 time to sharpen pencils and you know giving us something that we can actually read would be, I think, helpful. I think that's a reasonable request. I think ultimately it comes down to the details of the hard surfacing, because that would require a lot more detail than what would be required for just the storage. I think that's probably a discussion with the petitioner of how they feel, or if they're comfortable with if they think that council will approve that hard surface, or they're willing to take that risk, I guess. Because I mean, it seems like relative to the use, this is really kind of supplemental parking. It seems like largely, you know, related to the Roush use and you know whatever the middle use is going to be. Correct. It is just basically more intense parking. It does appear in the past it was used for storage of parking of cars, and this would just require, you know, more intense of just larger vehicles, but the zoning ordinance does require for any sort of larger vehicles that it does have to come through the waiver -use process of approval, And again, that would be the opportunity to get that site into conforming with the code to have that that area paved if we were going to approve that waiver -use. Mr. Droze: Right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Uhazie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Droze. Any other questions for staff? If not, our petitioner is in the audience, I believe. If you would like to come forward and speak to this item, I'd appreciate that. Good evening, sir. Chris Haboian, 31745 Auburn Hills Drive, Beverly Hills, MI. I'm general counsel of J.B. Donaldson. We are a developer and contractor based in Farmington Hills, and we recently bought this property in mid - August. We are currently putting in a little over $10 million into updating the former contractor steel building, and rehabbing it for Beaver Aerospace, which is a French defense contractor. We are here to request waiver -use approval for the western caught half of the site. We would be requesting it in order to do truck and trailer storage in it. We would be requesting the waiver on paving. We think the subgrade, given our diligence and the prior use, can support this use, and we would be fine grading the site and using 21 double A crushed concrete to fill some of that. If there are any questions, I'd love to answer them. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Droze: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Haboian: October 13, 2026 32770 Thank you, Mr. Haboian. Appreciate your presentation. Let's see if there's any questions. Any questions for the petitioners' representative? Between the two lots, what do you see in terms of daily traffic in and out for trucks? I don't think we'd be getting -I mean, more than a handful each day on the middle, call it the middle part, that'll be the eastern half of the parking that we're looking for, that's going to be...trucks and trailers are going to basically be there for weeks at a time likely, maybe a little bit longer occasionally, maybe less. So, there's not going to be a lot of flow going in and out of there. The Roush portion, I would imagine, is going to be pretty similar, maybe a little bit more active, but they're going to be going directly from that lot south into their existing lot, so it wouldn't be coming out to Amhrein or through the rest of the site. So, that Roush lot would be...the use of that would be tied to the parcel to the south that Roush currently operates or owns. We would be...there's currently a fence back there, and we'd be, for lack of a better term, cutting a hole in it, and I think we have 15 feet wide on the site plan, and they'd be able to drive their trucks directly in between those slots. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Droze. Any other questions? Good evening. The 21AA have you had experience with that before for a parking surface? We have used it in the past, I don't know if we've used it...I'm not aware of us using it for like truck storage and protection. I'm just having a hard time thinking it's going to hold up. You know what I mean? What's the idea of wanting that and not pavement? Is it mostly expense? It's the expense. If we have to bring it up to the 100-year level, it's...we can't do anything on this site. It's just too big. It'd be a massive, massive cost. We own, as I mentioned, I mean, our company, we own the rest of this site. We are a local owner developer. We own buildings mostly throughout Southeast Michigan. We've owned them for a long time. We invest in them. We want this site to be as good as anybody here does. We don't October 13, 2026 32771 want it to be an eyesore, you know. I think a little activity here would be good. It would be, you know, more tax revenue for the area, which we hope would be a benefit. But again, we own that site next door. We're going to be looking at it every day and investing in it. Mr. Bongero: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for the petitioner? No other questions. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item? Sure, ma'am. Feel free to come up to the podium. Good evening. Margaret Bazerko, here on behalf of RMB Properties. I'm the managing member. RMB Properties owns two adjacent properties to the petitioner's property: 36704 Commerce and 36740 commerce. We've been there for 30 years, so this is a formal objection and request to postpone the decision until a full environmental and code compliance investigation is completed. I've received two notices of migration on September 23, which states that trichloroethylene exceeding EGLE permissible levels is present at the property in the soil and groundwater, and TCE is a volatile organic compound, and because it vaporizes easily, its migration onto my property introduces potential vapor intrusion risks for my buildings, and my property has been immediately devalued as a result. Under the waiver -use standards, you must evaluate whether a business negatively affects neighboring property values and public safety. And what I've just heard here from Mr. Uhazie, if I got the numbers correct, 55 trucks and in one parcel and 54 in another. That's a constant influx of heavy semi -trucks, and I think that could physically disturb the soil, impact monitoring wells, and exacerbate subsurface migration. So, adding that high impact semi -truck lot on top of an active chemical plume risks further soil disruption and permanent devaluation of my buildings. And in addition, I'm there every day watching what's going on, and the occupants already conducting loud and intrusive digging and renovations without a final zoning approval, the soil's already being disrupted. So, this shows a disregard for local code compliance. I do have the notice I'd like to submit to be a part of the record, a part of the file, and I request that the commission postpone a decision until a full investigation by the city's building and environmental departments can be completed. Thank you. Can I approach to submit this? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, Ms. Bazerko, if you'd like to give that to our planning staff, they'll make sure it gets included in our packet. Thank you for Ms. Bazerko: Mr. Wilshaw: October 13, 2026 32772 your presentation. Was there anything else you wanted to say, or you're all set? I think I'm all set. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your presentation. Appreciate that. All right. Anybody else in the audience wishing to speak on this item? If not, our petitioner does get the last word. If there's anything that you would like to say in regard to where we're at so far? Mr. Haboian: Yes, just a few things I'd like to clarify. This building is a contaminated building, just like honestly most of properties of this sort in Livonia are, and we are dealing with it. We did a phase one ESA, we did a phase two ESA, including soil sampling throughout the property. We actually just recently submitted our baseline environmental assessment to the state, our BEA. In connection with that, you do file a notice of migration to adjoining property owners. Anybody in our situation filing these does have to submit a notice of migration. It does not mean that pollution is actively going into somebody's property, but it is a notice that, just like her property, there is old contamination on it. We are, as I said, doing work on our building currently, we're working through plans and permits with the city, and we're not ahead of any of that at all. And yeah, I just wanted to note that we are filing all, dotting all our I's and crossing all our t's. We've used AKT Peerless to do our environmental investigations and have lots of evidence to back it all up. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright, thank you, Mr. Haboian. A couple of questions for you before you leave. I just wanted to ask about the property access to these lots. We're going to, I guess, call them parcel one and parcel two. Parcel one being the one that's immediately west of your, the Beaver building. That access is coming off of Amhrein Road. Is there going to be a gate to that area, or is it open? Mr. Haboian: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Haboian: There will be a gate. Okay, and how is someone going to get in and out of that gate if there's a truck? What trucks are parking there? Is it Beaver Trucks? We would be leasing it to a company, so they would have a code or a card. But it would be leased. It wouldn't be a...it wouldn't be like Airbnb style where one truck comes in. It would be leased to a company that would have their fleet there. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Haboian: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Haboian: October 13, 2026 32773 Okay, and then the parcel two, which I believe is the one for Roush. That will have access to the rear of one of Roush's buildings. Is that just going to be an open access? That'll be open access, and then they'll go out to Globe Street. Okay, and then lighting. I didn't hear a lot of talk about that. Is there going to be on -site lighting? There's some existing on -site lighting, and we'll be installing new bulbs and whatnot, but it's already there. Okay We did submit a photometric plan to the city as well. Okay, and will there be any overnighting of vehicles at any of these lots, in terms of a truck driver who's, you know, timed out on his hours, just pulling in there to rest, or are these going to be unattended vehicles? No, these are going to be...these are not going to be a rest stop. These are going to be up for long term. You know, again, Roush it'll...I don't know exactly how long their trucks will be there, but for the western half it'll be longer term storage of those trucks and trailers. Okay, so these are unattended vehicles. Yeah. Nobody will be sitting in there for hours at a time or anything. Okay. That's the only questions I had for the moment. Anything else from my colleagues while you're up here for our petitioner? Good evening. The fire marshal has listed a number of concerns, and I'd like to hear your responses. So, you say that trailers will be there for a while. What do you what do you anticipate the time that a trailer would be there? On the western half, we anticipate truck trailers to be there for one to several weeks at a time, maybe a little bit longer, but they're not going to be... it's not going to be a year at a time, it's not going to be a day at a time. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Haboian: October 13, 2026 32774 All right. My experience with these is that many times trailers will come in, and after a year they're junk. How are you going to police that? This is not going to be a junkyard. As mentioned, we're going to be... we're investing a significant amount of money into the adjacent property to rehab it and make it a world class facility for a French aerospace company. Mr. Ventura: Will these trailers be empty or will they be loaded? Mr. Haboian: There will be no cargo. Mr. Ventura: No cargo. Okay. How will you assure yourself of that? Mr. Haboian: It'll have to be a policy. I don't know that we'd be...we're not a customs agency. We're not going to be inspecting every single truck, but that'll be part of our lease with that company. And so, the whole thing will be leased to one company. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Haboian: The western half of the parking would. The or the western half would be Roush. The eastern...the middle half would be one company. Yeah, we're not going to be self-operating it and having individual truckers come in. It's going to be one company, that's it. Mr. Ventura: The fire marshal is concerned about access roads for fire equipment and the maintenance of those roads. How do you propose to accomplish that? Mr. Haboian: We're going to fine grade and install the crushed concrete. The site has a long history of similar uses and very heavy uses. Our diligence provides evidence that the subgrade should be able to support it fine. The gate at the entrance will have to be made to accommodate fire. My engineering folks know what you have to do for that, but of course we comply with code at the entrance, and then on the Roush site, there won't be a fence, there won't be a gate. It'll pull right in. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for our petitioner. All right, I think we have heard from our petitioner. We've heard from our audience, and we've heard from my colleagues. And a motion now is in order. October 13, 2026 32775 Mr. Ventura: I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Uhazie at this point. Mr. Wilshaw: Go ahead. Mr. Ventura: How is groundwater runoff managed on a on a gravel lot? How is stormwater rather? Mr. Uhazie: I don't know the details of...1 would imagine that it's permeable, just like through any other groundwater that's not paved. I would imagine also that the site is subject to what the stormwater ordinance was whenever this was developed originally. That's why any changes would require it to be up to the standards of today. Mr. Ventura: Okay, and so we...but we have no detail here saying that. Mr. Uhazie: No. Mr. Ventura: And since this is going to be a crushed concrete lot, what kinds of steps can we require of the developer to assure ourselves that the fire lanes will be established and maintained? I mean, I can see this is an unsupervised lot. Somebody could come in and drop a trailer, not knowing that this is supposed to be a fire lane. How is that? How do we... Mr. Uhazie: I don't know. That might be something that we would have to have further discussions with the fire marshal about. I. don't know how they typically have handled that in the past with storage yards. Mr. Ventura: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. You do raise an interesting question in terms of how does... you know, we're looking at a lot with lines on it, and you know you're not painting lines on gravel. So, I tend to agree with Mr. Drozes that we're preliminary with this. I feel like there's not enough detail here for us to answer and be assured that we have the answers to a number of these concerns that have been raised by our staff. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright. Mr. Bongero: My concern would be if it's anything other than paved. I wouldn't be for it. 1 think it's got to be paved. October 13, 2026 32776 Mr. Wilshaw: Appreciate those comments. We are at the point where the public hearing has been closed. A motion is in order. On a motion by Droze, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-68-2026 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 13, 2026, on Petition 2026-09-02-25 submitted by 36555 Amrhein LLC, requesting waiver use approval under Section 3.16 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to operate a truck and trailer storage facility at 36555 Amrhein Road, located on the south side of Amrhein Road between Levan Road and Globe Street in the northwest '/4 of Section 29., the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2026-09-2-25 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all the special and general waiver use standards and requirements; 2. That the petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the proposed storage of trailers, equipment and materials will be detrimental to the maintenance of the site in an orderly and satisfactory condition and would be a deterrent to the Tong -term stability of this area; and, 4. That the surrounding properties in the immediate proximity of the subject property will be adversely affected by the outdoor storage. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 2026-08-06-02 City Planning Comm. Mr. Droze, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda Petition 2026-08-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to the referral by the City Council to determine whether Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32777 to add Section 13.16 to establish the means and reasoning for the creation of moratoria pertaining to specific zoning uses within the City of Livonia. Thank you. I don't have much to add to this other than just reiterating a little bit of history on how we got here. There's been lots of discussion with some items on council about enacting a moratorium on certain land uses and at the advice of the Law Department they recommended putting that process into a formal amendment to the zoning ordinance to ensure the city follows all the legal requirements. If we were to implement any future moratoria, this is that portion of the language for that to allow the city council to it. One thing to note is we've discussed in the past is that any moratorium would not be a permanent ban. It would be for a set time period that would expire. The city council would have one opportunity to extend it for a set amount of time. But it is not an ongoing thing that can just prohibit that use. It has to do be for something that is being studied and considered as a new use and allow the city council additional time to understand that topic, make a final decision of how that would be treated as a land use. No other changes have been proposed since we've last discussed this. No language changes have been made since we last discussed this. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, and no correspondence has come in on this item. Mr. Uhazie: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, and just to clarify, we are not enacting a moratorium or moratoria by drafting this ordinance. This is simply creating that framework that then the council would use if they wish to do a moratorium in the future. Mr. Uhazie: Correct. It would give council a more legally defensible way to enact a moratorium if they chose. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you. This petition is generated by the Planning Commission. We are the petitioner in this case, so we don't have a petitioner to present. So, I'm going to go to my colleagues. Is there anything that my colleagues...any questions or concerns they have that they would like to address at this point? Mr. Droze: We met with the city attorney at our study session. We asked the question about whether applicants could still advance projects within the normal process, going to PC and you know maybe not getting to council, and I think I understood that that was allowed. Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura: October 13, 2026 32778 Like, you could still submit, but you might have to wait until the moratoria ends. That was my understanding. That was my understanding as well. Yes. Okay, and I guess to that point, I guess under section two, and I apologize for not catching this earlier, but there is a line that says city council may enact a zoning moratorium via ordinance that temporarily prohibits the acceptance or approval of applications. Is that acceptance as in we accepted this project as okay or accepted in the process? And maybe that's one where you can just get rid of or prohibit the approval of applications. That would be... I think that would be more, again based off of what the attorney said...so I would probably have to defer to what he was referring to, just because he would have a better understanding of the legal framework of what's required to enact this. But I think your proposal of just the approval of applications would seem more reasonable based off of what we were told at the last meeting. Okay, because that would still, I guess, as I as I read it, you know, it could be up to a year of moratorium, and then with the potential extension, but if you're allowed to still kind of submit and move through that process and wait, then you're not losing a whole, you know, full year in that process. So, okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Drose. Mr. Ventura, I believe you are next. Yeah, I guess I have to say that I'm not comfortable with this action on the part of the City Council. Livonia has always been a city that has been, to choose a phrase, open for business, and we enjoy a reputation for low taxes, and we have low taxes because we have strong development, and we have strong development because we have embraced a broad range of different kinds of commercial and industrial and other kinds of economic activity in the city, and we've never hung up a sign that says we're not open for business. City councils historically have responded to the challenges of a new use by digging in and figuring out what to do about it. And Mr. Droze pointed out paragraph two here, where it says City Council of Livonia finds that a particular land use potentially threatens. Well, I don't know how a city council can find that a land use potentially threatens without some study, and these things don't come out of the ether. There's a process by which they end up in front of the city council, and they start here, and they really, actually, start in our in our Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Wilshaw: October 13, 2026 32779 Planning Department with our planning staff, and so they don't burst upon the city council by surprise, and we've never had an ordinance such as this in the past that has completely circumvented the whole process that we have in place in the city, that has been very successful in producing a very enviable community, and so I'm not in favor of this at all. I think it's a mistake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your comments. Anything else from my colleagues? I do want to go to the audience as well and see... A quick comment to piggyback off Mr. Ventura. It's like, why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? It's been working this long. I guess, I think that's your point, Pete. It's like Livonia...I love this community. I think it's very welcoming, and I just don't see a need for this myself either. That's all I gotta say. Okay. Are all my colleagues settled for the moment? All right. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item. If so, feel free to come forward. Jerry Karasinski, 1948 Bainbridge Avenue, Livonia, MI. I'd like to address that point that Mr. Ventura brought up. Why would we want a moratorium ordinance when we haven't needed one in the past. Well, certain land uses today are much more controversial than they were in the past. They're much more complex than they were in the past. We need only look at data centers, and some of the discussion at the meeting about the actual ordinance and definition of what a data center is versus a data processing facility or a computer room in an office building. So, as our society and our technology has gotten more complex, I think it really does overwhelm City Council to deal with some of these items, and to have this as a way of slowing things down so that they could have the time to address it is an appropriate risk management technique. Yeah, it's unfortunate that we would have to even consider having this kind of an ordinance, but I do believe, from my standpoint, being able to manage risk is the most important reason why you would want to have this ordinance. So, thank you, and I do appreciate those comments and that discussion. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Karazinski. Hi. Good evening, ma'am. Natalie corner of Mayfield and Brookfield, Livonia, MI. I don't like to reveal my exact address, but thank you for taking the time to hear me out tonight. I don't have much. I was hoping to clarify one point as I did attend the meeting on the 22nd, which, from my understanding, 1 believe Mr. Wilshaw: October 13, 2026 32780 it was like nine or 10 ordinances were tabled at that time. So, I just...are we discussing a separate ordinance, or is what we're discussing does that umbrella, you know, what we discussed on the 22"d? I understand what you're talking about. You're referring to the data center ordinance that we had at our previous meeting. This is a totally separate ordinance that has nothing to do with that. These were both created or the genesis of these two ordinances, both the data center ordinance and now this moratorium ordinance, were both referred to us by the City Council, and there is certainly some overlap in the sense that there was talk at this city council about enacting a moratorium for data centers, but this ordinance for moratoriums is not specific to data centers. Ms. Natalie: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: It could be used for that. It could be used for any other potential use that the City Council wishes to use it for. So, I just want to... hopefully that makes sense. Ms. Natalie: Yes, thank you for that. Mr. Wilshaw: Yeah, we're not going to talk about the other stuff from the other day. Ms. Natalie: Okay, I appreciate that clarification. Mr. Wilshaw: That will be coming down the road. Ms. Natalie: Okay, all right, nothing further. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate you coming tonight. Anybody else in the audience wishing to speak on this item of moratorium? If not, I'm going to go back to my colleague's. Mr. Uhazie. Mr. Uhazie: One thing I do want to note, based off of the last comments and some of the comments from the commissioners, is that one of the reasons that the Law Department recommended this ordinance be formalized because Livonia has been historically a welcoming community. One thing that is called out specifically here is that it's the item that is...the land use that would be proposed for a moratorim would need to threaten the public health, safety, welfare of the citizens of Livonia, and that is a potential threat that is not adequately addressed by current ordinances. So, what this does is also set up a framework to prevent future councils from October 13, 2026 32781 saying we want to do a moratorium for whatever because we don't like it. This would basically state that any moratoria has to be for something that is impacting possible health safety. It gives language so that any moratorium has to have justifiable public health impacts that are not currently met by the ordinance. So, it does make it so that in a weird way, it does allow the City Council to or prevent the City Council from being less welcoming in the future. If that makes sense. It would basically say that the moratorium is required to ensure the safety of the residents, as opposed to just saying because we don't like it. Mr. Wilshaw: It has to be something that's not already addressed by current ordinance? Mr. Uhazie: Correct, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Which is a key point as well. Mr. Uhazie: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you for those comments. I think that's helpful. We've heard from the audience, any additional discussion from my colleagues? Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Chair, thank you. So, you know, I do kind of think about obviously these things came together along with the data center language that we got a couple weeks ago, and I think you know in that case, you know we've been able to put together I think a pretty decent edit to the ordinance that covers a lot of the concerns. I don't know, Jacob?. Do you know how long did that take to put together the edits? Basically start to finish. I guess what I'm getting at is like the one year moratorium. Does it need to be a full one year? Could it be six months that you could have additional installments? Because that's a long time. It certainly didn't take a year to accumulate that stuff. I think the year was based off of ...it's more of giving time for like that data to come out, you know, for the data center thing in particular. It did take some digging into the kinds of things that other communities are dealing with on the forefront. I think it just...the year was chosen so that it's enough time for communities to be impacted, and we can actually find data. If it was too short of a time, we may not have enough time to, or there may not be enough data available to really make an accurate evaluation. But there's nothing set in stone that I understand that would say like it has to be a year. It can be a shorter amount of time, and it Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Droze: Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32782 certainly did not take the a year for us to write the full ordinance for the data centers. If that's what you're asking. And then, you know, on the basis of health, safety, welfare, you know, I guess I'm curious. You know, is that something that a council would request the Law Department, to evaluate and then come back with a report, or is that a matter of they make the decision at a meeting that you know that the feeling, and therefore we're going to issue the moratorium. I think they would discuss it. I think legal would advise them on what constitutes health safety, and I think ultimately council can decide what they want to do. But it just opens them up to more legal action if they did go forward. Ultimately, they would refer to law to decide if ifs legally defensible of what we're proposing does constitute a public health threat versus just a perceived threat. Yeah, because I mean...what's being discussed here in the document, it's a good process, but I can also see that there's just for every point in here, there's probably 10 questions that people could ask about you know...we just had the site that came up that talked about you know groundwater contamination. Well, soil contamination is a thing, but we're not specifically listing it here. Not to say we need to. There are just the things that we don't...we can't predict. You know that could be in the future, and so I guess that would be the concern that I have is that, you know, taking a little bit of time to make a good decision and edit the ordinance so it's in a way that's thoughtful. But that's the other thing we don't want to rush it and then have unintended consequences, like we talked about at the data center meeting about the telecommunication infrastructure. Like, do we somehow create a situation where we create a bunch of uses that, you know, need to be grandfathered out? So, I get that, but I guess the concerns are still many. But I think my main thing is some sort of instrument to make sure that it is a process that's used sparingly, and we're using our, you know, our various departments and our experts within the city, like we did with the data center ordinance, to make the right decisions for the future. Yeah, I think we can definitely, you know, as I think Eric said last time, sharpen our pencils and provide some more detail. Ultimately, I think the overall goal of it is to set up that framework that gives us a legally defensible thing, so we can probably provide more details to make sure it's detailed enough that we October 13, 2026 32783 can...that future councils understand what they need to do to make that legally defensible. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Drose. Any other questions, comments? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie, walk me through this legal review that you just made reference to. How does this work? A petition comes forward and says, "I want to do X". Now, as I understand our process today, every petition is not referred to the law department. Mr. Uhazie: No, I'm just referring. So, if... Mr. Ventura: Well, let me finish. So, if potentially use X is referred to the Law Department, how does the Law Department in the position to determine whether it's a threat to the public welfare? They're not scientifically based. They're a Law Department. So, what places them in the position to make this judgment? What happens then? Who ultimately makes this judgment, and what happens to the petitioner while this deliberation is going on? Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: I guess what I'm referring to more of this is if City Council decided to enact a moratorium, say they wanted to enact a moratorium of chicken restaurants, this would make it so that you can't just enact a moratorium. The city would have to defend in court if they were sued, the law department would basically have to defend that we consider chicken restaurants a public health safety concern. That's what I'm saying when they refer to the law department, not during the review of the actual application, but during the review of like whether a moratorium is enacted. So, it would ultimately be up to council to say we would like to put a moratorium on chicken restaurants. This I would imagine is how it would go, is that legal would say we don't have the legal justification to say that this is a public health. Not that because of X, Y, and Z, but this would be for legal reasons. We can't define this as a public health. We would recommend defining this as a public health issue. It's more about... it's not that they are declaring that it's public. It's making it from a legally defensible point of view, I understand that, and I thank you for your explanation, but I'm talking about something that's not so transparently wrong as trying to ban a chicken restaurant. How are they going to determine that something is a threat to the public welfare when it's not been demonstrated in any way. I mean, the data center debate is much in the news nationwide. Okay, there's a tremendous amount of misinformation flying around out there, but Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Uhazie: October 13, 2026 32784 as it relates to the City of Livonia, the kind of data center that happened in Saline, for example, cannot happen here, and everybody knows that. So that's not a threat to us. And so having a having an ordinance that regulates that kind of installation is -it's an interesting exercise, but it's not going to be applicable ever in this city. But there's a great deal, a great body of knowledge flying around in social media and serious publications about that topic. What happens to a subject that comes to us, potentially to the city council, that doesn't have all that information out there? If it doesn't have the information out, that's why...that's when we would be able to put the moratorium in to understand those effects. How do you make a determination that you need a moratorium is my point if the information isn't out there. I mean, the gentleman spoke to data centers tonight. There's a million and a half or 10 million words out there about it. This is something else that they're determining that it's going to be a threat to the public health and welfare. But it would be council to determine whether they feel it is. My understanding of it is that it's their determination to whether they feel it is, and then the law department would determine if it is a defensible position to prevent a lawsuit. It may turn out that during that moratorium time, it was determined that we do not need to change the ordinance because that use would not affect the public health, but it would give us that time to make that determination. But we are certainly able to go into law and have them, you know, put in more detail of what they would be, how they would determine the public health. Mr. Ventura: Yeah, I'm of a mind with Mr. Droze that I'm not comfortable with the language. Mr. Uhazie: I mean, this did come down with the data centers originally, so I mean, data centers are coming back up on the agenda soon. We can certainly go back and you know bring these two items back together and go back to law and make sure that we can more clearly define the threats to public health. Mr. Bongero: So, some like the EVs could fall under this too if they deem it's a health risk. Mr. Uhazie: Correct. Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Bongero: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: October 13, 2026 32785 But then that would blanket all applications coming in, right? Yes. All EV chargers. Yes. If that was the case, they put in the moratorium because they thought that there was a fire hazard. While they gathered more information, that would probably then...once that information was gathered, they would make the decision of how in one year. In one year? Yes. But then if they still don't have enough information, they can say we need another six months. Six months, yes, and then they would have to make that determination. Okay. So, a question on where we're at right now. If the...let's just say that the city does not have this ordinance on moratoria's. which we don't currently, but the City Council feels they want to enact a moratorium because of either a real risk that may be present or a perceived risk because of moral outrage that's happening by, you know, a cadre of people coming in and saying we need to stop this, which has been happening as of late in recent years. If the council does not have this tool available to them, what basis would they have to make a moratorium at this point? It is my understanding that they could still enact a moratorium if they decided so. It would open them up to more legal challenges by not having this framework. Basically, saying here's how we do it, here's the time period we're doing this. This was set up as just a way to formally make that policy. Sure, and that's where I'm going. Is if the city council wishes to enact a moratorium right now on data centers or chicken restaurants or whatever flavor of the week we have in the media, they can do so by simple council resolution currently, but in doing so, it's a weaker position for the city. Mr. Uhazie: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: Mr. Wilshaw: October 13, 2026 32786 Because we don't have a legal framework that has been followed to say this is a process that we have in place. This is a procedure. These are criteria that we have to meet. Some of these criteria noted in this ordinance are, you know, things that harm health by, you know, damaging environment, drinking water, air pollution, and so on. Those would be reasons that fortify their temporary halt of these uses. Correct. What if they do it now, then they're on less stable ground? It doesn't mean they couldn't do it, but it just, yeah, it makes the argument less compelling, I guess, from a legal standpoint. Which we've, you know, seen examples of in the recent past in neighboring communities such as Saline, who did try blocking a data center, for example, and failed in court because they didn't have that firm foundation to stand on. I think one thing that the legal department has...one of the reasons they recommended this is going back to Pete's original point of Livonia has historically been open to many uses and dealt with it at that time. I think there was concern that if you put a moratoria on, say, for data centers, which could be a very, very likely a legally justifiable one, does that open the floodgates for future councils to, you know, start the slippery slope? We did the data centers, we can do car washes. Then we'll do chicken places, and it kind of gets looser from there. This would tie their hands in the future more to say you really got to do it for something that's for public health. You can't just implement whatever you want. And you know, I don't want to delve too deep into the politics of this, but you know, let's be honest about it. There is politics at play. City Council is a political body. We're not. That's one of the beauties of the Planning Commission. The people who created the Planning Enabling Act, and so on, were wise people in the sense that a lot of people might wonder why is there a Planning Commission, if we're sitting here every night making recommendations that just go to city council, and city council can just override everything we do anyway. But the reality is, we're serving a very important purpose in the sense that we are not a political body; we are an appointed body, serving at the behest of the mayor as part of the administration, and we serve a different role in the sense that not only can we dive deeper into obviously October 13, 2026 32787 each of these items than city council can with an agenda of 30 items, but also it creates some separation in the sense of this body can look at items and make our decisions based on solid planning principles and whatnot, where oftentimes the council gets put into a position of political pressure because they're elected and they need to secure votes and they need to make the electorate happy at times, especially in election years. And unfortunately, for, you know, the reality is those things do play a factor in some of their decision making at times. I've been around long enough, and Mr. Ventura certainly has as well. We've seen many times over my years at least that, you know, council people have sometimes had to make a decision that may not be the decision that they want to make, but they're doing what's politically expedient at times, and the so I throw that out there. And we know this year there was talk of several moratoriums early in this year. I heard not only about the data center, but I did hear about car washes, gas stations, auto repair facilities. There was, I don't know how far any of those went within the City Council, I'm not going to certainly speak for the City Council, but certainly a group of residents were calling for those moratoriums, and there are people on the council who were discussing those at meetings, and that's where we do get into that slippery slope argument of, you know, for political reasons sometimes they...it wins points by doing that, or at least discussing those things. I agree with the views of my colleagues that this city has been very business friendly, and has been known as a city where petitioners, be it residents, sometimes they come to us for certain things, but we often deal with businesses, of course, on these site plans and waiver uses. They know that they can come to the city, and we will work with them, and we will try to be open to uses in the city and allow businesses to flourish and prosper in this community. And we've historically done very well with that. And there are certain communities over the years that have not had that reputation. They have had reputations as ones that struggle. That petitioners struggle in. They will have to go to the meetings and meeting after meeting, and they'll have to make people happy and to get approvals for their items, and oftentimes they ended up in lawsuits because of you know repeated denials, and now you got judges making the decisions on where a business can go and how a business looks and how it can operate, and you know our hands become tied, and our ability to control those things get taken out of the mix when it gets into legal action. So, we don't want that. So yeah, do I want to see the city enact moratoriums for things? No, I don't. I don't think that's appropriate, but do we need to? Our charge tonight is not, do we like moratoriums or not. It's are we...we're trying to create a Mr. Ventura: October 13, 2026 32788 framework in which if the City Council wishes to propose a moratorium, that they have a firmer foundation in which to and process in which to follow, including limitations on how long that can be, as opposed to just arbitrarily deciding any time they wish. That's sort of what I see before us tonight. That's my thoughts at this point. As far as where this goes, we have options. We can say that we like this language as is. We can say we want this language to be worked on further, and table it. If we do table, I would ask my colleagues that we, in making that tabling resolution, give some direction back to the staff, back to the administration, the Planning Department, and Law Department, as to what aspects that they would like to see sharpened for sharpening pencils, as opposed to just blanket saying "figure it out". So, I would at least recommend that if we go that direction, and I have said my piece, Excuse me. I'd like to respond to your lengthy dissertation by giving you a compliment. That was excellently done. I thought it touched on a broad range of concerns and realities as we sit here as an unelected Planning Commission, as opposed and contrasting to the position many times unenviable that city council finds themselves in. And so I think I agree with Mr. Droze that I'd like to see this tabled. In terms of specific guidance to sharpen the pencil of the language. I'd like to see a clearer path forward. In other words, how is a determination made that something is going to be, or potentially is, threatening to the city, or to the residents, or to the health and welfare of the community. There needs to be some rationale behind that determination. It can't be capricious, and it can't be the result of, I think, as you put it, the flavor of the month in terms of public concern. So that'd be my request of the Law Department is to give us a clear path forward to find out how, if this is in place, it's initiated, and then I would also like to see a shorter time period. I mean, I think... Mr. Bongero: I think I agree with that. Shorter time period. Mr. Ventura: I think a year is too long. Mr. Bongero: Six months, maybe. Mr. Ventura: We've got petitioners. We've got the public that we're supposed to be serving here, and I think we are earnest in our attempts to do that, and I think we ought to make it happen one way or another. Really, we have an 18 month, and a petitioner is not going to wait around for 18 months. They're going to go October 13, 2026 32789 somewhere else, and so we need to show that we're willing to act expeditiously to resolve the question. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Ventura. Any other comments? Mr. Bongero: My biggest concern is the length of time. I liked everything Pete said and what you had to say, Ian. I just think that that's way too long. You got to shorten up the time period. Maybe even not even six months. Seems like you could get a lot done in three months and maybe extend it another three. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Any other thoughts? Mr. Droze: I would just echo the process. I think we look at any site that we get at this table as a commission, and we always have the letters that go with those submitted, and those are from really our subject matter experts within the city that are looking for issues with health, safety, welfare, and that to me is a good framework where, you know, if those departments are seeing those concerns, they'll be able to sign off on them, and then the staff is going to go right back. Law is going to go right back to those subject matter experts within the city, just as we did with data centers, where DPW looked around and got a lot of good information, made informed decisions about what went into that ordinance, brought in, you know, subject matter experts as necessary. I think that to me seems like a pretty responsible process, and I think Mr. Ventura's framing that and putting that into the language would be really helpful, and making sure that this is a...it's used sparingly. And when it's used, it's an effective tool too, because we do want...if it is something we need to correct for, which we saw with data centers, let's have a clear process and you know work through it quick. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you for your comments. I think we have discussed this quite a bit. I do watch the clock, and I'd like to keep the meeting moving. We've had a very effective discussion. We've had a brief public hearing with brief comment from our audience. I do appreciate that as well. It feels to me, and I'm not going to stifle debate if someone wants to continue talking. But it feels to me that we're probably ready for some sort of a motion. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-69-2026 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 13, 2026, on October 13, 2026 32790 Petition 2026-08-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to the referral by the City Council to determine whether to add Section 13.16 to establish the means and reasoning for the creation of moratoria pertaining to specific zoning uses within the City of Livonia, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item to November 10, 2026. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 PETITION 2026-05-08-02 Chick Fil A Mr. Droze, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda Petition 2026-05-08-02 submitted by Chipman Design Architecture on behalf of Chick-Fil-A requesting site plan approval pursuant of Section 3.11 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to include a windscreen between the existing columns by the drive- thru door at 11700 Middle Belt Road located on the corner of Middle Belt and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Uhazie: Thank you. So, I do not have much to add other than the petitioner has come back from the tabling, the previous tabling, to propose installing permanent wind screens along the existing drive -through lanes. It would take up the same amount of area that was originally proposed. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie, before we get too deep, do we need to remove this from the table? On a motion by Bongero, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-70-2026 Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Uhazie: RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission on October 13, 2206, on Petition 2026-05-08-02 submitted by Chipman Design Architecture on behalf of Chick-Fil-A requesting site plan approval pursuant of Section 3.11 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to include a windscreen between the existing columns by the drive-thru door at 11700 Middle Belt Road located on the corner of Middle Belt and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, does hereby remove the item from the table. Thank you. So yes, this would be permanent installation of these fencing panels. There would be decorative windscreen panels consisting Mr. Wilshaw: October 13, 2026 32791 of an aluminum perforated panel system finished in dark bronze, shown here. Again, it would go between the existing columns and along the existing canopy to provide windbreak. There are no additional communication to read with this. I know the petitioner does have a presentation prepared that can provide a little bit more background. But that is all I have. Alright, thank you, Mr. Uhazie. Any questions for staff? There's no questions for staff. Our petitioner is here. Good evening, sir. Thank you for sitting through a lengthy discussion about moratorium. Daniel Carver Hall Jr. with CPH, representing Chick Fil A, 400 West Fulton Street, Central Florida. I'm here in regard to the revised proposal of the windscreen at the 11700 Middle Belt Road, Chick Fil A. After the commission's feedback on the previous system, we took a closer look at the concerns raised about appearance, durability, and the long term operation of the previously proposed system, and tonight we propose a revised alternative that uses permanent aluminum windscreen intended to better complement the existing building and canopy. If you can move to slide two, please. Thank you. So you can see, the revised design replaces the previously proposed vinyl cordons with fixed wind screens made of dark bronze perforated aluminum panels. The color and finish were selected to better match the existing canopy and overall appearance of the building. This system will be fixed in place, so it will be it will provide a consistent appearance throughout the year. Next slide, please. If you help me, the proposed windscreen will approximately be 76 feet and 6 inches long, and about 8 feet in height, and will consist of about 18 connected prefabricated sections. Each section includes frame aluminum panels that can be individually removed and replaced if maintenance is needed. This allows individual components to be serviced without requirement, with the required replacement of the entire windscreen system at a time. Another important change is that, if you see in the next slide, is that the windscreen will be supported independently of the existing drive -through canopy. The existing system will be anchored to be a continuous reinforced concrete footing, approximately eight feet long, with a minimum width of 18 inches. The sections will be secured to the footing and connected to one another, so the windscreen will not rely on the existing canopy columns for structural support. The revised system has been evaluated by a structural engineer using the 2021 Michigan Building Code and AACE 716 criteria. The analysis is based on 108 mile per hour ultimate three second wind design gusts and evaluates both the aluminum frame and members and their October 13, 2026 32792 anchors under the resulting wind pressures. The results confirm that the windscreen and anchors are adequately designed to withstand the required wind loads and remain within the applicable design limits. At this moment, I would like to address a few concerns that were brought up during the previous study meeting. The commission requested additional information regarding sun exposure, lighting, and installation impacts. I would like to provide that the panels would be installed in the grass area for about two feet from the curb itself, which should limit the exposure to the ice and salt applied within drive -through lanes. The manufacturer has also confirmed that all windscreen components will be powder coated for strong corrosion resistance, and that the perforated panels are aluminum, which provides additional natural resistance to corrosion. Together, the aluminum construction and powder coated finish provide a high- level resistance to salt spray. As another maintenance measure, the manufacturer recommends washing off the windscreen to be exposed to concentrated salt buildup. The proposed wind screens is also not expected to adversely affect lighting beneath the canopy. The existing under canopy fixtures provide essentially illumination than the surrounding parking lot lightings, and while they are perforated aluminum, they will also allow sunlight to come through during the day. In fact, it will probably make the lighting in the canopy, more compact, more light since the other side probably have less light because it will be obstructing the exterior, and the plan continues to know we don't propose closing off the drive -through lanes for this. With that, we believe the windscreen addresses the concerns raised during the previous review and provides a more permanent solution for the site. We appreciate the commission's time and consideration, and respectfully request approval for a proposal. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Wilshaw: All right, thank you, sir. Appreciate that presentation. Any questions for our petitioner, Mr. Ventura? Mr. Ventura: I have just one or two questions. So the central panel is perforated and it's aluminum. Is it powder coated or anodized, or how's it finished? Mr. Hall: Yes, powder coated. Mr. Ventura: Okay, and the frame, the dark frame around it, is that aluminum as well? Mr. Hall: Yes. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Hall: Mr. Ventura: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Droze: Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Hall: October 13, 2026 32793 And that's again powder coated? Everything is powder coated. Everything's coated. Okay, thank you. That answers my question. All right, thank you. Any other questions on this? I think you covered everything. Love the engineering details. Three -body diagrams Says the engineer. All right. Anything else from my colleagues? This is an item that is on the pending agenda. So, audience communication does require unanimous consent. But we only have one person left in our audience. Mr. Karazinski, are you interested in speaking? Okay, we'll not try to make a motion to make sure that you can speak. So you're good. All right, thank you. Anything else that you'd like to tell us before we make our decision. Thank you for your time. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright. I will now go back to my colleagues. A motion is in order. On a motion by Bongero, seconded by Droze, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-70-2026 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2026-05-08-02 submitted by Chipman Design Architecture on behalf of Chick-Fil- A requesting site plan approval pursuant of Section 3.11 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to include a windscreen between the existing columns by the drive-thru door at 11700 Middle Belt Road located on the corner of Middle Belt and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Windscreen Plan identified dated October 06, 2026, prepared by Vector Engineering, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2. That the Site Plan, prepared by Chipman Design Architecture Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. October 13, 2026 32794 3. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 4. Pursuant to Section 13.13 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Wilshaw: 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 #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,250th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Droze, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,250th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on September 22, 2026. On a motion by Bongero, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-71-2026 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,250th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2026, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Bongero, Ventura, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Caramagno, Dinaro, Long ABSTAIN: Droze Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,251st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 13, 2026, was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. October 13, 2026 32795 CITY P I NNING COMMISSION Sam aramagno, Secretary lan Wilshaw,