Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-03-0122069 MINUTES OF THE 901'' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 1, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 901s' Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Ms. Carol Smiley, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: William La Pine R. Lee Morrow Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley Members absent: Robert Alanskas John Walsh Messrs. At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; Ms. Debra Walter, Clerk - Typist II, and Ms. Marge Roney, Program Supervisor, were also present. Acting Chairman Smiley 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 anc/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 fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-01-01-01 DALY REALTY Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-01-01-01, submitted by Daly Realty, LLC, requesting to rezone property at 33101 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest 114 of Section 3 from P to C-2. 22070 Ms. Smiley: We have received a letter dated February 15, 2005, from Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton and Amann, LLP, on behalf of Daly Realty, LLC, requesting that this item be adjourned to the next available meeting. The Commission has approved this adjournment to the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting of April 5, 2005. Mr. Pieroecchi: We are going to leave it on the table. Mr. Shane: Its not on the table, Dan. Mr. Morrow: We're going to reschedule it. Mr. Pieroecchi: Let's table it and then we'll vote on R. Mr. La Pine: I'll move that it be tabled until April 5. Mr. Morrow: Madam Chairman, I think if we table it, it leaves us to believe that we had the public hearing, and we have not had the public hearing. I would say we just adjourn it to April 5, and at that time, we will have the public hearing. Mr. Piercecchi: Sowe will adjourn ilio April 5. ITEM #2 PETITION 2005-01-01-02 SE Michigan Management Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-01-01-02, submitted by Southeastern Michigan Management Company, requesting to rezone properly at 27480 and 27486 Five Mile Road, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Inkster Road and Foch Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 from R-1 to R -C. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Ms. Smiley: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Miller: There two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated January 31, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal. The following legal description should be used for the parcel to be rezoned." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is dated 22071 Ms. February 23, 2005, from Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Alderman who Is the petitioner here this evening? reside at 15317 Green Lane, stating their opposition to this G. Myers, Southeastern Michigan Management Company, 42705 Grand rezoning. That is the extent of the correspondence. Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Morrow: I'm looking at the map. On one map is appears that the whole Are there any questions from the Commissioners? site is under for rezoning to RC and then the other one seems to Piercecchi: say there's a portion to remain zoned R-1. On any action Mr. tonight, would that just limit the recommendation of RC to On that rear portion there? everything but the residential area, or is it the whole site that's Piercecchi: going RC? I want to make sure I understand what's before us. Mr. Nowak: On one of the maps, we outlined the entire area that was involved in this proposal. However, they are excluding the north 140 feel. That area is not requested to be rezoned to RC. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: If the northern part is not rezoned and stays R-1, from that darker area back there which goes to the RC, if the RC was developed and this plan was approved, then that R-1 property would be landlocked because there is no road proposed to go back to the R-1 properly. Is that correct? Mr. Nowak: The site plan does not indicate any means of access back to that northerly portion. Mr. LaPine: So that parcel just sits back there from now to doomsday unless the petitioner sells it off to the adjacent property owners. Is that correct? Mr. Nowak: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: Is the petitioner here this evening? Ronald G. Myers, Southeastern Michigan Management Company, 42705 Grand River, Suite 201, Novi, Michigan 48375 Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to follow up on the ... Mr. Myers: On that rear portion there? Mr. Piercecchi: What about that R-1 section? 22072 Mr. Myers: That rear portion . . we have two intents, offers to purchase that rear portion there by adjacent land owners if we get our rezoning and everything goes through. They would like to take that and just maintain it as it is. There are trees and openness back there. Mr. Piercecchi: You're going to offer that... Mr. Myers: We have two intents, two notices of offer to purchase. Mr. Piercecchi: You're going to offer it for sale or you're just going to give it to them? Mr. Myers: It's going to be for sale at a good price. Mr. Shane: As a general rule, we don't usually get into details on site plans when we're talking about rezoning. On the other hand, I want to be sure the property can be utilized for the purpose for which you're asking. So right now, that site plan is deficient for side yards. I'm just wondering if you had considered doing something else with that building so that it does meet the side yard requirements. For example, turning it 90 degrees or whatever. Mr. Myers: We did look at this. If you do tum it 90 degrees, what it does do, starts pulling it back more towards the north property line, and it starts to all of a sudden hamper the look and the elevation from Five Mile as you look at the building. You'd be looking at an end of the unit instead of the entrances to all the units. When you do that, it starts pulling it back closer to the neighbors. What we have tried to do is to pull it as far south close to Five Mile as possible so that we are maintaining that open space at the rear ofthe building. Mr. Shane: Of course, the other obvious solution is to take off a couple units. Mr. Myers: Well, you always have to look at something as being financially feasible. Mr.Shane: Iunderstand. Mr. Myers: And when you do that, what happens is, you remove two units, your land cost just jumps. And then you have to sit back and 22073 look and say, is it feasible to build it or are you going to price yourself out of the game so to speak. Mr. LaPine: To follow-up on Mr. Shane's line of thinking here, and I land of think the same way about turning the building. To do some compromising here, let's assume we lose one unit. Do you know how much we could pick up for one side yard? Mr. Myers: These units are stacked units, sir. So if you lose one ... Mr. LaPine: You have to lose two. Mr. Myers: You've got to lose two. Mr. LaPine: If you turn it, how far back would it go, because you're still going to be in the RC portion of your property. It won't affect this back portion if you are successful in selling it off to the adjacent property owners. I land of agree that I'd rather see it running the opposite way than it is now. Have you ever shown us a plan about how that would look? Mr. Myers: There was a plan that was done several years ago in regards to having it tum thatway. Mr. LaPine: I thought there was too. I thought I had it but for some reason or another, I can't seem to put my fingers on it. Mr. Myers: It was somewhere back in the past because there have been several plans done on this. Mr. LaPine: Let me ask one more question then. Assuming that you gel your approvals, and the R7 property in the rear was sold off to the landowners, is it being bought by one person on the east and one person on the west, or both people on the one side? Mr. Myers: Right now, one on the north and one on the west side. Mr. LaPine: Would the properly be split down the center? Is that what they would do? It would have to be split somehow. Mr. Myers: It would be split somehow. Mr. La Pine: The two owners there would have to have it on the tax rolls. Mr. Myers: Yes, and it would be added to the tax rolls for their properties. 22074 Mr. La Pine: The problem I see with that, if the property is going to be maintained, both parties would have to agree to what they're going to do back there, and I can see some problems there. Maybe these two neighbors would want to buy it and would work well together. If they sold off their property, the next neighbor might say, hey I'm going to run a fence down the center of this property or do something of that nature. Then the next question I have, before I can even approve this, I would want a guarantee that the properly is going to be sold to the adjacent property owners. I mean that's very important to me. Mr. Myers: We do have two letters of intent signed by each of the property owners. Mr. Pieroecchi: I'd like to ask fellow commissioner, H Shane, in regard to that piece of property the R1: What if it doesn't gel sold? Are we stepping into territory here that we shouldn't be in? If somebody else buys it, and then we're forced to put in a road or things of that nature. Has this game ever been played before? Mr. Shane: Without access, it cant be used. Mr. Piercecchi: Is that good planning to Iandlock something without have a final judgment on that piece of property and a guarantee that its either going to be given away or sold? Mr. Shane: Ordinarily, we don't like to do that. No. The logical solution is to sell it to the adjacent owners. Mr. Pieroecchi: But what if they don't want to buy? Mr. Shane: Even if the whole thing is rezoned RC, then you're going to have more units back there. I think the best thing to do is for him to sell it eventually, and if he doesn't, then it remains a piece of property connected to his and open space. That's the way I would handle it. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. So it isn't paramount on us that we do resolve that issue? Mr. Shane: I don't think you can resolve it at this point. You have to judge the RC on its merits here, and let that fall as it may. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. 22075 Mr. La Pine: H, can I ask you a question? You have your slide rule there. If he turned this building, how far back would it go? Mr. Shane: You're reading my mind. It looks to me like it would extend another approximately 60 feet back, which wouldn't even bring it back to the northern edge of that parking lot there. The setback is 75 feel, is it not AI? Mr. Nowak: That's correct. Mr. Shane: So if you see the 75 feet line there and if you measure the building, to me another 60 feet or so isn't going to put that building far enough back to cause any concem. To me, that's the only way the property can be utilized unless he decides to take some units off, which he probably isn't going to do. Mr. La Pine: I figured that too. I figured if he had to take up the parking lot where we see it now, the 62 feet, then we have to have the parking probably in the rear and some in the front. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to take a much simpler approach to this. I'm going to put the site plan aside as it relates to developing the condos. I don't think 1, as one commissioner, could support RC as a portion of it and residential in the back because I'd like to see a parcel as large as possible developed, not necessarily in this fashion, but in some other fashion. By zoning it this way, we preclude any type of extension or redo of the site plan. The other thing, too, is we have a potential Iandlocking of a parcel that may or may not be sold to the abutting neighbors. So from a strictly zoning aspect, I couldn't support this petition. I would like to see it developed in the full RC or at least a single family or something of that nature. So basically that's where I'm coming from. Mr. Pieroecchi: Lee, do you think it should all be RC? Is that what you're saying? Mr. Morrow: I guess what I'm saying is we are potentially Iandlocking some property. I don't know why we're not rezoning the whole thing to RC, which gives us the largest amount of space to develop in some fashion. I just can't support it as its presented tonight from that basis. I don't want to get hung up on the site plan tonight. I mean that's something we would consider at another meeting. It may conform and it may not conform, but I was hoping that the petitioner would integrate this whole development on the entire site and give us something that is 22076 Mr. La Pine: I guess I understand everybody's point of view here, but the ideal situation here, to my way of thinking, is the whole property be rezoned R-1. But the problem we have here is that the back portion of the property is only 143 feet. If we put a 50 foot road there, it would not conform to the R1 regulations because you need 60 by 120. So you cant put any houses in back there. It's just impossible to do. If we give them on okay to use the whole properly for RC, the property owners back there who protested conforming and fits in with the abutting neighborhood. But I'm just one commissioner. That's where I'm coming from. Mr. Myers: Would you like to see the letter of intent that is signed by the adjacent property owners? Mr. Morrow: I was trying to come from the standpoint ... its a letter of intent. It may or may not come to fruition. I'm just coming from sinctly a zoning standpoint, looking at the parcel in two sections rather than one. Mr. Piercecchi: I see Mr. Morrow's point, but RC, which was the second shot that was done on that particular site, and there was a valid protest. That's why that whole package was turned down once before. We're kind of repeating what we did before, but I don't think we should get that involved in the site plan tonight. I really don't because there are many things about that plan. There are no garages. You know, this is not a motel project. I think it should have garages. There are ways. I don't know about exact dimensions on the Sl. Martins property. At was going to look intolhalfor me. Would one ofthose unitsflon there Al? Mr. Nowak: I did look into that. I did a quick analysis. Because those are larger buildings because they include attached garages, you couldn't fit it so that long access to the building was parallel to Five Mile Road. You need at least 230 feet to do that, and this property has a width of 202. But if you turned it 90 degrees, it appears that one of those 12 units buildings could fit on this property. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. So they could basically follow the St. Martins plan, rotate it, get 12 units in there and each unit with a garage? Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. I don't want to belabor the site plan business. Mr. La Pine: I guess I understand everybody's point of view here, but the ideal situation here, to my way of thinking, is the whole property be rezoned R-1. But the problem we have here is that the back portion of the property is only 143 feet. If we put a 50 foot road there, it would not conform to the R1 regulations because you need 60 by 120. So you cant put any houses in back there. It's just impossible to do. If we give them on okay to use the whole properly for RC, the property owners back there who protested 22077 before because they didn't want two-story condos up that high on their back portion of the property, then we've got another problem because if they have the protest petition, maybe the Council would have six votes and maybe not. I don't know. So I think we're kind of caught in the middle here of what really we can do. Maybe the solution, as Mr. Pieroecchi pointed out here, instead of going to the 16 units, we go to 12 units. I'm not in favor of zoning it all RC unless I know beforehand what's going to be developed there quite frankly. I know that's not the right way to go with just a rezoning pefilion, but I don't think d realistically can be rezoned all to R-1. Ms. Smiley: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Charles Miller, 15345 Green Lane. We were opposed to the condos before and most of our neighbors on Green Lane are today. They were supposed to be writing some letters and a couple of them couldn't make it tonight. I know some of the people on Foch do not want condos there. There was another site plan that they showed us with an office building on Five Mile and four houses built in the back. Most of the neighbors were for that. And then they tum right around and come back with the condos. I have the other site plan here that they had, but they never submitted it. So there is a road and they can put four houses back here and an office building on the front. Ms. Smiley: Thank you for coming this evening Mr. Myers: Can I comment on that other site plan that Mr. Miller commented about? Ms. Smiley: Sure. Mr. Myers: That was presented with an office building, and there were going to be four single families in the rear. No matter which way you go back to the rear, you're going to have to put a road in. We had so many of the adjacent owners object to that road, that's why my clients abandoned that particular plan and came back with the condos. We're trying to keep the condos more towards the south, towards the front of Five Mile to free up all that vacant properly at the back so the people would not get this feeling of a two-story condo being way back there. When you do flip it the other way, I did find my site plan, you come almost all the way back to where the jog is where Mr. Miller's property is. So it does start to pop it further back, and the appearance 22078 Mr. La Pine: Well, due to the fad that I have to agree with Mr. Shane, I'd like to see him come back with a plan shoving us the building switched around. That's one alternative, I think. And the second alternative, is there any possibility we can split this into two different buildings instead of one long building? Maybe one here and one behind it somehow. Maybe there's some other alternative you may come up with. Therefore, I'll ask for a tabling motion. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-18-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 1, 2005, on Petition 2005-01-01-02, submitted by Southeastern Michigan Management Company, requesting to rezone property at 27480 and 27486 Five Mile Road, located on the north side of Five that you would get from Five Mile would be like looking at a side of the building instead of the front of a building. I'm sure that the City would agree with me. It's much more pleasing to the eye to look at the front of the building than it would be to look at the side of building. Mr. Shane: Just as one commissioner, I'm going to tell you that if this is rezoned RC, and the site plan as submitted doesn't meet the zoning ordinance, I'm not going to approve it. That's why I'm speaking about the site plan because I want to make sure that the plan is going to work before I'm going to vole for rezoning. If you continue in the attitude I've heard now, I'm not going to vole for rezoning. I'll tell you that right now. Mr. Myers: There's no attitude. I'll tell you. I'm just trying to present... Mr. Shane: I don't mean yours. I'm talking about your petitioners insistence on having the building the way it is. It seems to me that another 60 feel back isn't going to change very much at all. Mr. Myers: It is something I will presentto my dients. Mr.Shane: Great. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Is there is nothing else, a motion is in order. Mr. La Pine: Did we gotothe audience? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. La Pine: Well, due to the fad that I have to agree with Mr. Shane, I'd like to see him come back with a plan shoving us the building switched around. That's one alternative, I think. And the second alternative, is there any possibility we can split this into two different buildings instead of one long building? Maybe one here and one behind it somehow. Maybe there's some other alternative you may come up with. Therefore, I'll ask for a tabling motion. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-18-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 1, 2005, on Petition 2005-01-01-02, submitted by Southeastern Michigan Management Company, requesting to rezone property at 27480 and 27486 Five Mile Road, located on the north side of Five 22079 Mile Road between Inkster Road and Foch Avenue in the Southeast 114 of Section 13 from R-1 to R -C, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Pefition 2005-01-01- 02 be tabled to allow the petitioner more time to prepare and submit additional information that would demonstrate that the subject property could be developed in compliance with RC district regulations and in a manner that would adhere to good design criteria. Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will be tabled and we hope you will come back with a plan that is more acceptable so that we can consider the rezoning. Mr. Myers: Okay, I will discuss it with my clients and see what we can come up with. Thank you very much for your time. ITEM #3 PETITION 2005-01-02-01 MNC MOTORS Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-01-02-01, submitted by MNC Motors, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate an indoor showroom for the sales and display of used automobiles at 28780 Plymouth Road, on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Hartel Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 25. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Ms. Smiley: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Miller: There are six items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 31, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal. The following description should be used." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 4, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate an indoor showroom for sales and display of used automobiles on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building is to be provided 22080 with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Due to the noted width of 22 feet, this Division requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking'. (3) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (4) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where an access mad is a dead end and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane. (5) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (6) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces that have the words 'fire lane — no parking' painted in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 9, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by MNC Motors to operate an indoor showroom at 28780 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Dave Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 11, 2005, revised, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 26, 2005, the above- eferenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site has an uncompleted expired new building permit due to lack of inspections since June 1, 2004. This permit may have to be renewed and all original conditions completed. HVAC, plumbing and electrical work will need permits and inspection approvals also. (2) This waiver use will require an exception from a super majority of the Council per Section 19.06. The frontage is deficient 30 feet of the required 100 feet, and the lot area is deficient 3,440 square feet of the required 21,780 square feet. (3) This use, if approved, will require a zoning compliance and alteration permit with submittals to the Fire Marshal. (4) There appears to be no method or area to do any type of work on these used vehicles. It may not be done outside. What is their proposal for such work? This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated February 18, 2005, which reads as follows: At the 165th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on February 17, 2005, the following resolution was 22081 unanimously adopted. #2005-7 Resolved, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby recommend that the request submitted by MNC Motors, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate an indoor showroom for the sales and display of used automobiles at 28780 Plymouth Road, on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebe/t Road and Hartel Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 25 (Petition 2005-01-02-01), be denied for the following reasons: (1) That the building is not suitable for the purpose intended by this petition and as further illustrated on the proposed floor plan; (2) That the waiver use will be maintained after the petitioner is no longer operating this business, and other similar uses likely to follow will not be required to have the regulatory review to more property control the intended use, and (3) That the petitioner is looking at a short-term proposition at this location and therefore may not make the necessary commitments and improvements to the property to more carefully control and operate the facility in the best interests of the neighboring area." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, Director. The last letter was received by the Planning Commisson on March 1, 2005, from Mr. and Mrs. Peter Ministrelli, 11799 Camden, slating their opposition to this petition. That is the extent of the correspondence. Ms. Smiley: Is the petitioner here this evening? Antonio Corso, MNC Motors, Inc., 16183 Clarkson, Unit 206, Fraser, Michigan 48026. Ms. Smiley: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Corso: First of all, the Plymouth Road whatever ... I spoke to John Nagy. Somebody called me five minutes before the meefing. I was never aware there was a meeting. So I didn't have a chance to tell them what I was doing and what was happening. Everybody seems to think it is a temporary use. It's not a temporary use. Did everybody get the letter that l wrote? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Corso: It's not a temporary use. If it is approved, I'll move my operation and I'll be here forever. I have three daughters. I have to send them through college, get them marred. I'm here for the duration. As far as the Plymouth Road, I mean I did everything they wanted me to do. I built a nice building. I have a nice landscaping plan. Hopefully it will be approved. I'll finish the 22082 landscaping up. Another thing is, there's a lot of questions about how I'm going to get the cars in and out and all this other stuff. If you're familiar with the car business, once a customer comes in and looks at the vehicle, he likes the vehicle. What we do is get him financed. We get his insurance. Everything is okay. Then once everything is approved, and he's a serious buyer, we move a few cars around and we lel the customer drive the car. We're not here to road test cars. We're here to purchase cars. So as far as worrying about moving cars in and out, that's not really a big deal. I'm not opposed to working. I mean I need to do something with this building. As they said, we haven't had permits on the building. Its been up for a while. I've had real estate people bere. I can't get this building leased out. You drive up and down Plymouth Road and you can see all the vacancies. We need to just maybe think out of the box. We've got to do something with this empty building. I cant keep making payments on it. The taxes are going to be coming up. Cities want everybody to do this, do that, colors, they worried about all kinds of stuff. But to step up to the plate and help somebody out, and it's not like its a bad building. There's two buildings over from me. People are worried about cars on the outside, which I'm not going to have. They're all going to be indoors. Two doors down from me, there's a repair shop. There's cars all over the place. Half the cars aren't worth $2,000 and no one seems to be worried about the way that place looks. I'm going to have a place that's a beautiful looking building, and all the vehicles are going to be inside, and they're all top notch cars. You won't have any problems with the cars. Other than that, any questions I might be able to answer for you? Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: You've touched something that I was going to ask you about. We try at best to get people to commit that they will not store things outside so it does not become a gigantic parking lot for vehicles for sale. Mr. Corso: I understand that. Mr. Morrow: And you've just indicated one of the buildings in close proximity is violating, or maybe not violating, but is maximizing the outside storage. I'd have to take you at your word that your vehicles will be inside. I think part of your problem is you've got a couple non -conforming buildings as far as setback so you're removed further back. It's a nice looking building. 22083 Mr. Corso: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: And I know you've suffered the last few years trying to give it the intended use. But that was my main concern is all of a sudden we've got an outdoor display of used cars. Mr. Corso: Right. And as I said, I'll put it in writing. I understand in writing it doesn't matter but I mean I'm telling you I won't do it, and I won't do it. I mean you probably have people drive around. Write me a violation. Do whatever you've got to do, but I can tell you, there will be no cars outside. In fad, the nice part is like today, it was snowing. Most used car lots got to knock all the snow off and move all the cars out of the way, shovel all the snow off. This is the beauty of this. I can park them all inside. I never have to move a car. I dont have to worry about weather. I don't have to worry about insurance, people stealing stuff out oflhe cars. Its an ideal situation. Mr. Morrow: So him long have you been marketing these relatively one, two year old cars? Mr. Corso: I've been in the automobile business for over 20 years. I wholesale in retail cars. I've been doing that for about five years. I've been in the service end of it. I've been in the finance end of it. I've been in the banking end of it. I've just about done everything possible in the car business. Mr. Morrow: What's the oldest car you might market? Mr. Corso: I'm driving one. In fad, I just bought one today. Its a 2000 Taurus with 45,000 miles on it. I'll take anybody out there. Its spotless. There isn't a scratch, a dent. I mean it's spotless. And those are the kinds of cars I like to sell because they're easy to sell and you don't have any grief. A guy drives the car out and he's all set. And that's basically what these cars will be. When you come in the showroom, there'll be no dents, no dings, no nothing. Theyre safe, they're inspected and they all have warranties. So a guy drives it, he's gone. And my thing is, I've sold cars to people, car after car after car, because I sell them a good car and I just get repeat business, unbelievable repeat business. Mr. Morrow: How many are going to offset the fact that you can't display them on the outside. How are you going to get traffic? 22084 Mr. Corso: Well, mostly ... like we're on that right now. I'm at a spot. Most of my business comes from the Auto Trader magazine or newspaper. Now what I'm going to do is, I'm going to have a web site and when I advertise in this magazine, I'll have a web site. You'll be able to go to the website and you'll be able to see all the cars, the equpment on them, the mileage and everything. So most of the cars . . I mean people don't drive around Ioolting for cars anymore. They just simply don't have the time. Mr. Morrow: So we won't see banners or flags? Mr. Corso: No. Absolutely no banners. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fad, the only thing you're going to see .. . if you drove by, you've seen the awnings. You're going to see my name on @, and we're going to have a website. That's all you'll see on the building. There will be no fags, no banners, no anything. When you drive up, the only thing you're going to see in there is people working there, myself. I'll be working there and nothing else. No cars out in the parking lot. They were asking about repairing cars. I dont repair any of the cars. In fad, right there, there's three repair shops, a body shop around the comer. So I would do no repairs whatsoever. I like nice dean neat cars. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Shane: Mr. Morrow and I were talking beforehand, and we were wondering that if you're able to start operating this use, will you still try to market the building? Mr. Corso: Absolutely not because if I commit to this, the gentleman that I lease my building from, that I'm leasing right now, once I tell him I'm gone, he's going to lease it to somebody else. So this is not a one shot deal. Once I tell him I'm not going to be there, and to find a location is extremely hard. So I'm not going to tell this guy I'm leaving, if I don't have this 100% secured. And once I come over here, this will be my place. This is it. Like I said, I have three small children; I have college; I have weddings. I have a lot of things to do. I mean everybody's got this perception that I'm just going to be in here for a couple months and try to get somebody in there. That's not the case. Mr. Shane: You dont anticipate more than 13 or 14 cars at any one fime? Mr. Corso: No. I deliver between 8 and 10 cars a month, and that's basically what I'll do here. That's all I'm looking for - 8 to 10 cars and that's all I'll need. In fad, there's 14 cars that will fit in 22085 there. He said there's 13, but there's 14. But 8 to 10 is all that I'm expecting to sell. Mr. Piercecchi: I wish the PRDA was here tonight, but they have a point. This seems to be a pretty fine guy and we'd be voting for him rather than the use. I don't want to see that happen, and maybe it will happen. Mr. Corso: I guarantee itwont. Mr. Piercecchi: And the waiver use according to the PRDA, and of course we concur on that, 'That the waiver use will be maintained after the petitioner is no longer operating this business, and other similar uses likely to follow will not be required to have the regulatory review to more property control the intended use" You will acknowledge on the letter that you sent to us on the 18"' of February, you acknowledged it, and I quote: "I know this is not an ideal building site for a used car lot." You acknowledge that. So if there's any reluctance here, these are part of the things that concerns me. Mr. Corso: Can I tell you what I mean by that? Mr. Piercecchi: Pardon? Mr. Corso: Can I tell you what I mean by that? Mr. Piercecchi: Yeah. Mr. Corso: Well, if I was building a used car lot on that site, I mean if we did R right from the beginning, first of all the width wouldn't be what I would like, but I would never build in a million years a building that big to put on a used car lot. A typical used car lot would be an 800 - 900 square foot building, maybe a little cleanup shop on the side, and I would have all the frontage as parking and use d like outside parking. But at the beginning of all this, this was not by intent. I wanted to lease the building out. I thought it was a good locafion. Everything was fine. Now two, three years down the road, I have not even a single offer. I mean not even one offer. So at this point, there's not a whole lot I can do. I know what my taxes are going to be. You're going to want your property taxes. I'm making payments on it. My hands are fled. There's nothing I can do. Mr. Piercecchi: You said you wanted to have this building leased? 22086 Mr. Corso: Yes, at the beginning. This is back in 2003, or 2002 was the original purchase date. Mr. Piercecchi: The zoning, whatwas that, a C-1? Mr. Corso: C-2. Mr. Piercecchi: Let's just say you're in there for a couple years, and somebody says, you've got a great site for a C-2. Will you come back then for a C-2? Mr. Corso: Well, d is a C-2. Mr. Piercecchi: Not if we change it. Mr. Corso: No, I'm just looking for a waiver use. It already is a C-2. I'm not changing the zoning. It's just a waiver use. Mr. Piercecchi: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Mr. LaPine: I sympathize with you. Believe me. You've built a beautiful building. Its loo beautiful in my opinion for a used car dealership. But the problem I have, this is a waiver use. Waiver uses go with the land. Now, you can stand here today and tell me you're going to be there today and 10 years from now, 20 years from now. But I've been on this Board for a long time, and that never happens. Actually, somebody is going to come along and want your building and make you an offer you can't resist and you're going to sell it and you're going to leave. But the waiver use is there. He can use it for certain conditions because there's been a waiver use approved on it. That's the thing that worries me. Now, the other thing, if I understood you right, did you tell me that if somebody comes in there and buys a car, you gel the financing and everything for him, and after everything is in order, then you let him take the car out to have a demonstration ride? Mr. Corso: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I would never sign any land of papers until ... Mr. Corso: No, no, no. You're not signing any papers. I want to make sure that you're able to purchase the vehicle. No, you're not signing everything to drive the car. But you know there's so many people that come in and say, boy, I'd love to have this car, 22087 but they can't afford the car. Oh, no, no. They're not going to sign. No, no, no. Mr. LaPine: Okay, then I misunderstood you. Are you going to be doing any car washing with these cars? Mr. Corso: No. Mr. LaPine: So the cars never gel washed. Mr. Corso: No. There's a car wash across the street. I'll wash the cars, park them in the showroom, and then we'll just hand dry them off inside. They'll never gel dirty. I mean, they're inside. Mr. LaPine: I have great sympathy for you, and you're not the only building along Plymouth Road that's been empty for a long time. Mr. Corso: I understand, but that doesn't help me. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. Mr. Corso: I told you, if I could put in writing for you to make you feel any better that I will not lease it or sell it to anybody in the use of selling cars. I mean, I don't know what else I can tell you that I will not do that. Other than I can put that in writing for you that I will not lease it to anybody else. Mr. Morrow: As Mr. LaPine said, this particular waiver would run with the land. Now, does that also induce any conditions that would be placed on that waiver? Would that run with the land also because anybody in the used car business, I can't imagine them going into business with inside storage with no outside display of cars. If these conditions are such as he indicates, and would run with the land, along with the waiver, I feel a little more comfortable. So am I getting concurrence there? Ms. Smiley: Is that correct? Mr. Nowak: Yes. Any conditions that are imposed on this waiver use approval, the next person operating that type of business would have to adhere to all those conditions. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: So you could actually put in writing, I just want to make sure, thatthere will no outside storage or repair? ryi,1:1:1 Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. Corso: I'd be fine with that. Ms. Smiley: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Doug Chilcoff, 11798 Camden, Livonia. On discussing this with a couple of my immediate neighbors, myself also being in the auto industry for over 20 years, our biggest concern is there's a bus slop right at Camden. There's going to be increased traffic on test drives. As Mr. LaPine pointed out, there's going to be people who want to drive these cars before they do anything else. Those people are going to be driving up and down the street. They're going to be down Plymouth Road. The traffic on that comer is going to congest. As he mentioned, we've already got a problem with the facility two doors down with cars being everywhere. Buying and selling cars - there's going to be a point when his business may get to a point where the facility is too small, which then will put the cars outside. Also, I've talked to two or three of the neighbors behind me on Hartel, and they are of the same thought that lheyre thinking we're a dead end street as it is. Traffic's pretty much minimal. It's going to increase the traffic up and down our streets. We've got a lot of kcs running up and down there. That was my biggest concem. Ms. Smiley: Thank you for coming this evening. Is there anyone else who wishes to address this petition? Mr. Corso: Can I respond to that? Ms. Smiley: Yes, you get the final word. Mr. Corso: If somebody is going to do a road lest, they won't go down that street. They'll go on Plymouth Road, come out, make a right and go straight down. I also mentioned the neighbor directly to the north of me, that abuts up to me. I went over and spoke to him. He had no problem with it and he's directly behind me. He says he has no problem with it. And I would make sure that nobody road tests on that side street. I don't think anybody would want to road lest on a side street. They'd probably want logo on a road where you can take the car for awhile. Mr. Morrow: I don't want to get into an argument or anything like that, but my experience tells me, at least what I'm hearing from this 22089 gentleman is, he is a C-2 classification which is intense commercial. Based on what I heard tonight, eight to ten cars a month, not by people pulling in but by people coming there based on running off site what's available to look at, I would assume, or I'm going to make the leap that the traffic at this location will be much less than a normal C-2 classification. C-2 generally creates a great deal of traffic. Mr. Corso: Like the donut shop next door. He does a good business by the way. Mr. Morrow: Anyway, that was my comment Mr. Pieroecchi: We talked about conditions going with this waiver use. Do you think that we should state that it would under the same procedures that this gentleman is working then? Mr. Shane: It would have to. Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: Cars all inside; no outdoor repair. Mr. Morrow: We would have to tie it very tightly. Like I say, I'm only one commissioner. We're only a recommending body. Mr. Corso: I welcome that. Mr. Morrow: I think that he recognizes he faces an uphill battle because of the non -zoning compliance to begin with as it relates to the C-2 and the waiver. Mr. Shane: Dan, ifwe read the resolution and its approved, that stipulation is right in here as one of the conditions, so it will go right along. What it is, is a matter of enforcement. Mr. Pieroecchi: That's agood point Mr. Shane: This gentleman has stated at a pudic meeting that he's going to do what he's going to do. Mr. Corso: I'll put it in writing for you too. Mr. Shane: We'll take him at his word, I guess. If this resolution is approved, it goes along with the waiver use. 22090 Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't bother reading these because I didn't know whether they'd be accepted by the team here. Where does it state that there will be no outdoor parking or storage? Mr.Shane: Condifions four and five. Mr. Piercecchi: Four and five. "Thal all vehicles offered for sale shall be displayed and/or stored inside the building only." Okay. Ms. Smiley: Is there anything else you'd like to add? Mr. Corso: Please approve it. Ms. Smiley: Okay. A motion is in order. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #03-19-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 1, 2005, on Petition 200501-02-01, submitted by MNC Motors, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate an indoor showroom for the sales and display of used automobiles at 28780 Plymouth Road, on properly located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Hartel Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200501-02- 01 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet A-1 prepared by D'Anna Associates Architects & Planners, dated January 7, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the revised North Elevation Plan marked Sheet 42 prepared by D'Anna Associates Architects & Planners, dated January 7, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and there shall be no additional changes to the exterior of the building, other than signage, unless approved bythe Planning Commission and City Council; 3. That repair or maintenance work on vehicles shall not be conducted atthis site; 4. That all vehides offered for sale shall be displayed and/or stored inside the building only; 22091 5. That there shall be no outdoor parking or storage of disabled, damaged or dismantled vehicles and no overnight outdoor parking or storage of any vehicles on the site; 6. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence dated February 11, 2005, from the Inspection Department shall be rectified to that departments satisfaction: That the expired new building permit will be renewed as required and all original conditions shall be completed; That this use, if approved, will require a zoning compliance and alteration permit with submittals to the Fire Marshal; 7. That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed in the correspondence dated February 4, 2005, from the Livonia Fire and Rescue Division: If subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feel and 100 feel from the Fire Department connection; Due to the noted width of 22 feel, this Division requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) "Fire Lane — No Parking;' Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance; An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where an access road is a dead end and is in excess of 150 feet in length; the authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane; T or turnaround arrangements shall be permitted; Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces that have the words "Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction; 22092 8. That this approval is subject to the minimum lot width and area requirements for a motor vehicle sales facility being modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the City Council concur; 9. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 10. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #439-03, which granted site plan approval for the development of the subject property, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions; and 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that rotice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Ms. Smiley: Is there any discussion? Mr. La Pine: I intend to vole no on this proposal. I believe what this gentleman says. I think he's really sincere in everything he stated here this evening. My position is, this is a waiver use. No matter how many restrictions we put in the resolution, I still have my doubts that will always be what will happen. Secondly, we spent a lot of money, a lot of money, supposedly to beautify Plymouth Road. The beautification of Plymouth Road also not 22093 only means the beautification of the buildings and other things, but also to bring in a little higher caliber type of business than an used car lot. I realize there's a number of used car lots and new car dealerships along Plymouth Road, but they've been there for many, many years. I don't believe this is the right enhancement for what we want Plymouth Road to look like and therefore I'm going to be voting against it. Mr. Morrow: One of the reasons I supported this motion by Mr. Shane is I was cognizant of the fad that the Plymouth Road Development Authority was not in favor of this, even despite the fact that the petitioner wasn't given the opportunity and was unable to make his case before them. I dont want to go on record as voting for something that I think, let's say, detracts from the aesthetics of what theyre trying to accomplish on Plymouth Road. However, based on what I heard tonight with the restrictions, basically we're going to have a completed building and relatively no parking outside. All business as far as used cars would be inside. So in my way of thinlang, I don't see how that detracts from a G2 zoning that would have a lot more cars pulling in and out of it. So I'm comfortable with supporting the motion. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Percecchi, would you call the roll? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Morrow, Smiley NAYES: LaPine, Piercecohi ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Alanskas, Walsh Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2005-01-02-02 DCA, LLC Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-01-02-02, submitted by DCA, LLC, requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor storage of vehicles and materials in connection with a lawn care business at 33760 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast of Section 28. 22094 Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Madam Chairman, I have a question for the staff. Can we go back to the zoning map? The C-2 there is Consumers Power. Is that Consumers' building? Mr. Nowak: Here is where the Consumers Power building is. Mr. Morrow: Do they have any at the industrial portion? Mr. Nowak: Yes, this is still part of their property back to this line here, and that is zoned M-1. This property is splilzoned M-1 and C-2. Mr. Morrow: Did we not just recently send to Council a resolution to amend the Future Land Use Plan for residential in that area? Mr. Nowak: Medium density residential is the proposed designation for that property on the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Morrow: But are we considering changing that particular area as far as the Future Land Use Plan? Mr. Nowak: Yes. Mr. Morrow: One of the concerns I had was perhaps should that come to fruition through future land use and subsequent zoning and development, I'm not sure that we want outside storage of vehicles back there, but that's long range planning. I just wanted to gel that out of the way. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Is there any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 27, 2005, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal except that the vehicle storage area should be paved. Our records indicate that right-of-way should be dedicated as follows (legal description). If the Planning Commission and City Council wish to limit the waiver use to the northern portion of the parcel, we recommend that the following description be used." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 4, 2005, which reads as 22095 follows: "This office has mviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for approval of outdoor storage of vehicles and materials in connection with a lawn cam business on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: Fire apparatus access to parking area shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 9, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by Hollywood Lawn Care at 33720 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 9, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 26, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. There are several issues with the pre-existing noncronforming mixed use property. (1) There is no zoning compliance for Hollywood Lawn Cam. (2) This property should be split and separate tax ID numbers issued per the Assessing Department rules. Then easements should be recorded for ingress and egress. (3) The parking areas and storage areas must be fully hard surfaced. The storage area should be better defined and utilized for usable materials and not as a dumping ground. Vehicles and/or trailers should be fully operational also. (4) The Commission and/or Council may wish to address the lack of a fully fenced area as required. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Ms. Smiley: Is the petitioner here this evening? Gary Daniels, DCA, LLC, 48321 North Territorial, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. Ms. Smiley: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Daniels: I'm the new owner of the property here. It is my understanding that Hollywood has been parking his vehicles for the last 14 years with no issues. So I'm kind of not sure why ... something must have changed to have this needed to be a waiver. You had a map up there and Mr. Morrow was saying that the zoning was going to be changed in the blue area. 22096 Mr. Morrow: What I was saying was it's a long way from changing that zoning. The Future Land Use Plan only indicates what we would like to see developed in that area. It has nothing to do with zoning or changing zoning. It's just that if we had our best way, we would encourage people to request it be zoned to medium density residential. I don't want to lead you to believe that we're in the throes of rezoning that property. It's a long way from that, but we would sure like to see it developed in that area. Mr. Daniels: Okay. Like I said, Hollywood has been panting for 14 years. My point right now, it helps me pay the taxes on the property back there, along with I believe he maintains the grass cutting. The grass does get overgrown. So at this point in time, I think if s good for the community that's next to us. Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. La Pine: Over the 14 years that Hollywood has been there, have they done anything to enhance the property, upgrade it, do anything for it, make it better? Mr. Daniels: If I can bring Steve up. He used to be part owner of the property here, so he has more history on it than I do. He's the owner of Hollywood, and he might be able to address that better than I can. Ms. Smiley: Could you give us your name and address? Steven Klein, 35991 Perth, Livonia. Mr. LaPine: What have you done over the last 14 years to enhance the property, make the property better, beautify d? Mr. Klein: The property before the sale to Mr. Daniels was purchased in 1949 by my grandparents. Myself, as a kid, I grew up there. My parents built the buildings, which Mr. Daniels currently owns, and the area that I'm panting in actually was fanned by my grandparents. Upon their age and whatnot, I've always maintained the property since I was a child. I've been parking my vehicles there since 1989 with permission from my grandmother. My trucks and stuff have been back there since then. I was approached by the Plymouth Road beautification in approximately 1997 or 1998 when you guys were working on that project. I was told at that lime that the parking of vehicles, due to the fact that it was zoned industrial, was not breaking any 22097 ordinances with the City of Livonia. I'm paying rent to Mr. Daniels, and that was part of the deal upon the sale of the property when we sold it to him in 2003, that I would continue to stay there and pay the rent for the property. As far as enhancing the property, I maintain it. I do the snow removal. I keep the grass mowed. We've got issues with Consumers on one side. Then with CAT moving out of there last year, we had a lot of issues with that whole fence line down the west side of the property line, which we maintain our end, and I was also taking care of CAT. I just maintain it. Mr. LaPine: Well, as I staled in a previous case when you were here, I dont believe a landscaping firm on Plymouth Road enhances what we're trying to do on Plymouth Road with the amount of money being spent on that road. Mr. Klein: Did you see where we're although? You can't see us. Mr. LaPine: I was out at your property. I checked it out. I'll give you an example. We just approved a landscaping building or enhancing of a landscaping building on Stark Road- Clippers. Mr. Klein: That's Ed McIntosh. I'm agood fiend of his. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Now there, in my opinion, they've done something to enhance the looks of that building, the front of that building. Mr. Klein: Theyre selling material. Mr. LaPine: I know it and they're allowed to do it because they happen to be in the M-1 district just like you are, but at least they've done something to enhance the building from the outside. You go by there, it's beautiful. Theyve got a waterfall there. Mr. Klein: Yes, it's gorgeous. Mr. LaPine: There's nothing there. To me, that doesn't do nothing to enhance my way of thinlang what we're trying to do on Plymouth Road. Mr. Klein: I'm not trying to sell anything on Plymouth Road. All I'm doing is parking the vehicles there. That's it. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. 22098 Mr. Klein: If I build a building back there, how is that going to enhance it? You wont even be able to see it. Mr. LaPine: You wouldn't be able to see the trucks either. Mr. Klein: It's hard to see them. Mr. LaPine: I'm not going to argue, but that's my own personal opinion. Mr. Shane: Are you aware of the requirement for paving the entire area where the trucks are stored on and that fencing is required around that area? Mr. Daniels: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Can you repeat the question, please? Mr. Shane: The zoning ordinance requires that if this is approved, that you must pave the area where the trucks are stored. Mr. Daniels: I understand that. Mr. Shane: You understand that? Mr. Daniels: I spoke with an Alex Bishop and his letter to the Commission here, he cited it to be a hard surface, and in a report from Bob Schron, he said it would need to be paved. I'm not sure what the differences are between the responses from the departments. One said hard surfaced, one said paved. So maybe some clarification there. Mr. Shane: But my question to you was, are you willing to do that? Mr. Daniels: For the area where the trucks are being parked? Mr.Shane: Yes. Mr. Daniels: That's something we'll need to discuss with Steve from Hollywood and see if that's something that would make sense for us to do. Mr. Shane: I just wanted to make sure you were aware of those requirements, and also for tend rig. Mr. Daniels: I spoke with Alex Bishop on fencing. He was not concerned if there was not a fence on the front of the property. He did not 22099 Mr. Morrow: No, I didn't. It looked to me like there was one area that was mounded up with a lot of excess dirt or something. It didn't look to me like it was a part of landscaping soils or anything like that. It just looked like it was dumped there, but I'm not really a expert on landscaping materials either. So, I don't know where we're going with this, but whether its approved or not, if it were approved, we certainly wouldn't want a lot of dumping back there. have a problem if there was no fencing put there, and that was the conversation on 2/18 with him. Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. Daniels: I just had one other thing. So far as an improvement on the back end, I've been here probably 14 months and the owner of the place. Obviously my intent is not to have an acre and half of land sit there vacant and with how its working right now, this was a nice ...for a time period, to have Hollywood, help him out with his business. Times are tight. It's good for him; its good for me. Certainly I understand in the future, a few years down the road, I do intend to do something with that back property to develop it, to generate some tax and generate some more revenue for myself. Mr. Morrow: I noticed behind the row of trucks that were parked there the day I looked at it, there's some debris stored back there and a lot of miscellaneous items. Is that part of the Hollywood operation? Mr. Daniels: What is behind the trucks is not DCA's. I believe that is from Steve's business there. It looks to be supplies left over from work. The time I've been there, I've not seen him using it as space for inventory. Mr. Morrow: You know, landscaping supplies require some outdoor storage of items, but we don't like to look forward to using it as a dumping grounds either for excess materials that are just dumped helter skelter and not really a part of the operation. Mr. Daniels: When I walk back there, it seems like things are nicely stacked and kind of in order. I'm not sure if you've walked back there. Mr. Morrow: No, I didn't. It looked to me like there was one area that was mounded up with a lot of excess dirt or something. It didn't look to me like it was a part of landscaping soils or anything like that. It just looked like it was dumped there, but I'm not really a expert on landscaping materials either. So, I don't know where we're going with this, but whether its approved or not, if it were approved, we certainly wouldn't want a lot of dumping back there. 22100 Mr. Daniels: I understand that. Mr. Morrow: Good housekeeping is one was to phrase it. Ms. Smiley: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefifion? Seeing no one, is there anything else you want to say? Mr. Daniels: No, I think I'm all set unless there s any questions you still might need to ask me. Ms. Smiley: No, wejusl need a resolution. Mr. Daniels: Okay. I appreciate the time. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, ilwas #03-20-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 1, 2005, on Pefifion 2005-01-02-02, submitted by DCA, LLC, requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor storage of vehicles and materials in connection with a lawn care business at 33760 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast of Section 28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-01-02-02 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively shay that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the proposal fails to fully comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the requirement that the lot area, except for the front yard setback, shall be enclosed by a fence which shall be located and maintained on the boundaries of such lot area with only such openings therein as may be necessary for ingress and egress; 3. That the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the requirement that the parking areas and storage area must be fully hard surfaced; 22101 4. That the proposal does not indicate that other issues of concern listed in a letter dated February 9, 2005 from the Inspection Departmentwill be rectified; 5. That the proposed parking/storage of contractors vehicles, equipment and materials will be detrimental to the maintenance of the site in an orderly and satisfactory condition and will adversely affect the long term stability of this area; 6. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 7. That the proposed use does not represent an aesthetically pleasing use that will enhance Plymouth Road. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Ms. Smiley: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shane: The reason I supported the denying resolution is that the waiver use runs with the land, and I dont believe that this use is a good permanent solution for the use of this land. That's principally why I'm against it. I think a temporary storage of this kind of material would be okay, but waiver uses are permanent, so I would not like to see that happen. Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to the City Council in writing. ITEM #5 PETITION 2005-01-02-03 FIFTH THIRD BANK Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-01-02-03, submitted by K4 Architecture, LLC, on behalf of Fifth Third Bank, requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service banking center with drive -up window facilities at 19025 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Kingsbum Drive in the Northeast %of Section 7. 22102 Mr. Nowak presented a map shoving the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Ms. Smiley: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 1, 2005, which reads as follow: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal. There is a typographic error in the legal description as submitted. The legal description should read as follows. The drive approach to Seven Mile Road and the detention facilities will require the approval of Wayne County and the encroachment into the wetlands will require a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 4, 2005, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a fuXservice banking center with drive -up window facilities on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Due to the noted width of the drives of 16 feet and 20 feet, this Division requests that `Fire Lane — No Parking" be posted on building sides (east and west). (3) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13N feet (4) Hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail groupings shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (5) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces that have the words 'Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having junsdiction." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 10, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by Fifth Third Bank for 19025 Newburgh Road. We submit the following for your review and consideration: (1) We recommend a deceleration lane on eastbound Seven Mile Road west of the driveway. (2) We recommend a deceleration lane on southbound Newburgh Road north of the driveway. (3) A stop sign is needed for exiting vehicles at Seven Mile Road. (4) A stop sign is needed for 22103 exiting vehicles at Newburgh Road. (5) We recommend the installation of no left tum signs at both exits." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 9, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 31, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) As this project is a waiver use in an OS District, the drive thru configuration is subject to design approval by the Commission and Council. While this design does not meet drive thru requirements in a Cl or C2 District, it may be acceptable to the Commission and Council. The Commission and Council may wish to eliminate the fourth space (diagonal) stacking spot to enable drivers to exit if they no longer want to wait. (2) This petition will need to obtain sign variances thru the Zoning Board of Appeals as they exceed what is allowable in an OS District for a single tenant building. They art= allowed a freestanding sign of up to 16 square feet and a nameplate on the door. Anything else is excessive. (excluding directional signage, etc.). This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nowak, just one question. The two wall signs - are they the two signs that are referenced on the plans with just a logo? It says eight fool? Mr. Nowak: That's coned. Those signs are approximately three feet by two feel eight inches, l think it is. Mr. LaPine: That's one on the east elevation and one on the north elevation. Its just the logo. It doesn't have the Fifth Third Bank? Mr. Nowak: No, just the logo. Mr. LaPine: The only time Fifth Third Bank is applied is on the freestanding sign. Is that correct? Mr. Nowak: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: Is the petitioner here this evening? 22104 Marcos Makohon, K4 Architecture, LLC, 26899 Northwestern Highway, Suite 208 Southfield, Michigan 48034. Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to make a comment, Madam Chairman. The letter you submitted after our study meeting was very much appreciated. The one that you sent to our Director, Mr. Taormina, regarding the areas we discussed like deceleration lanes and no left turn signs and no parking signs, etc., etc., that you complied with R. 1, for one, am grateful for your cooperation. Mr. Makohon: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I'm the one that requested that you do some more landscaping out in front there on the comer where you're going to have your sign. I had it here in front of me a second ago, if I can find it again. Are most of those flowers that you're going to plant out there, are they going to be annuals? Mr. Makohon: There's a combination of perennial shrubs and also annuals that each of our bank managers actually take it upon themselves to go ahead and make that enhancement. To answer your question directly, we actually eliminated two parking spaces out of the comer to enhance that area. Mr. LaPine: And I appreciate that because as I mentioned, this is right, as you come into Livonia, a very important intersection and we really want it to be spruced up. Unfortunately, we have a gas station on the other side and Federal Savings and Loan on the other. The other question I have, your freestanding sign, is that going to have a brick base on it? How is that sign being constructed? Mr. Makohon: Yes. There is a brick base that matches the building brick and then the sign sits on lop of it as a pedestal, yes. Mr. LaPine: And the sign will be lit up and go off atter the bank closes at night? Mr. Makohon: I believe the sign stays on all the time, but I would verify that if that's an issue. Mr. LaPine: Normally speaking, I and some other members along with me would probably have some objection, but due to the fact that the 22105 Mr. Makohon: Speedway sign is on all night, I guess I dont really have a big hang up on this one. Thank you Mr. Morrow: Are you with the architectural firm? Mr. Makohon: Yes. Mr. Morrow: And you are representing your client, Fifth Third? Mr. Makohon: Yes, quite eminently. Actually, just the way we speak, we are part of the bank. Mr. Morrow: That's always good. Mr. Makohon: Yes. Mr. Morrow: You own the property now or is it subject to approval of the site Mr. Morrow: plan? Mr. Makohon: It is subject to approval of the site plan, yes. Mr. Morrow: One thing that caught my attention was going to the Engineering Department where you're required to obtain a permit from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and I think that's because you're going in there and you're encroaching on the wetlands. Mr. Makohon: Yes. The site as depicted, it's kind of an interesting challenge where we're leaving a considerable amount of it untouched and unaltered. Yes, we are encroaching on the wetlands. We're mitigating quite a portion of it on the south side of our property, or at least on that development. With any positive outcome tonight, we'll do a parallel line through DEQ, through the County for the Seven Mile Road entrance, so that we really have all of ourducks in a row prior to final approval. Mr. Morrow: So I'm assuming you don't have the permit as of now? Mr. Makohon: No, not without at least the first step. Mr. Morrow: Do you have reason to believe you will not be able to secure that permit? Mr. Makohon: No. None whatsoever. We have retained a wetland expert that will guide us through that and there's already been some preliminary discussions with them. 22106 Mr. Morrow: That's what I was wondering. Mr. Makohon: We started that process. Mr. Morrow: With the DEQ or whatever they call themselves today? Mr. Makohon: That's right. Mr. Morrow: Okay. That was the one thing that caught my attention. I want to make sure that things are progressing in that area because sometimes you really get hung up developing a site if you can't get those permits, and I think we've had some around the City that have been held up for years because of trying to get together to develop a site. Mr. Makohon: That really was our initial emphasis on developing the site is to truly mitigate as little as we can to minimize the impact of a great natural area that is still lett natural. Beyond that, it is just cumbersome, the approval cyde that it would take. I dont want to spend another year trying to get this plan through. I'd like to get a bank built. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, does the petitioner have anything to add? Mr. Makohon: No. I just believe the technical meat of the plan speaks for itself. The one thing that we perhaps talked about, and it's more of a discretionary issue, is the way we have set up the drive-thru and the stacking as we had discussed during the study session. It is imperative as a banking center we dispatch the drive-thru people as quickly as we can because our customers are not going to sit behind 10 or 12 cars. So we really would not see a great deal of interference between the drive thru and the main east and west drive. That's was something we wanted to point out. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. That being said, a motion is in order. On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, it was 22107 #03-21-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 1, 2005, on Petition 200501-02-03, submitted by K4 Architecture, LLC, on behalf of Fifth Third Bank, requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service banking center with drive -up window facilities at 19025 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Kingsbum Drive in the Northeast % of Section 7, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005- 01-02-03 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SDP -1 prepared by K4 Architecture, LLC, dated February 21, 2005, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by J. Eppink Partners, Inc., dated February 21, 2005, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed and new lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That an automated irrigation system shall be provided for all lawn and planting bed areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared by K4 Architecture, LLC, dated February 21, 2005, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used for the construction of the building and for the screen wall for the mechanical equipment enclosure shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 7. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and shall not exceed a maximum height of 20 feel above grade; 8. That all parking spaces provided in connection with this use shall be double striped; 9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 22108 10. That the total of all signage, both ground and wall signs, shall not exceed 40 square feet, subject to the granting of a variance for excess signage by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining thereto; 11. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 12. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 13. That the petitioner shall comply with the following stipulations listed in the correspondence dated February 4, 2005, from the Livonia Fire and Rescue Division; - If subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feel from the Fire Department connection; - Due to the noted width of the drives of 16 feel and 20 feet, this Division requests that "Fire Lane — No Parking' be posted on building sides (east and west); - Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feel wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6 feet; - Hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail groupings shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances; - Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces that have the words "Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction; 14. That this approval shall incorporate the following recommendations listed in the correspondence dated February 10, 2005, from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police; 22109 Installation of a slop sign for existing vehicles at Seven Mile Road; Installation of a stop sign for exiting vehicles at Newburgh Road; Installation of no leRtum signs at both exits; and 15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #6 PETITION 2005-01-02-04 LINENS'N THINGS Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the neM item on the agenda, Petition 2005-01-02-04, submitted by WT West, Inc., on behalf of Linens 'n Things, requesting waiver use approval to operate an SDM license in connection with an existing retail use at 13250 Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Schoolcraft Road/1-96 Expressway and the CSX Railroad in the Northwest % of Section 25. 22110 Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have received a letter from Kelly A. Allen, Adkison, Need & Allen, PLLC, dated February 28, 2005, requesting that the public hearing be postponed indefinitely, and we are going to grant that request. ITEM #7 PETITION 2005-01-02-05 WADE SHOWS Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-01-02-05, submitted by Jeff Williams, on behalf of Wade Shows, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of rides, games and food concessions from Thursday, May 12 through Sunday, May 22, 2005, inclusive, on properly located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 35. Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Ms. Smiley: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 1, 2005, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal or the use of the legal description from last year's petition." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 4, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of rides, games and food concessions from Thursday, May 12, 2005 through Sunday, May 22, 2005 on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: In the interest of safety, evaluate the asphalt to determine if it is currently in suitable condition supportive of this usage." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 9, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by Wade Shows, Inc., for the carnival. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Dave Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 22111 1, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 31, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Mr. La Pine: What do they mean by "evaluate the asphalt"? Who does that evaluation, and if it has to be repaired, who is responsible for that- Wonderland or Wade Shows? Mr. Nowak: I talked to Alex Bishop of the Inspection Department. He said that would be something that they would normally review in their issuance of a permit for this use. If they found that there was an area of the parking lot that could be hazardous, they might require it to be patched or possibly roped off, but that would be reviewed in connection with their issuance of a permit for this use. Mr. La Pine: So they would not receive a permit if they found something that needed to be repaired. Is that correct? Mr. Nowak: They would have to remedy it to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. Ms. Smiley: Is the petitioner here this evening? Jeff Williams, Wade Shows, Inc., 31250 Cooley Street, Westland, Michigan 48185. Ms. Smiley: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Williams: No. I think its all covered pretty good. Ms. Smiley: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: How many rides are you bringing in? Mr. Williams: Eighteen to 20, room permitting. Mr. Piercecchi: And how many food concessions? Mr. Williams: Five to six, room permitting. Mr. Piercecchi: And games? 22112 Mr. Williams: Twelve to 14. Mr. Piercecchi: What about portajohns? Mr. Williams: Six. Five for regular and one handicap. Mr. Piercecchi: Just six, five and one. Is that what you used last year? I thought you did eight Iasi time. Mr. Williams: I used to use four and one. We went to five and one. We have them cleaned daily. Mr. Piercecchi: I realize that. Mr. Williams: It seems to work. We want to make our customers as comfortable as possible, so if we saw a need, we would be on lop of that right away. Mr. Piercecchi: I recall you sent a letter to the Commission. I think it was last year or the year before and you had listed them based on how many people. That's why I thought you would be at eight. Mr. Williams: That was the year before and then we went from four portajohns to six. That seemed to work last year. Mr. La Pine: Just one question because I asked the same question to the carnival that's coming to the Livonia Mall. Seeing that the Wonderland Shopping Center basically is closed down except for the Target store, do you anticipate that your volume will be down or the same? Did you draw that much from Wonderland? I'm just curious. Mr. Williams: We're a little concemed but the Rotary does a great job advertising with discount coupons up and down Plymouth Road for the going retail businesses, so we think it will work. Mr. La Pine: Do you know if they advertise the carnival outside the Livonia area? Do they go to Westland or Detroit? How far do they try to advertise this to draw people into the carnival? Mr. Williams: Livonia area, northern Westland, a little bit into Redford. Just that area. Mr. La Pine: Okay. I was just curious. I was mostly curious because of the fad that you don't have Wonderland there to have a certain 22113 amount of draw during the time the carnival is there. I just wondered if itwas going to be successful. I hope itis. Mr. Williams: I'm sure it will be. Mr. La Pine: Well also, I would think you would have to be thinking in the future if Wonderland was developed the way it may or may not be developed, if you would be there in future years or looking for a new location. Mr. Williams: This is a concem. Ms. Smiley: I don't see anybody in the audience. Do we have a final word from our pefilioner this evening? Mr. Williams: That's d. Ms. Smiley: Okay. We wish you good weather. A motion is in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, ilwas #03-22-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 1, 2005, on Pefifion 2005-01-02-05, submitted by Jeff Williams, on behalf of Wade Shows, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of ides, games and food concessions from Thursday, May 12 through Sunday, May 22, 2005, inclusive, on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-01-02-05 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Wade Shows, Inc., which are May 12, 2005 through May 22, 2005, inclusive; 2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as illustrated on the site plan submitted with this request; 3. That all ides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of he carnival shall be located at least 60 feet distant from the Plymouth Road rlghtof--way line; 22114 4. That no fewer than eight (8) portable restroom facilities shall be provided on site during the carnival and this equipment shall be maintained daily; 5. That all trucks and other transportation -related vehicles and equipment shall be parked or stored within the southwesterly portion of the Wonderland Mall parking lot, but no doser than 200 feet from the adjacent residential properties to the south; 6. That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 700 a.m. inducing motors on any refrigeration trucks; 7. That there shall be no housing trailers or other temporary living quarters to accommodate carnival employees on the Wonderland Mall site, except for the Security Trailer (limited to security personnel only); 8. That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter dated January 19, 2005, from Jeff Williams, Routing Director of Wade Shows, Inc., which have been approved bylhe Police Department; 9. That unobstructed access to any hydrants within the carnival area be provided for the Fire Department; 10. That Fire Lanes shall not be less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet.6 inches of vertical clearance; and 11. That barricades be put up on the south side of the carnival to prevent patrons/children from stepping or running into the roadway portion of the parking lot. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 22115 2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3. That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not impede access to the Wonderland Mall; and 4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use. Ms. Smiley: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: Do we have a conflict with the number of portajohns? Mr. Pieroecchi: I would leave eight in there, myself. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any problem with the eight? Mr. Williams: No. Mr. Morrow: We will just leave it in there then. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Morrow: And then next year if you're there, we'll address that concern again, if it is adequate or too much. Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES B99TM Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecohi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 899"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January25, 2005. On a motion by Shane, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, itwas #03-23-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 899" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 25, 2005, are hereby approved. 22116 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, LaPine, Pieroecchi, Morrow, Smiley NAYS: None ABSENT: Alanskas, Walsh Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 900' Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 900"' Regular Meeting held on February 8, 2005. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morav, and adopted, it was #03-24-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 900" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 8, 2005, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Morrow, Shane, Pieroecchi NAYS: None ABSENT: Alanskas, Walsh ABSTAIN: Smiley Ms. Smiley, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 901sTPublic Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 1, 2005, was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Daniel Piercecchi, Acting Secretary ATTEST: Carol Smiley, Acting Chairman