Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2010-08-10MINUTES OF THE 999m PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 10, 2010, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 999'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Ashley V. Krueger Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a pefifion is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has len 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 pefifions 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 2010-07-01-02 JOE'S PRODUCE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2010-07- 01-02 submitted by Joe's Produce requesting to rezone properly at 33152 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Shadyside Avenue and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from C-1 and R-3 to G2. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. August 10, 2010 25423 Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one dem of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated August 3, 2010, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description provided by DPSBA Land Surveyors appears correct (in and of itselt) for the Parcel A area occupied by Joe's Produce. Parcel A is part of a larger parcel which is described as the overall parcel. When comparing the legal description for the overall parcel with that on file with the City for the overall parcel, a discrepancy arises. However, for the sake of zoning issues, 1 believe that the description for the area described as Parcel A is sufficient. Joe's Produce occupies a building that bears the address of 33152 West Seven Mile Road. This is consistent with the fact that the overall parcel has been assigned an address range of 33000 through 33152 Seven Mile Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record. Joseph Maiorana, Jr., 1214 Copperwood Drive, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302. Mr. Morrow: Do you want to add to anything that Mr. Taormina indicated in his opening remarks? Mr. Maiorana: No, not really. It would be advantageous for us to have this for wine lasting, some wine education. We have a sommelier on staff. There are a couple other stores in the area. There's one in Livonia, a couple in Northville, one in Novi. It would just help our customers Team about different wines and to be a little more familiar with the brands that we carry. I think it would be a great tool for us, and I think our customers would enjoy it. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. I'm going to see if the Commission has any questions of you. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Maiorana, are you planning on adding any more space or are you planning on doing it where your wine is now located? Mr. Maiorana: Yes, we are. August 10, 2010 25424 Mr. Taylor: So you're not going to add space. You're just going to put @ in that area. Mr. Maiorana: Yes, it will be in that area. We may do it in the front of the store, but I think it will be primarily in the area where the wine is in the back of the store. Mr. Taylor: Are you going to do d in the same manner that you've done it at Rocky's and at the Italian American Club? Mr. Maiorana: Yes. Mr. Taylor: So you're going to have food and wine. Mr. Maiorana: We will have food and wine. We also have some classes where we leach. Basically, we have cooking classes. So we may introduce some of the wine in with the cooking classes, so we have wine pairing and things of that nature. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Maiorana, his dad and himself, have been in that business ever since I can remember and has been in Livonia since it was a little fruit stand on Seven Mile Road. What they've done al that comer is very well done and very well managed. What they want to do I think is probably a good idea. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions for Mr. Maiorana? Ms. McDermott: Hi, Mr. Maiorana. Will these events be held during the day or the evening? Do you have a plan on that? Mr. Maiorena: They will mostly be held in the evening. Ms. McDermott: Do you have an estimated number of individuals that would be attending? Mr. Maiorana: Twenty, 25, 30 lops. We want to keep it small so there's really the greatest chance for education. We want it very controlled. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else you want to add? This is free advertising. Mr. Maiorana: No, not really. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? August 10, 2010 25425 Robert Goodfellow, 19241 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. As far as his actual plan for doing the G2, I'm all for it. I think it's going to be great for him, and I think its going to be advantageous for the business. Actually, I think its going to be really fun. I can't wait to try it out. My only concern is with the additional size that his business has become and the additional traffic from now another revenue generating item, that the side driveway, we might want to consider taking that out at his time because inevitably what happens is that all of the traffic on the side driveway, people try to cul through our neighborhood to avoid going down Seven Mile and then making the right at Farmington. So they're trying to circumvent the whole interaction altogether. At the time when he first did it, I didn't really think that it was going to be as big a deal as it was, but the traffic really has become quite something, and now with the additional item and the different classification, I think it would be an appropriate time to take that out. Also considering I think if it was zoned this now and built from the ground up, I don't think you guys would probably ever lel them have that driveway into a residential area. As far as the actual classification, I'm all for it. I think you guys should approve it. That's all I have to say. Mr. Morrow: Just so you understand, this is a zoning issue. Should he prevail, he will come back requesting the Class C. At that time, we would have an opportunity to address whatever concerns you might have. Mr. Goodfellow: Okay. Mr. Morrow: But this is just purely seeing if that zoning is appropriate for the area. Mr. Maiorana, would you like to respond? Mr. Maiomna: I don't really think that this is meant to be a traffic builder for us. I think that what this is meant to do is to better serve our customers so we can capture our wine business for the customers that we have. I don't know that additional people would be coming to Joe's Produce to sample wines and that type of thing. Now, probably in the evening there might be 20 to 30 people. The entrance is in the front of the building, so I don't know that there would be a lot of traffic on Shadyside. I can't see where that would be a big issue. Mr. Morrow: Are you indicating then that most of these wine tastings would be in the evening? August 10, 2010 25426 Mr. Maiomna: The organized wine tasfings would be the evening. There might be some sales done on Saturday, but the majority would be in the evening. Mr. Morrow: Primarily, for your fruits and vegetables and your delicatessen, most of your business occurs during the day hours. Mr. Maiorana: Yes. Mr. Taylor: As you've staled, this is a zoning issue that we're talking about, but I know at one time we put a "no right tum" sign off of that driveway. Although people don't always follow what they see on a sign, we tried our best not to allow them to get through the neighborhood. There has been one complaint, Joe, that I've heard of. Down that side of the street, you have some employee parking. I know at one time we tried to put signs up for no parking, but if you could try and get your employees to park in the back where you've got a lot of parking available. If lhalwould be possible, itwould really help outthe neighborhood I think. Mr. Maiomna: Sure, I can do that. Mr. Taylor: If there's a motion in order, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to make d. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to close the public hearing, if no one else wishes to speak. We have another gentleman. Michael Driscoll, 19229 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 apologize for missing the opening statements on this. I am concerned about the traffic down Shadyside. It would be one more of the existing two liquor licenses that will have access to our neighborhood by turning onto Westmore and now Shadyside. That's going to kind of trouble the neighborhood a little bit. My neighbor that lives behind me, he already has a constant problem with people parking in front of his house, urinating on his lawn, and there seems to be nothing being done about that. I did have some kind of old business with Joe's Produce. The last time they were in front of the zoning board, they requested to be able to put their refrigeration units out on the sidewalk. It was going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars to put it up on the roof where it belongs. And they promised to redo the landscaping there and paint it the same color as the building so it would blend in, and put up a privacy fence so that we wouldn't have to look at the engine generator that never came through the City but was put in by the power company on behalf of the business. August 10, 2010 25427 Now we still have this open thing where there were promises made that if you approved this, we are going to do this, but it hasn't happened. So I am kind of against this. It may not be the worst thing in the world and I'd understand if you did approve it, but there are these other issues that continue to kind ofhangoutthere. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. As I said before, this is a zoning issue but your remarks will be part of the record. Mr. Maiorana: I believe if you looked at our refrigeration rack, it is very large. It really wouldn't be safe to be on the roof. But if you look at the roof and mansard of our building, it is stainless steel and that is the look that we go for. Our refrigeration rack, if you were to look at that, that is Galvalume, which is similar to the roof. So it does actually match the mansard and the roof very nicely. I just can't see where Joe's Produce would be a negative thing to the neighborhood. I grew up in Livonia. I think it is an attractive store. It serves the community very well. Whatever goes on at Westmore, I don't believe our customers are urinating on anyone's lawn. I don't think that has anything to do with us. But I think our store is very well landscaped. I think it's a very attractive store. About people cutting through on Shadyside, I'm there a lot. I don't see a big occurrence of that, but that may happen. But about the refrigeration rack, I think if you looked at it, I think it's pretty attractive. It matches our mansard; it matches our roof. It's Galvalume, the same material as our roof. There is some landscaping around it. I think in no way is this a negative thing, but of course that's my opinion. Mr. Morrow: Your remarks will be entered into the record. I am going to close the public hearing and ask fora motion. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-52-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 2010, on Petition 2010-07-01-02 submitted by Joe's Produce requesting to rezone property at 33152 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Shadyside Avenue and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 114 of Section 3, from G7 and R-3 to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-07-01-02 be approved forthefollowing reasons: August 10, 2010 25428 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will allow the owner of the property to better serve his customers in a manner that is consistent with the existing use of the site; and 3. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends commercial use in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: Just a brief comment to reiterate what you've already said. I'm sympathetic to the residents' concerns they've raised, but this is purely a zoning issue that we're faced with right now. The question before us is, is this an appropriate zoning, G2, for this property, and in my view, it is. That being said, the concerns that were raised by the residents I think are valid and should be followed up at our next meeting which is going to be the liquor license if that is brought before us, and that's an opportunity for us to talk about some of those items with the business owner and maybe with even the residents. I just don't want the residents to believe that we were not thinking of their concerns as well. Thankyou. Mr. Taylor: Just to clarify when we say liquor license, this happens to be a tavern license that we hear they're going to ask for, which doesn't mean they can serve liquor. Its just wine and beer that a tavern license allows. So it's not like we're bringing in another bar in the area. Just to clarify that. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. August 10, 2010 25429 ITEM #2 PETITION 2010-07-06-01 WIRELESS FACILITIES Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 07-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #225-10, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsections (b) and (d) of Section 18.42A (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to better insure that operators and colocators do not have radio frequency (RF) energy emissions or other detrimental field output and to require colocators and operators to notify the Inspection Department of changes in ownership and contact information. Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment comes to you at the request of the City Law Department. It would amend Section 18.42A of the Zoning Ordinance, which regulates the installation and maintenance of wireless communication facilities, such as cellular lowers, including the antennas and related equipment. A provision currently exists in the ordinance that requires the City Inspection Department to test communication facilities to determine the presence of any prohibited emissions output. Because of budgeting and staffing limitations, it has not been possible for the Inspection Department to perform such testing to ensure compliance under applicable Federal and State standards. Under the proposed language change, instead of the Inspection Department having the burden of performing these annual tests, each operator and colocalor would be required to lest their own equipment annually for radio frequency energy emissions, and provide the results to the Inspection Department for its review and approval under Stale and Federal government guidelines. There would be an annual review fee of $150.00 for each piece of equipment, and late fees would be assessed if the required test results are not provided in a timely manner. In the event that a prohibited emission is identified, the operator or colocator would be required to immediately shut down until the problem is corrected. Additionally, operators and colocators would be required to notify the Inspection Department of changes in ownership and contact information. Al the preheating, there were a few concerns outlined by AT&T, a company that has substantial investment in the wireless communication industry here in Livonia. Those concerns mainly related to what actually would suffice as documented evidence that their equipment is in compliance. You have before you this evening some modified language. This was presented eadier today by AT&T and their legal representative. Our Law Department is in the process of reviewing that information. Mr. August 10, 2010 25430 Stempien is here this evening, as is Lori Doughty of AT&T and they can answer additional questions. Our Law Department, in looking at this reviewed language, has a few minor concerns that we should be able to resolve prior to the City Council reviewing this item. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Taylor: Are you saying, Mark, that we shouldn't table this and send it on to the Council? Mr. Taormina: I think either way. If you feel more comfortable tabling this item for a couple weeks while our Law Department works out the actual language, then that would probably be the appropriate thing to do. Mr. Taylor: If the Law Department hasn't agreed to this yet ... Mr. Taormina: They have not fully agreed. Late this afternoon they offered some modified language with some minor concerns. It may be best to just hold off. I think Mr. Stempien may have communicated directly with Cathryn While of our Law Department. He might be able to offer some additional information in terms of their progress. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. I'd like to hear from Mr. Stempien. Mr. Morrow: Because we are the petitioner, if there are no other comments, I will go to the audience to see if anyone would like to speak to this petition. Eric Stempien 37754 Southampton, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Good evening. I'm here representing AT&T as Mr. Taormina mentioned. I know we had an opportunity to discuss this matter at the study session a couple weeks ago. Just for record purposes, let me recap what our position was on this because I know no record was made of it at the time of the study session. Our concerns are related to mainly two provisions within the proposed language that came from the Law Department to City Council and then through City Council to the Commission. The first one had to do with the requirement of annual testing. As I discussed with the Commission a couple weeks ago, that is well beyond what the FCC requires of wireless communication companies with regard to the RF exposure standards. Their requirements are that when we first apply for the license, we have to provide the certification that we are in compliance with the FCC regulations Whenever there is a modification to the equipment, August 10, 2010 25431 likewise we have to provide the certification. The third instance would be whenever the license is renewed, which I have now confirmed. I believe it's every four to five years. We would have to then go back in and certify again that we're in compliance. Again, compliance can mean several different things. There are certain categories of towers that are what they call categorically excluded, which means that testing is not required on it. For example, the large cell towers that you see, anything above 30 feel is going to be categorically excluded because the standard is not about emissions. Its about exposure and is there going to be any exposure to humans. A 30 fool lower, you're not going to have any exposure to humans. Again, we went through this a little bit at the study session. As you move away from the tower or the transmitter, exponentially every fool its going to less and less exposure. So you're 30 feel, nobody is going to be anywhere near this thing where there's going to be any danger. So those are categorically excluded. My understanding, in fact, is that I think almost all, if not all, of AT&T's equipment is actually on lowers in Livonia, which just has to do with the nature of the land use in Livonia because there's enough space, whereas say in Manhattan, you wouldn't have that ability. You're going to have a lot more rooftop antennas. So that was the first concern. As we discussed at that time and as I discussed with Mr. Taormina and with Ms. White of the legal department, it just seems that everybody wants to gel to the same place, which is we need to be able to show to the City, just like we show to the FCC, that we're in compliance with what their regulations are. And that's what the structure is. We're trying to work and say, ok, we agree with that. What can we do to make sure that's what we're accomplishing, that we're compliant with FCC regulations. Then the question becomes, if there is some issue, is there is some out -0f --compliance equipment in the City of Livonia, the original wording of the ordinance is "immediate shutdown." In our view, that would be a drastic unnecessary measure to lake. In our proposed language, what we talk about is that we would immediately take temporary remedial measures to make sure to get it under and then after that, it would be taken to a permanent status of making sure it's compliant. It could be just simply powering down. I understand we talked a little bit about timeframes at the time, but one of the remedial measures could be the fact that if something is out of compliance, maybe because of where it's located in terms of height, we can move it physically but that would lake a little bit more than 30 days because we would probably have to come to the Planning Commission and City Council and get that kind of permission. That's why at this point we haven't put in the timeframe because August 10, 2010 25432 it may be that we don't have a problem with d, but we may not be able to physically do it within 30 days just because of the nature of the process of having to move this type of equipment. We're not shutting that out. We're just saying that particular provision may be something we need to discuss. In fad, when I presented this language to Ms. While today, and I think Mr. Taormina saw the email loo, that was one of the things she came back and said, well, what about a timeframe in terms of bringing it into compliance. Just because of the liming of this, to be perfectly honestly, we haven't worked it all out 100 percent. It seems to me that in my discussions with the Law Department and the Planning Department, that we're all kind of all getting to the same place. It's just that we still have to work out these couple little issues that arise such as the timeframe and one other small issue that Ms. White mised, but I haven't had a chance to have a full blown discussion with her about it. It would appear from where I'm standing too, and I'm not trying to say what should happen or anything, it would seem the most prudent thing to do at this point would probably be to table it so we can finish these discussions with the Law Department. Then once everybody is on the same page, then the Planning Commission would have all the information that they would need to make their final decision. Mr. Taylor: If I may through the Chair to Mark Taormina, Mark, I just dotted down a number five here on the approving resolution. I kind of hale to hold this up. I wondered if it would be alright if we would put "that before this item is sent forward to the City Council, the Law Department needs final approval" Could we send it on that way or should we just table it? Mr. Taormina: I am of the same opinion at this point, after hearing Mr. Stempien discuss where he's at on a couple of these issues, that maybe it's better if we table it for a couple of weeks. We can bring this back in two weeks. Mr. Taylor: I'll offer a tabling resolution. Ms. Krueger: I just have one question. This annual fee that's mentioned in the new language that you provided, is that per tower or per provider? Mr. Stempien: We're proposing a $150.00 fee and the reason that we're proposing that is because if we're filing a particular certification and we provide the certification, the fad of the matter is that if we pay $150.00 per lower, you know, that's really getting quite expensive for what the expenditures are going to be on the city- August 10, 2010 25433 side because now its all on us to do all of the legwork and provide everything that we're going to need to provide. Ms. White raised that one with me as well, and I responded to her, but at this point I agree there may be some middle ground on that but I think $150.00 times however many lowers we have out there, it actually starts to become more of a lax than an actual fee that's related to the actual time and expenditure from the city. Ms. Krueger: Okay. I guess another question would be, this certification that you're going to provide, will it list all the lowers you have within the City and say all these meet FCC approval? Mr. Stempien: Yes, that's right. It will have to be done by site because that's how we file with the FCC as well. Ms. Krueger: Would it be one report essentially? Mr. Stempien: That's probably more of an issue of how the engineering department at AT&T has to file with the FCC. It is my understanding that its site by site, so they all have separate reports. Ms. Kruger: Okay, then I guess my question comes back to, how would you pay that fee if throughout the year you're going to be providing certifications like weekly or monthly or sporadically? Mr. Stempien: My understanding is that the language of this is just by November 1 we have to certify for each of the sites. I look it to mean that we would file them all at the same time but they're separate pieces of paper is all I was saying. Could we file it all at the same time? Yes. I guess maybe I misunderstood your indial question. They could all be filed at the same time and you pay a $150.00 fee. Ms. Kruger: Okay. That answers my question. Mr. Morrow: I don't sense any urgency in sending this forward. I would like to slow it down so when it does go forward we pretty much have an understanding among this body, the Law Department and the people that operate the lowers. So Mr. Stempien if you have no more comments or questions, I'm going to go to the audience to see if there's anyone that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. ITEM #3 PETITION 2010-06-02-12 DUNKIN' DONUTS Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 06-02-12 submitted by Jeffery A. Scott Architects requesting waiver use approval to add drive4hru facilities to an existing restaurant (Dunkin' Donuts) at 19010 Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Cladta Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Morrow: Item 3 needs a motion to remove from the table. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was August 10, 2010 25434 Mr. Wilshaw: Inasmuch as I respect Mr. Stempien and his expertise in this matter, I would like to get the actual language from the Law Department as to when they believe is appropriate for the City as opposed to language from one of the providers as to what they think is appropriate. I do want to give the Law Department an opportunity to review this and to get us appropriate language, which then we can approve and make sure everyone is okay with. So with that, I'm going to offer a tabling resolution and that will be until such time as the Law Department has revised language that they can provide to us. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Kreuger, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-53-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 2010, on Petition 2010-07-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #22570, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsections (b) and (d) of Section 18.42A (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to better insure that operators and colocalors do not have radio frequency (RF) energy emissions or other detrimental field output and to require colocalors and operators to notify the Inspection Department of changes in ownership and contact information, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item until such time as the City's Law Department has completed their review of the revised language. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This will come before the Planning Commission at a time when the Law Department comes back to us with revised language. ITEM #3 PETITION 2010-06-02-12 DUNKIN' DONUTS Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 06-02-12 submitted by Jeffery A. Scott Architects requesting waiver use approval to add drive4hru facilities to an existing restaurant (Dunkin' Donuts) at 19010 Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Cladta Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Morrow: Item 3 needs a motion to remove from the table. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was August 10, 2010 25435 #08-54-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2010-06-02-12 submitted by Jeffery A. Scott Architects requesting waiver use approval to add drive- lhm facilities to an existing restaurant (Dunkin' Donuts) at 19010 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Clarila Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, which property is zoned C-2, be removed from the table. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: Changes have been to the plans since our last meeting, mostly related to the amount of building signage. As you'll recall under the original plan, there were a total of five signs that totaled about 100 square feet of area, and that included a large graphic of a coffee cup on the front building elevation. The new plan eliminates that coffee cup graphic, and instead will have three illuminated signs. One would be on the west elevation, one on the north elevation, and one on the south elevation. Those three signs would total about 42.7 square feel. Additionally, there is a single Dunkin' Donuts logo which would be located on the awning above the pickup window on the north side of the building. That's about eight square feel. When you add that to the 42.7 square feet, we're just over 50 square feet. That basically cuts the amount of signage in half from what was previously shown. This is the revised elevation plan. This is actually the front of the building as it appears from Middlebelt Road. On the right hand side of the building oriented north us the pickup window. The DO logo is just above that on an awning. If you look on the south elevation of the building, you'll see a sign proposed there adjacent to two awnings. The rear elevation does not have exposure to any roads. The only other change involves the north row of parking which will be designated for employees only because of the deficient aisle width that will be created between those spaces and the lane occupied by vehicles using the drive -up window. It is the five parking spaces shown on the north side of the property. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is no additional correspondence August 10, 2010 25436 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina? I'll ask the petitioner to come forward please. We need your name and address for the record. Marsha Butkovich, Jeffery A. Scott Architects, 32316 Grand River, Suite 200, Farmington, Michigan 48336. Good evening. As Mr. Taormina said, we heard what you had to say at the last meeting, and as we talked about at the study meeting, we came back with less signage. We know you had a concern about those parking spaces on the north side so we created those as employee parking. I know you had some other concerns at the study meeting regarding the noise level. I think we got past the actual noise of the speaker level. I think there was still some concern as far as the users of the site. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. I've got Mr. Kevin Dalpiaz from Dunkin Brands and Vijay Patel, the franchisee, here as well. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to the petitioner, how many employees do you have? Mr. Morrow: We will need your name and address. Vijay Patel, 19010 Middlebell Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Anywhere from 10 to 14 employees. Mr. Taylor: Well, obviously four is not going to be enough. With those being employee only parking spots, are you going to have enough parking for your facility? Mr. Patel: I thought you meant total employees. Working at once, a maximum of four to five. Mr. Taylor: I know that it's cumbersome because of people trying to back out into the people coming through the driveway, but I don't want to shorten you up on the parking if you need that parking. You can try and gel your employees to park there or some other place, which I understand some of your employees park on the lot to the north. Do you have an agreement with them? Mr. Patel: Verbal agreement. They don't use their lot at all. There's barely two cars there at any time of the day, and they have probably eight or so parking spaces. They have a little alley on the side of the building right next to the employee parking space designated here. So we have three to four cars there usually, and use very minimal of our lot currently. August 10, 2010 25437 Mr. Taylor: Again, through the Chair to Mark Taormina, how many places are they short? I know they have 9 fool spaces; we're supposed to have 10 fool now. Mr. Taormina: I think they are two deficient. Let me verify that. Mr. Taylor: So they're going to have to go to the Zoning Board anyway. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Taylor: I think what you're going to do here is really going to make the building much better and your business is going to be better, I'm sure. I like what you've done as far as going along with the hours that we talk about and the concern of the neighbors with the window when you order. I think what you're doing is fine. I just don't want to handcuff you on your parking to make your business flourish. Mr. Palet: Sure. I appreciate that. Thank you. We have been using the next parking lot space since I've been there eight and a half years. We never had an issue. If we do need to use that, it's available. Mr. Morrow: I think you said at the study you've been there eight and half years, but I think the facility has been there for 30 years. Mr. Palet: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Does anyone else have a question of the petitioner? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, I'll call for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and approved, it was #08-55-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 2010, on Petition 2010-06-02-12 submitted by Jeffery A. Scott Architects requesting waiver use approval to add drive-thru facilities to an existing restaurant (Dunkin' Donuts) at 19010 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, which properly is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2010-06-02- 12 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the addition of drive-lhru facilities at this location shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the Zoning August 10, 2010 25438 Ordinance standards as set forth in Section 11.03(c)(a)(3), requiring that the turning radius on any curve of a drive -up window traffic lane shall be no less than fifteen feet (15) and Section 11.03(c)(a)(4), requiring that a by-pass lane be provided for vehicles not using the drive -up window, are waived or modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 2. That the hours of operation of the drive -up window shall be limited to the time period between 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight; 3. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Number SP -1 dated August 2, 2010, as revised, prepared by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient number of parking spaces, width of parking spaces and aisleways and any conditions related thereto; 5. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet Number L-1 dated June 8, 2010, as revised, prepared by J. Brian Devlin, R.L.A., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the Petitioner shall work with the Planning Department to install a couple of deciduous street trees in the right-of- way of Middlebelt Road; 6. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet Number SP -2 dated August 2, 2010, as revised, prepared by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the wall signs as depicted on the above -referenced plans shall be subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals; 8. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and, 9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. August 10, 2010 25439 Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: I do have one question. It said the window is going to close at midnight. Is Dunkin' Donuts going to close at midnight also, or would they be able to gel coffee inside? Mr. Patel: That's the Iasi resort that we have to close based on the fine condition at the end of the day. We would probably stay open. I would have to consider a few options. I'm not sure right now. Ms. Smiley: My question was, is this going to shut you down probably from midnight to 5:00 in the morning? Mr. Patel: Its likely. One of the reasons that I mentioned eadier at previous meetings is that having a drive-thru, it prevents any security issues. If we have to close the drive-lhru between 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., we would be back al the same place, which is the front doors and exposure to security. That's something I have to think through. Ms. Smiley: Have you had any problems between 12:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. because you have been open 24 hours? Mr. Patel: Never between those hours. We did have an incident probably six years ago at 5:00, 6:00 p.m., a robberytook place. Ms. Smiley: How many employees would be there at that time? Mr. Palet: Two. A minimum of two employees at all times of the day. At night, there would be two employees. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. August 10, 2010 25440 Mr. Patel: That's the thought behind it because an incident did happen at one time. As time goes on, I'm not sure. Things could happen. I'm just trying to be preventative to make sure nothing happens and no one gels injured. Ms. Smiley: I guess my question was, are we, in essence, shutting you down from midnight to 5:00 a.m. Mr. Palet: Very likely, yes. Mr. Morrow: That will be a management decision I guess. Mr. Palet: Right. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions or comments regarding the motion? Seeing none, I'll ask for a roll call. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Taylor, McDermott, Smiley, Krueger, Morrow NAYES: Wilshaw ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Ms. Scheel: The motion passes. Mr. Morrow: I have a request from the petitioner. Due to budget constraints at the corporate level, they are requesting that they receive a seven day waiver so it can go immediately to the City Council. Have you been in contact with the Council office at all regarding this? Ms. Bulkovich: Yes, sir. We have sent that letter to Mr. McCann, and I believe Mr. Taormina indicated to me this morning that he spoke to him yesterday, I believe. Mr. Taylor: I'll offerlhal motion, Mr. Chair. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously approved, it was #08-56-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2010-06-02-12 submitted by Jeffery A. Scott August 10, 2010 25441 Architects requesting waiver use approval to add drive-thru facilities to an existing restaurant (Dunkin' Donuts) at 19010 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Clarila Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution, also waiving the seven day wailing period for approval of the minutes. ITEM #4 PETITION 2010 -06 -SN -03 COSTCO WHOLESALE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 06 -SN -03 submitted by Costco Wholesale requesting approval for additional wall signage for the commeroial building at 20000 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Morrow: Item 4 needs a motion to remove from the table. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-57-2010 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2010-06SN-03 submitted by Costco Wholesale requesting approval for additional wall signage for the commercial building at 20000 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, be removed from the table. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina: A new plan has been submitted based on the conversation at the previous study session. The new plan removes two existing 274 square foot painted signs on both the north and the east sides of the building and installs three new channel letter signs, each of which would measure 136 square feel. Those would be placed on the north, east and west elevations. Together, the two existing signs total about 550 square feel, whereas the three smaller signs total about 408 square feel. Even though we have an increase in the number of signs, one additional sign, the cumulative area is actually less than what currently exists. The new signs would face east and west. The while August 10, 2010 25442 background would be eliminated. That area would be painted to match the brick on the existing building. These are channel letter signs. The blue lines in 'Wholesale", that part of the graphic would still be painted, but these are raised channel letters. Originally the petitioner requested that the new signs be internally illuminated. Under the current proposal, however, they propose that the signs be illuminated by means of roof - mounted flood lights, similar to what is currently being used to illuminate the painted signs. These would not be illuminated individually or internally. Instead, they would use indirect lighting from above to shine down on the signs. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is no additional correspondence. Ms. Krueger: Mark, is that white part currently there? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it is. Ms. Kruger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: If there are no further questions, we'll call the petitioner forward. We'll need your name and address for our record. Robert Lemere, Administrative Manager, Costco Wholesale, 20000 Haggerty Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Do you want to add anything to what was said by Mr. Taormina? Mr. Lemere: Yes, sir. The white will be eliminated and the building will be painted the same as the rest. It will all be consistent. Mr. Morrow: Any olherquestons? Ms. McDermott: Could you go through again the reason why you want the additional sign? I love the new signs and the look of those, but the additional sign, the one that would be facing the west elevation ... Mr. Lemere: More exposure coming from a northerly direction. Ms. McDermott: Okay. I've driven this a couple of times from Seven Mile north on Haggerty, and I dont see how we're going to see any sign there no matter how big the sign is because there are the medical buildings there. There are trees. And I've driven it August 10, 2010 25443 more than once, because I thought possibly I missed it the first time. So you're driving along, the way I see it, and if you miss that first entrance, then you have the entrance with the monument sign that has Costco on it, and as soon as you turn in that driveway, you can see the large sign that already exists. Likewise, coming from the other direction heading south on Haggerty, at the corner of Eight Mile and Haggerty, you can see the existing sign on the building. Like I said, I love the new look of the signs but I'm still not convinced that the additional sign is really going to be viewed by anyone other than once you're in the parking lot. Mr. Lemere: I understand. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Mr. W lshaw: Why did we change from an internally illuminated channel letter sign that you had shown us at the last meeting to a partial channel letter sign that is not internally illuminated and partially painted? Mr. Lemere: To slay consistent with the rest of the buildings that are in the Midwest. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So that's a unified way that you do your signs? Mr. Lemere: Correct. Mr. W lshaw: Okay. Is the sign in Commerce Township ... I think they have a similar sign. Mr. Lemere: It is the reverse channel and it is painted aluminum. They are virtually identical. Mr. Wlshaw: Okay. And the "wholesale' is painted on the Commerce building? Mr. Lemere: Oh. I'm sorry. The Commerce building has the updated sign. They don't have the painted facade. Mr. W Ishaw: So they dont have any painted signage at all? Mr. Lemere: No. They have the updated sign. Mr. Wilshaw: So the Commerce building is not conforming to Coslco's Midwest standards? August 10, 2010 25444 Mr. Lemere: No. They are. They have the reverse channel signs. They don't have the painted facade. Mr. Wilshaw: Well, as I understand it, what you're proposing with the new information is that the graphic "Costco" will be channel letters and the word "wholesale' and the stripes are going to be painted. Is that correct? Mr. Lemere: No. We will receive the lettering and it will be affixed to the building. We will paint over the existing sign and everything would be attached to the building. Mr. Wilshaw: So everything is going to be channel letters? Mr. Lemere: Correct. Mr. Wlshaw: Okay. That's different than the information we got from our Planning Department. I appreciate you clarifying that for me. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Ms. Smiley: I just want to tell you how much I like these new signs. They are very classy. Mr. Lemere: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Taylor: Just the lighting. Where exactly are the lights shining on the sign? Mr. Lemere: They are above. They protrude about two feel. They are right above the sign. Can you pull that up again? I dont know if you can see it. Mr. Taormina: Which one? Mr. Lemere: You really don't have a good view of the lighting of the sign. Mr. Taylor: They're on the roof of the building? Mr. Lemere: Correct. I do have a photo here if you'd like to see this. Mr. Taylor: Is that going to be on the east side also? Mr. Lemere: Correct. Everything will be uniform. August 10, 2010 25445 Mr. Taylor: And those will go off an hour after you close? Mr. Lemere: Correct. Mr. Taylor: That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Seeing none, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and approved, it was #08-58-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 2010, on Petition 2010-06SN-03 submitted by Costco Wholesale requesting approval for additional wall signage for the commercial building at 20000 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section tithe Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-07-06-01 be approved for the following reasons: That the Sign Plan marked Drawing #1 dated August 4, 2010, as revised, prepared by Spectrum Sign Corp., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, provided that: a) the two (2) existing "Costco Wholesale' signs located on the east and north sides of the building are completely removed and the walls of the building are restored to match the existing conditions; and 2) that the Petitioner shall be allowed to install a third channel letter sign of equal dimensions and specifications along the east elevation; 2. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 3. That all signage for this building shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour afterthis business closes; 4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; and, 5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? August 10, 2010 25446 Mr. Wilshaw: I hate to be a nitpick, but our approving condition #1 states that the sign plan is dated July 22. We have a sign plan that is dated August 4. Ms. Smiley: Isn't that what it says? Mr. W Ishaw: Okay. You have August 4. On that particular plan, it states that the letters "wholesale' and the stripes will be painted as opposed to being channel letters, which is what the petitioner described. So I don't know if we want to incorporate something in the approving resolution to state that the entire sign is going to be channel letter. Mr. Morrow: That should be clarified. Mr. Taormina: I think there was some conflicting information but the one plan does indicate that it's channel letter. I just verfified that. We will clarify that in the resolution. Mr. Morrow: Okay. The date of the plan is what should go forward? Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Does the maker and the supporter of the motion go along with that? Mr. Taylor: No problem. Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Roll call, please. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Taylor, Krueger, Wilshaw, Scheel, Morrow NAYES: McDermott ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. August 10, 2010 25447 ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 998m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 998th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 20, 2010. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-59-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 9981 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2010, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Scheel, Smiley, McDermott, Krueger, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 9991h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 10, 2010, was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary