Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,153 - January 14, 2020MINUTES OF THE 1,153rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA ________________________________________________________________ On Tuesday, January 14, 2020, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,153rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Glen Long Carol Smiley Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Betsy McCue Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2019-12-01-07 Unleashed Pet Care Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2019-12-01-07 submitted by Unleashed Pet Care Real Estate L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 9300 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue in the Southwest ¼ of Section 36, from OS, Office Services to C-1, Local Business. January 17, 2020 29480 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone property from OS, Office Services, to C-1, Local Business. The subject property is located on the east side of Middlebelt Road and it is between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue. The property is a former Turowski Funeral Home. The property is approximately 0.75 acres in size with 230 feet of frontage on Middlebelt and 141 feet of frontage on the side street, Hathaway. The existing building on the property measures about 4,747 square feet and faces Middlebelt. Parking is available on the north, east, and south sides of the building. The purpose of the rezoning is to enable the reuse of the building as a veterinary clinic. The existing OS zoning does not support this type of use; however, the C-1 zoning allows veterinary clinics, animal clinics, and animal hospitals, subject to waiver-use approval. Looking at the various uses surrounding the site, to the north and to the south, fronting on Middlebelt Road are a combination of office and commercial uses. Immediately to the east are residential homes zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential) and then to the west, across Middlebelt, are duplexes under the R-6 (Two-family Residential) zoning. The site contains 53 parking spaces. When we look at the parking that is required for a veterinary clinic, based on a ratio of 1: 150 square feet of usable floor area, the required amount of parking would be 22 parking spaces. That would result in a surplus of over 30 spaces. Most of the site is either building or parking lot. There is minimal landscaping presently. The future land use plan shows the subject site as Corridor Commercial, which supports the proposed change of zoning. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 19, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of #9300 Middlebelt Road. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. The information submitted does not show proposed alterations for the utility services, so it does not appear that there will be any impacts to the existing systems. It should be noted that should the developer need to do any work within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way, permits will need to be obtained from the Wayne County Department of Public Services. ” The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated December 12, 2019, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the address connected with January 17, 2020 29481 the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable (general or water and sewer), I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer’s Department, dated December 23, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time there are taxes due, but they are not delinquent, therefore I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Do we have any questions for our planning staff? Hearing none, the petitioner is here. If you would like to come forward and give us your name and address. Dr. Kari Nugent, 8645 Middlebelt Road, Westland, MI, 48185, we have been an established small animal practice for the past 10 years in that location. Prior to that, we were a mobile house call service. We are looking to expand and open an integrated veterinary wellness center at the proposed location. Extending services to massage therapy, hyperbaric treatment, and some other alternative veterinary medical modalities. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Dr. Nugent. Is there any other information that you would like to provide to us in regard to the petition we have in front of us tonight? Dr. Nugent: In terms of the location, at the present time we don’t plan on doing anything structurally, other than renovating the interior of the building, partitioning for the use as a veterinary practice. In terms of the external structure, we don’t plan on doing any renovations at this time. Mr. Wilshaw: Let’s see if we have any questions for you from any of the Commissioners here. Mr. Bongero? Mr. Bongero: A question for Mark. What is the minimum height requirement on the fence separating commercial from residential? Is it five feet or six? Mr. Taormina: Five feet is the minimum. Mr. Bongero: It is just a little bit short. Looks great. Mr. Taormina: My guess is that it is the result of additional asphalt lifts to the parking lot, which raised it on the commercial side of the property. January 17, 2020 29482 Mr. Bongero: Yeah, it is like three inches short. I went by your other business and it looks like you are busy over there. It says you do boarding. Dr. Nugent: We do at the current location. We will not be boarding at the new location. Particularly given the restrictions for overnight care in Livonia, we are cognizant that there needs to be someone present at the facility if we do have animals kept overnight. We do not have any intention of doing that. If at some point we get to the point that we need to, we will have the appropriate veterinary staff on site, should we need to hospitalize a patient overnight. Mr. Bongero: All in all, the building is in good shape on the outside. The parking lot has a couple rough spots back by the planter. I think that is where you are putting the outside… Dr. Nugent: Greenspace. Mr. Bongero: Yeah, so that will take care of that. You are going to close the other business? It is only a half mile down the road. Dr. Nugent: We are leasing that property. So, we will be closing that property location. Mr. Bongero: I like it. It’s great. I think it is a great idea. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Long: I realize that this is a zoning hearing and not an official site plan, but can you talk about your intended greenspace. Will it be fenced? Will it be real grass or artificial turf? Can you just talk a little bit about that? Dr. Nugent: We are planning on doing real grass. The area will be fenced. We are hoping…in our old location it is an old house and people in the area really like the home kind of feel. We are trying to create that in a new location. The proposed greenspace…we are thinking about doing a cute white little picket fence so that it brings into that homey atmosphere. It will be actual grass area. We are open to moving the greenspace if needed and someone is opposed to the location. We do have enough room to actually create several if needed. Mr. Long: Thank you. January 17, 2020 29483 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Long. We will have the record show that Commissioner Caramagno joined us at 7:10 p.m. Are there any other questions for our petitioner? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? I don’t see anyone coming forward. Dr. Nugent, we always give you the last word since you are our petitioner. Anything else you would like to say? Dr. Nugent: We are hoping that we can become a part of the Livonia community. We have heard wonderful things about what a pet loving community that it is. We feel it would be a great location to move our clinic. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thank you, Dr. If there are no other questions or comments, again, as Mr. Long indicated, we do want to remind everyone this is a rezoning request. We are focused tonight on the zoning and is that appropriate for that site. Once that is decided we will potentially look at the site plan and have more detailed questions at that time. With that, if there is no other questions or comments, I will close the public hearing and a motion will be in order. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-01-2020 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2020, on Petition 2019-12-01-07 submitted by Unleashed Pet Care Real Estate L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property at 9300 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue in the Southwest ¼ of Section 36, from OS, Office Services to C- 1, Local Business., the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2019-12-01-07 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning will allow the reuse of the building as a veterinary clinic which is not permitted under the OS district regulations; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; and 3. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends Corridor Commercial in this area. January 17, 2020 29484 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. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Wilshaw: On item #2, the petitioner has asked to have the item moved to the end of the agenda to work with their timing. We said we would do that. ITEM #2 PETITION 2019-08-08-13 BioLife Plasma Services Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2019- 08-08-13 submitted by Build to Suit, Inc. on behalf of BioLife Plasma Services requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a new medical clinic at 29959 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast ¼ of Section 35 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct a new plasma collection center called BioLife. Its location is within the Wonderland Village shopping center, which is on the south side of Plymouth Road just west of Middlebelt Road. The parcel in particular, is 2.3 acres in size with 265 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road. The parcel depth is roughly 380 feet. As you can see from the zoning map, the current zoning is C-2, General Business. The subject property is part of a larger shopping complex that is known as the Village Shops of Wonderland. As originally approved, the Village shops included five buildings, all with frontage on Plymouth Road and extending west from Middlebelt for a distance of about 1,650 feet. Four out of five multi-tenant retail buildings have been constructed, and the proposed BioLife would occupy the last remaining building pad located at the far west end of the Village Shops. This was referred to as Retail F on the original plans. Retail F, as originally approved, measured about 28,326 square feet and was a multi-tenant building. The proposed single-use BioLife building would be one-story in height and about 14,390 square feet in area. It’s positioned near the middle of the property with the parking on the north, west, and east sides of the building. The site does not have direct access to Plymouth Road. Instead, access would be provided via the existing drive aisles and lanes January 17, 2020 29485 that are part of the existing layout of Wonderland Village. The building’s interior would be divided into three main parts. The front portion would include reception, as well as a donor processing area, various exam rooms, training center, and other administrative offices. The middle section, which is labeled donor floor, contains multiple cubicle partitions. The back part, which is labeled Receiving Area, includes a plasma processing area, a freezer, a biohazard room, an employee breakroom, and a changing room. The required setback of a building in the C-2 district from a main road right-of-way is 60 feet. In this case, the building would be setback 95 feet from the right-of-way of Plymouth Road. Parking is required at a ratio of 1: 110 square feet of usable floor space. Accordingly, this facility would require 105 parking spaces. The site plan shows 129 spaces, so parking is adequate to support the proposed use. Behind the building is an access drive for pick-up’s and deliveries. There is also a trash dumpster enclosure in this area. It is near the southwest corner of the building. In this case, the dumpster would be enclosed by three walls that are a minimum of six feet in height. The existing lighting in the parking lot would be used. There is no additional exterior lighting proposed, other than some wall packs that would be attached to the building. There is a fully detailed landscaping plan that was included with the application. The landscaping on site totals roughly 25% of the property and thus, is conforming. Looking at the building, which is an item that the Planning Commission reviewed in great detail at previous meetings, the latest plans show the exterior consisting of a combination of thin brick in two different colors identified on the rendering as white and black, and Nichiha siding which is a composite material that is smoke color. Looking at this plan, you see the darker brick is the area surrounding the main entrance. The composite panel of horizontal siding is this material, which is a rough sawn appearance. The lighter color brick is on both sides of the main entry. Also included are dark brown metal panels and E. I. F. S. The white portion, which is where the sign is located, would be in E. I. F. S. Signs are limited to one sign, measured at one square foot for each lineal foot of building frontage. In this case, they would be allowed one sign, 85 square feet in area. The rendering shows three signs. One on each of the north, east, and west elevations. That is something that would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 14, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, January 17, 2020 29486 the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of #29959 Plymouth Road. The legal description provided appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. The information submitted does not show proposed alterations for the utility services, so it does not appear that there will be any impacts to the existing systems. It should be noted that should the developer need to do any work within the Plymouth Road right-of-way, they will need to obtain permits from Michigan Department of Transportation. Once the project has been approved by Council, detailed site plans will need to be submitted to this department along with a sanitary sewer basis of design, to determine if permits will be required.” The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 23, 2019, which reads as follows: “This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a new medical clinic on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal.” The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 15, 2019, which reads as follows: “I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 4, 2019, which reads as follows: " Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the excess number, area and height of signs. This Department has no further objections to this Petition. I trust this provides the requested information.” The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated August 15, 2019, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer’s Department, dated August 23, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, the Treasurer’s Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The last letter is from the Department of Assessment, dated August 26, 2019, which reads as follows: “The above described January 17, 2020 29487 property is a 7.49-acre parcel under the name of Middlebelt Plymouth Venture LLC. The request by Build to Suit, Inc. appears to encompass only a portion of the 7 and ½ acres. The Assessor's Office recommends the owner contact our department for a Property Split.” The letter is signed by Mary Ciolino, Department of Assessment. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a procedural point of order, this item was tabled. We will need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-02-2020 RESOLVED, Petition 2019-08-08-13 submitted by Build to Suit, Inc. on behalf of BioLife Plasma Services requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a new medical clinic at 29959 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast ¼ of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby remove the item from the table. Mr. Wilshaw: Any questions for the planning staff? Mr. Wilshaw: Our petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Steve Hermiller, Mannik Smith Group, 2365 Haggerty Road, Canton, MI, 48188, I have with me the architect. We appreciate the opportunity to be back. Early on in this process, I think we went through the work session. There were some changes requested. We came back and we presented some samples at the last work session. I am going to let Nick speak to that since he brought a full set of materials that he can explain further in detail how we have advanced it even further. It explains the nature of the elevation. Nick Slaughterbeck, Onyx Creative, 25001 Emery Road, Cleveland, OH, 44128, at the last hearing there was a bit of a worry about the think brick. We have since switched over to a full brick. Mainly because of the climate conditions in Livonia. There is worry of thin brick falling off the building, as is with any cold/hot climate here in the area. Such, we would be switching over to full brick with standard masonry tiebacks throughout the building. As you can see, we have the Silverbrook, which is the white and grey brick, as well as Manganese Iron Spot, which is the darker brick. With that, I don’t know if you want me to go into the changes from when we January 17, 2020 29488 submitted back in October. I know there was worry of an institutional look of the building back when that was submitted. Since then, we have really taken a look at Wonderland Village and noticed its delineation and its angulation, the difference in the properties. One of the worries we had heard was that there was too long and too broad of a space. This façade was too bland and too monotone, if you will. As such, we have added more angulation and parapet, more pushing and pulling in the façade, and more changes in the materiality. We are hoping by doing so, we are adding to that visual discrepancy throughout those longer facades that would mimic and at least compliment the adjacent Wonderland Village. We went with brick. As Wonderland Village has a lot of brick element to it, as well as switching from E. I. F. S. to Nichiha, which is a fiber cement panel board. The rough sawn will have a light texture to it but the grey will still be seen through. We have limited the E. I. F. S only to our sign banding. The store front windows we have maintained. We have added a few store fronts on side elevations that would be standard. Non- vision glass, as well as a few areas where we have added ribbed metal panel just to extend those visible windows to allow for more clarity and visibility, a less institutionalized look we hope. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for that background. You have made some amazing improvements to the façade of the building and you have worked well our planning staff in making those changes, so we appreciate that. Do we have any questions for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: I am going to defer to Ms. Smiley. Ms. Smiley: I was going to ask about the landscaping. Was there a landscape plan and how much of the property is covered with landscaping? Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Staff notes indicate 25% of the site would be landscaped. This is the landscape plan that was submitted with the application. You can see foundation plantings on the front part of the building where the main entrance is facing Plymouth Road. A variety of shrubs is going in that area, as well as some ornamental trees. The same treatment is along the back part of the property where there is some greenspace. The area around the dumpster would have some landscaping. There is existing landscaping along Plymouth Road where we have the PRDA streetscape improvements, as well as the sides of the property that were all part of the original Wonderland landscaping plan. The only thing is, along the sides of the building there are no foundation plantings there. They just indicate lawn. I am not sure if that a January 17, 2020 29489 concern. Other than that, it is a well laid out detailed landscape plan. Ms. Smiley: Did the PRDA look at this? Mr. Taormina: They have not acted on this petition yet. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Taormina: I will point out that the PRDA’s input would be very limited since they reviewed the initial plan for Wonderland Village and had significant input into the streetscape improvements that are already in place. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Mr. Ventura: I would like to offer a compliment to the petitioner. You guys have been very flexible in terms of revising your physical appearance of the building materials and accommodating the concerns of the Commission. You should be commended for that. The building plan, as it stands today, is much improved. One question that I don’t remember ever being asked, do you employee any security on the site or in the building? Mr. Hermiller: Unfortunately, the property owner is not present. They had flight issues. Mr. Slanderbeck: I cannot speak to the employment of security on site, but I do know of the security measures that are in place. We obviously meet all building codes and we do have secure card reader access to the building for employees. Secured exits and, of course, fire accessible routes. We do have security contractors who are part of the design process who do help with the internal security of the building. Externally, unfortunately, I can ask and get back to you on that issue. Mr. Ventura: I noted in all the information that you provided to us that the donors are paid with a Debit card. Is that correct? Mr. Hermiller: I don’t know actually. Because of the flight thing though, the owner did say they could be on the phone if you didn’t mind. Mr. Ventura: Okay, I will defer that question to another time. Thank you. January 17, 2020 29490 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. My recollection from our previous meeting was that they did talk about payment through a Debit card. I do remember that, but obviously it is up to the petitioner to ultimately answer those questions. Any other questions that we can ask of the representatives here? Mr. Caramagno: Mark, regarding the sign, did we ever find out an answer and if I wasn’t listening, I apologize about the sign? Do they get signage on the monument sign? Mr. Taormina: I did not. I was unable to get that information prior to tonight so I apologize. Mr. Caramagno: In the approval resolution here, they are limited to the base signage only. That they will apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions for the planning staff or the petitioner? I don’t see any others. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I will give you the last opportunity to make any statements you would like. Mr. Hermiller: I did get a text back from the owner, it is a Debit card payment. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I love technology. Mr. Hermiller: I don’t know exactly about the security, but in moments you may know. Mr. Wilshaw: We will see what happens. Mr. Hermiller: Actually, they did text. They said there is no need to have onsite security. They have security cameras everywhere. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: There we go. Thank you for having those questions answered for us. With that, if there is nothing else from the Commission or anyone in the audience, I will ask for a motion. On a motion by Long, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-03-2020 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2019-08-08-13 January 17, 2020 29491 submitted by Build to Suit, Inc. on behalf of BioLife Plasma Services requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a new medical clinic at 29959 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast ¼ of Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan identified as C200, dated October 18, 2019, as revised, prepared by Mannik Smith Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross access agreement, that gives notice and outlines the terms of how the subject property would share parking and access with abutting property(s), be supplied to the Inspection Department at the time a building permit is applied for; 3. That the Landscape Plan identified as C500, dated October 18, 2019, as revised, prepared by Mannik Smith Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That the Elevation Plan dated December 13, 2019, prepared by Onyx Creative, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment visible to the public shall be concealed on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 8. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area(s) shall be a minimum six feet (6’) in height, constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be louvered aluminum and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; January 17, 2020 29492 9. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feet (20’) in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadways; 10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 12. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Wilshaw: We have a motion to approve by Mr. Long and supported by Ms. Smiley. The petitioner has asked to speak. Mr. Hermiller: I forgot to mention if the motion passes, is there an opportunity for a request to waive the 10-day process so we can expedite it from the deadline to go to City Council? Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate you bringing it up. We do have a note to do that. That will be separate action after this motion has been voted on. It is a seven-day waiver. Thank you for reminding us. Is there any other questions or comments on the motion? Seeing none. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-04-2020 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 date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2019-08-08-13 submitted by Build to Suit, Inc. on behalf of BioLife Plasma Services requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a January 17, 2020 29493 proposal to construct a new medical clinic at 29959 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast ¼ of Section 35, Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2019-12-08-16 N.C. Designers & Cont. Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2019- 12-08-16 submitted by N.C. Designers & Contracting Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, regarding a proposal to construct an addition and remodel the interior and exterior of the existing gas station (Shell) at 33411 Six Mile Road, located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast ¼ of Section 1. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct an addition and remodel the interior and exterior of an existing gas station located at the southwest corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads. This site was recently rezoned from C-1, Local Business to C-2, General Business. The site is about 21,600 square feet in size. It has 160 feet of frontage on Farmington Road and 135 feet on Six Mile Road. The existing one-story building on the site measures roughly 1,500 square feet in area. As you can see from this aerial photograph, it is positioned at about a 45-degree angle from the intersection. There are two groups of gas pumps with overhead canopies, as well as four driveways: two that are on Farmington and two that are on Six Mile Road. The addition would be constructed at the north end of the building. The addition would also be one-story in height. It would be 578 square feet in total area, with dimensions of 18 feet nine inches by 27 feet three inches. The main purpose is to provide the station with additional retail space. Upon completion, the enlarged gas station building would be about 2,085 square feet in size. The required setback is 60 feet from any road right-of-way. The building is 70 feet from the Farmington Road right-of-way and only 45 feet from Six Mile Road, thus non-conforming. As you can see, the addition would encroach even further into the setback along Six Mile Road. From our estimation, at the closest point, the addition would be less than 35 feet from the property line. Along the west property where the site abuts OS zoning, the zoning ordinance allows a zero setback provided that the building is property fire rated. The building in this case would have a zero setback adjacent to the January 17, 2020 29494 west property line. Again, because the addition encroaches into the required front setback, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. In terms of parking, a requirement for gas stations is one space for each150 square feet of usable floor space devoted to retail sales. That translates to an off-street parking requirement of 12 spaces. This plan shows 10 spaces. It is shy of a couple of spaces and would also require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Looking at the building itself, this is the rendering. As you can see, the entire façade would be remodeled. The exterior would consist of vertical metal panels, which is the dark brown color, composite siding, which is the lighter brown on the top portion of the building, and limestone panels. There is existing block wall along the back of the building that would be painted. Along the top of the building it would be finished with a 16-inch-high continuous crown molding that would be constructed using EIFS. The roofline, as you can see, has two sections with varying heights. Seventeen feet would be the height on the south half of the building, and it would be raised a couple of feet to nineteen feet on the north half where the addition is proposed. At the study session, it was suggested that the limestone panels extend across the lower part of the ends of the building on the north and south elevations. When you look at these two elevations, the north and the south, the suggestion was to carry those limestone panels across the base of the building. Going back to the plan, in terms of landscaping, the plan shows a combination of lava rock and artificial plants in the right-of-way, as well as a small island at the intersection where the sign is located. The petitioner indicated that this was an oversight on their part and that they would upgrade the landscaping. This aspect of the job would have to be refined further. We did not review this petition regarding signage, so we cannot comment on that. Lastly, I thought it would be helpful to the Commission to show an aerial photograph of what the size of the addition would look like in relationship to the surrounding buildings to the north and give you a better sense of what the encroachment would be into the required setback. It is conceptual, but it gives you a good idea of what the impact to the site would be in terms of the addition to the building. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 19, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address January 17, 2020 29495 of #33411 Six Mile Road. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. The information submitted does not show proposed alterations for the utility services, so it does not appear that there will be any impacts to the existing systems. It should be noted that should the developer need to do any work within the Six Mile Road or Farmington Road right-of-way's, permits will need to be obtained from the Wayne County Department of Public Services.” The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 23, 2019, which reads as follows: “ This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition and remodel the interior and exterior of the existing gas station on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal” The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 10, 2020, which reads as follows: “I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petitions. I have the following objections to the proposal. There is only one parking space provided for handicap parking. My other concern is regarding the placement of the only available handicap parking space provided for access to the building. It is my suggestion that the handicap parking space be moved to the area of the labeled #1 and #2 parking spaces shown on the blueprint. The proposed handicap parking space would force the disabled patron to traverse around two sides of the building which could pose a possible safety hazard for the handicapped person.” The letter is signed by Scott Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 7, 2020, which reads as follows: " Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. Only one restroom is shown. Two restrooms are required per the Michigan Plumbing Code based on the proposed occupant load. This will be addressed further at the time of our plan review if this project moves forward. 2. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the deficient setback proposed for the side yard. This Department has no further objections to this Petition.” The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Treasurer’s Department, dated December 23, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time there are taxes due, therefore I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated December 19, 2019, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted January 17, 2020 29496 petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: I want to thank you for the extra aerial that you provided. I think that was helpful to the presentation. Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Bongero: Is there an actual site plan, engineered site plan for this property? Mr. Taormina: Engineered, no. I would say not, because it doesn’t appear to have been based on a Alta survey or any boundary survey. Bear in mind, that we are estimating some of the information here, like the setbacks from Six Mile Road. Mr. Bongero: When I was at the site, I found no corner stakes at all. I was having a hard time getting my bearings. So, we don’t know if this is actual. It is just kind of hypothetical. Mr. Taormina: We do know that the addition most certainly encroaches into the setback. The extent of what the variance would have to be there and what exactly that setback would be, we do not have that information. We are estimating. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for our planning staff? Ms. Smiley: Mine was more about the landscaping. Is that the landscape plan that you have up there right now? Mr. Taormina: Yes. This was provided with the site data. It provides some limited information on landscaping. There was discussion regarding this at the study session. The petitioner acknowledged that the landscape plan needed work. Ms. Smiley: So, they are going to come back with that? Is that a call back or… Mr. Taormina: It could be treated as a call back item. The Planning Commission would determine whether to do that or wait until you get… Ms. Smiley: Table this until you get more information? Mr. Taormina: Yes, correct. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. January 17, 2020 29497 Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our planning staff? Mr. Ventura: Mark, has the petitioner provided you with the material samples or any specifics? Mr. Taormina: I do not have that. Maybe he does, I am not sure if he has a sample board or not. Mr. Ventura: I just want to be clear. There is no landscape plan at the present time. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Ms. Smiley: The handicap parking thing, was that addressed? Mr. Taormina: There has been no change to the plan regarding barrier free parking. That is something that is reviewed by the Inspection Department. If the plans get to that point, they will determine the appropriate number as well as the location of the barrier free spaces based on the entrance to the store and other important items such as the provision for a ramp and that sort of thing. We appreciate the concern expressed by Traffic Bureau. I am not sure if a second barrier-free parking space is needed in this case or not, but again, this is something that would be reviewed by the Inspection Department. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions? I don’t see anything else. Our petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Nasser Choucair, 3241 S. Telegraph Road, Dearborn, MI 48124, I am here to answer any questions. The handicap parking, I think one is sufficient for a small site like that, but in terms of moving it toward the sidewalk for safety reasons we are willing to do so. Regarding the building inspector referring to the restrooms, we are willing to put another if needed after we do the calculations. It is true that it depends on the occupancy that put on the plan, but normally in such small building like this. Occupancy is less than 14 occupants, so it is not needed to have two restrooms, but if the Building Department insisted, we are willing to put another restroom. That’s no problem. Regarding the landscaping, I was hoping to get you another better landscaping than the one we had, but the landscaping architect didn’t have sufficient time from the time that we met in the study meeting. I could not get that January 17, 2020 29498 with me tonight. I hope we will get that resolved to the board expectation. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Any other comments you wanted to make in regard to this plan before we go to questions? Mr. Choucair: The materials on the building that we aren’t using any E. I. F. S., I mean very little of E. I. F. S. which is the crown on top of the wall. The reason I am using it, because it is a lightweight and these walls are not masonry. It is a framing wall so I would like to use something light. The composite material that we are using on the building is like a wood look. Also, this is a material that won’t fail within time. We are using some limestone panels on the building. We did agree that we are going to bring those panels on the side of the building under the window. We have some aluminum panels, metal panels, silver color on top of the building which is…give the building a modern look. Some steel canopy on the front of the elevation and the side. That would give some shades to the windows. Protect people from going in and out from snow and rain. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you for describing the materials. Let’ see if we have some questions for you. I believe we probably do. Anyone with questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: Did I understand you to say that on the limestone it’s going to go along the base on the north and the south elevations? Mr. Choucair: I thought it’s only where the window is, which is the south. If it is needed to be put in the north, that is fine with me. We can do that. Not a problem. Ms. Smiley: Are you the owner/operator? Mr. Choucair: No, I am the architect. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else Ms. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: No. Mr. Bongero: Do you have an actual site plan of the property? Mr. Choucair: You mean a survey? Mr. Bongero: Yeah. January 17, 2020 29499 Mr. Choucair: Okay, we do have a survey and that site plan is taken out of that survey. If you are looking for the pins on the property, they are about six inches in the grass on the four corners. If we bring a surveyor to pull them out, we can then expose them and show them, but I think the boundaries is how we extended. It is sufficient and we are…the corner of the building should be about one foot away from the boundary line exactly. Mr. Bongero: Typically, we see one with a stamp on it. We don’t know if this is accurate or not. Right? How do we know? It doesn’t show a stamp on it that is authentic. Mr. Choucair: The drawing? Mr. Bongero: On the site plan. Mr. Choucair: We can…I mean I can stamp it. I can provide Mr. Taormina the survey that we got from the owner. They have an existing survey. It is an older survey. It shows the drawing how it is. Mr. Bongero: Are going to change the drawing to reflect the stone on ends of the building? Mr. Choucair: Yeah, on the sides. We will put some limestone on the bottom. Mr. Bongero: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: I don’t know whether this question is directed to you or to the owner, but we have…I want to tell you that we are happy to see the change to the station. It sorely needs upgrading, but you were before us for rezoning and then you were before us for a study session and both times you were made aware that you were not in conformance with city ordinance regarding free air. Both time we were told it would be rectified. As of 4:00 p.m. this afternoon, it had not been. Can you explain why? Ali Hammouch, 33441 Six Mile Road, Livonia, MI, 48152, I do acknowledge what you said and the only reason is…first of all, we have a contract with that service that will end very soon with the provider for that. I bought that station three years ago and I wasn’t aware of that ordinance to be free. You brought it up in the zoning, when we did that rezoning. I said yes, we will definitely do it when we do the renovation for the site, of course I didn’t know where we going to place that…on the left, on the right. Is it going to be on the side January 17, 2020 29500 of the building? That is one of the reasons. The second one is, if I have to actually stop the contract with this guy, so I have to pay something for him, and on the other end I have to buy the equipment to provide as a free service. I totally acknowledge that. It is just going to take some time in order to obey to this ordinance. I am not saying that I am not going to do it, but it is just for the fact how the site plan is going to end. Eventually, if I don’t do this what you are requesting is, nothing will pass. I agree 100%. I did not know which side of the building we going to put it and plus how are we going to solve that issue with provider of that air machine. I can stop it if you feel you don’t want it there. I just can stop it. That doesn’t…it’s not going to hurt…I mean the entire this…it makes $45.00 at the end of the month. I can stop it if it makes you feel better. I understand where you are coming from 100%, but I just…there are rules that I am trying to follow and need to also acknowledge the rules, but this is where I am at. They are an existing contract. I need to talk to the guy…this is what is happening, and also relocating that machine…this is where I am at right now. Mr. Choucair: It’s probably going to be moved from there because we have a handicapped…we are reorganizing the parking lot, so I guess it would be on the other side of the building, because that spot is going to be for the handicap next to the sidewalk so, he have to move it now or later. He is going to be removing that pump from that side plus I have a contract with the company so that machine it does not belong to him so he will have to buy his own that generates the air without the coins. Mr. Ventura: I appreciate your comments, but it strikes me as though…between the time you were before us in the rezoning and now, you have had sufficient time to speak to your contractor and rectify this. It is not our position to say that you have to provide air, or where it is going to be located. That is totally up to you. It is our position that we require you to conform with the city ordinance. That is part of what we do here. So, you are correct, I would not support approval of the petition until it is fixed. Mr. Hammouch: Ok, I mean…absolutely. For that rezoning meeting, I take the ownership that I misunderstood. I thought that while we start the renovation, we are going to correct that and have the time to correct that when I do the renovation. As I said, if it makes all our (inaudible) here that to stop this I can stop it until we resolve it, but this is my situation. I am not opposing that, but on my end I misunderstood what you meant at the zoning that this has to be resolved during the renovation or immediately. January 17, 2020 29501 Mr. Ventura: I understand. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Hammouch. Any other questions for the architect or the property owner? Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions here. I wrote down bathrooms, so I am glad that came up in the documents there. My question would be more to…is there an air conditioning unit on the ground behind the building? Mr. Choucair: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: What happens to that? Where does that go? Mr. Choucair: That stays…I mean we are not touching the existing system because that system is not a rooftop unit. So, I think he have a funace and a A/C unit, so it is not a rooftop unit. If he is wishing to…if he wishes to put a rooftop unit, I am going to be placing that unit on the new addition, which have a flat roof, not on the building that have an existing gable roof. Mr. Caramagno: I thought you had mentioned that, and I could have this confused with another petition. I thought we talked about the utilities being be upstairs behind that tree. Mr. Choucair: Compressors. I think he have a compressor if I am not mistaken for the cooler, but not an A/C unit, I believe. The walk-in cooler has a fan on the inside and there is a compressor on the outside, so that compressor, I believe, is on the… Mr. Hammouch: Let me correct that. The mechanical parts, as far as the heating and cooling, is behind the building and also the compressor behind the building. There is nothing on the roof. The roof or whatever fan they have is an existing where it was. Back in the day it used to be a Subway. They have existing fans or whatever from before that doesn’t exist anymore. This can all be removed. Mr. Choucair: And probably the satellite. But the satellite system…I noticed something up there, that is why I said that the screening would look nice to cover the back of the building plus any mechanical equipment on the roof. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the HVAC unit. Mr. Caramagno: Just with that, this petition is lending itself to being, to me, incomplete as a presentation here tonight. I think there is a bunch of things…the landscaping is not right, this A/C unit…something is going on the roof, it’s not going on the roof…there are a lot of January 17, 2020 29502 things here tonight that seem incomplete to me. What is going to happen to the wood, the firewood that is stacked outside the window? What is going to happen? Are you going to discontinue selling wood there? What happens with that going forward? Mr. Hammouch: For the wood? Mr. Caramagno: Yes. Mr. Hammouch: Okay, what’s the ordinance says? Do I have to discontinue? Mr. Caramagno: I think there is language that you don’t sell any product outside the store. So, you have firewood there, and you have an ice machine outside. You have a newspaper stand outside. There are a lot of things here that I think need to be better though out before I can approve this petition. Mr. Hammouch: Okay, so the firewood I will of course take it out if it is needed. The ice machine we will figure out something else, but as far as that newspaper, this also cannot be outside for the early people to come in? I don’t open 24-hours. They have to have something in order to put the newspaper, which is they come around between 2 and 4 or 5. We don’t open at that time. Mr. Caramagno: I don’t mean to be specific to you with these things because I looked across the street at the Mobil and I think he sells firewood too. You are asking for a redo here and I think those are things that we really don’t need to see stacked up on the front sidewalk. That is my opinion at this point. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions or comments for the petitioner? I don’t see anyone else on the Commission with any comments. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Again, I will go back to the Commission. Is there anyone with any comments? If not, a motion is in order. Mr. Bongero: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Sam. It’s an incomplete application. We are missing a lot of information. We all like it. It’s great. It definitely needs it, and it’s a great improvement, but there is so much information mission. Site plan, incomplete blueprint, a plan for the mechanicals, the air. For me, I am just struggling with tonight. I don’t know what we are voting on. We don’t have actual things that we are actually voting on, so that would be my feeling. Mr. Wilshaw: So, it sounds like you are asking for a tabling? Is that a form of a motion? January 17, 2020 29503 Mr. Bongero: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Ok, so Mr. Bongero has asked for a tabling motion. You would move it to the next study meeting? That would be adequate time? Mr. Bongero: That’s fine. Mr. Taormina: There is room on the agenda, the question I think would be to the petitioner and how much time they would need to revise the plans. Mr. Wilshaw: To the petitioner, do you think that you would be able to come back for our next study meeting which would be next week. Correct, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Does that give you adequate time or do you need additional time? Mr. Hammouch: That’s fine. Mr. Wilshaw: That would be adequate time. Okay. On a motion by Bongero, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-05-2020 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2019-09-01-07 submitted by N.C. Designers & Contracting Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, regarding a proposal to construct an addition and remodel the interior and exterior of the existing gas station (Shell) at 33411 Six Mile Road, located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast ¼ of Section 1, be tabled to the meeting of January 28, 2020. Mr. Wilshaw: There is no discussion on tabling motions. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 2019-11-08-15 242 Community Church Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2019- 11-08-15 submitted by Hobbs + Black Architects, on behalf of 2|42 Community Church, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance January 17, 2020 29504 #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the church located at 35475 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast ¼ of Section 20. Mr. Taormina: We spent quite a bit of time at the study meeting looking at various options that were provided by the applicant, mostly involving building materials and color schemes. I think the Planning Commission landed on Option #3, which this is a rendering of, provided by the petitioner. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions. I know that the Pastor is here and he will be able to enlighten us as to whether there are any other changes. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. This item was tabled at our last meeting, so we will need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion by Long, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-06-2020 RESOLVED, Petition 2019-11-08-15 submitted by Hobbs + Black Architects, on behalf of 2|42 Community Church, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the church located at 35475 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast ¼ of Section 20, the Planning Commission does hereby remove the item from the table. Mr. Wilshaw: The pastor is here and he is welcome to come forward and give us any additional information. Good evening, sir. Eric Rauch, Executive Pastor, 242 Community Church, 7526 Grand River, Brighton, MI, 48114, thank you for your thorough overview. Mr. Taormina is correct. What we are presenting here tonight is the rendering that we looked at last week at the study session and I believe we came to a consensus too with those colors. The deeper blues and reds that we discussed last week. Other updates that were made going into that study session was the soffit and facia coming in at a dark grey color. Previously that was a brighter red color. We have muted those tones. Along with keeping the bookended natural stone as it is now and adding a little bit of wood feature there to kind of tie it all together. Those are the changes to the front façade. We are very happy with the look of it. We appreciate very much the input from the Planning Commission. That is what we are here for tonight. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer those. January 17, 2020 29505 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Pastor Rauch. For Ms. Smiley’s benefit, I don’t think you were at our study meeting. We did have a lengthy discussion. The church had given us a variety of color options. We debated those and what our preferences were. This seemed to be the general consensus. We will certainly look to see if you have any thoughts on it as well. We want to make sure we have everyone’s input. Do we have any questions for our petitioner? Any comments? Nothing. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? No one is rushing forward. Well, with that and there is not further discussion, a motion would be in order. Mr. Caramagno: I have a comment more than a question. Who was on the front page of the paper from 242 church the other day? Livonia paper. Did I see somebody? Mr. Rauch: You may have. I am not aware. Likely, if it was in Livonia, it would be our campus pastor. Bobby Francis. Mr. Caramagno: I think you had front page coverage here not too long ago. I don’t remember…I kind of glanced at it. I didn’t read it. Apparently, welcome to Livonia and we got consensus on a plan here so good. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions or comments? On a motion by Long, seconded by Caramagno, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-07-2020 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2019-11-08-15 submitted by Hobbs + Black Architects, on behalf of 2|42 Community Church, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the church located at 35475 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northeast ¼ of Section 20, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the North Elevation plan identified as Sheet Number A- 200, dated November 8, 2019, prepared by Hobbs + Black Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the existing stone walls on either side of the entrance shall not be painted; January 17, 2020 29506 2. That the colors of the building materials shall conform to the rendering identified as OPT-3-View From 5 Mile-North dated December 20, 2019; 3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 4. That no LED light-band or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 5. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 6. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2019-12-02-16 Center Mgt. Services Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2019- 12-02-16 submitted by Center Management Services, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full-service restaurant (Chipotle Mexican Grill) at 13900 Middlebelt Road, located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southwest ¼ of Section 24. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to create a full-service restaurant, Chipotle Mexican Grill, at the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads. This site is the westerly half of the Aldi site, which was developed in 2018. The overall parcel area is about 3.5 acres with 286 feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road and about 500 feet of frontage on Schoolcraft. The entire parcel, as you can see on this map, is zoned C-2, General Business. The Aldi store measures about 22,000 square feet overall and is on the easterly part of the site. Located closer to Middlebelt Road on the west January 17, 2020 29507 part will be a 5,050 square feet multi-tenant retail building. This building has not yet been constructed. The proposed Chipotle is classified as full-service restaurant because it would have more than 30 customer seats. The proposed restaurant would have 44 interior seats, as well as a small outdoor dining patio with 12 customer seats. Chipotle would occupy two units, which are at the south end of the building. The space measures approximately 2,486 square feet and represents about one-half of the leasable area of that retail building. No other tenants have been identified at this time for the remaining part of the building, which could accommodate either one or two tenants. The floor plan submitted with the application shows the layout of the seating, kitchen, food preparation area, storage, and restrooms. Parking is based on both the Aldi store as well as the multi-tenant retail center. The site was designed to operate under a cross- access and shared parking agreement. Aldi requires a total of 99 parking spaces, and for the restaurant, the required parking would be 28 spaces. For the remaining space, we are estimating 14 parking spaces. This brings the total required parking spaces to 141 spaces. The plan shows 144 spaces. There would be no modifications to the building. This is the site plan that was approved previously. Chipotle would occupy what would be the right side of the building. In terms of signage, the restaurant would be allowed one wall sign based on one square foot of area for each lineal foot of store frontage. They would also have the opportunity to locate on the monument sign that was approved as part of the site plan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 19, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The overall parcel is assigned the address of #29330 Schoolcraft Road, with the subject building being assigned the address range of #13900 to #13950 Middlebelt Road. The proposed building pad is currently serviced by public water main and sanitary sewer, as well as private storm sewer. The submitted drawings do not indicate any calculations for the proposed construction, but the development was planned for with the original ALDI construction. A full review of the proposed development will be completed when plans are submitted for permitting. It should be noted that should the developer need to do any work within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way, permits will need to be obtained from the Wayne County Department of January 17, 2020 29508 Public Services.” The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 23, 2019, which reads as follows: “ This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full- service restaurant on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal.” The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated December 20, 2019, which reads as follows: “I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Scott Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 7, 2020, which reads as follows: " Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the deficient number of parking spaces proposed. 2. No signage has been reviewed at this time. This Department has no further objections to this Petition.” The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated December 19, 2019, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable (general or water and sewer), I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer’s Department, dated December 23, 2019, which reads as follows: “In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time there are taxes due, but they are not delinquent, therefore I have no objections to the proposal.” The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Wilshaw: The petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Is there anything you would like to add to what Mr. Taormina has presented? Thomas Guastello, 34120 Woodward, Birmingham, MI, 48009, I think it is an accurate representation. We like Chipotle’s. They are a great use. It is kind of a mark for the former Chi Chi’s that was there. We still kept a Mexican restaurant flavor. It is a good use. A solid tenant. That is what we would like to be able to do. We enjoy working with the people of Livonia. It is a great city that is doing a good job. I just looked at the other developments coming in and it is nice to see. My first time in Livonia I sat next to Ed January 17, 2020 29509 McNamara who drove me around and showed me all the good developments and said these are the type of things that we want to see in the city and if you do that you won’t have any problem. I think that has carried through with the life of the city and the able people that have been here. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I appreciate that. It is nice to hear McNamara’s name again. I haven’t heard that in a while. Thank you. I don’t think Chipotle is going to be serving Chi Chi’s famous margaritas though, are they? Mr. Guastello: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Do we have any questions for our petitioner? Any questions, comments? Mr. Caramagno: Just a comment. Thank you for the illustration of the tables and chairs in the outdoors with the railing around it. That is something we asked for at the study session, and this helps me understand the concept of what it will look like so, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions or comments? I don’t hear any. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Carmagno, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-08-2020 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2019, on Petition 2019-12-02-16 submitted by Center Management Services, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full-service restaurant (Chipotle Mexican Grill) at 13900 Middlebelt Road, located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southwest ¼ of Section 2, .the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2019-12-02-16 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan identified as SP dated January 6, 2020 prepared by Desine Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2. That the Petitioner provide the City with appropriate documentation verifying the existence of a cross parking January 17, 2020 29510 and cross access agreement between the ALDI store and the retail building. 3. That the Landscape Plan identified as L-1 dated January 3, 2020, as revised, prepared by Vert Verde Landscape Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 4. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed a total of forty-four (44) interior seats and twelve (12) outdoor patio seats. 5. That no advertising shall be permitted on any of the seating or table apparatus within the outdoor patio area. 6. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, is prohibited. 7. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 8. That no LED light band or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. 9. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for the Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. January 17, 2020 29511 ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,152nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,152nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 10, 2019. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-09-2020 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,152nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2019, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, Smiley, Ventura, Bongero, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: McCue ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,153rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 14, 2019, was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________ Sam Caramagno, Secretary ATTEST: __________________________ Ian Wilshaw, Chairman