Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,169 - May 18, 2021 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,169ih PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 18, 2021, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,169th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting, via Zoom Meeting Software, Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Glen Long (Partial) Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Scott Miller, Planner IV (partial), 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 2021-04-01-02 Cross Winds Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 04-01-02 submitted by Cross Wind pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 37711, 37631 and 37601 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast'Y4 of Section 30, from C-1 (Local Business) to R-C (Condominium Residential). May 18, 2021 29977 Mr. Taormina: This rezoning request involves three contiguous parcels that are located at the southwest corner of Plymouth and Jughandle Roads. The three parcels combined measure roughly 3.4 acres with 298 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road,136 feet of frontage on Edward Hines, and roughly 395 feet of frontage on Jughandle. The site is currently undeveloped. Located immediately to the west of the property is the Hunters Park site condominiums that are zoned R-1 (One -family residential). Across Plymouth Road. to the north are residential homes that are zoned RUF (Rural Urban Farm) and to the south is the Middle Rouge Parkway and Hines Drive. Across Jughandle, to the east, is the Community Alliance Credit Union zoned C-1 (Local Business). Commercial zoning on this property was established in the late 1950's, early 1960's prior to the construction of Jughandle Road. It was at a time when these properties were a part of a larger group of parcels that were under common ownership and extended east to Newburgh Road. In 1990, the city rezoned the properties to the current classification of C-1. The purpose of the rezoning to R-C (Condominium Residential) is to facilitate the future development of a residential condominium project that would utilize the Planned Residential Development Standards, which are in Article XX. The R-C District allows for condominium multiple dwellings as a permitted use, subject to the review of the Planning Commission and City Council. The PRD is a special waiver, that if approved, would allow for reduced lot sizes, yard setbacks, and other reductions in dimensional regulations that would help overcome some of the natural or other unique obstacles that would pose a challenge to developing this property under conventional design standards. In the case of the R-C district, the maximum allowed density is based on the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. For two -bedroom homes, the permitted density is roughly 10 units per acre. For three -bedroom homes, the density is 8 dwelling units per acre. So, for the 3.36- acre site, the number of two -bedroom homes could be as many as 34, or if they are all three -bedroom homes, it could be 27. As you can see, from the preliminary plant that was submitted, there would be 15 lots which works out to roughly 4.46 dwelling units per acre is only slightly more than what the R-1 (One -family residential) would allow for. Clearly it is below the density allowance that would be permitted under the proposed R-C zoning. Article XX does not specify a minimum lot size. This design concept shows that many of the lots would measure roughly 40' x 1001, for a total of 4,000 square feet. All of the home sites would front on a new internal street that would have access from Jughandle. This street would extend roughly 150 feet west from Jughandle and then turn north extending another 280 feet May 18, 2021 29978 where it would end in a "T" turn -around just south of Plymouth Road. The only connecting point is Jughandle. The plan shows a stormwater detention basin and a forebay in the northeast corner of the site. There is a berm along the west side of the property where the site lies adjacent to Hunters Park. The Future Land Use plan does designate the subject property as Corridor Commercial. With that, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 14, 2021, 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 properties are assigned the addresses of #37601, #37631 and #37711 Plymouth Road. The original legal descriptions included on the plans submitted by the owner appears to be correct, while the combined description has a couple of bearing errors that should be corrected prior to being used. The proposed development is currently serviced by public water main, storm and sanitary sewers. Most of the systems are owned by Wayne County, with the exception of one small section of water main that is owned by the City. The Developer will need to submit plans to Wayne County (and possible the City) for permitting of utility connections. Easements will need to be provided for the new water and sanitary sewers, as well as portions of the storm sewer that are to be maintained by the City. At this time, Exhibit 'B" drawings have not been provided to show proposed easements, so we cannot determine if the proposed easements are correct. The proposed construction will be required to meet the Wayne County Stormwater Ordinance, including detention requirements. Detention is shown on the preliminary plans, and a full review of the proposed development will be completed when plans are submitted for permitting, although it should be noted that the Developer will be required to submit soil borings for roadway and detention areas indicating soil makeup and water level elevations (regular and seasonal). The submitted drawings indicate that the proposed roadways are to be 27' wide with no right -of --way noted. Current Engineering Department standards require roadways to be a minimum of 31' wide, and a minimum right-of-way width of 60' to be able to meet on- street parking and movement requirements, as well as maintenance of utilities and pavement. Unless changed to meet current standards, we will assume that the proposed roadways are to be privately owned. "The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Finance May 183 2021 29979 Department, dated April 8, 2021, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated April 16, 2021, 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. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Wilshaw: We do have Mr. Pastor in the audience whom I believe is representing our petitioner. I will give him a chance to unmute himself. We will need your name and address for the record please. John Pastor, 33461 Capri Court, Livonia, MI. Good evening. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anyone else with your from your team? Mr. Pastor: Not that I am aware of. I am representing Leo Soave. Mr. Wilshaw: Great. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Just as a reminder to our audience, tonight we are looking at rezoning request. Most of the discussion is going to be focused on the zoning of this property and what is appropriate for it, as opposed to a lot of discussion about the site plan. Although, some discussion of the conceptual site plan may come in effect, but I just wanted to set that expectation. Regardless of what happens with this tonight, the site plan would come back as a separate item. Mr. Pastor, is there anything else you would like to add from what you have heard from our planning staff already? Mr. Pastor: No. Mark did an excellent job. I am just here to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, great. Do we have any questions from any of the commissioners for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Pastor, the site has been cleared of scrubbed vegetation, but there are a lot of big trees remaining on the site. Is it the developer's intention to try and preserve the existing trees? May 18, 2021 29980 Mr. Pastor: It is our intention to save any and all trees that we can, except if they are in the building envelope or driveways or storm sewers or water areas. Mr. Ventura: I have two additional questions that bare kind of on the preliminary plan that you presented. In our notes we have a note that says that another design option that you were considering were duplex units on this site. Where are you on that question? Mr. Pastor: We want to go with the plan that is forward. We believe that this is a better product for individual homes as opposed to having homes that are conjoined together. Mr. Ventura: I think that is more consistent with the adjacent development as well. I am happy to hear that. Also, Mr. Taormina noted that the roads, or the engineer noted that the roads don't meet the city requirements. Is it your plan to change that or is it planned to have these be private roads? Mr. Pastor: As far as right now, he wants to put it as a private road. I don't know if you know, but Capri Court is 27 feet. It doesn't work out too bad. I believe he is doing a 27-foot at this stage. Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Or. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for our petitioner? Or. Caramagno: My question is more for Mark. Mark, this property has been C-1 and when you said it got changed when? Or. Taormina: From all indication it has been C-1 since the late 1950's. C-2 was the original zoning, and it was sometime in the 90's that it was changed from C-2 to C-1 and it has remained that way ever since. It has been commercially zoned for nearly 60 years. Mr. Caramagno: Has there been any other interest in putting a commercial building here and if there has, or could be, what could that be? Just a couple of examples. Or, Taormina: That is great question. Of the 20 plus years that I have been with the city, I have received a handful of calls on this property. This property, as well as the property across from Jughandle were all owned together at one time. Nothing ever came to fruition on this. The credit union developed that parcel separately. Not for the last couple years have I had any calls on this particular piece of property. What could be built on it? More than likely you are looking at something similar to what you see across the street. May 18, 2021 29981 Mr. Caramagno: Could there be a 7-11 or a restaurant put in here? Mr. Taormina: A convenience store is absolutely treated as a permitted use in the C-1 district. Any type of retail or office building are all permitted uses. The more intensive operations allowed under C- 1, such as restaurants, would require waiver -use approval. Generally speaking, any retail business, or office use would be allowed under C-1. Mr. Caramagno: Okay, I am just trying to weigh out what could go in there and I see nothing has gone in there for 60 years or so and thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions for our petitioner or for our planning staff? If there are no other questions at this time, I will go to the audience and see if there is anyone that wishes to speak for or against this item? If you would like to speak, you can click the raise hand button and we will recognize you. For those who have phoned into our meeting, you can dial *9 to raise your hand. Is there anyone in our audience wishing to speak on this item? We do have one person that has raised their hand. Let me acknowledge them. They are listed as Catherine Whitten. I will give you a chance to unmute yourself so you can introduce yourself with your name and address please. Catherine Whitten, 11751 Hunters Park Court, Livonia, MI. According to that site plan it looks like there is two units behind my house. I am the one with the pool. Is that true? Mr. Wilshaw: Go ahead with your comment or question. Ms. Whitten: You didn't...oh, okay. When I was looking at the site plan, it appears to me that there is two units behind my house. Is that true? Mr. Wilshaw: Well, this is a conceptual plan of how the property may be laid out. We are just talking about zoning tonight, but what the petitioner has done to facilitate the zoning request is give us a conceptual plan of how the property may be laid out. It is certainly possible that this may change. This will come back to us for final review and approval at a later date of the exact layout of this development. Right now, it is possible that it could be laid out this way. Ms. Whitten: So, when you speak of a berm, is it going to be right on, basically, the lot line or are you going to give us a bit more room? May 18, 2021 29982 Or. Wilshaw: We can ask the petitioner that when we go back to him after we have heard all of the questions or comments from any of the audience members and find out exactly where that berm is going to be. Ms. Whitten: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other questions or comments that you would like to make. Ms. Whitten? Ms. Whitten: No. I just....so, are they going to go...it looks like it is going all the way down Hines Drive. Is that true? Mr. Wilshaw: It is going to use as much of the property as possible I am sure within the boundaries of the actual parcel. You can see it indicated by those yellow lines on this map. Ms. Whitten: You can see my house with the pool. Mr. Wilshaw: You are in the lower right corner. Ms. Whitten: Yeah, that's me. Okay. I will let someone else ask questions now. It is just concerning to us. We have put a lot of money in our homes. Mr. Wilshaw: Certainly. I understand. Let's see if anyone else has any questions or comments and then we will get your question answered by our petitioner afterwards. Is that okay? Ms. Whitten: That is fine. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Whitten. Is there anyone else in our audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? If so, you can click raise hand. The folks that have phoned in to our meeting will dial "9 for that. I don't see anyone else raising their hand. At this time, Mr. Pastor, would you like to explain how the berm would work along the west property line of this development? Mr. Pastor: Right. You can see those lines that are going across the back of the west property line. The berm starts at that line and it comes up toward our property, as much as we can do to create a big enough berm so that it kind of shields. That is where we are going to work on a landscape plan for when we get further down the petition to actually show the landscaping that we are going to be putting on there with the trees and bushes that we are going to have on them. Remember one thing, these houses here are May 18, 2021 29983 going to be anywhere from $400,000 to $500,000 approximately, is what the price range is going to be. She is going to be at least happy with the values of the homes in keeping the value of hers up as well. Mr. Wilshaw: I know it is still very preliminary, but... you are going to have some additional landscaping you anticipate on the berm? Do you have a feel for how high that berm will be as well? Mr. Pastor: I am not sure because they...as high as we possibly can. It is probably going to be anywhere from three to six because we can't go much higher. I don't think Engineering will let us go any higher than six. It is at least three. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. You would have landscaping on top? Mr. Pastor: Yeah, that is where the trees will shield off the two residents. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Hopefully that answers that question. Are there any other comments that you would like to make, Mr. Pastor, in regard to this petition? Mr. Pastor: No, sir. I am here to answer any questions and hopefully getting an approval and moving forward to a better site plan with landscaping. Looking forward to going to the next step. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. I want to make it clear that we will dive into all of those details at the next step of this process. Right now we are focused on the C-1 to R-C zoning that we have before us. Is there any other questions or comments from any of our commissioners on this petition? If not, I will close the public hearing at this time and look for a motion. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-20-2021 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 18, 2021, on Petition 2021-04-01-02 submitted by Cross Wind pursuant to Section 23,01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 37711, 37631 and 37601 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast'/4 of Section 30, from C-1 (Local Business) to R-C (Condominium Residential), the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-04-01-02 be approved for the following reasons: May 18, 2021 29984 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area. 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. 3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a reasonable and logical zoning plan for the subject property which adheres to the principles of sound land use planning. 4. That the proposed change of zoning will allow the development of a residential condominium project that can be integrated within the surrounding land uses, and 5. That the proposed zoning and use is consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which seek to ensure compatibility and appropriateness of uses so as to enhance property values and to create and promote a more favorable environment for neighborhood use and enjoyment. 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 onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2021-03-02-06 Tiseo Architects Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 03-02-06 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 11.03(n), 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a freestanding restaurant with drive-thru facilities and add drive -up window facilities to the southern end unit of the shopping center at 19043 thru 19053 Middlebelt Road and 29475 thru 29493 Seven Mile Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast'/4 of Section 11, Jr. Taormina: This is a request to construct an outlot building with drive-thru facilities at the Mid-7 Shopping Plaza located at the southwest May 18, 2021 29985 corner of Middlebelt and Seven Mile Roads. This site is roughly 5.4 acres in area. It has 250 feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road and roughly 330 feet on Seven Mile Road. Mid-7 consists of a single building with approximately 56,700 square feet of leasable floor space. As you can see from this aerial photograph, parking is mostly available between storefronts and Middlebelt Road. The two main tenants within the shopping plaza are Pet Supplies Plus and Planet Fitness. The city recently approved a drive -up ATM kiosk, which is located at the south end of the property. The subject site is presently divided into three zoning classifications: C-2 (General Business), C-1 (Local Business) and P (Parking). There is a pending petition to rezone the entire property to C-2. First reading was given by City Council on March 22, 2021. The rezoning of this property is required to construct the outlot building. The new outlot would be situated in the southeast corner of the main parking lot between the Boston Market to the north and the Wendy's to the south. The building shown would be one-story in height and about 2,000 square feet in total area. The area needed for the development of the outlot would impact about 50 parking spaces. A specific user has not yet been identified. The floor plan that was presented is very generic. It only shows an open interior layout for the building. There are no demising walls which would indicate that it is for a single user, most likely a restaurant. In terms of the drive -up facilities, the pick-up window would be located on the south side of the building. The traffic lane serving the drive -up would be on the west side with stacking for roughly eight vehicles, not including the space at the window. The lane would be about 12 feet wide. It would be one-way in direction, dedicated solely for the drive - up, and would not contain a by-pass lane. There would be a single curb opening to the drive -up service lane.that would be from the existing two-way traffic aisle located about 100 feet north of the building and which has direct access to Middlebelt Road. There would be 20 parking spaces provided between the outlot building and the main drive aisle. The spaces on the west side of the parking lot would be separated from the drive-thru lane by a walkway. The other striped markings on the pavement between the parking and the drive-thru lane. The building would be set back roughly 25 feet from Middlebelt Road. The zoning ordinance requires a setback of at least 60 feet. Thus, the current design will require a variance for deficient building setback. By comparison, the Boston Market and the Wendy's restaurants are roughly 27 feet and 62 feet respectively, so the Boston Market is much closer to the right-of-way, similar to what is proposed here. Whereas, the Wendy's has a conforming setback. Building materials include split -face block along the base. There would be brick, stone, and E.I.F.S. It is intended to match the exterior of May 18, 2021 29986 the shopping center. There would be a flat roof. The overall height of the building is roughly 24 feet 6 inches. We do not have information relative to the rooftop mechanical equipment and how the units would be screened. The plan does not show a dedicated dumpster adjacent to the outlot building. Instead, it would rely on a dumpster located at the southwest corner of the site. In terms of parking, the Mid-7 plaza is required to have 302 parking spaces. With the outlot, required parking would increase to 313 spaces. The plaza currently has 307 spaces, but with this development, the total number of spaces would reduce to 272. With an increase in the gross leasable area and a reduction in the amount of parking, the deficiency increases to 41 spaces. That is something that would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The other aspect of this petition is a drive -up window at the south end of the shopping center where there are two vacant units. The traffic lane serving the drive -up would commence at the north end of the plaza and continue along the back of the building for over 500 feet and then turn east where there would be a one-way drive. This would be a two-way directional traffic, but at the south end, it would change to a one- way drive aisle that would provide stacking for the pick-up window. At its narrowest point, the drive aisle is roughly 24 feet wide. The plan shows how the dumpsters presently located along the back would be placed within enclosures. To help direct traffic to the drive -up, the plan shows eight directional signs placed throughout the site. These freestanding signs would all measure roughly four feet four inches in height and would be between two and a half and four -square feet in area. The zoning ordinance limits the area of directional signs to two square feet. Thus, the signs shown are larger than what the ordinance requires. That is a third item that would need review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 May 7, 2021, 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 property associated with the project is assigned the address ranges of #19043 thru #19053 Middlebelt Road and #29475 thru #29493 Seven Mile Road, with the address of #19043 Middlebelt Road being assigned to the overall parcel. The legal descriptions included on the plans submitted by the owner appears to correctly describe the property. The proposed development is currently serviced by public water main, storm and sanitary sewers. The May 18, 2021 29987 submitted drawings do not indicate any information regarding the proposed utility service locations, so we are unable to comment on impacts to the existing systems at this time. We will perform a full review of the utilities once full engineering drawings are submitted to this Department for permitting. Should the owner wish to construct the "outlot building" as shown on the drawings, they should contact this office to discuss new service connections and storm water requirements. The sanitary sewer and water main located on the parcel is privately owned, and is not be able to service the proposed outlot. Also, any proposed construction will be required to meet the Wayne County Stormwater Ordinance, including detention requirements. Please note that any work within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way, including excavations for service connections will require permits through 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 April 22, 2021, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site pIan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building 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 April 21, 2021, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Scoff Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 11, 2021, 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 of signs. 2. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the deficient number of parking spaces. 3. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the deficient setback of the outlet building. 4. All parking spaces shall be 10' x 20' and double striped. 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 April 23, 2021, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. The following water bill charges are due to the City of Livonia: 19049 Middlebelt (past due): $123.41, 29475 Seven Mile (due 5/10/21): $68.340 29477 Seven Mile (due 5/10/21): $30.92 Total Due City of Livonia: $222.67" The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated April 26, 2021, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted May 18, 2021 29988 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. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? If not, is our petitioner in the audience? I believe Mr. Tiseo is here. Let me give him a chance to talk. Good evening, Mr. Tiseo. You can unmute yourself. Ben Tiseo, 19815 Farmington, Livonia, MI Good evening. Hope everyone is doing well. I wanted to address a couple of things. The issue with the by-pass lane... if we could go to the next sheet, I believe Mark. It has a blow-up of the outlot. One of the things that I noticed actually over the weekend was that I went by the Smoothie King property right behind ours and I noticed that they have a by-pass lane that goes straight out, but not the full by-pass to the first two or three cars. If that become an issue, we could have the similar situation where they, in this case, I think it is car number four would drive straight out. We would reduce the size of that landscape aisle to allow that car to escape out. Almost a mirror image of what they have currently at the Smoothie King location. Again, I can offer that because it would work. Obviously, it was approved before at Smoothie King. I believe that last time we had a discussion that mark had mentioned that the city is going through a reviewing process to look at parking ratios for the city and that those will be modified as well. If we need to change the directional signs, that is fine. I am a little surprised about the water bills, but I am sure that will be addressed shortly. I believe Mr. Denha is at a function at one of his sons or daughters' school and he was going to come on late. I don't know if he is in the audience or not. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Tiseo. We do have another raising their hand. I believe it may be Mr. Denha. Let me allow him to speak. He can unmute himself by dialing *6 1 believe. Good evening. Kevin Denha, 700 Old North Woodward Ave., Ste. 300, Birmingham, MI. I appreciate you guys taking the time. With respect to this site, I know we have reviewed it a little bit. In the past these drive-thru's are being proposed to really help solidify and fill the center. Listening to Mr. Taormina's description was very thorough. As you are aware, there are no restaurants in the center right now. There is always a ton of parking available. As we discussed in the past, obviously any users will be subject to your guy's approval. I do not have any as of yet, purely because my marketing hasn't gone into full effect based on timelines, delivery May 18, 2021 29989 approval, etc. I think the water bills that Mr. Taormina and Mr. Tiseo spoke about were either tenant overages or what have you, but I will have my office look into that. They are very nominal, but they will be addressed. Mr. Wilshaw: That is something that Council will follow-up on too, so you have time on that. Thank you for being here, Mr. Denha. Is there anyone on the commission that has any questions in regard to this petition for Mr. Tiseo or Mr. Denha? Mr. Bongero: I have a couple comments and maybe a couple of questions for either. I see there is construction going on in those two in the end cap on the mall. Looks like they are doing the white boxes already on those two down there. I saw guys working in there. I didn't see...I know you didn't prep for the window yet on that, you are probably waiting to hear what the results are I am assuming. When I...I pretended like it was there like a coffee shop or whatever. So, I drove around the back. My first question, are you guys resurface (inaudible)... Mr. Wilshaw: So, the question is, Mr. Denha, about resurfacing the parking lot and roadway. Mr. Bongero: Behind. Mr. Denha: Great question. Just a couple things. We have a tenant going into the interior space adjacent to the wood shop. That is the white box that you see going on obviously. So, in the event of trying to save money I am just white boxing both spaces. Obviously, I didn't do the drive-thru window for obvious reasons. With respect to the back, yes there is a complete plan that you guys saw. We are putting in dumpster enclosures. We are cleaning up the whole back area, including resurfacing the lot. There is that little area that fits between my property and the LA Fitness retaining wall which belongs to the adjacent property owner. We are going to clean up itself and add asphalt to that. Yes, that whole area will be lighted, new dumpster enclosures...I think, Ben, what is it? Is it six or seven of them? I think if my memory serves me. It will be all cleaned up and additionally, the dumpsters that sit by Pet Supplies Plus that we pointed out at the meeting last week will be moved into dumpster enclosures. Or. Bongero: Okay. Forgive me. I wasn't at the study meeting last week, so I am asking... Or, Denha: No. No worries. May 18, 2021 29990 Or, Bongero: So, the outlot...the drive-thru out there ... I think that it is a pretty good deal. On the end cap with the drive-thru, there is a couple things. When you come up to the window, and let's say that there is a drive-thru there, you can't even see anybody coming (inaudible) walk, coming out that could potentially step out in front of cars leaving the drive-thru. You understand what I am saying? Today, I parked along the building, and I had the hood of the car just kind of outward and a couple of the guys working inside stepped out in front of me and that was a deal. That concerned me right off the bat. Then the other thing that I was looking at is that you know right now there is not a lot of action going in that parking lot but doing all of this you are hoping to achieve a full parking lot, obviously. I am having a hard time figuring out how that is going to work with an ATM drive-thru right there. I had a question. Can you move that ATM further down the parking lot going toward Middlebelt? I am just saying...I am just putting it out there. Is that an option? Mr. Denha: To answer your question with respect to the ATM, we can't move it. It is where it is. Per my lease agreement... actually Mr. Tiseo did that on behalf of Citizens bank. Second of all, Ben, you want to address the curb we thought to model from the end cap. Specifically, what he is talking about. I think we had a good solve for that. Mr. Tiseo: Yes. Am I on? Am I open on the mic? Mr. Wilshaw: You are, Mr. Tiseo. Mr. Tiseo: We did something actually per Citizens Bank. Something very similar to this at a shopping center out in Lake Orion. What we did to address that safety issue was that we actually put in a guard rail at the end of that walk so nobody could walk directly south from that walk. They would have to walk out into the other lane out in front of the store. That is an easy fix. Mr. Bongero: For sure. Yeah. Okay. With regard to underground retention, is that... are you planning for that for the outlot? Or, Tiseo: I don't believe that this size of an outlot...) think it is just under a half -acre does not require retention. If we have to do something we would do it underground and not take it above ground. Mr. Bongero: In the engineers note he had stated that it was a private system. I am just throwing that out there. I didn't know if it was in your plan or whatever. May 18, 2021 29991 Mr. Denha: I think you addressed that with Mr. Lear on his letter after we received it, correct? Mr. Tiseo: I believe I did. All of the utilities there are on site, so...but I did not feel that because of the size of the lot that we would need any kind of storm water retention. I believe...I would have to look at the ordinance, but it may be a two- or three -acre size that kicks in when you need underground retention. Mr. Bongero: Okay. I think that answers my questions. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Anyone else on the commission wishing to ask questions? Ms. Smiley: Yes. I was wondering...there seems to be a lot of drive-thru's in that particular area. They are across the street. A lot of restaurants and drive-thru's. The Sonic is there and that Tropical Cafe... it seems like there is a lot of places that have food or fast food. You said you don't have people looking like for the end cap in the way of restaurants? Mr. Denha: Let me answer that for a minute. To answer your questions ma'am is I haven't been marketing full force because everyone wants timelines. Yes, I am going to market that for a restaurant / service restaurant users ie. Smoothie shop or other restaurant that needs a drive-thru. Obviously, that is where it is moving towards. My full intention is to have both drive-thru's be restaurants of some sort when I have some timelines or some sort of approval from the city, but they will be restaurants. Ms. Smiley: I was just thinking that hopefully COVID over everybody won't be driving thru, they will actually be sng down and going in places. Mr. Denha: I have many centers and if anything, if they are going to be sitting downI it is going to be in a lot smaller square footage footprint. I will be quite candid with you. Whoever has the best app for food is going to win and that is how these drive-up's and drive-thru's work right now. I think you are going to see less people sitting down in these footprints. I am seeing it with people requesting to downsize because carry -outs, app, etc. Or, Tiseo: If I could add something to that, I am seeing more and more requests from clients of wanting drive -up. Not just restaurants. We actually did a smoke shop recently and the same (inaudible) came to me and asked if you can find me a place with a drive -up window, I will take it in a minute. That is the way the future is. May 18, 2021 29992 We are just trying to stay a little bit ahead of the curve and address the demand. Mr. Denha: I think what I pointed out to this commission on a couple occasions now and forgive me for being redundant. I have had this center for about seven years, and I have seen it ripped apart and remodeled etc. and our challenge has been leasing. These same spots that are vacant, have been vacant since the day I bought the center except for the fact when Family Dollar closed about six months after I bought the center, which was fine. They were a filthy tenant anyways. So, be that as it may, the ... this part of the center on the attached building end cap is the deepest part of the center at about 102 to 105 feet of depth, so I am trying to attract a tenant and the way to do that is a drive thru. Obviously, the outlot speaks for itself from the visibility, extra parking, etc. Ms. Smiley: I can see the outlot. I am having a real problem with that end cap. There is like so much going on there. Once these things get filled up and traffic... I'm a commissioner and that is my thought. Mr. Denha: Alright. Mr. Wilshaw: Well, let's see if there is anyone else who has any questions or comments on the commission before we go to the audience. Anyone else wishing to ask any questions? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Denha, I just want to clarify something. You mentioned the dumpster at the north end of the drive aisle by Pet Supplies Plus. During out study session we pointed out that dumpster there kind of creates a dangerous situation. When the Pet Supplies Plus is receiving stock, they use a high-lo. That can't be seen when it is pulling out from the store into the drive aisle. It was noted that it would be relocated. Is that the case? When you made your presentation, you said that it would be put in an enclosure, but I want to confirm that it is going to be somewhere else besides there. Mr. Denha: Yeah. Those dumpsters are going to be moved to the enclosures that we have depicted on the site plan. They are kind of toward the middle. Forgive me I am on my phone. Or. Tiseo: The dumpsters are numbered and let me see if I can bring up my drawings and give you a dumpster number. Or. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina can scroll down. May 18, 2021 29993 Mr. Tiseo: You are probably looking at dumpster one, two, and three that will service the northern part of the shopping center. Mr. Denha: One thing that want to point out, Mr. Ventura, I think I mentioned at our study session, I am going to explore a compactor as well. I am not going down that road yet, I want to get all of this stuff down, but I am going to do it if it is feasible where I can eliminate some of these dumpsters and everybody can start sharing a bit. It will clean it up a little bit. So, I haven't given it much thought in terms of presenting it to you guys, but that is my thought down the road once we do in fact cross these hurdles here. Mr. Ventura: Great. That makes it pretty clear. Last question that I have is, I guess for either of you, how is the drive aisle defined. Are there curbs on either side of the drive aisle or is strictly paint or how is it defined? Mr. Tiseo: Which drive aisle? Mr. Ventura: The drive aisle on the outlot, Ben. Mr. Tiseo: It is defined on the west side with a concrete curb and on the right side there is some striping up to the building line. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Great. Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: I want to mention...) should have said this earlier, I share the concern that Carol has with the drive-thru on the end cap. Specifically, because we don't know the activity at either the outbuilding or the end cap. There is certainly a lot of activity. Whether we are talking about a cigar shop, bagel shop, coffee shop, the outlot building and the type of restaurant that it might be, we just don't know that at this time. You have two drive-thru activities on the relatively small piece of this property. When you add the bank ATM kiosk and both of these drive-thru facilities, I have some concern with that as well. Just want you to be aware. That is all. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for that comment. Any other questions from any of the commissioners? Mr. Denha: Can I just point out something, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Denha. May 183 2021 29994 Mr. Denha: Thank you, sir. We respect your concerns. I will be very brief. This part of the center... my current tenants, the bulk food, and I have a chiropractor, they are small users. The least intense part of the center is the part that I am proposing the two additional drive-thru's. It is an ocean of parking since the day I bought this center and you guys probably drive by it and see the same thing. I mean so ... the last thing I want to do is create an albatross for my existing tenants, but if I had two or three sit down restaurants and this and that, I would never even propose this. The advent of these drive-thru's is a key success to this center. I think we have addressed the safety concerns and we will continue to do so. I just wanted to echo that. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright, thank you, sir. Is there any other questions or comments from any of the commissioners? If not, I am going to ask if there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? If so, you can click raise hand. There is no one in our audience wishing to speak on this petition. Mr.Denha, do you have any other comments you would like to make before we close the public hearing. Mr. Denha: I will just say, number one I appreciate your guys questions and you guys looking at this and I am looking for collaboration with the city to help on this with respect to my petitions for the longevity and success of this center. We put our money where our mouth is with respect to remodeling this center and this is just a function of the tracking and filling up this center. We are willing to spend money to do so and it is safe. With respect to the user, you guys are going to approve those down the line when in fact I get them, and I appreciate the thoughts in looking at it. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Denha. Mr. Tiseo, anything else you would like to say on this petition before I go to the motion? Mr. Tiseo: No, I am fine. Thank you, sir. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-21-2021 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 18, 2021, on Petition 2021-03-02-06 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 11.03(n), 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a freestanding restaurant with drive-thru facilities and add drive -up window facilities to the southern end unit of the shopping center at 19043 thru 19053 Middlebelt Road and 29475 thru 29493 May 18, 2021 29995 Seven Mile Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Clarita Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northeast of Section 11, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-03-02-06 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Preliminary Site Plan identified as Sheet No. P1, dated March 12, 2021, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, Inc., but not including the drive -up window on the south end of the shopping center building, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Installation of a drive -up window at the south end of the shopping center building, and all signage related thereto, may be reconsidered by the Planning Commission once a specific tenant or user is identified. 2. This approval is subject to City Council waiving the requirement for a by-pass lane in connection with the operation of a drive -up window for the outlot building. 3. That the service area behind the shopping center shall be repaired, resealed, and restriped as necessary to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. That the site's trash dumpsters shall be enclosed. That the three walls of the trash dumpster areas shall be constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building. The enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass. 4. That all parking spaces shall be doubled striped at ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in length. 5. That the Landscape Plan identified as Sheet Number 1101, dated May 7, 2021, as revised, prepared by Elements Studio Inc., is hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding. 7. 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. 8. That the Outlot Building Elevations Plan identified as Sheet No. P4, dated March 12, 2021, as revised, prepared by May 18, 2021 29996 Tiseo Architects, Inc., is hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material, and color to other exterior materials on the building. 10. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building setback and deficient parking and any conditions related thereto. 11. That all new pole -mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a height of twenty feet (20') and shall be aimed and shielded to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadways. 12. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 13. 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. 14. 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, shall be prohibited. 15. 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 16. 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 (1) 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. May 18, 2021 29997 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 #3 PETITION 2020-11-02-10 LS Equity, LLC Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020- 11-02-10 submitted by LS Equity L.L.C. requesting approval to revise the plans approved by City Council on January 13, 2021 (CR #14-21) involving the re -development of the commercial shopping center (Shoppes of Livonia), including demolishing a portion of the existing building, constructing a full -service restaurant with drive-thru facilities (Chick-fil-A), constructing an addition and renovating the exterior fagade of the existing building, and constructing a multi -tenant retail building with drive- thru facilities, at 29250-29350 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest'/4 of Section 25, Mr. Taormina: This is a request to revise the previously approved plans for the Shoppes of Livonia at the northeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads. This project was approved by City Council on January 13, 2021. As originally presented, the Shoppes of Livonia would be developed in three phases. Phase I included demolishing portions of the existing shopping center building and constructing a Chick-Fil-A restaurant with drive-thru facilities. Phase II involved the development of a new outlot retail building in the front parking lot adjacent to Plymouth Road. Phase III entailed expanding and renovating the existing building. The petitioner is now proposing a number of changes. The first major change is a new addition off the northwest corner of the main retail building behind the area that is identified as tenant number one. The expansion measures roughly 27 feet by 37 feet and would accommodate a truck dock for deliveries. Shown is a proposed compactor, a temporary generator, and an enclosed recycling dumpster area. The addition that was approved in the northeast corner of the building has been reduced. This is directly behind tenant number two. The new area measures 54 feet by 20 feet for a total of roughly 3,500 square feet. Originally, it was almost double that size. As a result of the changes, the area behind the building is now large enough to allow trucks to turn around. Additionally, the north driveway along Middlebelt Road will be widened to allow trucks to both enter and exit Middlebelt Road. These would correspond to some additional changes to the design in front of the shopping center that is intended to May 18, 2021 29998 discourage truck traffic from exiting out Plymouth Road. The plan shows the truck movements in and out and the ability to turn around and exit out on to Middlebelt Road. Retail building number one, the outlot building adjacent to Plymouth Road, that too has been downsized from about 8,900 square feet to 6,000 square feet. This would allow for eight additional parking spaces along the east side of the building. With the net reduction in leasable area, and you consider the reduction here in the northeast corner of the building to retail one, the required parking goes from 413 to 404 spaces, however, the available parking on the site is also being reduced from 397 to 354. This increases the overall deficiency slightly. From 16 spaces to 50 spaces. That is something that is going to require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Looking at the Chick-fil-A restaurant...the canopy over the pick-up window on the west side of the building facing Middlebelt would be enlarged in order to cover both drive - up lanes. The original canopy was about 56 feet by 11 feet and the new canopy would measure 75 feet by 30 feet and require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setback. The building is right at the setback line. Extending the canopy toward Middlebelt Road would impact the required yard and requires Zoning Board of Appeals approval. In addition, a second canopy is shown over the menu ordering area. This is a freestanding canopy that would measure 27 feet by 55 feet and would also extend across both of the service lanes here. That does not impact any setbacks. To accommodate the new canopies, the striping of the drive-thru lanes would be modified. They would be reduced slightly from 12 feet to 11 feet and still in alignment with the ordinance. The plan also shows two monument signs that were not shown on the original plan. The site is allowed two monument signs not to exceed a height of 8 feet and 40 square feet in area. The by-pass lane adjacent to the Chick-fikA pick-up window has been widened slightly to accommodate these support posts for the enlarged canopy. You can see how the drive lane would taper slightly to accommodate that canopy. That would result in all new landscaping which is something that was recommended with the original plan. They are proposing completely new landscaping along the right-of-way of Middlebelt Road. Finally, the development, as we understand it, would no longer be developed in phases. All construction is anticipated to be as a single phase. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can answer any questions you may have. There is no correspondence regarding this item. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, if you can reflect that Mr. Long has joined the meeting at 8:10 p.m. We will have that noted in our minutes. Are there any questions of the Planning Director? May 18, 2021 29999 Mr. Caramagno: Mark, with the by-pass lane on the drawing here, what is in place to protect those poles from being hit by a car that is driving around the by-pass lane? Is there a bollard around it, are they sturdy enough to take a strike from a car or vehicle? Is there a curb around them? Mr. Taormina: I am going to defer that question to the project architect. I don't see anything noted on the plan. I believe the support posts are illustrated...I don't believe they show any kind of protective bollards. Looking at the renderings, it's not really showing anything as well. To answer your question, I am not aware of how they intend to mark or protect these posts, which I believe is your question, right? Mr. Caramagno: Exactly. I don't know if they are aluminum poles and are easily knocked down when a car strikes them or something...I just don't' know. Thank you, Mark. Mr. Wilshaw: Good question, Mr. Caramagno. We will see if our petitioner can answer that when we get to them. Any other questions or comments from any of the commissioners for Mr. Taormina? I don't see anything else. Our petitioners are in the audience. Mr. Lurk, and Mr. Jarbou. Let me give them an opportunity to unmute themselves. We will start with Mr. Jarbou. Good evening. Mr. Lurk can unmute himself when he is ready. Mr. Jarbou, 4198 Orchard Lake Road, Ste. 250, Orchard Lake, MI. Thank you for having us this evening. Appreciate your guys time. As you can see, we have made some minor tweaks to our site plan and hopefully to make it better. We have decreased some square footages and the canopy is probably the biggest thing here. Critical to servicing the Chick-Fil-A customers to make sure the people working there are protected as well. As far as your question about the canopy and the safety of it from someone driving the by-pass lane, the footings are underground. They would take a pretty big car accidentto knock outjust one ofthose. If one was knocked out, that is why there are several others to continue to support that canopy. They are cemented I guarantee and screwed in, so they are pretty safe I would say. Or, Wilshaw: Alright, thank you. Any other comments you would like to make about these modifications before we go to questions? Or. Jarbou: No. I am here to answer any questions or concerns. I think Mr. Taormina did a great job explaining the minor tweaks that we did. We hope that it is actually...I think everything is a positive. May 18, 2021 30000 Reducing the little bit of square footages, keeping the trucks off the main drag of the shopping center, and one-way in, one-way oA I think that is critical to just any, ya know, any trucks and not having them in the path of other people driving through the parking lot. Obviously, we've gone from a phasing plan to doing everything at once. So, when they are finish this thing off and make sure it is nice and crisp and new for the city. I am here for any questions or concerns. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good, thank you. We also have with us, Mr. Lurk. Good evening, sir. If you would like to just introduce yourself to get your name and address on the record in case there are any questions for you. Justin Lurk, 5200 Buffington Road, Atlanta, GA. I also thought the presentation was great. I did want to answer the question regarding the projection for the canopy and I think it is typically... we would have a bollard to protect the post even though we have, as Mr. Jarbou mentioned, foundations for all of those outside posts, but we would still propose one bollard in front of the line of those posts just to protect the integrity of the canopy. That can be an easy add to the plan. We can work with the architect and engineer to get that added, but I wanted to address that. I thought it was a good comment. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, great. That is a wonderful comment, and we appreciate your response. Is there anybody on the commission with any questions for our petitioner tonight? Mr. Bongero: For the petitioner, there was one concern I had today, and I discussed it with Mark today earlier. The privacy walls, here. You are looking at that. Obviously, it looks like DTE, or someone took that down because there is a large spool like wire at one time. So, that fence is a concern to me. I am sure you (inaudible). The bigger concern was this wall here. If you can see it looks like it was a pre -cast concrete and it was held together with these steel channels. Pretty much most of the whole length of that east line is all pulling apart. I didn't know if you had a chance to inspect that and what your thoughts were about how you are going to maintain that, or are you going to replace it? I didn't know what your thoughts were on that. Mr. Jarbou: Thank you for the question. We have looked at that wall over and over again. We have our masonry guys take a look at it. Our intention is to not leave it in that condition. We will... if there are repairs that can be made to it, we will repair the sections that can and the sections that cannot be repair we will replace. We plan May 18, 2021 30001 on finishing it off with a nice coat of paint to make it match the rest of the center to make it aesthetically pleasing to the rest of the center. It is definitely an eyesore. As you can see, the rest of the center is an eyesore as well. We wouldn't spend all of this money on redeveloping the retail center itself and leave something like this out there. Mr. Bongero: I didn't think you would, but I didn't see it on the plan. It was just noted that it is an existing fence. I was just making sure you were aware of it and be intent on fixing it. It looks like it could just fall apart, and it is all solid concrete...I appreciate that, and I am satisfied. Mr. Jarbou: Absolutely. We will definitely address that. I promise you. Mr. Bongero: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Great question and comment there. Any other questions or comments from any of the commissioners? Mr. Caramagno: I just had a couple that I wanted to follow-up on from the study session last week. Two of the questions that I had were cement in the truck turnaround area on the northeast end of the property. Was that considered and is that going to be cement in place of asphalt? Mr. Jarbou: We have looked at that. That is with our engineers right now to see exactly what is back there, and how the truck radius will impact it. I can tell you that I am probably a fan of doing that. Those big trucks turning on something like that ... we had a different site where we had a similar situation where we had a lot of trucks coming in and out and it was impacted the same way. After a while we cemented it. We weren't the ones that created it, but I have actually seen this in other centers where the bigger trucks are... there is cement. That is definitely something that is on our radar and we are going to consider and see what our engineers think about doing something like that. Mr. Caramagno: I would think at the end of the day the cement would make sense. I know you have a sewer cap there and storm drain or something as well. It is a recipe to just be tore up and be a problem. Like David said, you are invested in that property and the fence, and I would hate to see that pavement go to hell because of the truck traffic. Or. Jarbou: 1100% agree with you, and even all of our storm water, all of our...anything out there that we normally wrap with a cement May 18, 2021 30002 collar anyways, so I have to see exactly where that lies back there so... it would just make more sense to cement it all anyway. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you on that. The other question that I had was, the Chick- Fil-A trash enclosure...I mentioned...I know firsthand that those are very narrow and lend themselves to crowded positions and... between the grease trap and the two dumpsters it is very tight. Is there any consideration to expand and to make it more user friendly? Mr. Jarbou: We can definitely take a look at that and in expanding that. What I would like to say is that... and I don't think Chick-Fil-A does this anymore anyways, but a lot of restaurants have gone away from the grease trap where the old school would be you go out there and dump the grease. They are basically having a truck come in and extract the old grease and put in new grease into the system. We have done it at a couple of our retail centers for even a coney island has done it now. They are moving more toward that. It is kind of archaic to add the grease disposal in the corral. Still, great point. We will definitely take a look at it. If it is able to expand then we will expand it. Mr. Caramagno: I know there are others in the Detroit area that have that problem, so... What I am getting at is that it creates a hardship I think for the employee that is going back there to load these containers and it certainly creates a hardship for the folks that are dumping the containers. There is just no room to maneuver at all. So, you are dealing with a big piece of equipment back there and you are talking about a couple of inches on either side. It promotes damage and it is just too tight of quarters. Mr. Jarbou: I agree with you. Mr. Lurk: I did look into that from our call from last week. This is Justin from Chick-Fil-A again and out of our four open locations, two of them have the same design as you see here, which I would call our standard design where the bays are next to each other and there is no wall between them. The other two are a sawtooth configuration. The two bays are separated by a wall, so we had to kind of sawtooth them into a parking lot because of one-way traffic. Certainly, there is a lot less room in a situation like that. Do you know a standard size for the dumpsters that you typically have in this area? Because I can look at that as it compares to some of the other areas that we are working in. Or, Caramagno: I don't have it off of the top of my head, but I can get it to Mark, and Mark can get it to you. May 18, 2021 30003 Mr. Lurk: That would be fantastic and then I can backboard it oft of what we design the dumpster corrals to handle. If they are bigger dumpsters, then absolutely we would love to work figuring out how to make that bigger and give you guys some more room. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Lurk: My pleasure. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for those questions and comments. That seems like something we could fairly easily sort out. Any other questions or comments from any of the commissioners for our petitioner? I don't see anyone else with questions or comments on the commission. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? There are a couple other folkd in our audience. If you would like to speak, you can click raise hand and if not, we will assume there are no other questions or comments and I will then go back to our petitioner, Mr. Lurk and Mr. Jarbou, and see if there are any closing comments before we make our motion. Mr. Jarbou: Thank you for your time. We really appreciate you working with us. Mark has been tremendous to work with. We hope that the changes we do have made actually enhance the site and make it more viable and we are looking to get started on this. We know it is an eyesore for the city and we want to get working on it as soon as possible to get this redevelopment underway. Looking forward to it. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Jarbou. Mr. Lurk, any closing comments you would like to make. Mr. Lurk: Yeah. As well, this has been a good fun process and I appreciate everyone's willingness to just kind of pitch in and help and thank you for allowing us to come back and propose these changes. As Frank mentioned, hopefully they are seen as improvements to the center. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thank you, gentleman for being here. We will no to our commission and see if there is a motion. On a motion by Long, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-22-2020 RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2020-11-02-10 submitted by LS Equity L.L.C. requesting approval to revise the May 18, 2021 30004 plans approved by City Council on January 13, 2021 (CR #14-21) involving the re -development of the commercial shopping center (Shoppes of Livonia), including demolishing a portion of the existing building, constructing a full -service restaurant with drive- thru facilities (Chick-fil-A), constructing an addition and renovating the exterior fagade of the existing building, and constructing a multi -tenant retail building with drive-thru facilities, at 29250-29350 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest % of Section 25, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the changes as outlined in the letter dated April 13, 2021 from Atwell, L.L.C. are hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 2. That the Overall Layout Plan identified as Sheet No. C01, dated April 9, 2021, as revised, prepared by Atwell, is hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 3. That the truck turnaround area behind the main building, shall be paved with concrete. 4. That the Landscape Plan identified as Sheet No. CO3, dated April 9, 2021, as revised, prepared by Atwell, is hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 5. That the fence along the north side of the property and the protective wall on the east side of the property shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. 6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseedingI 7. 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. 8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans for the Chick-fil-A restaurant, identified as Sheet Number A-301 and X-900, both dated March 22, 2021, prepared by Chick-fil-A, are hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. May 18, 2021 30005 9. That the Retail 1 — Elevations Plan identified as Drawing No. SD03, dated April 9, 2021, as revised, prepared by NORR, is hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 10. That the Retail 2 — Elevations Plan identified as Drawing No. SD04, dated April 9, 2021, as revised, prepared by NORR, is hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 11. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material, and color to other exterior materials on the building. 12. That the enclosed dumpster area behind the Chick-fil-A restaurant shall be enlarged to accommodate three (3) dumpsters. 13. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking and deficient building setback and any conditions related thereto. 14. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 15. That any illumination of the Chick-fil-A canopies shall be limited to the underside of the structure, and all light fixtures shall be recessed and made flush with the established ceiling, and 16. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #14-21, which granted approval to re -develop the commercial shopping center (Shoppes of Livonia), shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. 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? Jr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 18, 2021 30006 1,168t'' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,168th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 27, 2021. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Smiley ,and unanimously adopted, it was #05-23-2021 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,168th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2020, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, McCue, Smiley, Bongero, Ventura, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Or. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,169'h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 18, 2021, was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sam Caramagno, Secretary ATTEST: C.ICX Ian Wilshaw,