Planning Commission

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL June 8, 2017 LOCATION: City Council Chambers, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI SUBJECT: Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission held June 8, 2017. Mr. Reinowski called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present at roll call: Geoff Gariepy, Paul Jaboro, Edward Kopp, Stefano Militello, Jeffrey Norgrove, Leonard Reinowski, Gerald Rowe, and Parmpreet Sarau Members absent at roll call: Donald Miller – Excused Also in attendance: Chris McLeod, City Planner Clark Andrews, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Gariepy, to APPROVE the Agenda. Ayes: Rowe, Gariepy, Sarau, Jaboro, Kopp, Militello, Norgrove, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Miller Motion carried. PZ17-0004 – May Alisa Requesting approval of a conditional rezoning from R-60 (One Family Residential) to C- 1 (Local Convenience Business) district to allow the construction of a neighborhood shopping center - west side of Ryan Road, south of 16 Mile Road in Section 30. Property address: 36833 Ryan Road Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is proposing to develop a 6,650 square foot shopping center. As currently shown, the center may include up to five tenant spaces (depending on tenant size), and may also include a significant outdoor patio space area. During verbal communication the intent is to have a barber shop, flower shop, and other similar based services. There is concern for the south and west side of the property as they abut residential. Mr. Reinowski asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. McLeod. Being none, he asked for the petitioner to come forward to the podium. The architectural planner, representing the petitioner, came forward to the podium. He displayed and explained photos of the property. He stated they are proposing a six foot wall on the south and west sides of the property. Mr. Reinowski asked if the Commissioners had any questions. Mr. Gariepy asked how many tenant spaces will be owner-occupied. The representative stated it is a husband and wife that are the owners. The husband would open a barber shop and the wife would open a flower shop. There are extended family members that would like to occupy the other spaces for a photo studio and a dress shop. There would only be one tenant (the far left) space available for a possible ice cream shop or similar. Mr. Reinowski asked for any other questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. The resident at 3941 Hearns, Sterling Heights came forward. She had her sister, who owns the home, speak on her behalf. Her home abuts the proposed site. The woman Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 2 stated she is against the project and stated how many problems they have had in the past. She is opposed to the five unit shopping center and is very concerned with any type of food places going in due to the rats, raccoons, and cats that have already been present because of a past fruit market. She also expressed concern for the traffic the five unit shopping center will produce. Mr. Reinowski stated a petition was presented to the Planning Commission and signed by a number of residents opposed to the project. He asked for other public participation. Emad Faraj, 36654 Carriage Dr. Sterling Heights, came forward. He stated he is against the proposal because of privacy issues and property value going down. Mr. Michaels, resident of 3941 Hearns Dr., Sterling Heights, came forward. He stated he owns 3929 Hearns Dr. He stated he is opposed to the proposal and displayed many pictures of the area and bullet points of objections to the development. He stressed the residents do not want this development. John Kreft, 3284 Lancaster, Sterling Heights came forward. He stated he’s opposed to the proposed development. He mentioned how the area looks terrible and they are duplicating too many businesses. Susan McNeil, 3965 Hearns, Sterling Heights, came forward. She is opposed to the development. Some of the reasons are decrease in property value, parking right up to her backyard, lights shining into her bedroom, and the sounds the shopping centers generate. Frank Muminovic, 3917 Hearns Dr., Sterling Heights, came forward. He has lived there for nine years. He stated if he had to have an easement to build a shed, how can they put a parking lot right up to his property. Delores Skladanowski, 36642 Carriage Dr., Sterling Heights came forward. She has lived there for 37 years. She is opposed to the development; some of the reasons are the dumpster noise issues, property value going down, increase in traffic, and existing retaining wall. Thad Skladanowski, 36642 Carriage Dr., Sterling Heights came forward. He is opposed to the development. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other public participation. Being none, he asked the Board for any further questions/comments. Mr. Rowe stated he feels there are some code violations that need to be addressed by the city. He also stated this property will, most likely, not be redeveloped as residential but the lack of greenbelt is a problem. He feels this property should be rezoned as a transitional use which is less intensive. Mr. Gariepy stated he agrees with Mr. Rowe. He feels this proposal is not a good fit for this piece of property and he would vote against it being developed. Mr. Rowe stated traffic in the area, as well as other around Sterling Heights, is heavy at times and it will not be impacted greatly by the development of this property. Mr. Gariepy stated the traffic is heavy and feels a left turn out of the property should not be allowed. Mr. Jaboro stated without a greenbelt area, he feels the project is too large for the property and should be developed as something else. Mr. Reinowski asked for any further questions or comments. Being none, he called for a motion. Motion by Mr. Gariepy, supported by Mr. Norgrove, that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to DENY case number PZ17-0004, May Alisa, to Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 3 conditionally rezone the subject property from R-60 (One Family Residential District) to C-1 (Local Convenience Business District), and not allow the development of a 6,650 square foot local convenience shopping center as shown on the proposed plans for the following reasons: 1. Approving a conditional rezoning for this parcel based upon the proposed conditions contained within the development plans will cause significant harm to the surrounding residents’ because of the lack of the greenbelt that is proposed in the variance; 2. That the proposed rezoning and associated site plan is not consistent and harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood; 3. It is the general sense of the Planning Commission that this property should most likely be rezoned to a transitional use zoning as opposed to a C-1 Commercial type zoning; 4. That the ten-foot greenbelt which is not being provided and is required by the ordinance is a critical component of development when adjacent to existing single family residential and to develop the property without it would be overdeveloping the site; 5. The number of variances that are needed to develop the site, as the petitioner has proposed, indicates there may be too much development for the size of the parcel and the development is too intense for this parcel. Motion by Mr. Gariepy, supported by Mr. Norgrove, to AMEND by adding five reasons for denial. Mr. Reinowski asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Rowe stated to the residents that this is a recommendation and the case will go to the City Council. Mr. Reinowski asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Gariepy, Norgrove, Jaboro, Kopp, Militello, Reinowski, Rowe, Sarau Nays: None Absent: Miller Motion carried. PZ17- 0005 – Gallo Properties, LLC Requesting approval of a conditional rezoning from C-3 (General Business District) to RM-3 (Multiple Family Mid and High Rise District) to allow a multiple family apartment development – East side of Van Dyke, south of Fifteen Mile Road in Section 34. Property address: 34858 Van Dyke Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is proposing a conditional rezoning from the current C-3(General Business District) to the intended RM-3 )Multiple Family Mid and High Rise District) for the purpose of developing a 200 unit apartment complex development. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Rowe asked Mr. McLeod about the density allowed (units per acre) in a RM-3 District. Mr. McLeod stated it varies between unit types. For a one-bedroom apartment, there is a requirement for 1,200 square feet of land area, and for a two-bedroom apartment, the requirement is 1,800 square feet of land area. The ordinance does not stipulate a specific number of units per acre. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 4 Mr. Rowe asked Mr. McLeod to talk about the access to major roads. He also asked what the current infrastructure entails. Mr. McLeod displayed a site plan and explained there are access points to 15 Mile Road and to Van Dyke via easement that is currently in place. He also stated the entire underground system is in place. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod to clarify that Phase II might not be built and asked about the green space in Phase I. Mr. McLeod stated that is correct - if Phase I is not as the applicant anticipates, Phase II may not be built in the future. He explained Phase I does have adequate green space. If Phase II is not built, the “recreational space” may be lacking for Phase I. Mr. Gariepy asked if Phase II was not developed, would that portion of the property be land- locked. Mr. McLeod stated yes, there would need to be access provided. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any further questions. Being none, he asked the petitioner to come forward. Mr. Phil Ruggeri and Mr. Tony Gallo came forward to the podium. Mr. Ruggeri stated this has been a difficult project. It is confined by the existing development of the property. The underground infrastructure is already in place so the development has to relate to that. The property was formerly a Knights Inn. He then showed site plans and gave an overview of the plans for the property. Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. Ruggeri what the anticipated time frame is for each phase. He also asked if there have been studies done for the development. Mr. Ruggeri stated Phase I will start as soon as all approvals are granted, anticipating end of summer or early fall. He stated Mr. Gallo has done market research and it dictates it is a strong market for this development. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from Commissioners. Mr. Rowe asked about the difference in size of the units on one of the site plans. Mr. Gallo stated the difference is a one-bedroom vs. a two-bedroom. Mr. Gariepy asked if Mr. Gallo plans to remain the owner of the property once it is developed. He also asked if there is any way to rework the parking so there may be more grass area near the buildings. Mr. Ruggeri stated Mr. Gallo plans to keep this as part of his business portfolio. He explained how they cannot deviate from the infrastructure and they worked with Mr. McLeod to come up with the best scenario possible. He also explained there is substantial landscaping around the property. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other questions from Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. Richard Smutek, 11843 13 Mile, Warren, came forward to the podium. He is representing Avenue Invest LLC, owner of Angelo’s Avenue Grill, and also the owners of Shawarma Grill, 8200 15 Mile Road. His client is concerned about three things: The interference of visibility from their sign, the maintenance of the roadway easements, and how the traffic flow affects the businesses. He stated after speaking with Mr. Ruggeri and Mr. Gallo, they are less concerned about these issues and Mr. Gallo has offered to share responsibility for the roadway easements. Mr. Gariepy asked Mr. McLeod what the difference is for the roadway in a development of this size entering through a parking lot versus having its own access. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 5 Mr. McLeod stated the allowed widths of a public access lane and a maneuvering lane and stated there is adequate space for a maneuvering lane. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other public participation. Being none, he asked for any other comments/questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Rowe stated he has concern with the lack of amenities in Phase I. Ms. Sarau also expressed concern with the lack of amenities in Phase I and asked if there could be fewer units to accommodate recreational space. Mr. Ruggeri and Mr. Gallo explained one of the variances could be is to have 20 feet in between the buildings in Phase I. That would make enough space in the center portion of Phase I to accommodate the amenities. Mr. Gariepy asked if the Fire Department would have any issues for the buildings being closer together, 20 feet instead of 30 feet. He also asked if this case should be postponed because the Planning Department did not review all the changes made to the site plan. Mr. McLeod stated that is an ordinance requirement for separation of buildings, greenspace, etc. He also stated the change is straight forward and didn’t feel a postponement was necessary. Mr. Reinowski asked for any other comments/questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he called for a motion. Motion by Mr. Norgrove, supported by Mr. Jaboro, that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE case number PZ17-0005, Gallo Properties, to conditionally rezone the subject property from C-3 (General Business District) to RM-3 (Multiple Family Mid and High Rise District), to allow the development of a 200 unit apartment complex as shown on the proposed plans for the following reasons: 1. Approving a conditional rezoning for this parcel based upon the proposed conditions contained within the development plans will ensure that the development will be constructed in accordance with a specific mutually agreeable conditional rezoning agreement between the petitioner and City prepared by the City Attorney, which will incorporate the conditions offered by petitioner, to the benefit of surrounding property owners and the City; 2. That the proposed variances have been found to be acceptable based on the proposed site plan, landscape plan, and review of the overall parcel configuration, physical limitations and location. This recommendation for approval is based on the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agrees to obtain site plan approval for Phase I of the proposed development on the property within twelve (12) months of the effective date of the ordinance amendment approving the rezoning or map amendment, to obtain a building permit for Phase I of the proposed development within eighteen (18) months of such effective date, and to complete development of Phase I of the proposed development within thirty (30) months of such effective date for the first phase of the development. 2. That a mutually agreeable conditional rezoning agreement be prepared by the City Attorney delineating the terms and conditions of the proposed rezoning to be executed by the property owner, (and facility operator, if different than the owner), and the City and recorded with the Macomb County Register of Deeds within sixty (60) days of approval of the conditional rezoning. 3. That revised site plans addressing the proposed site plan comments noted within the Office of Planning Staff Report be provided and any additional comments that arise during site plan review. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 6 4. Based on the conditions given by the petitioner, at public hearing for Phase I, be fulfilled by the petitioner. 5. To make a condition of an easement maintenance requirement as directed by the office of the City Engineer and City Attorney’s office to accommodate this action as worked out by property owners of adjacent properties and said property. Mr. Reinowski asked for any discussion on the motion. Motion by Mr. Norgrove, supported by Mr. Jaboro, to AMEND the conditions by adding numbers 4 and 5. Mr. Gariepy stated the current condition of the access easement is in rough shape. Mr. Andrews stated that as part of the site plan and engineering review, the city is not going to allow the development to take place unless there is an acceptable roadway to access it. Mr. Reinowski asked for any other questions/comments on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Norgrove, Jaboro, Reinowski, Rowe, Sarau, Gariepy, Kopp, Militello Nays: None Absent: Miller Motion carried. PPCM-1174 – Amy Labadie - Rainbow Child Care Center Requesting special land use approval for a child day care facility in an O-1 (Business and Professional Office) district and C-1 (Local Convenience Business) district - North side of Nineteen Mile, east of Dequindre in Section 6. Property address: 1999 Nineteen Mile Road Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed site plans and gave an overview stating the applicant is proposing the development of a 10,782 square foot child care center along with the associated outdoor play areas. Mr. Reinowski asked the Commissioners for any questions. Being none, he asked the petitioner to come forward to the podium. Reed Fenton from Rainbow Childcare came forward. He stated it has been a family- owned company for over 30 years, started by his father. He explained they try to go above what the requirements are and are usually a favored use in neighborhoods. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked for a motion. Motion by Ms. Sarau, supported by Mr. Norgrove, that the Planning Commission APPROVE case number PPCM-1174, Amy Labadie, Rainbow Childcare, 1999 19 Mile Road, to grant Special Approval Land Use for the development of the site as a child care center, as shown on the proposed plans subject to the following conditions: 1. That the development and operation of the facility shall remain consistent with the scale and nature of the use as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing, and as reflected on an amended site plan provided which addresses the requirements in this Motion; 2. That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 7 3. The decision of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 4. That appropriate site plan and engineering plans meeting all other requirements of the City of Sterling Heights be provided. 5. That the site planning comments provided, in this review, are satisfied. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That the special approval land use has been found to be compliant with the specific planning standards of Section 8.02(B). 2. That the special approval land use has been found to be compliant with the general discretionary standards of Section 25.02. 3. That the applicant agrees to obtain site plan approval for the proposed development on the property within twelve (12) months. If site plan approval is not granted within twelve (12) months of special approval land use, the special approval land use shall lapse and be deemed null and void. The approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement between the Rite Aid site to the west and this site. 2. Parking for the child care facility shall not be permitted on the Rite Aid site to the west. 3. The applicant shall execute and deliver to the City in recordable form a hold harmless agreement relating to development of the site with vehicular access to the child care facility through the Rite Aid Site to the child care facility parking area rather than a dedicated drop-off and pick-up area. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any questions/discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Sarau, Norgrove, Gariepy, Jaboro, Kopp, Militello, Reinowski, Rowe Nays: None Absent: Miller Motion carried. PPCM- 1175 – Macomb Christian Schools Requesting special land use approval for a private school within the existing place of worship located within an R-60 (One Family Residential) district – North side of Fourteen Mile, east of Schoenherr in Section 35. Property address: 12875 Fourteen Mile Road Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed a site plan and gave an overview stating the applicants are proposing to operate a private school (Macomb Christian Schools) out of the existing Fellowship Chapel located at 12875 14 Mile Road. Mr. Reinowski asked the Commissioners for any questions. Mr. Gariepy asked if it’s technically being used for the same use, just different people. Mr. McLeod stated with no expansion to the building and limited neighbors to the site, they didn’t feel the intensification of the hours and days of operation beyond what it is currently used for was significant. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 8 Ms. Sarau asked Mr. McLeod to clarify if it was a temporary move. Mr. McLeod stated yes, it is intended to be temporary. He was told it would be for about one year and they will be looking for a more permanent location. Planning Commission members asked how the application would be impacted by RLUIPA and the Commission was informed that the case could be acted on in a typical fashion. Mr. Reinowski asked the Commissioner for any further questions. Being none, he asked the petitioner to come forward. Dr. Marjorie Baldwin, 381 Moran Rd., Grosse Pointe Farms, came forward to the podium. She is the superintendent of Macomb Christian School. She stated the school building they were in was too expensive to maintain and was sold. They are looking for a temporary location until they can find a school that will suit their needs. Mr. Gariepy asked if they are considering building a facility. Dr. Baldwin stated because of the high cost to build, they would rather find a used building and renovate. Mr. Reinowski asked for any questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. Being none, he asked for a motion. Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Gariepy, that the Planning Commission APPROVE case number PPCM-1175, Macomb Christian Schools, 12875 14 Mile Road, , to grant Special Approval Land Use for the use of the existing site to be utilized for the purposes of a religious based private school, as shown on the proposed plans subject to the following conditions: 1. That the use and operation of the facility shall remain consistent with the scale and nature of the use as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing, and as reflected on the site plan and materials provided; 2. That the petitioner shall develop, maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. 3. The decision of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 4. That other than as noted in the applicant’s materials, there be no additional overlap of hours of operation or conflict of use. Should additional overlap or conflict occur, the Office of Planning may require the re-review of the approval by the Planning Commission. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That the special approval land use has been found to be compliant with the specific planning standards of Section 6.02(B). 2. That the special approval land use has been found to be compliant with the general discretionary standards of Section 25.02. 3. That the applicant agrees to obtain use approval for the proposed development on the property within twelve (12) months. If site plan approval is not granted within twelve (12) months of special approval land use, the special approval land use shall lapse and be deemed null and void. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any discussion on the motion. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 9 Mr. Gariepy asked about the wording “site plan approval” in number 3 of the findings. Mr. McLeod stated it should be “use approval”. Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Gariepy, to AMEND number 3 of the findings. Mr. Reinowski asked for any further questions. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Rowe, Gariepy, Sarau, Jaboro, Kopp, Militello, Norgrove, Reinowski Nays: None Absent: Miller Motion carried. PSP17-0024 - Johnny Black ’s Public House Requesting approval for a nuisance mitigation plan for an outdoor patio service area - East side of Moravian, south of Fifteen Mile Road in Section 36. Property address: 35000 Moravian Drive Mr. Reinowski asked Mr. McLeod for an overview. Mr. McLeod displayed site photo and gave an overview stating the site has two outdoor patio spaces. The main patio space can accommodate seating for approximately 60 persons and the second patio space along Moravian Rd. can accommodate approximately 24 persons. He gave an overview of the history of the property. Mr. Reinowski asked the Commissioners for any questions. Mr. Gariepy stated he thought the nuisance mitigation was strictly for the outdoor patio space (OPS) and it seems like the discussion is bringing up other nuisance mitigation issues. He asked if it was within the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Andrews stated the ordinance provisions were specifically written in a way that they could be broadly interpreted to cover more than just the outdoor patio. After giving a brief explanation, he stated yes, it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to take those things into account. Mr. Militello asked if this nuisance mitigation is also pertaining to the parking lot, how can those noises be controlled and how the purview can expand into the parking lot. Mr. Andrews explained the ordinance was intended so there would be some control over nuisances to the surrounding area in the late hours. The parking area, near the patio is included. He gave an example, if someone was being obnoxious on the patio then stepped off into the parking lot, the nuisance ordinance would be still be effective for the parking lot area. The nuisance mitigation plan is designed to be somewhat flexible. Mr. Norgrove asked if previous mitigation plans will have to be redone. He also asked how the city will handle a person who might complain all the time just because they don’t want to have a bar near their home. Mr. Andrews stated they do not have to go back to previous plans, the mitigation plans will be handled on a case by case basis. He also stated that a person who is calling all the time versus someone who has legitimate complaints will be handled accordingly. Deni Bozinovski, one of the owners, 49481 Galway, Macomb Twp., came forward to the podium. He stated they are trying their best to make everyone happy and be in compliant with the city. Mr. Reinowski asked for any questions from the Commissioners. Being none, he asked for public participation. Jenny and Dennis Wolfenbarger, 34607 Heartsworth Lane, Sterling Heights, came forward to the podium. The expressed how loud the voices are from the patio. Mrs. Wolfenbarger stated they can hear full conversations in her house. Mr. & Mrs. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 10 Wolfenbarger also stated there is trash being thrown or dumped in their yard. She asked why there couldn’t be an enclosure around the patio. After much discussion between Mr. McLeod and the Commissioners it was stated that they should move forward with the proposed mitigation plan and see how the changes impact the nuisance complaints. If complaints still come in, they would need to revise the nuisance plan. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other public participation. A resident, who abuts the parking lot, came forward to express his animosity for the establishment being in the residential area. He stated there is constant noise from motorcycles, arguing, etc. from patrons of the business. He asked the Commissioners for any further questions/comments. Being none, he called for a motion. Motion by Mr. Norgrove, supported by Mr. Militello, that the Planning Commission APPROVE case number PSP17-0024 Johnny Blacks Public House, 35000 Moravian, to grant approval of the proposed nuisance mitigation plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the development and operation of the outdoor patio space shall remain consistent with the scale and nature of the use as described in the proposal, at Public Hearing and reflected on the site plan provided; 2. That the petitioner shall maintain and operate the facility in compliance with all pertinent codes, ordinances and standards of the City of Sterling Heights, County of Macomb and the State of Michigan. 3. The decision of the Planning Commission shall remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Commission are found to be correct and the conditions upon which this motion is based are forever maintained as presented to the Commission. 4. Signage shall be placed at the east exit of the restaurant indicating those leaving the facility should be quiet and respect the neighboring residential properties. 5. That the following conditions of the nuisance mitigation plan as proposed shall be required: a. That the outdoor patio shall be operated only from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. b. That the applicant’s staff shall continuously monitor patron noise levels and the outdoor patio area and shall advise patrons to be courteous and respectful of the surrounding neighbors in regards to the level of noise and other nuisances caused by conversation in the patio area and caused by conversation of vehicles in the parking lot. c. That the outdoor patio shall not provide any amplified music or sound. 6. The following additional conditions shall be required: a. The applicant shall hire and assign at least one person to “patrol” and monitor its parking lot after 11pm until all patrons have departed in order to facilitate quiet and expeditious patron departure from the premises. b. Patrons and outdoor patio areas which are causing noise beyond reasonable conversation levels shall be advised by the applicant’s staff to refrain from causing such noise and shall thereafter be removed from the outdoor patio areas if the patron fails to comply. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 11 c. The applicant shall place signs to advise people within the outdoor patio space and who are leaving the establishment to respect the neighbors and keep the noise and loitering to a minimum. The signs shall be located at all exits of the establishment and patio spaces as well as multiple points along the district boundary wall. The applicant shall place signs indicating loitering is prohibited and shall cite the appropriate section of the city code. The applicant shall also place signs indicating there is a noise ordinance in Sterling Heights that applies after a specific hour of the evening and will cite the appropriate section of the city code. d. The doors of the facility, including all access points of the outdoor patio areas may not be propped or kept open after 11 p.m. each night. e. The applicant shall place “no motorcycle parking” signs along the full extent of the easterly district wall as well as against the patio area. The applicant shall also place “towing” warning signs in these same areas. f. Dumpster pick up times will continue to be mid mornings. No early morning pick- ups before 9 a.m. shall be permitted . g. The applicant shall adopt a company policy so that on Sunday –Thursday the employees cannot take out garbage to the dumpster after 11 p.m. On Friday and Saturday nights, employees may dispose of garbage into the dumpster after 11 p.m. if necessary due to lack of sufficient indoor storage space but shall not throw out bottles, glass, cans, and similar items that generate noise when making contact with each other or the dumpster, they shall keep those inside the building until the next garage deposit on the following day. Further, if noise relating to the dumpster continues to be an issue for any nearby residents, the applicant shall move the dumpster and dumpster enclosure to a central location near the storage building at the rear of the site. h. The applicant shall promptly implement appropriate, remedial measures to proactively address any nuisance complaints it receives regarding the OPS operation to avoid the Planning Commission having to take further corrective action pertaining to the nuisance mitigation plan or the OPS license. i. These conditions shall be applicable to both outdoor patio spaces. 7. This city will continue to monitor the premises and at a later date, if necessary, the city will take action. This action is based on the following findings: 1. That the operation of the outdoor patio space as part of the principle use of the premises is of a size, scale and nature that appears to require additional conditions in terms of operation throughout the use of a nuisance mitigation plan as outlined in the City’s Outdoor Patio Space Ordinance. 2. The abutting residential uses to the east, which pre-existed the outdoor patio space operations, are within extremely close proximity to the outdoor patio area and that nearly the entire site is abutted by residential land use. 3. Since the opening of the outdoor patio space, the applicant operation has been cited by the City’s Police Department on a number of occasions for noise issues and noise continues to be an issue raised by the adjacent residents at this location. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any discussion on the motion. Mr. Gariepy suggested amendments to the motion to add additional signs under condition number 6 regarding loitering, noise ordinance, and towing. Mr. Rowe suggested there be a specified period of time for this to be closely monitored to see if these conditions are actually helping, and if not it come back to the committee. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 12 Mr. McLeod stated the site will be monitored and they will be notified of any complaints from the residents. Motion by Mr. Norgrove, supported by Mr. Militello, to AMEND (number 6, third bullet point) by adding signs to contain verbiage regarding “no loitering” and “noise ordinance”; (number 6, fifth bullet point) by adding “towing” warning signs; and by adding number 7 which states “This city will continue to monitor the premises and at a later date, if necessary, the city will take action”. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any other discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Norgrove, Militello, Reinowski, Rowe, Sarau, Gariepy, Jaboro, Kopp Nays: None Absent: Miller Motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Mr. Rowe, supported by Mr. Jaboro, to APPROVE the minutes of May 11, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Reinowski asked if there were any discussion on the motion. Being none, he asked for a roll call vote. Ayes: Gariepy, Norgrove, Jaboro, Kopp, Reinowski, Rowe, Sarau Nays: None Absent: Miller Abstained: Militello Motion Carried. CORRESPONDENCE Michigan Planner Petition for Case PZ17-0004 Letter regarding Johnny Blacks OLD BUSINESS Mr. Rowe asked Mr. McLeod when the Johnny Blacks establishment was being developed, why didn’t they have to come before the Planning Committee for a site plan review when the development impacts so many residents. He feels it was wrong the residents could not be heard at that time. Mr. McLeod stated because the site was formerly a restaurant it did not require a site plan review. The liquor license was granted by City Council. He also stated there was a site plan review for the outdoor patio that was handled administratively by the Planning Department. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Norgrove stated it was his last Planning Commission meeting and he thanked the City of Sterling Heights for allowing him to serve. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Jaboro, supported by Mr. Militello, to ADJOURN . Ayes: Jaboro, Militello, Kopp, Norgrove, Reinowski, Rowe, Sarau, Gariepy Nays: None Absent: Miller Motion Carried. Planning Commission Regular Meeting of June 8, 2017 Page 13 The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stefano Militello, Secretary Planning Commission