Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2012-07-17MINUTES OF THE 1,027rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,027 1h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Scott P. Bahr Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a pefifion is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2006-11-02-29 THOMAS'S DINING Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-11- 02-29 submitted by MNB Dining/Thomas's Family Dining, requesting to amend Council Resolution #48-07 dated February 14, 2007, in order to convert a previously approved Tavern License (sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises) to a full Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine, mixed spirit drink, and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with an existing full service restaurant (Thomas's Family Dining) at 33971 Plymouth Road, located on the south July 17, 2012 25238 side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 33. Mr. Taormina: This is a request for Thomas' Family Dining to expand the use of their liquor license from beer and wine sales only to a full Class C, which will allow for the sale of not only beer and wine, but also spirits and mixed spirit drinks for consumption on the premises. This was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council in 2007. On February 14, Council Resolution #48-07 was adopted which allowed the petitioner to activate only a beer and wine license, referred to as a Tavern License. It did not allow for the use of the full Class C. The primary reasons that Thomas's is requesting this is to allow them the ability to serve their patrons mixed spirit drinks and spirts. It would also benefit the restaurant's catering and banquet business. In April of last year, the MLCC rules were amended that allowed establishments that carry these types of licenses to also provide this service to catered events and operations. This would allow them to offer an addifional service when they cater outside of the premises. As you know, Thomas's is a full service family style restaurant. They have a total of 152 customer seals. This would not impact the number of seats at all. There is a provision in the ordinance that requires all Class C licensed establishments to not be located within 1,000 feel of any existing Class C licensed establishments. This provision was waived in 2007. It will require another waiver once the license is expanded to include a full Class C operation. There were two establishments back then within the 1,000 foot separation requirement; there are three today. The Plymouth Road House Bar and Gnll is about 200 feet from this existing establishment. Woodland Lanes is another 800 feet to the east, and then, most recently, we approved a Class C license for Tony's Kitchen, which is across the street and also within the 1,000 fool separation requirement. Again, that will have to be approved by special resolution of the City Council. With that, I can go to the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Yes, please do. Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 26, 2012, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above- eferenced Class C liquor license request. The written legal description provided is comect. The address for this site is confirmed to be 33971 Plymouth Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 19, 2012, which reads as July 17, 2012 25239 follows: 7 have reviewed the site plan submitted for a request to amend Council Resolution #48-07 dated February 14, 2007, to convert a previously approved Tavern license to a full Class C liquor license in connection with an existing full service restaurant on the property located at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair, to Mark. Mark, they have a Class C license now. I know there used to be a Tavern License, but they did away with that so everybody gets a Class C. It's just that the petitioner agreed to the fact through a letter form that they would only serve beer and wine. Are we just negating that letter or does he have to go back to the Liquor Control Commission for a Class C license? Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure precisely what's required for him to reclassify as a Class C. He acquired a Class C license initially, and it was downgraded to a Tavern License with the ability to upgrade it to a full Class C in the future. Technically, it's a Class C license that he holds but there are restrictions that only allow him to serve beer and wine. I think it's another type of license under the Class C requirements, called Tavern, but he should be able to reclassify it to a full Class C with the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: If there are no more questions or comments, we will gladly ask the petitioner to come forward. We will need your name and address for the record please. Roger Cadaret, 12325 Hannan Road, Romulus, Michigan 48174. Mr. Kuszczak, the owner of Thomas' restaurant - sorry that he was unable to be here tonight and he asked me to represent him. I am his step dad. I think many of you are probably familiar with Thomas's restaurant. And by the way, for the record, it's incorrectly named on the agenda. It's says MNS. That is supposed to be MNB. If you're familiar with Thomas's restaurant, I imagine many of you have enjoyed a meal there. Its purely a restaurant and it is quite family oriented. His clientele is closer to my age. I kid him that he captured a good chunk of Bill Knapp's clientele. I make that point because Mark has no intention of expanding or changing the interior of his restaurant to add a bar. There is no bar there currently. He July 17, 2012 25240 simply wants to accommodate some of his patrons who have suggested that they would enjoy a mixed drink before dinner or a cordial after dinner. He doesn't have enough space to make it a major drinking place. He is going to maintain a small inventory of the more popular mixed drinks and cordials. That's his intention. Of course, as was mentioned, with the catering business, we've all been involved in a catering environment. A Class C license can be pretty important to some of those events. That would assist him in meeting the needs of other customers as well. He is going to continue to close at 9:00 p.m., every night as he does now. I certainly expect that this will not have hardly any change on his business. He doesn't anticipate it. Its not primarily for an expansion of business for monetary reasons as I said. He is attempting to accommodate suggestions from some of his patrons. They would like to have access to a mixed drink, because they certainty enjoy eating there. Any questions from anyone? Mr. Morrow: Well, that's what we'll find out right now. Are there any questions of the petitioner? Ms. Kruger: Does he have any experience serving or having this type of liquor license at another establishment, or Is this his only restaurant? Mr. Cadarel: The only other restaurant he had was a pizzeria. I'm certain the answer is no, other than I can't tell you for certain he never worked such a restaurant back when he was much younger, but I really don't believe he's had any direct experience in that area. Ms. Kruger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wlshaw: Is there any additional training that is going to have to be done with the staff or are they going to hire someone to make the mixed drinks, because obviously there's a difference between pouring a glass of wine or beer and actually making a mixed drink. Mr. Cadaret: Yes. He is extremely good at job assignments and training. I am very confident that he is going to assign one person that responsibility on each shift and make sure they're property trained. I would anticipate, and I think he anticipates, that he's probably only going to serve 30 or 40 mixed drinks a night because many of those people just don't drink any alcohol at all. But the patrons that do, like to really relax and maybe have a cocktail first. But it's going to be limited in number. I'm sure he has no intention of mixing fancy drinks like we see in many of July 17, 2012 25241 the bars and nightclubs. He intends to keep it simple. In fad, he has to for space reasons. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: I have been to Thomas's. Where is he going to do this? That's what I dont know. I don't see where there's any room to where he can have a bar setup. Mr. CadareL He's not going to have a bar. Mr. Taylor: I understand that, but he's got to set up bottles of liquor someplace. Mr. Cadaret: It's my understanding that will be in the back food preparation area, which is pretty large by comparison to the dining area. So he will just have a setup where the drinks can be made right there by the person who is assigned responsibility. Mr. Taylor: I see. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? You gave a good explanation and with that, I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and a motion is in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-65-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 2012, on Petition 2006-11-02-29 submitted by MNB Diningfrhomas's Family Dining, requesting to amend Council Resolution #48-07 dated February 14, 2007, in order to convert a previously approved Tavern License (sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises) to a full Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine, mixed spirit drink, and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with an existing full service restaurant (Thomas's Family Dining) at 33971 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 33, which properly is zoned C-2 and P, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-11-02-29, as revised, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That condition #6 of Council Resolution #48-07 which reads, "That this waiver is granted for the sale of beer and July 17, 2012 25242 wine only, for the consumption on the premises, and shall not include mixed spirit drink or spirits as defined under the Michigan Liquor Control Code" shall be removed; 2. That the use of a full Class C liquor license at this location shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the Zoning Ordinance standard set forth in Section 11.03(h)(1) requiring that there be at least a one thousand feet (1000') separation between Class C licensed establishments is waived by the City Council; and 3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #48-07, which granted approval to utilize a Class C liquor license, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the use of a full Class C liquor license at this location complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed license; and 3. That the utilization of the proposed license is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. July 17, 2012 25243 ITEM #2 PETITION 2012-06-01-03 WEST BAY Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 06-01-03 submitted by West Bay Exploration/Livonia Land Partnership pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the properly at 19540 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, from PO (High Rise Professional Office) to C-2 (General Business). Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone property that is on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road. It is just west of the 1-275/1-96 Expressway, It is a portion of a parcel that lies immediately south of the Costco Wholesale store off of Haggerty Road. The parcel altogether is about 6.35 acres in area. The petition is requesting that about 1.27 acres of that 6.35 acre parcel be rezoned from its current classification of PO, High Rise Professional Office, to C-2, General Business. The property's dimensions are about 242 feet in an east -west direction by approximately 229 feel in a north -south direction. The remnant parcel, assuming that this is rezoned and split off, would be about 5 acres in size and would remain vacant under the PO category. Costco Wholesale is directly to the north of this properly which is zoned C-2. The expressway is immediately to the east. To the south is property owned by West Bay Exploration, and is the site of two oil wells. To the west, zoned Research -Engineering, is the site of the Haggerty Tech Center. The proposed rezoning would allow the site to be added to the Costco property to the north for the future development of a gas station. We do have some conceptual plans. I wont gel into the details of that plan. That's something that would have to be submitted back to the Planning Commission and the City Council for ultimate approval. I will tell you that the facility would operate in a similar fashion to the one that exists on Middlebelt Road. Plans are still being put together for that, and assuming that the rezoning moves forward, the waiver use would be submitted. I will also point out one correction to our maps. You'll note that it says Phillips Road to the north of the site. That does not exist. That area has been vacated. It's all part of properly owned by West Bay, Costco and the owner of the Haggerty Tech Center. That is not correctly shown on the maps. Please disregard that as part of the information submitted in your packet. We have updated surveys that were submitted that shows precisely how that area exists today running along the east -west quarter section at that point. Thank you. July 17, 2012 25244 Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated June 26, 2012, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced rezoning request. The written legal description for the specific area to be rezoned is correct. The address of the parcel containing this area to be rezoned is confirmed to be 19540 Haggerty Road. Then= is a 124nch diameter, public sanitary sewer which runs parallel to the west boundary of the area to be rezoned. There are no public storm or sanitary sewers traversing this area to be rezoned. The petitioner is hereby notiired (via copy of this correspondence) that any site changes which would impact public utilities, road right-of-way, easements, or changes in storm or sanitary sewer volumes must be approved by the Engineering Division of Public works. Should this project proceed, it is important that the developer's architect/engineer address storm water drainage changes as a result of these site changes, to ensure that there is no negative drainage impact to any property." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Taylor: Where this station is going is next to where they bring the oil in and ship it out. Is there any problem with safety? Have we heard anything from the Fire Department on whether there's a problem putting a gas station there? Mr. Taormina: They have not reviewed the specifics of the plans. This map will give you a general sense of the separation that would exist between the two facilities. You have the oil wells that exist here. There is a few hundred feel between what would be the edge of that property, which actually contains a berm. Then you have the road, then you have some of the facilities, then a couple hundred feel extends all the way to what would be the edge of the pavement where vehicles would circulate around after using the fueling facility. Then you have another 100 feet to the actual pump. You have what would be several hundred feet between the two facilities. That will all be looked at, but I can't imagine there would be any significant safety issues because of the proximity between the two operations. Of course, they'd have to provide all the necessary suppression and protection facilities at this new fueling system, just like they do at the oil wells. July 17, 2012 25245 Mr. Taylor: The other thing I noticed when I was there was that the property seems to be very low. I know they can fill it in. We're just talking aboulzoning now, I know/ Mr. Taormina: That is correct. I don't know about the actual grade changes that are necessary. You're right. There is a low area here. How many feet this area has to be built up in order to accommodate the gas station I don't know. Mr. Jonna can speak to this. There have been environmental studies on the property. So he is aware of any constraints that may affect the property in that regard, but I think other than just soil erosion control, best practices in that respect, I don't think there would be any major issues with the fill in operations Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mark. Ms. Smiley: Right now, Mark, hat vacated road is really the entrance into U- M, that driveway. You can also get to Costco from it. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. That's all part of the shared parking facilities between those users to the north. Ms. Smiley: And that right now is two lanes. I'm assuming that would be changed dramatically. Mr. Taormina: No, not necessarily. It would probably remain with similar geometncs as today. There is going to be some changes as to how the traffic flow occurs between the Costco parking area and the new gas station and some driveways coming in and out between the two. We're going to be looking at some future connections with this parcel to the west and to the south. But as it relates to that driveway that you're referring to that runs along the south side of the University of Michigan facility, I dont know that there's going to be any significant changes to that driveway, but I'll lel Mr. Jonna answer that question to see if he's contemplating any changes to that. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: These are all good questions, but if we could just confine it to zoning tonight, and we'll gel all the detail should this move forward. Anything else? Seeing none, Mr. Jonna, we'll need your name and address for the record. Frank Jonna, Jonna Company, 39533 North Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304. I'm here on behalf of West Bay Fxploraton/Livonia Land. Mark's done a great job describing the intent of the project. The parcel has been legally described and would be July 17, 2012 25246 added to the similar zoning to the north. With respect to site planning, that is being done directly by Costco. I will tell you that in the agreement that has been crafted, there is cross access agreements and separate drainage proposed for the fuel operation. If you look at that dotted area, all the fuel drainage will be directed away from the fuel operation and that will go into that dotted area that is a retained parcel by Livonia Land. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: Do you intend to change the zoning on any of the land? Mr. Jorma : We looked at the possibility of rezoning all of it. It seemed like it made more sense to wait until we see what the use would be before we came back with a rezoning request for that. If you may recall, we were here with a hotel proposal at one point, and I think that's still a potential viable use, but we don't have anything brewing at this time. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Jonna, are you representing West Bay? Mr. Jonna: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Who owns the land? Does West Bay own the land? Mr. Jonna: Yes, Livonia Land is owned by West Bay Exploration, Mr. Morrow: That was done al the time of the oil well. Mr. Jorma : Correct. We had owned R. We sold it to what became Livonia Land. Mr. Morrow: You're interceding here tonight for West Bay. Mr. Jonna: Correct. I'm acting in a developer role facilitating the rezoning, and we actually have a role in the construction preparation of the project. Mr. Morrow: You will be involved with the project. Mr. Jonna: Yes. Not through the actual vertical component of it, but all of the horizontal and entitlement portions. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. July 17, 2012 25247 Mr. W lshaw: Is there going to have to be some excavating done on that site to prepare it for commercial use? It's kind of a large hill right now. Mr. Jonna: Yes. The typography goes at the high point from the point up there down to a low point. The facility will match the grade of the existing Costco parking lot which will still put it several feet below the existing Haggerty Tech property. Its fairly obscured from view, and it is a members only operation. One of the things they like to see is proximity to their front door so that people can see the operation. But yes, there will be earth moving operations required. Part of it will be creating, as Engineering suggested, a new stonnwater management system. Mr. Wilshaw: That's the piece of it that you're going to focus on, right? Mr. Jorma : Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any olherquestions or comments? Mr. Taylor: Mr. Jonna, the hotel property, was that to the south of the oil well? Mr. Jonna: See the words "out ot?" Thal was the intent to put the hotel right up along the freeway. Mr. Taylor: So that's gone by the wayside, more or less. Mr. Jonna: With the layout, that properly will still be a potential viable location for a hotel. Mr. Taylor: Oh. You could still do that? Mr. Jonna: Yes. There will be an access road that will go parallel to the south line of the new parcel and feed up into the area where the outlot is. You see that future roadway note there? It's not going to be part of this project, but easements will be put in place to protect the remainder parcels. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. July 17, 2012 25248 On a mot on by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-66-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 17, 2012, on Petition 2012-06-01-03 submitted by West Bay Exploration/Livonia Land Partnership pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 19540 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, from PO to 62, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-06-01-03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That C-2 zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That C-2 zoning would allow the site to be added to the Costco property to the north for the future development of a gas station; and 3. That C-2 zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,026'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,026'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 26, 2012. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-67-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,026th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2012, are hereby approved. July 17, 2012 25249 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Wilshaw, Smiley, Krueger, Taylor, Smiley, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Bahr ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,027'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 17, 2012, was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman