HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2012-05-08MINUTES OF THE 1,024TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 1,024P 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: Scott P. Bahr R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel
Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: Ashley V. Krueger
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs 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 PETMON 2012-04-02-08 RED OLIVE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefifion 2012-04-
02-08 submitted by Panos II Foods, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(h) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class C liquor
license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the
premises) in connection with an existing full service restaurant
(Red Olive) at 33326 Plymouth Road within the Fountain Park
Plaza retail center, located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
May 8, 2012
25107
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to utilize a Class C liquor license in connection
with an existing full service restaurant. The location is on the
north side of Plymouth Road just east of Farmington Road. This
is the Fountain Park Plaza. Fountain Park altogether is a
planned development that consists of five commercial buildings
all with frontage along Plymouth Road and a complex of 10
condominium buildings to the north. In terms of the commercial
part of the development, right at the corner of Plymouth and
Farmington Roads is a Dollar Tree, and then remaining four
buildings moving from west to east include Retail Building "B",
which is a 12,639 square foot building. The Red Olive is
situated in this building. There are seven tenants within that
building, including Biggby Coffee, the Red Olive Restaurant, Zip
Tanz, Check Smart, BoRics, RJ Ice Cream & Pie, and Jimmy
Johns Sandwiches. The next building immediately to the east is
referred to as Retail Building "A" and that is about a 5,287
square foot building and contains two tenants, including Las
Palapas Restaurant and Wild Bill's Tobacco store. Moving
further to the east are two branch bank buildings, including the
Fifth Third Bank and a TCF Bank. Red Olive occupies a 3,057
square fool unit within Retail Building "B: This unit has about 37
feel of frontage on the building. Its located immediately east of
the end unit which is occupied by Biggby Coffee. This same
tenant space was originally built as a Honey Tree Restaurant,
for which waiver use approval was granted in 2006. Approval of
the original waiver use was conditioned on there being a limit of
106 customer seats. With this petition there are no plans to
increase the seating count in connection with the proposed
Class C Liquor License. Class C licenses are allowed as a
waiver use under Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Again, this license will allow the petitioner to sell beer, wine and
other types of liquor and spirits for consumption on the
premises. Section 11.03(h)(1) of the ordinance specifies that
any proposed Class C licensed establishment shall not be
located within 1,000 feel of any existing Class C licensed
establishment. This would not comply with that provision.
There are two existing Class C licensed businesses within 1,000
feet of the Red Olive Restaurant. Those include Las Palapas,
which is in Retail Building "A" at a distance of approximately 160
feet, and Slinger's Bar and Grill. I'll refer to the map that I
presented to the Planning Commission this evening and try to
zoom in on the area and show you the concentration of licenses
in this particular area of Plymouth Road. The proposed license
is identified on the map as B. Number 12 identified on the map
refers to Las Palapas. The next closest is Slinger's which is
identified on the map as 11. Other licenses within this vicinity
include 9 and 10 on the map, which are Woodland Lanes and
May 8, 2012
25108
Buddy's Pizza. With that I'll answer any questions, Mr.
Chairman. Otherwise, I'll go to the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Let's go righttothe correspondence.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 30, 2012, which
reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced waiver
use request. The written legal description provided with the
request adequately describes the premises. The address for
this site is confirmed to be 33326 Plymouth Road. Via copy of
this correspondence, the petitioner is hereby notified (for
informational purposes) that City Ordinance No. 13.20.380
addresses the discharge of Fats, Oils and Grease into City
sanitary sewers. The Ordinance prohibits the discharge of
these items in excess of 100 parts per million, unless prior
approval is received from the Director of Public Works." The
letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated April 17, 2012, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the plans for approving this petition to utilize
a Class C liquor license in connection to a full service restaurant
located at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections
to this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
April 11, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the
plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated May 8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the above-refemnced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. The petitioner is located closer than 1,000
feet to another Class C establishment This requirement may
be waived by Council. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? I see none. Would the
petitioner come forward? We will need your name and address
for the record please.
Enrico E. Soave, Kucyk, Soave and Fernandes, P.L.L.C., 37771 Seven Mile
Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening, everyone. Red
Olive would like to utilize a Class C License al this location in an
effort to become more competitive and to increase the dinner
rush and evening sales. They have no plans to add any more
May 8, 2012
25109
sealing here. They have no plans to add a bar. This would be
a service bar accessible only to the Red Olive's staff and
employees. Additionally, the hours will vary slightly to close at
10:00 p.m. I'd like to answer any further questions.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Soave?
Ms. Smiley: You said the hours will varyto closing at 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Soave: Right now they close at 9:00 p.m.
Ms. Smiley: Monday through Thursday, right?
Mr. Soave: And the weekends too, Friday and Saturday. So if this was
approved, they would bump it up to 10:00 p.m. to allow an extra
hour for increased business.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
I have a little bit of a problem with this because of the 22
licenses that we have from Newburgh to Inkster in Livonia.
You're telling me that he's not going to put a bar in per se
though.
Mr. Soave:
Correct. There are no immediate plans to put a bar in there.
Right now it's only seating. The bar would not be accessible to
patrons. The bar would be in service area adjacent to the
kitchen. So you won't be able to walk up, sit down and the
bartender come and ask what would you like this evening.
Everything would be ordered via the wail staff.
Mr. Taylor:
And that's a plus. I can maybe support it because there is no
bar in there and it's really an ancillary use to the food. If it were
a bar, I would definitely vote against it, but I'm leading toward
supporting it. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, RJ's, the ice cream place is closed now, right?
Mr. Taormina:
I was not aware of that.
Ms. Smiley:
Well, it is. I just was up there not loo long ago. That's closed
and there's a smokers on the other side of Las Palapas and
that's open.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
Is there another vacancy in there?
May 8, 2012
25110
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure if the check cashing place is sell open.
Ms. Smiley:
Check Smart. Icouldn'ttell.
Mr. Taormina:
If that's still open then I think the only vacancy might be the
RJ's, which I was not aware of.
Ms. Smiley:
Well, that didn't look like it would be a restaurant other than an
ice cream place. It's not that big, is il?
Mr. Taormina:
It was approved as a Slucchi's Ice Cream originally. I would
have to go back and take a look. It is conceivable, if it was
approved as a limited service restaurant, that there could be an
opportunity for a similar type use to move in there.
Ms. Smiley:
But it's not nearly as big as Las Palapas or Red Olive?
Mr. Taormina:
No, the space itself is probably only a single unit. I think Red
Olive is a double unit whereas Stucchi's was only at the most a
20 fool unit.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Soave, would your client be willing to enter into a conditional
agreement that this Class C license would be just for your
business only so that if for some reason Red Olive was to leave
and another restaurant come in there, they would have to come
in front of the City Council again for approval before getting a
Class C License?
Mr. Soave:
I explored that and disclosed that to my client before tonight's
meeting, and yes, they would be amenable to entering an
agreement of such. Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
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 the Commission
for a motion.
On a motion by
Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0542-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2012, on
Petition 2012-04-02-08 submitted by Panos 11 Foods, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(h) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
May 8, 2012
25111
utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for
consumption on the premises) in connection with an existing full
service restaurant (Red Olive) at 33326 Plymouth Road within
the Fountain Park Plaza retail center, located on the north side
of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield
Avenue in the Southwest 114 of Section 27, which property is
zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2012-04-02-08 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the use of a Class C 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 1,000 fool separation
between Class C licensed establishments is waived by the
City Council;
2. That no alcoholic beverages shall be served after 10:00
p.m.;
3. That the petitioner shall not engage in any form of
solicitation for business within the public right-of-way of
Plymouth Road;
4. That the petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement
limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision
to extend this waiver use to a new user only upon the
approval of the new user by the City Council; and
5. 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.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
May 8, 2012
25112
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, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2012-04-02-09 TONY'S KITCHEN
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
04-02-09 submitted by ADI Management L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct an
outdoor dining patio and add seats in connection with an
existing full service restaurant (Tony's Kitchen, aka Dee Dee's)
at 34110 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina: This request involves changes to a previously approved site
plan and waiver use. It involves construction of an outdoor
dining patio area and a request to add customer seats to an
existing full service restaurant. It is currently a Dee Dee's
restaurant, although it recently closed. The restaurant is under
new ownership and will change its name to Tony's Kitchen.
This site has a long history of other eateries being located here,
including originally a Burger Chef, Hardees, and a Legacy
Coney Island, which was approved in 1998. The current
configuration of the site is based on the approvals that look
place in 1998 with the Legacy Coney Island. After that, it
became a Grecian Garden and most recently a Dee Dee's. The
property is on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road. The site is a little over one
acre in size. It has about 160 feel of frontage on Plymouth
Road and a depth of 288 feel. The property is zoned C-2,
General Business. The aerial photograph shows the location of
the property in relationship to the surrounding properties and
adjacent land uses. Immediately to the west is the Zerbo's
Health Food store, which is also zoned C-2, General Business.
Lying to the north and to the east is a paroel that is currently
vacant, further to the east of that is the Social Security
Administration building, and across Plymouth Road are a variety
of commeroial uses. One of the conditions of approval back in
1998 as part of the Legacy Coney Island approval was that the
May 8, 2012
25113
seating be limited to 124. There is a detail provided in your
packet that shows the sealing plan as it currently exists with a
total of 147 seats. The proposed plan for Tony's Kitchen would
actually lower the interior seating to 138, although it would still
be a few seals more than what was approved in 1998. Then
they would add 48 outdoor patio seats, bringing the total up to
186. In terms of parking, what is required under the ordinance
is one parking space for every two interior seats, one parking
space for every three outdoor patio seals and then one space
for each employee. That brings the total requirement up to 95
parking spaces. The site plan provides for a total of 81 striped
spaces, which creates a deficiency of 14 parking spaces. Thus,
the petitioner will be required to obtain a variance unless he can
acquire additional property to either construct or landbank the
additional 14 parking spaces. The site plan illustrates that
additional parking could be created by expanding the rear
section of the existing parking lot to the north, and banked
parking is allowed pursuant to Section 18.370) of the ordinance.
The pato would be constructed in front of the restaurant,
between the building and the public sidewalk along Plymouth
Road. This area currently consists of landscaping. Most of the
landscape area would be removed and replaced with concrete.
The percentage of landscaping for the total site would decrease
to about 11 percent. The patio would measure about 24 feet in
width by 26 feel in length for a total area of roughly 625 square
feel. It would be enclosed by a 42 -inch high decorative metal
fence. Access to the patio would be provided by means of a
proposed door that would be located on the front elevation of
the restaurant. This is how the seating plan exists today with
147 seats. Along the south wall of the restaurant, the wall
facing Plymouth Road, booths line up entirely along that wall.
The new seating plan shows a few of the booths removed in
order to allow for a new access point from the seating area out
to the patio area. Then the seating area essentially remains the
same. This is the balance of the building showing the kitchen
areas and restrooms and all of the other accessory type of
operations that occur there. Back to the site plan, there are a
few changes with respect to that. They are showing a slight
modification to the entry way. The east drive coming into the
site is identified as "enter only". However, it's really wide
enough to function as two way traffic, but it serves primarily as
an entrance. Angled parking is directly in front. As patrons pull
into this driveway, they're immediately confronted by vehicles
that are parked here, which includes the barrier -free spaces,
because the main entrance to the restaurant is located on the
east side of the building. In order to gel the flow of traffic a little
further away from those parked cars, they're proposing to add a
landscape island in the southeast corner of the building just east
May 8, 2012
25114
of the proposed patio. They would actually remove some of the
landscaping on the opposite side of the aisle way and add a
couple parking spaces, thus opening up this driveway to really
force vehicles to the island which is shifted slightly to the east.
Then the circulation pattern is basically from east to west in a
counterclockwise direction. There is a drive -up that exists on
the west side of the building. They are removing some very
small landscape islands here on the west side and replacing
those with a couple of parking spaces, but even with the
changes, the four additional spaces, they still don't meet the
total required parking for the site and would have to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a rendering showing what the
building will look like after it's completed. It will undergo a
complete color change. I'll lel Mr. Tiseo describe that. This is a
depiction of the sign. They'll have to relocate the sign a little bit
closer to the Plymouth Road right-of-way. With the construction
of the patio, that sign will require a variance. I think the plan
shows it as its closest point, six feet to the right-of-way of
Plymouth Road, whereas the ordinance requires a minimum
setback of ten feet. This is the aluminum plaid fencing that
they're proposing along the perimeter of the patio. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to read out the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 27, 2012, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use request.
The written legal description on the plan does not agree with the
drawn property boundaries. The written description on file with
the City also varies from the descriptions on the plans. These
are minor discrepancies, and the restaurant location is
adequately described for the purposes of this waiver use
request. The address for this site is confirmed to be 34110
Plymouth Road. Via copy of this comespondence, the petitioner
is hereby notified (for informational purposes) that City
Ordinance No. 13.20.380 addresses the discharge of Fats, Oils
and Grease into City sanitary sewers. The Ordinance prohibits
the discharge of these items in excess of 100 parts per million,
unless prior approval is received from the Director of Public
Works. The petitioner is hereby notified (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
May 8, 2012
25115
changes, to ensure that them is no negative drainage impact to
any property." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E.,
Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 23, 2012, which reads as
follows: `Concerning the proposed Petition 2012-04-02-09 for
outdoor seating at Tony's Kitchen Restaurant, 1 have no
objection. For Petition 2012-04-02-10, the liquor license is code
compliant with this, existing assembly occupancy, but my issue
is that the occupancy load is well over 100 persons. If this were
built today, it would require an automatic fire sprinkler system. If
Tony's Kitchen Restaurant ever wishes to have live
entertainment, this building must have an automatic fire
sprinkler system. The judgment of people that are drinking liquor
can be compromised in a panic situation. All other Life Safety
Systems that am required must be maintained in proper working
order." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 20,
2012, which reads as follows: 7 have reviewed the plans in
connection with the petitions. I have no objections to the
proposal for either the outside dining or the liquor license issue."
The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May
8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) A zoning compliance permit and inspections are
required for the new occupant. (2) Existing window signage
exceeds the maximum ten square feet that is allowed. Excess
window signage shall be removed or a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess
signage. (3) Any additional signage or changes to existing
signage must meet the requirements of the sign ordinance and
require a permit. (4) All parking spaces are required to be a
minimum of 10 feet by 20 feet and double striped. (5) All barrier
free parking spaces must be property sized, signed and striped.
(6) The proposed outdoor seating area must meet the barrier
free requirements. This will be addressed at the time of our plan
review if this project moves forward. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Taylor: Through the chair to Mark Taormina, did the Plymouth Road
Development Authority see this plan?
Mr. Taormina: Unfortunately, they have not. The plans were submitted after
their last scheduled meeting. They don't meet until the third
May 8, 2012
25116
Thursday of this month, so we will probably have to take this
before the Executive Committee prior to final vote by the
Council. But unfortunately, Mr. Taylor, they did not have a
chance to review this before tonight's meeting.
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions of Mr. Taormina? Seeing none, is
the petitioners representative here this evening? We will need
your name and address for the record please.
Ben Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan
48152. Thank you again. I did want to stale that we do now
have the cored legal description. Information that I received
was that the legal description was from the original property in
1998, and unbeknownst to me that they sold off a part of the
back. That was never conveyed to me and that actually was
forwarded to me from the attorney. So we do have the legal
description correctly now on the site plan. One of the issues
that has come up is the parking issue. Again, I was unaware
that we were restricted by the 124 seals and that they actually
had modified the number of seals in the existing restaurant. My
understanding is that there has not been any sealing or parking
problem at that location as it exists today, even though they did
have approximately 20 additional seats than was approved in
1998. One of the things that the owner is exploring is the
landbank. Now we found out that we do not have the property
sufficiently behind us to accommodate the Iandbanking spaces.
The owner is pursuing two different options. One, he's
contacted that owner to purchase the 12 feet up to the right-of-
way line of that storm sewer and to use that as a landbank area.
That way he would own the property. The other one is he's also
talking to the owner of Zerbo's to landbank property on their site
to put parking spaces there as well. So that's also being
pursued. I wish I had a more definitive answer for that, but
unfortunately time has not allowed them to work out all the
details. The owner is here. He can address that and lel you
know what stage the discussion is at. Also, I did want to point
out one thing about the parking. I understand the ordinance and
the count. Remember the patio sealing is seasonal, so this will
only be used about three, possibly four, months out of the year.
It obviously would not be used during the winter months. We're
not going to have a canopy over the whole area, so the parking
becomes an issue if it is would be for the short time frame in a
year. As previously requested, you did ask for the existing floor
plan and I did forward that to you, as well as the colors. The
owner, again, if you have some questions on that, he can
address those as well as the ground signage The other thing
May 8, 2012
25117
that was discussed was the waiver for the 65 foot setback on
the seating as well. If this is approved, tonight we would ask
that we be on the May 14 Council agenda if we have to waiver
any time period on it. With that, I'll open up to any questions
and the owner can I'm sure answer whatever you have.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Scheel:
Good evening. Can you tell me what the hours of operation is
going to be for inside as well as outside for the patio/
Mr. Tiseo:
I'll have to defer that to the owner.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. We'll need your name and address before you respond.
Anthony C. Isa, ADA Management, L.L.C., 34036 Parkdale, Livonia, Michigan
48150. That's my residence.
Mr. Morrow: Thankyou
Mr. Isa: The hours will be 6:00 a.m. and I'm trying to make the decision
between 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. Ten is probably the direction
I'm thinking about going. Does that answer your question?
Ms. Scheel: Is that Monday through Friday or Monday through Thursday,
different hours Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?
Mr. Isa:
I was torn with that.
Ms. Scheel:
But that general area, so no later than 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m.
at night?
Mr. Isa:
Yes. That's it.
Ms. Scheel:
What about any extra lighting outside in the patio area?
Mr. Isa:
The current lighting is pretty good. I don't think that there would
be much more lighting necessary. I was thinking in times when
it was a little colder, I'd have those heal lamps, the ones that
you see as towers, but as far as extra lighting, I dont think that
anything is necessary at this point.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. And what about outdoor speakers
Mr. Isa:
We had talked about that. There is some outdoor speakers in
the entryway as you walk in, but I was thinking about the music
in the restaurant, that volume of music being out for the patio
accessible.
May 8, 2012
25118
Ms. Scheel: But you would not be adding any additonal outdoor speakers
than what is currently?
Mr. Isa: For the patio area, I dont know if there's any out at that spot
currently, but there would probably be requesting if allowed one
speaker to just give a little bit of an ambiance for that and,
again, no volume higher than what is currently being used inside
the restaurant, which as you know, in a restaurant you don't
want that to be what you're hearing. You want that to become
part of the background, if that makes sense.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: It makes sense to me
Mr. W lshaw:
Mr. Isa, can you tell us a little bit about your restaurant. What is
Tony's Kitchen and what are you going to serve and how is that
going to work?
Mr. Isa:
Okay. Thank you for asking. Opening up at 6:00 a.m. I'll be
serving breakfast until 11:00, at which time there will be a new
lunch and dinner menu proposed. That will be consisting of a
casual dining atmosphere. Pizza, brick oven fired pizza, pastas,
salads, sandwiches, steaks, some seafood dishes, and then
some appetizers as well.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And your background in the restaurant business is what?
Mr. Isa:
I've owned three restaurants in my lifetime, as well as the last
10 years I've been the General Manager for TGI Fridays. Three
of their locations. The one in Southfield, the one in Troy and the
one in Brighton. My last was running both the one in Troy and
Brighton at the same time.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So you have quite a bit of experience in the restaurant industry.
Mr. Isa:
Yes, sir.
Mr. W Ishaw:
Do you own this property?
Mr. Isa:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Its not a contingent offer? You've already bought it?
Mr. Isa:
Its purchased.
May 8, 2012
25119
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. You plan on continuing to use the drive-thru
that's currently in the restaurant?
Mr. Isa: Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: How is that going to work?
Mr. Isa: First, thinking about pizza, as a guy who likes to relax and not
have to work real hard, driving lhru picking up a pizza and going
home, a limited menu to offer, not the full ... my predecessor
had 190 menu items. I'm only going to have 50, 55, 60, like at
most. So limit that menu to about 30 easily moving items that
they can order. I prefer hopefully to teach the clientele to order
ahead of time on the phone and then just drive through, but
there will be a limited menu on that board.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So that will serve not only people who are maybe on
their lunch hour trying to pick up something and go back to the
office, but also people on their way home for work will pick
something up and go home.
Mr. Isa:
Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That sounds good. The color that you're going to have
the building ... you provided us a rendering which shows a sort
of a dark red color. Is that a fairly accurate representation of the
color or do you have chips that you can provide us?
Mr. Isa:
That is fairy accurate, I believe.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sometimes the computer doesn't print the color quite right.
Mr. Isa:
That is fairly accurate. Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Isa:
Do you have the copies in front of you?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes.
Mr. Isa:
Okay. That's a little hard to see on the screen. This is more of
a crisp look to it. I would say its very close.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sort of a brick red color on the awning and then maybe a little
lighter on the bands of color?
Mr. Isa:
The bands and the trim up top are the burnt orange.
Mr. Taylor: Are you in this by yourself or do you have a partner or a wife?
Mr. Isa: That's my partner right there. My better half if you will.
May 8, 2012
25120
Mr. Wilshaw:
Let's see if I have any other questions for you. I assume the
grease trap and garbage as so on will be handled the same way
as the previous restaurant was handled?
Mr. Isa:
Actually, probable, at the risk of sounding, actually probably a
little better to be honest with you. Looking at the structure and
the setup, I will be getting dumped twice a week as opposed to
once on the trash, and I'll have a timetable set for the grease
trap.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Do you store it internally in the restaurant and then someone
comes and empties it?
Mr. Isa:
There is a unit that he was leaving out by the grease trap. I am
looking into two options. One, having it attached to the building
in a more upright piece or having just a different setup, a
cleaner setup, so it's not grease all over the place and it doesn t
bring rodents and such.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
There's been five different restaurants in here. How are you
going to change things to where you think that you're going to
do business there? God love you for coming in and giving it a
shot. What are you going to do different?
Mr. Isa:
A couple things. One, customer service is number one and
understanding hospitality is what I've done my whole life,
whether it be owning a restaurant that seats 72 that sits way off
as a former house that was very successful, or opening up a
couple new concepts. Understanding the importance of
hospitality and making sure people understand its their place.
Its not just mine. And then food quality. The previous owner
had originally 320 menu items. I refer to that because execution
of something so vast is impossible, and as far as freshness as
well. So then he trimmed it down to 190. Again, I'm only going
to do 55. Plus my 20 years of experience I think lends to the
ability to execute and know what right looks like. Lastly, I'm
bringing a brick oven fired pizza that is growing in status in
society. It's a healthier option. I dont want to be referred to as
healthier, but it is a delicious concept as opposed to a greasier
P=a that comes out of a conveyor. That's more unique than
other concepts. We'll leave it at that. So I think that will also
lend to R.
Mr. Taylor: Are you in this by yourself or do you have a partner or a wife?
Mr. Isa: That's my partner right there. My better half if you will.
May 8, 2012
25121
Mr. Taylor: Okay. You live in the area I understand
Mr. Isa:
I live 400 yards from the unit, approximately. I'm right being the
plaza that's across the street that has the coney island. So on a
strong day I could tee it up and probably hit a driver right to my
house.
Mr. Taylor:
So you're going to be there quite a bit.
Mr. Isa:
I plan on living there. She's already agreed to it.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions of the petitioner? Mark, on this
deficiency in parking. Do you have any comments on that? Is
there any type of waiver from the ZBA or will he have to start
purchasing land or get cross parking?
Mr. Taormina:
No. I think his best bel is to go before the Zoning Board of
Appeals and secure a variance. I think it will be important for
them to note how the parking, as it exists today, is adequate to
serve the facility; that the outdoor dining patio really is not
intended to bring additional patrons to the site as much as it is
to offer that as a seating option during seasonal times. Also, if
they are able to secure a liquor license, that the intent is not
necessarily to draw more people than would otherwise come to
a very successful family style restaurant, that it's just another
option for his patrons. A parking problem here would be a good
thing the way I see it. Yet, I'm not too worried about it. I don't
know that I've ever seen that parking lot completely full on a
normal business day. I hope that he does find himself in a
situation where people have to turn around a couple times and
maybe go elsewhere. If they have to, then that means he's
successful.
Mr. Morrow: I concur with what you're saying. I just didn't want him starting
to . . . he showed good faith by perhaps buying additional
property or working with a cross parking agreement. I'd like to
see him exhaust the waiver for the ZBA before he starts either
of those two approaches. But we appreciate the fad that you're
willing to make that effort. As Mr. Taormina said, I think a
parking situation over there would be a good thing. We'd like to
see that restaurant stabilized and you as a successful owner of
that.
Mr. Taormina: Just to add a litlle bit further to that. I dont know that if he goes
to an adjoining business and is able to work out a lease deal, for
May 8, 2012
25122
example, the property owner to the west. While they may not
have a surplus amount of parking to avoid the need for him to
go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, it would certainly help during
his peak hours of operation, which would not necessarily
overlap with that business's peak hours of operation. If he's
able to do that, then that could work as well if he secures some
kind of a parking easement.
Mr. Morrow: Did you follow that?
Mr. Isa: Yes. I'll pursue that as well.
Mr. Morrow: Hopefully, you can work something out so it's not loo expensive
to accomplish that feat.
Mr. Isa: Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: I just want to understand. In the prepared resolution, there is
reference to banked parking. It doesn't look like this plan will
have any banked parking as it stands now. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. This was new information. Unfortunately, we
did not update the resolution in time.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any more comments before I go to the audience? Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Sir, we'll need your name
and address for the record please.
Dan Sollars, 11608 Stark Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I own the properly
right behind Zerbo's and Pro Cam Video, which is 11608 Stark
Road. I'm here with some of my neighbors. I am definitely
opposed to any type of outdoor seating. Okay? I do appreciate
the fact that it is along Plymouth Road. I am concerned about
noise, speakers and lighting. I can tell you that when I bought
my property, the reason I bought it was, I walked into the
backyard. Its very serene. There's a woods behind our house,
behind all of our homes, and we appreciate that. We have deer,
rabbits, things like that back there. I have a couple dogs. If I
walk back there and I heard noises from a bar, I know my
property value is going to drop immediately. I'm definitely
opposed to that. I do have some questions about noise that
would occur through the dnve-thru intercom. Now, I can tell you
it hasn't been a problem in the past, but the previous restaurant
was never that busy. So I never had to deal with it. But I do
hear the intercom from Wendy's across the street, so I know
May 8, 2012
25123
that it can be an issue. Okay? I am definitely opposed to any
purchase of any land that goes farther behind the property into
the rural area, the woods area that is behind our property,
because, like I said once again, that's part of the draw for our
property values. We don't want that to go away. Mind you we
are right on Stark Road. So what we have is our backyards.
We have half to one acre lots and that's where our properly
value lies. So I'm sure that anything that affects that will drop
our property values immediately. Now, obviously I've lived next
to Zerbo's and Walters, which is now gone. And I've had a
working relationship with them as far as the fence. My fence
runs completely along their whole lot, and along the back where
they're talking about ... actually, their parking lot is back there.
There's a little piece of property that runs behind us and then
their parking lot is back there. So I can see their lights and their
parking lot from my property back there. So I'm absolutely
opposed to any more lighting back there or anything because
it's just not going to help by property value. As soon as I go to
sell or anything, they're just going to knock it down right away.
I'm a little confused about the sealing. When we're adding a
patio out front and from the drawing that I saw earlier, if I
counted the tables correctly, there were 12 tables at 4 seats a
table; that's 48 seats. That's 48 more people. That's a lot more
parking than what's needed now. If that place starts to get
busy, then there is a lot more parking that's going to be needed.
So I'm a little bit concerned about that, and I wonder where
those people are going to be parking. If they're going to be
parking over at Zerbo's late at night, I'm a little concerned with
that because Zerbo's is not open late at night. I already have
issues with them as far as snow plowing and knocking over my
fence and all that kind of stuff. Right. Overgrowth of bushes
and all that, but we're not here to talk about that today, but I'm
here to tell you that it is an issue. I have a real problem with
basically the outdoor seating. I don't have a problem with the
liquor license, but I dont want people outside. I don't want to
see more lights or more sound.
Mr. Morrow: Very fine presentation. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: If it is approved, there are two items: That there shall be no
outdoor speakers or sound equipment including televisions,
allowed at any time, and also that the light fixtures shall be
aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing
across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadways.
That's part of the resolution.
Mr. Sollars: I appreciate that. I understand. So nothing is going to be aimed
directly at my property. I understand that and I appreciate that,
May 8, 2012
25124
but you have to understand that when the lights come on at
nighttime, it lights up my backyard. I have a couple dogs. They
run around. I see people walking around there. There's people
that walk their dogs. People that walk up and down Plymouth
Road, walk behind there. I understand that some of that is
because of where I live and that's going to happen. There's
nothing I can do about that, but I certainly oppose anything
more than what's going on there right now outdoors, because I
know it will have an effect on my properly values without a
doubt.
Ms. Smiley:
Just for clarification, are you at 11608 Stark?
Mr. Sollars:
Yes, I am. Also, I have the other neighbors with me here,
11614 and 11628. Their properties back up to that woods
behind this property.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, who owns that RUF property back there?
Mr. Taormina:
Directly behind the subject property?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
West Second Street Associates. They were the developers of
the Social Security Administration building.
Ms. Smiley:
Well, @ is kind of land locked, isn't d?
Mr. Taormina:
No, it has frontage on Plymouth Road. The RUF portion?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
The parcel is not landlocked. The RUF is contiguous to the
commercial portion of that site that runs along Plymouth Road.
A large portion of that area was developed as part of the
stonnwaler retention system for the Social Security
Administration building, as well as whatever is developed on this
site. So you have commercial zoning here. Then this is the
area that was developed with the stonnwater retention basin.
Then I believe you have some wet lower areas adjacent to that,
what this gentleman has been referring to as the woods back
there. That's all part of the RUF zoning that you're talking about.
Ms. Smiley:
And that could be developed or not?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not going to say that it cant be developed.
Ms. Smiley:
Oh. Okay.
May 8, 2012
25125
Mr. Sollars:
Excuse me for interrupting. When we talk about additional
parking, we definitely do want nothing going further back into
that wooded area. Right? Because it goes farther behind our
properties.
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Chair, I think he's talking like 10 feet behind where it looks
like there's parking now. Is that what he's talking about?
Mr. Morrow:
I think he's talking about an additional 10 feel to the north. Is
that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
I'll lel Mr. Tiseo respond to that. I think he said 12 feel is what
would be needed in order to provide some additional parking in
the back.
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes. I believe that from the back from the existing curb today, I
believe we own about 12 feet or so. So we need an additional
12 feel to go beyond that to accommodate that extra row of
Iandbanked parking. We are not talking about going into the
wooded area. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
I have one more question. Wendy's is across the street, on the
other side of the street is Stark and on the corner of Plymouth.
Is that right?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions of the gentleman here?
Mr. Sollars:
If I may, I'd like to once again reiterate that I dont care if its only
10 feet. It's another additional row of parking and if they are
adding approximately 50 seats to the front of the building, and if
they are successful, which I hope they are, that parking lot is
going to be full. So I will be looking out the window at all those
cars and that's not what I want to do. If there is a way to create
some kind of barrier or something between us and them, then I
am all for that. I'm not opposed to them having a liquor license.
I am opposed to anything that affects the environment around
my property, light, sound or just the view. Right? That's what
I'm opposed to.
May 8, 2012
25126
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, I know there's a wooden fence behind Zerbo's and
whatever the new place is there on the corner. I thought there
was a hedgerow or something behind Dee Dee's property.
Mr. Taormina:
That's the line of trees, the south edge of the wood lot that runs
behind his property on the adjacent property.
Mr. Taylor:
Doesn't that shield you from any cars or lights?
Mr. Sollars:
Actually, I'm glad you brought that up. That is my wooden fence.
Okay? And behind my property, Zerbo's has raised the lot level
approximately two to three feel. They don't seem to want to
admit that but they have done that. So I can look out my
window and I can see ground almost level with my fence. If you
walk back there right now, you will see that the bottom of my
fence is two to three feel below grade because they've mised
that up. Additionally, they park cars back there. Okay? So
these are some of the reasons why I'm opposed to it because I
see how they stretch the limits because they're a commercial
property. They stretch the limits. Zerbo's is very successful.
They need more parking. They use whatever they can get.
Unfortunately, its in that property back there behind my house
and I don't like it. I don't say a lot about it, but it will be
addressed soon because my fence is deteriorating because it's
actually going underground because they mised their lot level
for their parking purposes. That's why I'm here today because I
don't want to see things go any farther than they already have.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, isn't there a fence or something required behind the
property and the RUF property? Right?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm going to show you two maps and switch back and forth
between them. This is the aerial photograph and this is the
zoning map. You'll see the commercial zoning extends a little
bit further to the north of the Tony's Kitchen properly. This
commercial zoning extends all the way back beyond this
gentleman's property. So actually, the Zerbo's site up to about
this point is all zoned C-2. The area that is immediately
adjacent to his rear property line is part of the Zerbo's property,
and that is zoned G2. The RUF zoning begins right about here.
Mr. Sollars:
Okay. So my question is, that little piece that's right behind my
property, the commercial property, right behind 11608, was
raised two to three feet and nobody asked me if that was okay.
So that water drains . and I don't want to bring this up
because this is a different issue, but it does drain. I have a
fence there that's buried in the dirt. I have to go back there and
dig it out myself, and not only that, but that drain runs behind
May 8, 2012
25127
11614 also. They have an issue with drainage back there too
because they filled that properly in to park cars back there. I
don't think that was ever brought up in front of anyone. They
just did it. So once again, when I come here, it's because I
don't want to see the boundary stretched any further because
R's affecting my properly value.
Mr. Taylor:
Well, you're right sir. What you're saying is, it is affecting your
property. This particular item is not really affecting your
property except it might add to your aggravation. Have you ever
gone to the Engineering Department and found out if its below
grade or if your properly is below grade? Have you ever called
the City for that?
Mr. Sollars:
Well, I haven't gone to the Engineering Department but I have
had inspectors over there and I had an agreement with Zerbo's
regarding the fence that's between us and them. I never had an
issue with Walters. But with Zerbos, I did have an agreement.
We signed it and the Iasi time they wanted me to sign one for
five years, and I said, I'm not going to sign it. Recently, they
came and fixed part of my fence because they destroyed it
during the winter with their plowing and sluff like that. Those
things probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't raised
their parking lot. But no, I haven't gone to the Engineering
Department. No.
Mr. Taylor:
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we're getting off the subject here on
this particular item.
Mr. Morrow:
I agree.
Mr. Taylor:
And if he goes to the Engineering Department, I think he could
gel some relief. I'm not sure but I'm sure there should be
something there.
Mr. Sollars:
I appreciate that and I'm sorry that this went in that direction.
But I still am adamant as far as lighting, sounds and all those
things regarding the issue we have in front of us.
Mr. Morrow:
I think Mrs. Scheel has a question.
Ms. Scheel:
Actually, I'm all set. What Mark showed us answered my
question.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. If there's nothing else, is there anyone wishing to speak
for or against the granting of this petition? I see a lady coming
forward. We'll need your name and address for the record.
May 8, 2012
25128
Barbara McEwen, 34101 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Our
residental address is in Florida. We are owners of Plymouth
Roadhouse, the bar that's directly across the street from that
business. My husband, who is the owner, was not able to be
here tonight and he's drafted a letter. I was wondering if it could
be put on record, and I would like to be able to read that.
Mr. Morrow:
That would be fine.
Ms. McEwen:
Okay. "Having conducted business in Livonia since 1980, 1 wish
to express an opinion ....
Mr. Morrow:
Ma'am, just a moment. Does this have to do with the liquor
license?
Ms. McEwen:
And the fact that its going to be outdoor seafing and a
restaurant.
Mr. Morrow:
I wanted to make sure we weren't talking about something that
wasn't germane to this. As long as it covers both items,
particularly the one we're on now, the outdoor seating.
Ms. McEwen:
I wasn't aware there was any outdoor seating. Nothing was
ever sent in the Iefter that I got that said anything about outdoor
sealing. So, I didn't even know until tonight that that was an
issue. The only thing that's mentioned in here is the heavy
congeston of traffic on Plymouth Road. That's the only thing
that's mentioned in the letter that would have anything to do with
the outdoor seating.
Mr. Morrow:
How does the letter read?
Ms. McEwen:
As far as the traffic issue?
Mr. Morrow:
Well, no. I mean you're responding to something. What did you
receive that caused you to write this letter? Mark, can you shed
any light on that?
Ms. McEwen:
That it's a public hearing ... construct a ... oh, you know what?
As a matter of fact, it is here. Oh, it's two different ones. One is
for the outdoor sealing, one is for the liquor license. We thought
it was a duplicate. We only saw it was for a liquor license. So
we weren't aware of the outdoor seafing.
Mr. Morrow:
All right. So if your comments are only to the bar, I'd ask you to
come forward on the next petition.
Ms. McEwen:
Read it at that point?
May 8, 2012
25129
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, iflhat's germane tothat.
Mr. Taormina:
The next item on the agenda.
Ms. McEwen:
All right.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to
speak for or against the granting of this petifion? Seeing no one
else coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and
ask for a motion.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'm going to make a motion to approve. There's going to be
some modifications from the prepared approval resolution that
we have before us though. I'll try to point those out as we go
along.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-43-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2012, on the
next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-04-02-09 submitted by
ADI Management L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval
pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct an outdoor dining
patio and add seats in connection with an existing full service
restaurant (Tony's Kitchen, aka Dee Dee's) at 34110 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 28, which properly is zoned G2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2012-04-02-09 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site and Patio Plan marked Sheet No. Pl dated
May 7, 2012, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed a total of one hundred eighty six (186), including
one hundred thirty eight (138) interior seats and forty eight
(48) outdoor patio seats;
3. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
May 8, 2012
25130
4. That the sound levels of any outdoor speakers or sound
equipment shall be kept to a reasonable minimum so as
not to become objectionable, and that the volume not stray
beyond the property lines;
5. That all light fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadways or adjoining property;
6. That no advertising shall be permitted on any of the seating
or table apparatus of the outdoor patio area;
7. That the existing monument sign may be relocated to a
point no closer than six (6) feet to the right -0f -way line of
Plymouth Road, subject to the approval of the Zoning
Board of Appeals for deficient setback (10 feel is required);
8. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence from the
Assistant Director of Inspection, dated May 8, 2012, shall
be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department; and
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; and
2. That the proposed use 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. Wilshaw: I don't think he's going to be able to landbank the parking
spaces. Do we need to modify Condition #3, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: I think you do need to modify that and indicate that he will have
to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or obtain a
cross access agreement with Zerbo's for parking.
May 8, 2012
25131
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. We II re -write that one.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, the Zoning Board of Appeals is probably the best
because I dont think Zerbo's has parking to give up.
Mr. W Ishaw:
Okay. We'll re-wnle that to indicate that they will have to go to
the ZBA for parking deficiency. Number 4 will be stricken in
total. Number 5 will be stricken as well. I want to add one other
item, that the issues referenced in the Inspection letter dated
May 8, 2012, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department.
Mr. Morrow:
Who was the supporter?
Ms. Scheel:
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if we could modify the referenced dale on the
Site Plan and Patio Plan to May 7, as revised, that would
comply with the plan that you've been reviewing this evening.
Mr. Morrow:
I think that will be approved by both the maker and the
supporter of the motion.
Ms. Smiley:
I just have one question. Does this then prohibit any
background music outside?
Mr. Wilshaw:
It would as proposed unless the Commission feels that they
would like to allow light background music that would not stray
beyond the property lines.
Ms. Smiley:
That's what I would like. I agree you shouldn't have speakers
out there, but they wouldn't have speakers because those
people are going to be wailed on and they're not waiting there to
go in. They're not going to be calling names and stuff, but if it's
a soft background music similar that you'd have inside the
restaurant, that would not offend me.
Mr. Morrow:
I think we should condition it to, I don't know how many
decibels, but just background music. In other words, whatever
that amounts to.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I would be okay with something along the lines of allowing
background music such that it is at a volume that would not
stray beyond the existing property lines. You wouldn't be able
to hear it beyond the property.
Mr. Morrow:
That sounds good to me.
May 8, 2012
25132
Mr.
Taylor:
I have no problem with that. I have one other question.
Is there
going to be a speaker before you gel to your drive
out window to
order?
Mr.
Isa:
There is currently a speaker.
Mr.
Taylor:
There is one there now?
Mr.
Isa:
There is currently with the drive-lhru. It was previously a Burger
Chef and a Hardee's, so that is still existing.
Mr.
Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr.
Morrow:
The public hearing is closed. Are there any other comments?
I'm going to ask for a vole now that we have the motion.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Before we get to the request for the other
motion, I want to assure the properly owners back there that the
owner has heard all of your comments and I'm sure he will work
with you as far as lighting, noise and probably be open to
hearing from you because I think he probably wants to make
you customers and I just wanted to add that to it.
Mr. Taylor: I'd like to offer the request for a seven day waiver.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously approved, it was
#05-44-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Arficle VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2012-04-02-09 submitted by ADI Management
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06
of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
construct an outdoor dining patio and add seats in connection
with an existing full service restaurant (Tony's Kitchen, aka Dee
Dee's) at 34110 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in
the Southeast 114 of Section 28.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
May 8, 2012
25133
ITEM #3 PETITION 2012-04-02-10 TONY'S KITCHEN
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2012-
04-02-10 submitted by Anthony C. Isa requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(h) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class C liquor
license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the
premises) in connection with an existing full service restaurant
(Tony's Kitchen, aka Dee Dee's) at 34110 Plymouth Road,
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 28.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, we can just confine it to the liquor license
Mr. Taormina: Yes. The next pefition involves the same property, Tony's
Kitchen, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington and Stark Roads. Their request for a Class C liquor
license is allowed subject to waiver use approval under Section
11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Class C license, similar
to our first petition this evening, would allow for the sale and
consumption on the premises of beer, wine and other types of
alcoholic beverages. That section of the ordinance specifies
that Class C licensed establishments shall not be located within
1,000 feel of any existing Class C licensed establishment. This
provision is not in compliance. There is one Class C licensed
business within 1,000 feel of Tony's Kitchen and that would be
the Plymouth Roadhouse, which is directly across the street
from the subject site. It is approximately 100 feet away. In
addition, there are three other alcohol -serving establishments
located nearby, two of which are just beyond the 1,000 fool
separation requirement. Those include Woodland Lanes, which
is about 1,020 feel away, and Buddys Pizza, which is just under
1,500 feel distant from the subject property. Thomas's
restaurant, which currently has a Tavern license allowing them
to sell beer and wine for consumption on the premises, is also
located across the street. The approval of this request will have
to be subject to the waiving of the separation requirement by the
City Council by a supermajorily vole in which two-thirds of the
Members concur. I do have some correspondence to read out.
Mr. Morrow: Okay.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 27, 2012, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use request.
May 8, 2012
25134
The written legal description provided with the request is
correct. The address for this site is confirmed to be 34110
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 April 23, 2012, which reads as
follows: "Concerning the proposed Petition 2012-04-02-09 for
outdoor seating at Tony's Kitchen Restaurant, 1 have no
objection. For Petition 2012-04-02-10, the liquor license is code
compliant with this, existing assembly occupancy, but my issue
is that the occupancy load is well over 100 persons. If this were
built today, it would require an automatic fire sprinkler system. If
Tony's Kitchen Restaurant ever wishes to have live
entertainment, this building must have an automatic fire
sprinkler system. The judgment of people that are drinking liquor
can be compromised in a panic situation. All other Life Safety
Systems that are required must be maintained in proper working
order." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 20,
2012, which reads as follows: 7 have reviewed the plans in
connection with the petitions. 1 have no objections to the
proposal for either the outside dining or the liquor license issue."
The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May
8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This proposed restaurant is located within 1,000 feet
of another establishment with a Class C license. The 1000 foot
requirement may be waived by Council. (2) This license shall
be subject to all final inspection approvals of the Building
Department being obtained. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for Mr. Taormina? Seeing none, we will
go right to the petitioners representative.
Frank Kokenakes, 39040 W. Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Thank you,
Commissioners. I'm appearing on behalf of Mr. Isa. I'm
pleased to be before you today. It was soothing for me for Tony
to come to my office and present his vision for this location. He
has, in fact, secured a Class C license from Sterling Bank. He
informs me that the license actually comes from one of the
escrow licenses that are on Plymouth Road. It's not an out -of -
county license. That is the actual acquisition of the Class C
license is being handled by Mr. Shallal and Mr. Hindo, a
different law firm in Oakland County, but he has requested me
to assist him in presenting this matter before the Council. I think
May 8, 2012
25135
it was significant that in the prior petition that there was mention
that in fact there were many, many different restaurants here.
Burger Chef, Hardee's, Grecian Gardens, Legacy, Dee Dee's.
It's just been a very difficult location to thrive. I think Mr. Isa
realized that and that's why he took so much time to reconfigure
his concept and also seek out a Class C license because what
he wants to do is create an enhanced dining experience. We all
know that we might want beer or wine, but we also might want
mixed drinks or spirits with our dinner. So he wants to provide
that full service enhanced environment. I do note from my own
investigation and also from looking at the documentation that
the Planning Commission did provide that virtually all the
restaurants along Plymouth Road, at least on the south side, do
have Class C licenses. I mentioned some in my letter of May 4,
but it's clear that the north side of Plymouth Road has difficulty
in attracting clientele to make a thriving business. So we do
believe that we need to provide that Class C license.
Specifically, as indicated, the Livonia ordinance does have that
1,000 foot requirement and there is one other establishment that
is within that 1,000 foot radius. I misspoke in my letter. It
should have been the Plymouth Roadhouse. I mistakenly said
Paddy's Pub, but I would indicate that the Class C license is
necessary so that he can compete with and provide an
enhanced environment to the other major restaurants along
Plymouth Road from the corridor from Farmington Road to
Newburgh. We're talking about Buddy's Pizza, Plymouth
Roadhouse, Kickers, Herc's, and a few others. So I think its
necessary that he's allowed to have that. His establishment is,
of course, on the opposite side, the north side, of Plymouth
Road. I'm not sure that the major thoroughfare exception from
the Liquor Control Commission is applicable, but it is a factor to
consider for two reasons. One, typically that major thoroughfare
exception is for liquor stores with SDD or SDM licenses. The
idea is that you don't want to have a liquor store closer than
every half mile, but they make the exception if you're across a
thoroughfare, such as if you were having one in Livonia and one
in Farmington Hills, for example. The fad that the Liquor
Control Commission doesn't deal with major thoroughfares
regarding Class C license, I think indicates that they don't
consider that an issue of having restaurant businesses next to
each other that are serving maybe different fare, but have the
capacity to provide full service regarding beverages. I think it
makes a better dining experience, as I mentioned. We feel that
this Class C license, along with his other concept of bringing the
pizza kitchen in, would be a wonderful new drawing card for the
Plymouth corridor. And that's what we're kind of talking about.
We're trying to be part of making Plymouth Road a destination,
similar to where Haggerty Road would be. And finally, I would
May 8, 2012
25136
like to mention, because I know this question was raised by Mr.
Taylor earlier, there is currently in the old restaurant a seven
seat counter. Now we are modifying that because we have to
move it out. We want to retain the counter but we're moving it
out because we're putting the pizza baking oven behind that
space and we need more area. If you look at the plan, just to
bring that up, there will be counter space. People could order
drinks there, but it's really a preexisting structure that we're
moving out to accommodate the pizza oven. We would ask that
if the Commission would be so kind that they would offer an
approving resolution and, if possible, also a seven day waiver to
the City Council. I'd be happy to answer any questions, as
would Mr. Isa.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of Mr. Kokenakes? Any comments in
general?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Kokenakes, thanks for being here. It's good to see you.
Within the restaurant, there isn't going to be a bar
per se. It's
just going to be a service bar that the waitresses will
go to gel
their drinks. Is that correct?
Mr. Kokenakes:
I believe there currently is ... and I'm looking at the plan that
you had from the other petition . . there was a seven seal
counter. I believe the current plan also provides for a seven
seal counter. Its just moved farther away, I guess south, in the
building. It's moved over several feel to allow for the installation
of the pizza oven.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's not really a bar per se so much as it is counter service
like the previous restaurant had.
Mr. Kokenakes:
Yes.
Mr. W lshaw:
Okay. That's the only question I have. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyone else? Seeing none, I'll go to the audience and ask if
there's anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
the granting of this petition? If you'll come forward and give us
your name and address please.
Barbara McEwen, 34101 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. We reside in
Florida.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Now you may read your letter into the record.
Ms. McEwen:
Okay. "Having conducted business in the City of Livonia since
1980, 1 wish to express an opinion on the request for waiver for
May 8, 2012
25137
not only outdoor seating but Class C liquor license at 34110
Plymouth Road. One mile in both directions from this location
has no less than 11 establishments that serve food and
alcoholic beverage. I believe this is an excessive amount of
businesses vying for the same customer base in such a small
area. Due to the current economic climate, I believe there are
less customers to be had than there were three or four years
ago. Speaking for myself, I cannot afford to share even more
customers than I already do. As the cost of doing business
continues to go up, the only thing going down is my customer
count. This same industrial area is declining due to plant
closings and job cutbacks. My customer base comes from this
area, and as this establishment will be directly across the street
from me, I feel it would negatively impact my business and
place an unfair financial burden upon my ability to remain
solvent and competitive in this ever -shrinking market. There is
also the issue of traffic problems. It is already heavily congested
with no relief in sight. I have no objection to a restaurant, but
strongly oppose a Class C liquor license being granted.
Competition in business is often a positive thing in a healthy,
economic climate, but in this case, over -saturating the market
would be detrimental for all of us that are still in business. That
simply should not be allowed. It would be an unfair hardship to
us all." That is signed by James McEwen, Owner, Plymouth
Roadhouse.
Mr. Morrow: Please give that to Ms. Watson. We'll make it part of the record.
Is there anything you want to add to the letter?
Ms. McEwen: Just on a personal level, I don't have an objection to a
restaurant being there. I would like to see something open. Its
good for everyone to have something there, but we've been at
this location since 1980 and there hasn't been a restaurant
there that survived. We've seen them all come and we've seen
them all go. And one of the major issues of that is the traffic
issue. Plymouth Road is one of the most heavily traveled roads
in Wayne County, and it's hard to get in or out of that lot at any
time of the day, afternoon or early evening. We ourselves
experience the same problem. So if you add a liquor license to
that location and more seating and parking for that, you're going
to add more congestion on Plymouth Road in that area. Just
looking at the picture up there, the area that we specified in the
letter only goes to Levan and Merriman. And that area right in
there is 11 licenses now with one that is already being pursued
by Red Olive. That would be 12. This one makes 13. We just
think that's excessive and it makes it hard for anybody else
that's there now to do business. Things are bad enough as they
are. You add a liquor license there and you're splitting hairs, I
1. That the use of a Class C 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 1,000 fool separation
between Class C licensed establishments is waived by the
City Council;
2. That no alcoholic beverages shall be served after 10:00
p.m.;
3. That the waiver use is limited to the property being used for
Class C liquor license purposes in connection with a
service bar only;
4. The petitioner shall not engage in any form of solicitation
for business within the public right-of-way of Plymouth
Road;
May 8, 2012
25138
guess would be the word to put. So we're opposed to the Class
C liquor license there, but not to there being a restaurant there.
Mr. Morrow:
Does anyone on the Commission have a question for the young
lady? Seeing none, thank you very much for your input.
Ms.McEwen:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going
to close the public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, 0 was
#05-45-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2012, on
Petition 2012-04-02-10 submitted by Anthony C. Isa requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(h) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class
C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption
on the premises) in connection with an existing full service
restaurant (Tony's Kitchen, aka Dee Dee's) at 34110 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 28, which properly is zoned G2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2012-04-02-10 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the use of a Class C 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 1,000 fool separation
between Class C licensed establishments is waived by the
City Council;
2. That no alcoholic beverages shall be served after 10:00
p.m.;
3. That the waiver use is limited to the property being used for
Class C liquor license purposes in connection with a
service bar only;
4. The petitioner shall not engage in any form of solicitation
for business within the public right-of-way of Plymouth
Road;
May 8, 2012
25139
5. That the petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement
limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision
to extend this waiver use to a new user only upon the
approval of the new user by the City Council; and
6. 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.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
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. Wilshaw
Just a brief comment. You heard this with the Red Olive petition
before and there's been some discussion with this petition as
well. I think this body is sensitive to the number of Class C
liquor licenses that are on Plymouth Road. This is really sort of
directed to the representative from the Plymouth Roadhouse.
The fact that this particular liquor license is being used from a
license that is in escrow within the City of Livonia holds a lot of
weight with me, and I think makes this a lot easier to swallow
because we're not pulling a license in from another community.
This is one of our own licenses that is being reused, which I
think is a good thing. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Mr. Chairman, also, there's only going to be a service bar. This
is not going to be a bar per se. It's just ancillary to the use of
food.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Before the young lady leaves, I was going
to try to get to this. These will be forwarded to the City Council
ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-04-02-11 MENARD, INC.
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
04-02-11 submitted by Menard, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(p) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a new home
improvement store at 12701 Middlebelt Road, located on the
west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-
of-way and Schoolcmft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request by Menard's to construct a new home
improvement store. The subject property is located on the west
side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad to the south
and Schoolcraft Road and the 1-96 Expressway to the north.
The area being developed is about 26 acres in total area. It
includes 800 feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road by a depth of
May 8, 2012
25140
who will ultimately decide the approval of both of these. So if
you got a notice for this meeting tonight, you'll also receive a
notice when it gets to the City Council.
Mr. Taylor:
I will ask for a seven waiver.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously approved, it was
#05-46-2012
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2012-04-02-10 submitted by Anthony C. Isa
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(h) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for
consumption on the premises) in connection with an existing full
service restaurant (Tony's Kitchen, aka Dee Dees) at 34110
Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 28.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. We wish you well. Just to add, you've
heard comments from the neighbors. I hope you will lake those
under advisement should this petition be approved and go
forward.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-04-02-11 MENARD, INC.
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
04-02-11 submitted by Menard, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(p) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a new home
improvement store at 12701 Middlebelt Road, located on the
west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-
of-way and Schoolcmft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request by Menard's to construct a new home
improvement store. The subject property is located on the west
side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad to the south
and Schoolcraft Road and the 1-96 Expressway to the north.
The area being developed is about 26 acres in total area. It
includes 800 feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road by a depth of
May 8, 2012
25141
1,400 feel. On March 21 of this year, the City Council gave First
Reading to the rezoning of this site from its current zoning
classification of M-1, Light Manufacturing, to the C-2, General
Business, category. Second Reading and Roll Call on that
rezoning is being held until the review of the site plan is
completed by the Planning Commission. In terms of the existing
conditions, this site contains the now vacant Advantage
Logistics food warehouse and distribution center that was used
by the Kroger Company for many years. The existing
warehouse structure is over 775,000 square feel of which about
666,500 square feel would be removed in order to make room
for the new Menard's store. The westerly and probably the
most valuable part of the warehouse structure, which is the area
that contains a high ceiling, totals about 108,000 square feet.
That part of the structure would remain. Just to get you familiar
with the aerial photograph, the yellow outlined area represents
the area that would be rezoned and where the development
would occur. All the building area that you see within the yellow
outline would be removed. The portion that is just outside of
that yellow outline, lying to the west, that's the portion of the
high bay warehouse that would remain. This is before you
because retail buildings that contain a gross floor area of 30,000
square feel or more are allowed only as a waiver use under
Section 11.03(p) of the Zoning Ordinance. This is the site plan.
It shows the location of the new store, garden center, lumber
warehouse, outside yard and associated parking, which is
located in the westerly portion of the Menard's site. The
building would be set back about 830 feet from Middlebelt Road.
This plan also shows the location of an outlot area that would be
reserved for future development. That outlot area is about 8.8
acres in area. It is situated between the parking lot in front of
the Menard's store and Middlebelt Road. Access to the store
would be provided by a single drive that extends along the north
property line and connects directly to Middlebelt Road, as well
as to Industrial Road via an access easement to the north
across the Michigan Dairy property. The road that I'm referring
to that runs along the north properly line of the Menard's site is
located here. That ties directly into Middlebelt Road, but also
access is available to Industrial Road via this north drive, which
is actually an access easement across a portion of the Michigan
Dairy property, which is located directly north of the proposed
Menard's building. There is a traffic signal located at the
intersection of Industrial Road and Middlebelt Road, and lines
up with the road that continues east and provides access to
Millennium Park. The main drive extends along the north and
continues west providing access to the outside yard area and
warehouse structure that is located at the rear of the proposed
store in the southwest corner of the site. In terms of the total
May 8, 2012
25142
area of the building, the interior space altogether is about
162,340 square feet. That includes 94,432 square feet for retail
display, 49,675 square feet for indoor warehouse, 14,482
square feet for receiving, and 3,751 square feet for office and
restrooms. Attached to the south side of the building is a
27,648 square feet enclosed four season garden center. This is
the detached accessory building warehouse on the property.
This area shows you the outline of the proposed garden center.
You can see it actually wraps around the west side of the
building. South of and adjacent to this garden center is a paved
outdoor area that would be used for the seasonal display of
garden supplies and materials. This is all open pavemenlwithin
the site. The open area extends between the warehouse
building and the main building, and extends throughout this
entire area. This semi -enclosed lumber warehouse measures
about 42,352 square feet. Is it a drive-thru structure where
customers pick up lumber and building materials. Access is
provided at the north end of the building via two parallel lanes
that exit at the south end, where the cars can wrap around and
exit. So there is a single point of ingress and egress for
vehicles located here. There is a guard shack. So cars coming
in off Middlebell Road would park here. If they purchase lumber
materials or any other materials where they have to go to the
back, they would navigate back to the same road, turn left,
come all the way to the guard shack. They would allow them
into the backyard area. If the materials that they're going to pick
up are located in the warehouse building, there are two lanes.
The cars can actually navigate through this semi -enclosed
building, exit out the backside, and then navigate back out the
same way here to the guard shack to the east, and then out to
Middlebelt Road or to Industrial Road where vehicles can then
tum left at the signal if they're northbound traffic on Middlebell.
In terms of required parking, the main building requires 590
parking spaces whereas the garden center would require 44
spaces, for a total of 634 parking spaces. This plan provides a
total of 436 parking spaces. So there is a deficiency of 198
parking spaces. While this number may sound significant, it is
right in line with what Menard's parks at all of its other stores. In
fact, ft's slightly more than what it has at many of its very well
performing stores throughout the country. So they're very
comfortable with the 436 parking spaces that they're providing
here. The parking lots, in terms of outdoor lighting, contain
"shoebox" style light fixtures that are 30 feet in height. There is
also some additional perimeter exterior lighting provided on top
of the rack storage structures that ran along portions of the rear
and sides of the site. The rack storage units run along the
perimeter of the site. They begin at the northwest corner of the
building and continue to the guard shack. They also continue a
May 8, 2012
25143
little bit further along the west property line, south to the
accessory building and then they extend all the way along the
south property line where it ties into the aluminum fence that is
adjacent to the seasonal outdoor garden area. The rack
storage units do contain light fixtures on top that help keep the
yard area illuminated in the evening. This is a depiction of the
outdoor lights shown at 30 feel in height. This is a profile view
of those rack storage units, also referred to as a pallet racking
screening fence. On the lop of this, there is a light fixture that's
mounted to the actual structure. This photo shows the lumber
storage yard. This is what the back of the property will look like
where customers can come and pick up lumber. They stack the
lumber in the upper portions of these bins and then the ones
that are actually being selected by the customers are moved out
front or down in the lower area so it's not an issue. This photo
is a detail of the decorative fence in front of the garden center
with some of the decorate lamps. That shows you how the two
lie together. So this is the actual visual part from the front of the
building and the seasonal outdoor garden center. It shows you
where the fence or the rack storage units pick up. From that
point, they run all along the rear part of the store. This is 14 feel
in height. In terms of the dumpsler, the plans show a trash
compactor behind the building area which would be behind a
wall. There is a prohibition for outdoor sales. In fact Section
11.03(p) states that there shall be no outdoor sales, storage or
display of merchandise in connection with retail sales buildings
over 30,000 square feet in size. Menard's typically stores
material outside and displays a limited amount of merchandise
in the walkway adjacent to the front of the building as well as in
the parking lot. So this prohibition will have to be waived by the
City Council. We have additional information this evening
regarding landscaping. You do have before you a more detailed
landscaping plan that shows you the locations, sizes and
species of all the plant material that would be provided on the
site. One of the suggestions that came out of the study session
was that additional landscaping be provided in the area around
the monument sign and Middlebelt Road. The plan does show
trees being planted along Middlebelt Road as well as some
additional plantings in the area of the sign, which is shown just
south of the main drive coming into the site off of Middlebelt
Road. As far as the building exterior, the primary material is
going to be a tan colored split face block. The petitioner had
shown you a couple versions of the building at the study
session. One is their till up concrete panels versus the tan split
face block. In comparing those two types of architectural
materials, the Planning Commission has opted for the split face
block. So the resolution presented to you this evening does
provide that as the primary building material. These are the
May 8, 2012
25144
elevation plans but I'd rather just show you the photographs
because they tell the story much better. This is the emerald
green metal accent panels that are used throughout the
construction of the building. You will see these along the fascia
trim of the overhangs and the peaked overhang areas at the
main and secondary entrances along the front of the building.
Here you see the same type of building material being used for
their garden center area. What this also shows are these bi-fold
window systems that are constructed out of a clear
polycarbonate material. During the warm weather, they can
actually take these and fold them up so customers can walk in
and out between the building and the seasonal outdoor garden
area, but during inclimale weather and during the winter
months, they can shut those bi-fold doors. All of that is part of
the healed structure within the building that is opened year
round. This is very typical and this is identical to what they're
proposing at the Livonia store. The lumber warehouse, by the
way, would be constructed out of the same emerald green metal
panels system. In terms of storm water detention, I don't have a
plan that shows you the location. It's actually off site. As I
showed you on the original plan where they're going to retain
property further to the west where there is that high bay
warehouse area, there is sufficient land available for Menard's
to construct their storm water detention system that would be in
the form of a basin that would handle all of the runoff from the
developed portion of the Menard's site. The outlots, however,
will have to provide their own storm water detention as those
sites develop. Lastly, in terms of signage, Menard's has
submitted a detailed sign plan. They are showing both an
excess of sign area as well as a number of wall signs that will
require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I will remind
the Planning Commission that this building sets back 830 feel.
In terms of scale, both the size of the building and its setback
from the roadway, the amount and size of signage is probably in
keeping with what's been done elsewhere. This is a photograph
of the Toledo store where you see the secondary signs that run
along the lop fascia of the building. These are a couple feel in
height, but you can see that they are relatively small in
comparison to the size of the store. You can just barely make
out the main Menard's sign located here. The same type of
signage system will be used for the Livonia store. What is
unique to the Livonia store will be the design of the monument
sign. The monument sign is limited under the ordinance to only
6 feel in height and 30 square feet in area. What Menard's is
proposing is 20 feel in height and has a total area of 200 square
feel. The Menard's portion of the sign measures 100 square
feel. Directly below are four panels that would be available for
future tenants within the outlots. The overall length of the sign
May 8, 2012
25145
is aboul24 feet. I know that was a lengthy presentation. I know
you'll probably have a lot of questions. I do have more
photographs as part of my presentation. If you would like, I'll go
through the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Let's get that out of the way before we go to questions.
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated February 2, 2012, which
reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above-rehsmnced
rezoning request. The written legal description which was
provided is connect. It should be noted that both the written legal
description and property boundary drawing encompass more
area than that delineated in yellow on the aerial map. The
written legal description also excludes the far northwest comer
of this parcel, as well as the westerly 477.60 feet of this parcel.
Presumably, a future lot split is anticipated. There are very
minor discrepancies between the written legal description and
the property boundary drawing which can be addressed during
the design phase. The address for the entire existing parcel is
confirmed to be 12701 Middlebelt Road. (1) The service drive
along Middlebelt Road is under the jurisdiction of the City of
Livonia. (2) Middlebelt Road is under Wayne Countyjurisdiction.
Any work in the Middlebelt Road right-of-way will require Wayne
County approval and permitting. (3) There is an existing water
main in the westerly side of the Middlebelt Road right-of-way.
There is also a private water main that connects to the City
water main in Middlebelt Road, and then traverses westerty
through this parcel to Industrial Road, where it is again
connected to a City water main in the Industrial Road fight of
way. Should this project proceed, the designer should contact
the Engineering Division as soon as possible to discuss the
continuation of this water main loop. (4) There is an 18 inch
diameter sanitary sewer in Middlebelt Road that is available to
serve this parcel. It may be necessary to extend the sanitary
sewer south to your proposed site. (5) The following options
may be considered as an outlet for your storm water. (a)
Discharge to the Wayne County storm sewer in Middlebelt
Road. To do this, permits will have to be obtained from Wayne
County, including a long term storm water management permit.
(b) Discharge to the enclosed Livonia Drain No. 19 (in Industrial
Road). The City will review and permit the storm water
management system. To discharge into the City storm sewerin
Industrial Road, you may need to obtain a private easement
with the Kroger Company to obtain access to the storm sewer.
Another option may be to discharge your storm water into
Kroger's private storm system (private easement with Kroger
May 8, 2012
25146
will be needed). The petitioner is hereby notified (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. Storm water drainage
changes cannot have a negative drainage impact to any
property. The City of Livonia follows the Wayne County Storm
Water Ordinance. The Engineering Division has already
provided the Menard Corporation with information on existing
utilities. Should the design consultant have any questions
regarding site improvements, they should contact the
undersigned as soon as possible." The letter is signed by Kevin
G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. There is a second
letter from the Engineering Division, dated April 27, 2012, which
reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced waiver
use approval request. The written legal description which was
provided does not directly correlate with the drawing that was
provided with this petition request This is a minor matter which
can be addressed as the design drawings are prepared for this
project. The address for this site is confirmed to be 12701
Schoolcraft Road. In our response to rezoning request 2012-
01-01-01 (copy attached), we addressed utility information for
this site. In addition, since the time of our response to the prior
rezoning request, we have begun to talk directly to the designer
to facilitate an acceptable design as regards matters under the
purview of the Engineering Division." The letter is signed by
Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter
is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 24, 2012,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the plans for
approving this petition to construct a new home improvement
store at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire
Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated
April 25, 2012, which reads as follows: "In reviewing the site
and plans, 1 have serious safety concems with regard to the
driveway facing due east. 1 would recommend that exiting traffic
only be allowed to tum right (south) onto Middlebelt. A left tum
to northbound Middlebelt from this driveway, especially during
peak traffic times will prove not only difficult, but very
dangerous. With seven lanes of Middlebelt traffic, and a steady
flow of exiting cars from Industrial Road, Millennium Park, and
the Meijer drive to the south, making a safe entry onto
northbound Middlebelt is going to prove difficult. Motorists are
going to take unnecessary risks attempting to make this left
tum, with limited safe natural gaps in the traffic Flow. My
recommendation is to erect signage directing all traffic that
desires to head northbound on Middlebelt to use the Industrial
May 8, 2012
25147
Road exit, which is controlled with a stop and go signal. 1 would
further add no left tum signs at the Middlebelt exit. 1 also
strongly recommend a center concrete island to dissuade
motorists from ignoring the signage. Additionally, 1 would
suggest approval is contingent on obtaining a permit from
Wayne County. This may involve petitioner having to conduct
an impact study." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The final letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated May 8, 2012, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner is
proposing outdoor storage and display of merchandise which is
not permitted. This can be waived by a super majority of
Council. (2) The petitioner shows a deficiency of 198 parking
spaces as required by the ordinance. A variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain this
deficiency. (3) The petitioner is proposing a ground sign that
exceeds the height and square footage requirements. A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain the excess height and size of the ground sign. (4) The
petitioner has proposed an excess number of wall signs where
only one wall sign is permitted. A variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the excess
square footage and number of wall signs. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, before I go to the rest of the Commission, during your
presentation, I notice in our resolution, Item 3, that the "primary
building materials shall be tan smooth face." I think you were
talking split face.
Mr. Taormina: Its a combination, Mr. Chairman. It's split face on the front
facade and I believe they use a smooth face block on the rear
and portions ofthe side ofthe building.
Mr. Morrow: My concern is the front. I have no problem with the smooth face
but I do with the split face on the front.
Mr. Taormina: We'll have to amend that.
Mr. Morrow: I want to do that while it's still on my mind. Now, I'll go to the
rest of the Commission.
Ms. Smiley: I'm sure its just a typo, but in the letter from Kevin Roney, dated
April 27, it says the address for this site is confirmed to be
12701 SchoolcraR Road. Its Middlebelt Road, right?
May 8, 2012
25148
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions of Mark? Mark, your presentation
was so good ...
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure that's the reason there are no questions, but I'll take
your word for it. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, I was looking at the approving resolution. Are we actually
going to sod that whole outlot area and irrigate it?
Mr. Taormina:
No. I think we tried to except that from the sodding requirement
and indicate that it would be acceptable for hydroseeding.
Mr. Taylor:
I don't think it reads that way.
Mr. Taormina:
I apologize if it doesn't. In fact, I had that discussion with the
Menard's representative today.
Mr. Taylor:
"That all lawn and landscape areas shall be irrigated by an
automatic underground irrigation system"
Ms. Smiley:
The "outlot area shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseedingf
Number one, second bullet.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I think we tried to cover it in the second bullet as Ms.
Smiley indicated. It was not the intention to provide an irrigation
system on the outlot areas. It would only be for the permanent
manicured lawn areas.
Mr. Taylor:
That would make a lot of sense. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that it? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your
name and address for the record please.
Charles Sharp,
Menard, Inc., 5101 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54703.
I'm a representative for Menard's Inc.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you for your patience. Do you have anything to add to
the presentation or anything you'd like to say?
Mr. Sharp:
On the approving resolution, I was going to bring up Item #3. 1
appreciate that you covered that for me already. Item #7 states
that all roof -lop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from
public view on all sides by screening. If you would refer to the
May 8, 2012
25149
building elevations page, that is CT3, the third figure shows that
our roof dimension actually steps down about a foot and a half.
In effect, that reduces the need for screening from the front.
There is very little mechanical equipment that you can see.
We're talking inches at this point. As for the north, south and
west, we are surrounded by industrial use. There is a railroad
track on the south side, and I do feel that additional screening
for that is unnecessary.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll see how the Commission feels about that. As far as the
other view, you're saying the line of sight from Middlebelt would
make it impossible to see it with the step down of the roof.
Mr. Sharp:
I believe there are three rows of air conditioning units. The front
row is partially masked by the main Menard sign at the
entryway. I believe what you would end up seeing is the top
portion on the left and then two lop portions on the right.
Mr. Morrow:
But you say it is a matter of inches?
Mr. Sharp:
Yes. And in addition to that, being setback 830 feel from the
road ...
Mr. Morrow:
That's why I say, line of sight. You'd have to be how many feel
tall to see it. Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else?
Ms. Smiley:
Is this building like a prototype. Would this look like the one in
Toledo, Ohio, or would it look like the one Jackson? What
would it look like?
Mr. Sharp:
The Livonia building would be fairly unique. We have not built
many that have the split face block exterior.
As for dimensions,
it is very prototypical. Its 480 by 330 feel. The garden center is
a 72 fool overhang with approximately 100 to 150 feet of
wrought iron fence. I mean that's our front elevation that we
shoot for, strive for on all of our developments.
Ms. Smiley:
Does Menard's usually supply things for builders or for like
regular residents?
Mr. Sharp:
Primarily, we think of ourselves as a do-it-yourself supplier for
building materials, appliances, things of that nature. But we do
have the capacity to service contractors, builders, that clientele
as well.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. And do you usually have a sign that big, that ground
sign?
May 8, 2012
25150
Mr. Sharp: The monument sign?
Ms. Smiley: Yes.
Mr. Sharp: That is very small for our prototypical development. We would
usually on average have about a 200 square foot sign anywhere
from 3010 80 feet tall, a pylon sign. That would be a typical sign
for us.
Ms. Smiley: Really? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair
Mr. Wlshaw:
Just a few beef questions. I did gel a chance to go by the
Menard's along 1-96 in Lansing yesterday. I got to see the
building materials that its made out of. I believe that's the
scored concrete panels. It's not terrible looking, but I definitely
like the fad that you're offering the split faced tan block. I think
that will look really attractive in comparison to what I've seen at
the other store. But a couple questions. One of the major
issues that our Police Department brought up, and that even the
traffic study that was provided addresses, is the left turns that
are going to be coming out of the east entrance onto
northbound Middlebell. I believe there is an item in our
approving resolution that addresses that by saying that you
should have internal signage along the east drive directing
northbound existing traffic to use Industrial Road. You probably
want to make that even stronger and say that any Teff turn
should be prohibited. The signage should probably be in place
to prohibit left turns out of that east drive onto northbound
Middlebell. Is that okay based on what you've seen from the
traffic study that was provided?
Mr. Sharp:
One of the things to consider is that our busier limes are
probably not when there is the highest volume of traffic on
Middlebell Road. We'll have customers very early in the
morning and then throughout the day. It's their day off. They're
ready to go do a project around the house. They come in. We
would prefer that people use Industrial Drive with the light and
our support of having signage that says as much.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So you're going to have wayfaring type signs within the
property that indicate to your customers head out the north drive
to Industrial Road.
Mr. Sharp:
Northbound traffic use the service drive to Industrial.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I think that sounds like a good solution. If for some
reason you find that you are getting cars backing up at that
eastern drive, then perhaps once you gel to that point, you can
May 8, 2012
25151
consider some altemafives such as the police suggested with
adding an island to prohibit those things down the road. I think
this is a good first step to address that issue. My other question
is about the outlot area. There's obviously a very large space
that's going to be unused which is going to be just grass for the
time being. I just want to double check. We talked about this in
the study meeting a little bit. How are you going to maintain that
grass and then, is there going to be any roadways or curb cuts
or anything feeding into that area? How is that going to be
maintained?
Mr. Sharp:
It will be maintained just like a lawn in front of any business. It
will be mowed with the same regularity as the rest of our lawn.
As for access to drive on and off it, there wouldn't be any
specific curb cuts. I believe those would be made once a user
purchases the land and is ready to develop it, we would give
them a curb cut so they have access.
Mr. Wilshaw:
What type of businesses do you typically see seek those outlots
on your other properties?
Mr. Sharp:
Gas stations and restaurants would be our primary users.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Would you be able to estimate how many users you think
could typically go on those outlot properties?
Mr. Sharp:
I think at the very minimum we're looking at three and we could
have upwards of five or six. I know our internal plan, the way
we drew it originally, was for four outlets. It became six. I think
somewhere in there, four to six will probably be what we end up
with.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And then your monument sign that's going to be at the
road is going to allow for some signage for those outlots if they
are to be built.
Mr. Sharp:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And I believe you had 100 square feet for yourself and
then 25 square feel for each outlot user?
Mr. Sharp:
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr:
I just want to reiterate before I ask these questions that I'm very
excited that you guys are coming and look forward to see it.
You guys have a stellar track record at other places and I'm
May 8, 2012
25152
thrilled that you're coming to Livonia. As I indicated at the study
meeting, I'm a resident in that area and a frequent shopper in
that area and I'm sensitive to the sea of asphalt that is in that
area. There is a lot of open space. There's a lot of excess
parking space. I know we already covered the parking spot.
But just for the record, I'd like to suggest again, and just gel
your reaction, to why there has to be that much space reserved
in the front for outlots versus just shifting the whole thing up to
maybe a single row of ou0ots versus double. If you could just
explain that again, please.
Mr. Sharp:
We are purchasing approximately 46 acres. Our development
needs, obviously our footprint is very large. But at the same
time, any land that would be behind our building would have
zero visibility and would be basically useless. The outlots out
front allow us an opportunity to bring more businesses and
further develop a parcel that would otherwise be maybe half or
two thirds unusable in this case.
Mr. Bahr:
Thank you. Another question. I just want to clarify one last time
regarding the exposure of the rooftop units. These pictures that
were provided to us, are these consistent with what we'd be
seeing at the Livonia locafion?
Mr. Sharp:
Very close. Yes.
Mr. Bahr:
Because I see it peeking outjust a little bit here.
Mr. Sharp:
Yes.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. And then the final question I have is, are you guys still on
track to open by Spring of 2013?
Mr. Sharp:
That is our intention, yes.
Mr. Bahr:
Great. Thanks.
Mr. Morrow:
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.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-47-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2012, on
Petition 2012-04-02-11 submitted by Menard, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(p) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a
May 8, 2012
25153
new home improvement store at 12701 Middlebell Road,
located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX
Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 26, which properly is zoned C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2012-04-02-11 be approved for the following reasons or
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site & Landscape Plan marked CT2 dated May 7,
2012, prepared by Menards, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to subject to the following stipulations:
That additional landscaping and trees shall be installed
along Middlebelt Road at the front of the property
adjacent to the east entrance drive and along the side
of the drive;
That all permanent lawn areas, except for the detention
pond and outlot area, shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
That all permanent lawn and landscape areas shall be
irrigated;
That the Petitioner shall work with Staff to substitute
tree species from the City's approved list of trees; and
That all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
2. That the Landscape Plan marked CT5 dated May 7, 2012,
prepared by Menards, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the Building Elevations Plan marked CT3 dated April
16, 2012 prepared by Menards, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
4. That the primary building material on the front of the
building shall be tan split -face concrete blocks, as shown
on the above referenced Building Elevation Plan;
5. That all customer parking spaces shall be ten (10') feet in
width and double striped;
May 8, 2012
25154
6. That the deficiency with respect to the number of required
parking spaces shall require a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals;
7. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway and such equipment shall not exceed 30 feet in
height above grade;
8. That any rooftop mechanical equipment that is visible from
Middlebell Road shall be concealed from public view using
screening that shall be of a compatible character, material
and color to other exterior materials on the building;
9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary stormwater
permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the
State of Michigan;
10. That the prohibition of outdoor sales, storage or display of
merchandise shall be waived or modified by the City
Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-
thirds of the members of the City Council concur;
11. That wall signage and freestanding sign for this use shall
be limited to the signs portrayed on the above referenced
Building Elevation Plan and on the Sign Plan marked CT3
dated April 16, 2012, prepared by Menards, subject to
variance(s) being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
for excess sign area and excess number of wall signs on
the east elevation. Any additional signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
12. That the Petitioner shall install internal signage along the
east drive that directs northbound exiling traffic to use the
light at Industrial Road and prohibits left turns onto
Middlebell Road from the east drive;
13. That no LED Iightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
14. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of Application for the building permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
May 8, 2012
25155
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area; and
4. That the proposed use will provide a viable alternative use
for the subject property.
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. Bahr:
For Condition 4, that the primary buildings material shall be, and
you guys can help me out here, split faced concrete blocks. Is
that correct?
Mr. Morrow:
One side facing Middlebelt.
Mr. Bahr:
On the one side facing Middlebelt, and the rest would be the tan
smooth face concrete blocks. And we were going to delete
Condition 8 regarding screening the mechanical equipment.
Mr. Morrow:
We feel that the step down will shield the one coming off of
Middlebelt.
Mr. Bahr:
Right.
Mr. Taylor:
Mr. Chair, what you might want to do is say, concealed from
public view, that shall be a compatible character, material and
color. Just eliminate on all sides by screening.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
concealed from public view using compatible character, material
and color to other exterior materials on the building. I'm going
to add to Condition 12, "as well as a no left tum sign at the
Middlebelt entrance."
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just to make a brief comment that I echo Mr. Bahr's earlier
comments about how excited we are to have Menard's come to
our community. They have been an excellent petitioner to work
May 8, 2012
25156
with, very accommodating of some of our requests and very
timely in getting all the information that we need to us. We
really appreciate it and look forward to you coming into the City.
Mr. Sharp:
Thankyou.
Mr. Taormina:
I'd just like to reference the revised Site and Landscape Plan
dated May 7, and we will add this language to the effect that
the petitioner will work with the Planning Department to
substitute the plant species so as to be consistent with our
recommended Species List from the ordinance. I noticed that a
couple of the tree species on this list are not recommended and
in my conversation with Mr. Sharp earlier today, he said that it
would be no problem to substitute those with species that are
acceptable. So we will add that language if that's acceptable to
the maker.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that all right?
Mr. Bahr:
That's fine with me.
Mr. Taylor:
Fine with me.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else? Before I ask for the vole, yes, you've been very
professional in your working with the Staff and the Commission.
We appreciate that. I just wantto getthose comments in. With
that, please call the roll.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Also, we have a request for a seven day
waiver.
Ona motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously approved, it was
#0548-2012
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2012-04-02-11 submitted by Menard, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(p) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
construct a new home improvement store at 12701 Middlebelt
Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the
CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 26.
May 8, 2012
25157
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Good luck at the next Ievel.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2012-03-06-09 ARTICLE IV
LANGUAGE AMENDMENT
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
03-06-09 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #89-12, and Section 23.01(a) of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether
or not to amend Section 4.02 of Article IV, R-1 through R-5
(Single Family Residential) District Regulations, in order to
increase the length of time that recreational equipment is
allowed to be stored in the front or side driveways of residential
properties.
Mr. Taormina: The City Council has asked the City Planning Commission to
consider a language amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that
would increase the length of time that recreational equipment
can be temporarily parked in the front or side driveways of
residential properties. Currently, the ordinance allows the
temporary parking of one unit of Recreational Equipment for a
period not to exceed 36 hours cumulatively in any 7 day period
for the purpose of repairing and maintaining the unit for suitable
vacation use. Al a study session, the Planning Commission
suggested that owners be allowed to temporarily park one unit
of recreational equipment for up to 72 hours over a 5 day
period. Such a change, for example, would allow the owner to
temporarily park an RV in their driveway for up to three days
before and three days following a weekend vacation. We've
prepared the language amendment to include those changes to
go from 36 to 72 hours cumulatively in any 5 days as opposed
to 7 days. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Because this is a Planning Commission petition, I'll go right to
the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order. Mark, do you want
us to read the amendment into the record.
Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure. Is that how we have the prepared resolution?
Mr. Morrow: We have a resolution prepared, and we'll read that into the
motion.
May 8, 2012
25158
Mr. Taormina: That would be fine
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask
for a motion.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-49-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2012, on
Petition 2012-03-06-09 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #89-12, and
Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02 of Article IV,
R-1 through R-5 (Single Family Residential) District
Regulations, in order to increase the length of time that
recreational equipment is allowed to be stored in the front or
side driveways of residential properties, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of Petition 2012-03-06-09 to amend Section 4.02(g)(2)
of Article IV, R-1 through R-5 (Single Family Residential) District
Regulations to read as follows: The temporary parking of one
(1) unit of Recreational Equipment on the Recreational
Equipment owner's or user's front or side driveway shall be
permitted for a period not to exceed seventy-two (72) hours
cumulatively in any five (5) day period for the purpose of
repairing and maintaining the Recreational Equipment unit for
suitable vacation use, for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendments will increase the
length of time that recreational equipment is allowed to be
stored in the front or side driveways of residential
properties; and
2. That the proposed language amendments are in the best
interests of the City and its residents.
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,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
May 8, 2012
25159
ITEM #6 PETITION 2011-05-02-06 BIGGBY COFFEE PATIO
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011-
05-02-06 submitted by R&B Coffeehouse of Livonia, L.L.C.
requesting approval of a fully detailed patio plan, including
information concerning overall dimensions, lighting, perimeter
fencing, furniture, access points and landscaping as required by
Council Resolution #205-11 for the limited service restaurant
(Biggby Coffee) at 33443 Seven Mile Road within the
Millennium Plaza shopping center, located on the south side of
Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Irving
Boulevard in the Northeast 114 of Section 9.
Mr. Taormina: Millennium Plaza shopping center is on the south side of Seven
Mile Road just west of Farmington Road at the southwest corner
of Seven Mile and Filmore. On July 6, 2011, Biggby Coffee
received waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant within the shopping center with the condition that the
petitioner provide a fully detailed patio plan at the time he was
ready to construct it. Biggby occupies the easternmost end cap
unit of the shopping center. This space is about 2,500 square
feel in area. They were permitted to have up to 30 customer
seats, including 10 outdoor patio seats. The proposed outdoor
dining patio would be constructed along the east side of the
restaurant within the 25 foot vacant area between the building
and the public sidewalk along Filmore Avenue. This area
currently consists of landscaping. He would add some brick
pavers in an area that would be about 300 square feel with
overall dimensions of 15 feet by 20 feel. It would be outlined by
a vinyl picket fence. He would provide some landscaping
around the perimeter of the patio including some hydrangeas
and burning bushes. He has provided us details with the type of
furniture he would use within the patio area. He also provided
information on the type of lighting he would use as well as
security. We have one item of correspondence from our
Inspection Department, dated April 18, 2012, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of
Inspection. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Is that it?
Mr. Taormina: I'll just show you quickly the detail. The patio is showing eight
seals with dimensions of 15 feet by 20 feet with the proposed
landscaping around the perimeter. This is a detail of the type of
May 8, 2012
25160
table and chair he would provide. This shows photographs of
the area, lighting and the security camera system. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Did you say there was some type of fencing?
Mr. Taormina: The fencing shown in this photo is not what he is proposing. He
has indicated on his plans a while vinyl picket fence. This is
more of a black aluminum decorative style fence. We do not
have a detail on the fencing but he has described it as a white
vinyl picket fence.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here? We appreciate your indulgence here.
You've taken a lesson in development.
Mr.
Perry:
I have learned much.
picket fence did not come up. I was wondering if this was
something that was added, but you're substituting the
Mr.
Morrow:
We will need your name
and
address for the record
please.
Robert Perry, 10025 Dorian, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. I'm the owner of the
Biggby Coffee. A point on the picket fence. When we had the
Clipper Landscaping folks come out, they suggested that we
use landscaping rather than the fence. I elected to put that
forward as what we would do. I dont know if that causes issues
or maybe I'm confusing Mark's team, but I thought that was
what I was trying to communicate, that we would not have the
picket white fence. It would be via landscaping.
Mr. Morrow:
That's why I was a little confused. When I met with you, the
picket fence did not come up. I was wondering if this was
something that was added, but you're substituting the
landscaping.
Mr. Perry:
Yes. When I originally spoke with Scott, Mark's employee was
coaching me on to get a landscaping design company in there
to actually do it and that's what they recommended. I think it
makes perfect sense from my point of view.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, is there anything, because of the location, that requires
that they have a picket fence?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Not at all. In fact, I think it's a great modification to define
the outdoor seating area with landscaping and skip the fence.
Mr. Morrow:
Its well landscaped. I think we lose one tree and two shrubs
are moved, and he's going to augment the shrubs in the rear to
further block off entry from the rear. I wanted to clear that up.
Anything else before I ask the Commission?
May 8, 2012
25161
Mr. Perry:
We've done real well the first seven months. We have a lot of
fool traffic from the residential areas. I suspected that an area
like this could be useful, but I'm hearing a lot from the
customers, so that's kind of exciting. I know the residents right
around the area are looking forward to this. They mention it to
me often. I'm hoping that comes to pass because I know they'll
enjoy it.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes. When I stopped by, we talked about security. Do you
think having the camera and moving the landscaping around will
actually make it more secure? You've already had a few
visitors.
Mr. Perry:
Yes. There's some folks, teenagers, that come around and
smoke or whatever beside the plaza there. I think the presence
of that bullet video camera and the recognition that it's basically
stored on site for about six months ... so that will be completely
something that might put an end to that..
Ms. Smiley:
When I was there, I really appreciate your landscaping plan. I
agree with Mark. Because there's a sidewalk there and then
more before you get to the street, so the landscaping would be
much nicer than a fenced area. It looks very nice. They have
Wi-Fi there so you could have a coffee outside. It looks very
nice.
Mr. Taylor:
You wont need a fence around there until you ask for a liquor
license.
Mr. Perry:
I'm not going to do that.
Mr. Bahr:
I just want to comment. I've had the opportunity to gel to know
Mr. Perry a little bit and I have tremendous respect for him and
the way he runs his business. I think he's a tremendous asset
to Livonia and I think this particular use, as somebody who as a
kid growing up riding my bike through that area frequently, I
often commented that it would be an ideal gathering spot for
that neighborhood. I'm thrilled with the plan he's brought
forward. I just wanted to voice that support.
Mr. Morrow:
I see no one in the audience. If there is nothing else, I'll ask for
a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
May 8, 2012
25162
#05-50-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 2012, on
Petition 2011-05-02-06 submitted by R&B Coffeehouse of
Livonia, L.L.C. requesting approval of a fully detailed patio plan,
including information concerning overall dimensions, lighting,
perimeter fencing, furniture, access points and landscaping as
required by Council Resolution #205-11 for the limited service
restaurant (Biggby Coffee) at 33443 Seven Mile Road within the
Millennium Plaza shopping center, located on the south side of
Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Irving
Boulevard in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, which property is
zoned G7, the Planning Commission does hereby approve the
patio plan in connection with Petition 2011-05-02-06 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Patio Packet submitted by Bob Perry,
Owner/Operator, as received by the Planning Commission
on April 10, 2012, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding, and that landscaped and sodded areas shall
be permanenfly maintained in a healthy condition;
3. That there shall be no outdoor speakers or sound
equipment, including televisions, allowed at any time;
4. That all light fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadways;
5. That no advertising shall be permitted on any of the seating
or table apparatus of the outdoor patio area;
6. 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
7. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#205-11, which granted approval to operate a limited
service restaurant (Biggby Coffee) at 33443 Seven Mile
Road within the Millennium Plaza shopping center, shall
remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict
with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
May 8, 2012
25163
ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,023r° Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,023rtl Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on April 24, 2012.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-51-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,023rtl Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 24,
2012, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Taylor, Scheel, Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Krueger
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Ms. Smiley: Before we adjourn, I want to recognize our special guest this
evening.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, we had a special guest in the audience this evening.
Commission Bahr brought his daughter, Macy, with him tonight.
She is eight years old and is homeschooled. She has been very
patient during our lengthy meeting tonight.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,024'" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 8, 2012, was adjourned at 9:29 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman