HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2012-10-23MINUTES OF THE 1,032nd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,032nd 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 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 petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2012-09-02-22 MARX COLLISION
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2012-09-
02-22 submitted by Man Collision requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 16.11(a) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate an auto body
and paint shop at 30731 Eight Mile Road, located on the
southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Milburn Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 2.
October 23, 2012
25374
Mr. Taormina: This is a waiver use petition to operate an auto body repair and
paint shop. The property is located on the southwest corner of
Eight Mile Road and Milburn Avenue in Section 2. The property
is about half an acre in total area. It contains 121 feel of
frontage on Eight Mile Road and has a depth of a little over 190
feet along Milburn Avenue. This properly is zoned M-1, Light
Manufacturing. There is a building on the properly that is a little
under 10,000 square feet in area, representing a lot coverage of
approximately 42 percent. Currently, the building is divided into
two spaces. There is an existing automotive repair facility in the
westerly unit and a vacant unit on the east half of the building. In
terms of the adjacent land uses and zoning, to the west, east
and south are various industrial uses all zoned M-1. A little
further south there is a residential district. There are homes
located in an RUF zoning category. To the north across Eight
Mile Road in the City of Farmington Hills are additional industrial
uses. In 2003, this site did receive waiver use approval to
operate an automobile and light truck repair facility on the
westerly half of the building. There was a condition that was
imposed as part of the granting of that waiver use. It staled that
the repair work not include bumping, painting, spraying and rust-
proofing, and transmission repair. This proposal is to utilize the
easterly half of the building for just that purpose, an auto body
repair and paint shop that would be called Marx Collision. Both
of these uses would be run by the same owner and would
operate in conjunction with one another. The other part of the
building, the area previously approved for a mechanic shop,
would remain in use for that purpose. The area that would be
occupied by the body shop measures about 5,000 square feet.
The majority is shop area, about 4,140 square feet, and the
balance, a little over 850 square feel, would be used for office
and other ancillary purposes. They indicate that the area would
have four work stations, including a paint booth, and access to
this space is provided by means of an existing overhead door
that is located on the east side of the building facing Milburn. In
terms of parking, two spaces are required for every work station,
plus one space for each employee. The existing repair operation
would require nine parking spaces, and then added to that,
Marx Collision requires an additional 11 spaces for a combined
total of 20 spaces. The site provides striped parking for 19
parking spaces. So there is a slight deficiency that would require
approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals unless an adjustment
is made to the plan. There are seven parking spaces that run
adjacent to the sidewalk along Eight Mile Road. There are
some additional spaces that are on the east side of the building.
These are perpendicular to the building so people are able to
back out onto Milburn Street. Then there are four other spaces
located in the northwest corner of the property, bringing the total
October 23, 2012
25375
to 19 spaces. There is a second condition imposed as part of
the grenfing of the original waiver that indicated that no
overnight storage or outdoor parking of vehicles would be
permitted on the site. The plan identifies an area along the
south side of the building and on the west side of the building for
used car parking. This is actually a fenced in area. There is a
six fool high chain link fence that separates the area behind the
building and on the west side. We have informed the petitioner
that he cannot sell vehicles from this location. That is a use that
is not permissible within the M-1 zoning classification. That
would require an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals
and would be something very difficult to achieve by virtue of the
fact that it is a use that can otherwise be conducted within a
commeroial zoning district, which is an option that he would
have to pursue as far as a rezoning if he wanted to go that
route. We do have an issue with respect to the utilization of this
property for the outside storage of vehicles. We are all well
aware that in the case of auto body repair facilities, that this is
something that really occurs as part of that use. Despite what is
said, there will always be a need to park vehicles outside as part
of those types of operations. From experience, we've seen that
in all the other sites throughout the community as part of those
operations. If the Planning Commission and City Council adopt
an approving resolution, would have to consider some degree of
outside storage of vehicles on the site, and really the area for
that would be within the fenced in area behind the building. In
terms of landscaping, this was an issue that we discussed quite
significantly back in 2003 because of the lack of landscaping.
Some areas were provided on the property enhanced. They
don't meet our typical requirements of having half of the front
yard provided in landscaping, but they have provided some
landscaping based on the review we undertook back in 2003.
There are no proposed changes to the exterior of the building.
We are not aware of any additional signage. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I'll read the correspondence, if you like.
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 12, 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 is comect. The address for this site
is confirmed to be 30731 Eight Mile Road. It is noted that no site
work modifications are proposed as a part of this project.
Therefore, the Engineering Division has no recommendations in
this matter. Note that Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction
of Oakland County at this location. Should the project scope
October 23, 2012
25376
change to include site work, the Engineering Division will review
the revised plans when submitted." The letter is signed by
Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
September 26, 2012, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the plans for requesting waiver use approval to
operate an auto body and paint shop at the above referenced
address. 1 have no objections to this proposal under the
condition that (in regards to the spray booth): The booth must
be listed and protected by an automatic fire suppression
system. (903.2.11.6 Other required suppression systems.
NFPA)" The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September
25. 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 October 23, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) This plan does not make provisions
for a dumpster enclosure. The Commission and/or Council may
wish to address this. (2) The fence on the property has plastic
strips intertwined with the chain link which is prohibited. (3) The
existing parking lot shall be repaired and sealed as necessary.
(4) The barrier free parking space is required to be van
accessible and property sized, signed and striped. An
accessible mute will be required from the barrier free parking
space proposed to the entrance of the building. (5) There is a
current violation on this property regarding the outside storage
of unlicensed vehicles and for the display of vehicles for sale.
(6) The number of parking spaces may be deficient. The
number of employees was not provided. Two parking spaces
are required for each bay and one for each employee. This
number needs to be added to the existing repair shop
requirements. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
would be required to maintain deficient parking spaces. (7) The
proposed plan shows an area for used cars. Car sales are
prohibited in an M-1 district. An appeal from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required to operate a used car lot. 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. Bahr: Mark, this is maybe an obvious question, but I just want to
clarify it. The condition that was put on here before about not
having any overnight outdoor parking or used vehicles on the
October 23, 2012
25377
site, was that aimed towards damaged vehicles, or is that all
cars - no cars left in the parking lot at all overnight?
Mr. Taormina:
I think it is to address primarily inoperable vehicles that are
brought to the site. A strict prohibition against any parking or
storage of vehicles is typically not something that we're
concerned about. The problem is when it involves any
unlicensed or inoperable damaged vehicles. That's usually what
that provision is intended to address.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. That's what I figured. Thanks.
Ms. Smiley:
In that area on Eight Mile, let's say from Farmington to
Middlebelt, aren't there a Iol of car shops?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure what you would consider a lot. As you go further
east towards Middlebell, there are a number of car repair
businesses. This is one of a handful in that mile between
Merriman and Middlebell.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the pefitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Keith Beals, 37891 Lanse Creuse, Harrison Township, Michigan 48045.
Mr. Morrow:
You've heard the presentation from the Planning Director. Is
there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Beals:
We offer a unique service. What we do is, we bring a lot of
vehicles in from the tri-county area. We do this by picking the
vehicle up and bringing it to our shop and putting it inside and
doing the repair for a customer who doesn't have the time to
come by. So there's not going to be as many vehicles out in the
area as it would seem in other shops because we have a
different type of service. Its full service. People have insurance
with car rental and when they have car rental, their car can be
picked up, fixed and taken back to them. So they dont need to
actually come to the shop. It gives us time to do mechanical
repairs under their insurance when they're renting a car. So now
they don't have to go to another shop and they can utilize the
service that's offered from their insurance company, the rental
service, to have their mechanical needs done at the same time.
Then we would return the vehicle to them. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
What percent? Is that 100 percent, that type?
October 23, 2012
25378
Mr. Beals: Its probably between 70 and 80 percent. We came from the
City of Detroit. We had issues with people breaking into our
building, and this community didn't appear to have that issue, so
It brought us to your community.
Mr. Morrow: We'll see if the Commission has any questions or comments
Ms. Scheel: Can you tell me what the hours of operation will be?
Mr.
Beals:
It will be 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Ms.
Scheel:
And is that Monday through Friday?
Mr.
Beals:
Monday through Friday only.
Ms.
Scheel:
So you will not be open on Saturday and Sunday?
Mr. Beals: No.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Beals, are you the owner of both operations or just one part
Of it?
Mr. Beals:
I'm the general manager of the building, the body shop. The
owner is present in the audience. He's the owner of the whole
property.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. So you're familiar with the operation and how it works
and so on?
Mr. Beals:
Yes.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Right now, are you doing the same kind of business that you're
proposing to do if this is approved or how are you managing?
Obviously, you're not allowed to do any bump or paint work.
How are you managing that now?
Mr. Beals:
Correct. At this point, we've been cleaning the facility up.
We're not doing any business at this point. We're waiting for an
approval.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. But the auto repair portion of the business, that is also
not operating?
Mr. Beals:
Because we're under cleanup. So we'd like to start that within
the next week or so.
October 23, 2012
25379
Mr. Wlshaw:
I see. Okay. And typically, as the Planning Department
mentioned, its not unusual for you to have vehicles that need to
be stored outside or around the property that are pending
various stages of repair, especially if you start doing body work.
How are you planning on storing those vehicles in a way that's
not going to look like a junk yard?
Mr. Beals:
Correct. Any vehicle that would be towed, our low companies,
they have keys to the building. They would put them inside the
building. The next day, we would review the vehicle, and if we
had to put it outside, it would be in the fenced in area out of
sight.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Now, one of the things you may have heard is that the
Inspection Department mentioned that the fence has plastic
strips through the chain link which Is trying to block that area off,
and that's not allowed to have those plastic strips there which
would almost make that fenced in area visible if you comply with
the Inspection Department by removing those things. Would you
be willing to consider, I don't know if this would be something
that would be workable, but some sort of a vinyl fencing or
something more substantial that would give you privacy for that
area so its not visible but also attractive looking.
Mr. Beals:
Yes. We would comply. Yes.
Mr. Wlshaw:
All right. That way instead of having chain link fencing you could
have something more attractive.
Mr. Beals:
Just give us some examples. We'd be happy to do it.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
What's the name of the business that's in front right now?
Mr. Beals:
Itjust says auto repair. There's actually no name. It was Motor
City.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
I was wondering how many employees you were thinking of
having.
Mr. Beals:
Tops, al this point, start up, would be maybe six.
Ms. Smiley:
Are you aware of the parking problems?
Mr. Beals:
Yes.
October 23, 2012
25380
Ms. Smiley: Right now, you currently have outside storage. There are things
dealer's license because, again, we do delivery of vehicles or
vehicles in state and out of state. So we would abide by any
ruling you wish. We could write up a letter slating that we
out there in the parking lot now.
Mr. Beals:
We only had that because we were moving to the structure.
We've put everything in the back. If you go by now, there's only
one car out there that's plated and its not damaged.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Would the dumpsler go in the rear yard?
Mr. Beals:
If we can fit il. If not, we would put an enclosure.
Mr. Morrow:
Where? Would it take up a parking spot?
Mr. Beals:
Yeah, that's a point. We would put it behind the building.
Mr. Morrow:
It appears to me the rear yard, the fenced in area, doesn't seem
to be too large or have the advantage of ingress or egress of
moving vehicles around.
Mr. Beals:
Well, it has two accesses.
Mr. Morrow:
How many vehicles could you store back there?
Mr. Beals:
I think roughly 24 because they can put them side by side,
depending on the size. Sometimes it might be less. Some
vehicles are smaller.
Mr. Morrow:
I was just curious because I didn't think it approached anywhere
near that number. Are we talking about the rear yard now, the
south area?
Mr. Beals:
The west and the south, the combination.
Mr. Morrow:
I was talking primarily the rear yard or the south yard. Okay. So
you're taking into account that it's indicated used cars before?
Mr. Beals:
Correct.
Mr. Wlshaw:
With regard to the used car indication, what is your intention
with that or what's your thought?
Mr. Beals:
We really didn't want to display used cars. We wanted to have a
dealer's license because, again, we do delivery of vehicles or
vehicles in state and out of state. So we would abide by any
ruling you wish. We could write up a letter slating that we
October 23, 2012
25381
wouldn't put anything outside or display it and submit that to
you. We just would like to have a dealer's license, such as a
wholesale license, so that we could . . . sometimes in our
business we're able to buy the vehicle, repair it and then sell it
at an auction. We don't need to put it outside.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Through the chair to Mr. Taormina, a dealer's license,
regardless if they're displaying cars for sale or not, if they're still
selling cars out of there, either on line or through some other
channel, it's still basically used cars. Right?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, it's a dealership operation. It would be the sales and
display from this location that would be prohibited.
Mr. Wlshaw:
So as long as they are doing it in a method that doesn't involve
a retail operation, would that be permissible.
Mr. Taormina:
I would have to look at that. That gets a little dicey in terms of
where the lines are drawn in terms of the sales. There are
locations in the industrial zone where a license is attached to an
address, but we typically indicate that there is to be no vehicles
connected to that. Its strictly the business address for the
license holder, and typically the vehicles are transferred from
one location to another without going to these sites, but it
sounds like he wants to store them here. I'd have to discuss
that with the city attorney's office to see if that would be
permissible. If it crosses the line as a used car dealer, it would
be prohibited and could only be authorized by the granting of a
use variance.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Beals:
If I could speak on that? If we have a wholesale, we really just
want to repair the vehicle and it may just be stored for a few
nights after completed, and then we would send it out to an
auction and have it picked up.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
I know that M-1 district is 300 feet deep. What is behind this
particular place?
Mr. Taormina:
I'll show you the aerial photograph. It is a multi -tenant shop
building. If you look carefully at the aerial photograph, directly
behind this property, and also extending behind the adjacent
property to the west, is a series of multi -tenant shops with
parking on the north side and a landscape buffer between the
building and the closest residential structure, which is to the
October 23, 2012
25382
south of that. So that's probably about 300 feet from the right-
of-way of Eight Mile Road to where the zoning line is.
Mr. Taylor:
How far is Milburn from Middlebelt? Is that quite a few streets?
Mr. Taormina:
Its still a little over half a mile.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition?
Please come down to the podium. We will need your name and
address for the record please.
David Herrgoll,
20525 Milburn, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I am the complex right
behind him that you were just talking about. As far as I'm
concerned, I have no problems with whatever the man is doing.
As a matter of fad, I'm happy that he's doing what he's doing
because he has really cleaned up the whole area in front of me.
Other than that, I see no problems.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience? If
you would come forward please.
Robert Hill, 20242 Sunset, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm at the cul-de-sac just
west of him. I have a couple questions. He did clean up the
area. A couple good things, some bad things to say. The repair
shop, I mean I don't have a problem. We don't hear any noise
or anything, no late night working, but the body shop. You guys
show on your diagrams up there, off of Milburn there's east and
west parking spots, and they're nosed into the building there.
Milburn is like right there so if a wrecker has to come in or a car
has to be put there, I think he's going to have some issues there
with the street and obstructing traffic on that comer. But the
other reason is, a body shop. I'm kind of leaning away. I don't
agree with the body shop being there. I don't have a problem
with auto repair. I'm in the auto repair business myself, but I
don't do bodywork. The other concern I have is a couple nights
or in a couple weeks, I guess, there's been two wrecked cars
that have been disabled, and I'm concerned about people
walking in the streets with their dogs if the cars are leaking fluid.
I mean, how is he going to stop this? There's no sidewalk there
on Milburn. So people walk through that whole property with
their dogs and who knows what they're going to pick up? Glass.
Kids riding their bikes. That corner, I think, is going to become
pretty busy if wrecks and rollbacks are coming in and out. Right
now, I just make it a point that I'm disagreeing with the body
shop but I don't have a problem with the auto repair.
October 23, 2012
25383
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? Sir, do you have
anything further to say before I close the public hearing?
Mr. Beals:
No thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion.
Ms. Scheel:
I will put out an approving resolution that we can talk about for
the purpose of pulling an approving resolution on the table.
Okay?
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and adopted, it was
#10-88-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2012, on
Petition 2012-09-02-22 submitted by Marx Collision requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(a) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate an
auto body and paint shop at 30731 Eight Mile Road, located on
the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Milburn Avenue in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, which property is zoned M-1, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2012-09-02-22 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked A101 prepared by
Najjarohitecture, dated September 1, 2012, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. 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;
3. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including
the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage,
marking and configuration, and all regular customer spaces
shall be 10 feel by 20 feet in size as required;
4. That the site's landscaping shall be restored to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That there shall be no overnight outdoor parking or storage
of vehicles on the site;
6. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts,
equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products,
October 23, 2012
25384
junked vehicles, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles, or other
similar items in connection with this operation, and the
overhead door(s), when not in use for vehicles entering or
exiting the service facility, shall be closed at all times;
7. That the display of any vehicles for sale is strictly
prohibited;
8. That any facilities for the outdoor storage of refuse shall be
screened by means of an enclosure constructed of
masonry walls with solid panel steel construction or
durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass enclosure gales
which shall be properly maintained and, when not in use,
closed at all times;
9. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring
into adjacent roadways;
10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
11. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
12. That no overhead speakers will be used inside or outside
the building;
13. That the hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday;
14. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence
from the Assistant Director of Inspection, dated
October 23, 2012, shall be resolved to the satisfaction
of the Planning Director; and
15. That the 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 is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
October 23, 2012
25385
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject property 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?
Ms. Scheel:
I would also like to add that all items mentioned in the
Inspection letter be address and covered to the Planning
Director's satisfaction.
Mr. Taylor:
Could the petitioner come back up, please?
Mr. Beals:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
There is a business down the street. I went by there. I think we
had some restrictions on that particular piece of property also.
Maybe it's just because the business is so successful, but they
are parked all over the place. That's what I don't want to happen
here. That's what I'm wondering about. I'm sure you listened to
all the conditions that we have here. Do you feel you can meet
all those conditions with the facility you have for the bump and
paint shop?
Mr. Beals:
Yes, I do. If it gets to that point, we'd be more than happy to
purchase another building or rent a site close by.
Mr. Taylor:
I'm glad to hear you say that. I think that's what happened
down the street that possibly they grew loo big and were loo
successful. So as long as you understand the criteria that we
put down, we sometimes have a small inspection department.
They don't go around looking for trouble, unless we call their
attention to it. Hopefully, you will do this and I'll support it.
Mr. Beals:
I appreciate it. Thanks.
Mr. Bahr:
I just have a question for you loo, sir, as well. I've been rolling
this over in my mind. The gentleman, the neighbor, that came
up earlier, made reference to just worrying about the loading
and unloading on Milburn Street. Can you talk about that and
October 23, 2012
25386
how that's going to work, and do you foresee an issue there with
trucks blocking the street and bringing cars in and out?
Mr. Beals:
I don't. We have the gated entrance that you want us to cover.
So they can open that, pull the truck in, or the door you see on
the east side, they can pull into the building, drop the vehicle off,
and then lake off.
Mr. Bahr:
Thankyou.
Mr. Taormina:
When I visited this site yesterday, there was a low vehicle on
the properly, and you mentioned today that you have a lowing
service. Will that lowing service be operated out of this facility?
If so, how many low vehicles do you have and where will they
be stored at night?
Mr. Beals:
That vehicle will be sold. That was from our old company. We
will not have any low vehicles on the premise that are owned by
us.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right now, you're just sort of getting situated on this property.
You haven't really started your operation, and it sounds like
you've done quite a bit of work to try and clean up this property,
which is nice. What is your contingency plan in the event this
was not going to be approved by the City? Would you still
continue to operate an auto repair place out of there, or would
you just have to find another site because the bump and paint
and all those parts of the operation are essential to you?
Mr. Beals:
We would have stayed and operated, absolutely. But we would
have petitioned you in hopes that you would allow us because
we're going to keep it more confined. The auto repair is
becoming much different in the future. There's not as much of
the cutting the car part. Mostly
just taking components and
putting them on, straightening small
components because once
there's enough damage on these newer cars, they're totaled
and the vehicle is taken off to an auction.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The noise that you're going to generate in doing any body work
as far as straightening frames or body parts and so on, is that
going to be contained within the building and only done during
the day?
Mr. Beals:
Yes. As we said, our hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and
we'll keep the doors closed. It will be pretty quiet. The vehicles
aren't that strong like they used to be.
October 23, 2012
25387
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel
Would you be opposed if we limited the hours of operation into
this petition? Do you have any problem with anything like that if
we wanted to limit the hours? I know you said 5:30 p.m. If we
made the hours of operation, maybe they had to slop by 7:00 at
night so there would not be any Tale night noise.
Mr. Beals:
That would be fine. The only thing I would ask is, if we're
caught in a position where we have customers just dropping
their vehicle off and we're trying to complete it, our workers
would be gone but our administration staff might be
communicating with some of the customers.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Mark, can that be worded into the resolution? Is there
any type of ...
Mr. Taormina:
Sure, we can add verbiage as to whatever the Commission
fmmes as far as a condition, but I think you want to discuss
what those should be. For example, 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday to provide some flexibility.
Ms. Scheel:
I'm willing to be flexible, not just slick to the rigid 9:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m.
Mr. Taormina:
With respect to the office operations, no, we wouldn't consider
that to be a violation of the condition.
Ms. Scheel:
But the shop operations ...
Mr. Taormina:
I think what you're referring to is the body shop operations.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Then I would like to add that to the motion to limit the
shop operations.
Mr. Morrow:
Did I hear earlier that you don't operate on Saturday and
Sunday?
Mr. Beals:
Thats correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Was that part of your motion to limit only during the days of the
week?
Ms. Scheel:
I'm willing to go Monday through Saturday with the hours that
Mark had just put out there. Mark, you said 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
P.M.?
October 23, 2012
25388
Mr. Taormina: It was just a suggestion.
Ms. Scheel: What is normal for a body shop?
Mr. Taormina: I would probably say 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. So I'll put out Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. for the shop.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any other discussion or questions? Seeing none, thank
you very much. I'll ask for a roll call on the approving motion.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Scheel, Taylor, Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw
NAYS:
Morow
ABSENT:
Krueger
ABSTAIN:
None
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 2012-09-02-23 TAIL WAGGER'S
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
09-02-23 submitted by Tail Wagger's 1990 requesting waiver
use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(f) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a wellness-
spay/neuter center at 28418 Five Mile Road within the Harrison
Square Plaza shopping center, located on the north side of Five
Mile Road between Harison Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Taormina: This request for waiver use approval is to operate a wellness-
spay/neuter center within the Harrison Square shopping center
which is on the north side of Five Mile Road just west of
Harison Avenue. The site in question is zoned C-1, Local
Business. There is a health care nursing home facility located
immediately to the west under the OS, Office Service category.
To the east are other office uses. To the south across Five Mile
Road are a variety of commeroial land uses, including a retail
shopping center very similar to the one we're looking at as part
of this petition. To the north are residential homes along
Harison Avenue. The shopping center is about 12,275 square
feel. It's divided into roughly 12 units or tenant spaces. This
October 23, 2012
25389
proposed use is treated the same as a veterinary clinic under
Section 10.03(f) of the Zoning Ordinance. There are some
conditions that apply to such use: that there be no open or
outdoor runways, kennels or pens; that the disposal of rubbish
and litter not be obnoxious or offensive; and that the building
must be ventilated and sound proof. Tail Waggers is currently in
the shopping center. Their administrative offices are located
about seven or eight units to the east of this. The wellness
clinic is identified in a space that is the second unit from the
west end of the shopping center. The center would be open to
the public and it would be under the direction of veterinarian.
There are two additional licensed veterinarians as well as
licensed vet techs. Animals would be seen by appointment and
all procedures would be performed on an outpatient basis with
no overnight stays. I'm going to let the petitioner describe in
greater detail exactly what they do. With that, I can read into
the record the correspondence that we've received.
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 12, 2012, which reads
as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use request.
28418 Five Mile Road is within the range of addresses assigned
to this multi -unit building. After reviewing this petition, it is clear
that there is no work proposed that would involve public utilities
located in right -0f --ways or easements. Therefore, the
Engineering Division of Public Works has no recommendations
regarding this petition." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney,
P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 26, 2012,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the plans for
requesting waiver use approval to operate a wellness-
spay/neuter center at the above referenced address. 1 have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W.
Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated September 26, 2012, which reads as follows: 7
have reviewed the plans in connection with the captioned
petition. 1 have no objections or recommendations with regard to
the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 17, 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 Jerome Hanna, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
October 23, 2012
25390
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we'll go to
the petitioner. We will need your name and address for the
record please.
Laura Zain, 27859 Oakley, Livonia, MI 48154. Good evening, Commissioners.
Mr. Morrow: Would you like to add anything?
Ms. Zain: We're extremely excited to lake this journey and open up a
second business in Livonia. One of the primary reasons that
we've decided to do this, to go this route, is because we are a
23 year old named organization in our community and
surrounding communities. We service up to five counfies of
people with animals, of home owned animals. We've been
around for 23 years. We have an impeccable reputation. We
are a non -prof( organization and because of our current grant
funding, when we moved this operation out of my home, which
is down the street from Harrison on the south side of the City, it
opened up just tremendous exposure for us and people coming
to us in such dire need of services for their animals. So we
started the grant writing process and we started receiving a lot
of grant funding. When we did some research, and our
neighbors in Redford right at the Five Mile and Inkster area, we
realized that according to city-data.com, 13,380 animals are in
the City of Redford and 85 percent of them are unaltered. They
are coming into our city. I've already talked to animal control
officers in both Redford and our two officers here in Livonia.
Because there's no local close inexpensive spay/neuter facilities
in our area, including the Michigan Humane Society, who tends
to be a little bit more costly for those who can afford it, the
writing was on the wall for us to go ahead and open up this
venture and start making a dent in pet overpopulation where
other people can't. Because of the grant funding we're getting
and because of the reputation and years of servicing so many
people, it just seemed like the right thing to do. The space
became available. Our landlord is completely in support of what
we're doing, working with us with just amazingly, giving us an
opportunity of a lifetime. Really truly an opportunity to do this.
We talked with our licensed vetennanan. She is excited to jump
on board. She is actually primarily a surgeon who goes on the
road with us vaccinating animals. Just alone from our time out
on the road this past season, from Match until September, we
vaccinated off-site, going to various cities, over 2,300 animals
because we do $12.00 vaccines. Our prices are going to be
less expensive. We're making it affordable. Grant funding is
giving it to people for free al limes. We're targeting multi homed
households with multiple animals. While we may have a pet
limit, there's four, five and six animals in some homes being
October 23, 2012
25391
unaltered, and we want those people to comfortably come to us
without feeling there is some prejudice or anything. We want
them to get their animals taken care of on an outpatient basis,
and hopefully make a dent and keep these pets healthy and
happy. We're providing wellness services, loo, which is your
basic vaccinations, real limited veterinary appointments. No
broken legs or anything like that. We're going to stick to
vaccinations, feline leukemia testing, heart worm testing, and
some flea prevention that they can come to us for inexpensively.
Il just seems like the right thing to do and we'rewilling to take
on.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll see if there are any comments or questions from the
Commission.
Mr. Taylor:
Where is the closest one now to this facility?
Ms. Zain:
There are multiple veterinary hospitals in our area.
Mr. Taylor:
Oh, I understand that.
Ms. Zain:
Low cost clinics, there's one down on Pardee in Taylor, east of
Telegraph. Its called the Paws Clinic. We went down and
visited them. There's one on the east side at 13 Mile and Ryan
called All About Animals Rescue, and the other closest is up in
Grand Rapids and also Muskegon, all four of which we've
already visited.
Mr. Taylor:
I understand this wouldn't be an overnight thing. No dogs or
cats would be kept overnight.
Ms. Zain:
No. Actually, just to make note, there is a veterinary office
directly on the comer on Five Mile just east of Middlebell. It's
call Strong Veterinary Hospital. We have a tremendous
relationship with them, and this is not a competitive business.
We're doing this as a service. They understand it. They
currently work with us now providing all of our spay/neuter
services. So if there is an animal that appears to be in need or
once going in for surgery there becomes maybe a little bit of a
problem or the animal needs to seek additional medical care,
that animal would be transported to Strong Veterinary Hospital.
Then if it needs overnight care, it would be taken care of there.
Mr. Taylor:
That operation, what is it about a half hour/hour operation?
Ms. Zain:
It can be as close as 15 minutes. I know there's a concern with
the waste and what's interesting, and this goes with what they
call all high volume spay/neuter clinic. We are not going to be
October 23, 2012
25392
high volume. We plan on doing maybe 1510 20 a day. We want
to keep it personal. We don't want to mass produce. The
animals are fasted from the previous night at midnight with food.
By the time they come in, they get prepped for surgery, they go
into surgery. They go through the recovery phase. Technically
and factually, it lakes a while for their intestines to start moving
for them to really have to go to the bathroom. They are caged
in the office on little potty pads if you will. By the time the
owners pick them up, maybe around 6:00 in the evening, and if
they walk their dog and they have to go, it would be up to the
owner. We're going to be telling them this on discharge, but they
would pick up any waste. They can dispose of it on our property
if they needed to. Some people just take it home with them.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw Your organization certainly provides a very unique and great
service to the community and the surrounding area, so I
appreciate the work that you've done so far. I think this sounds
like a nice opportunity to expand upon the work that you've
done. I do have a couple questions though. The vets that are
going to be providing this service at this location, are they
employed by your organization or are they donating their
services? How does that work?
Ms. Zain:
They are actually what we would consider contractual
veterinarians. They work on a per diem. As of right now, we
don't have any paid staff members. We have contract workers.
I have my licensed vet tech with me today, and she is simply
paid on a service basis. Right now we have two licensed
veterinarians, one that actually lives in Livonia. We just brought
her onboard. We have another veterinarian that practices
medicine here in Michigan and also Massachusetts. She is here
for two full weeks each month. And then we have a third
veterinarian that is interested in working with us. We're in
negotiations with her right now. All are licensed in the Slate of
Michigan.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And those vets would provide not only the spaying and
neutering services, but also the wellness services that you're
planning on providing?
Ms. Zain:
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Would any adoption activities or any of that type of stuff be
taking place at this location as well?
October 23, 2012
25393
Ms. Zain:
No. Tail Waggers is not an adoption agency. When people hear
the word "animal" and they hear the word "rescue', they
assume. We're not an adoption agency. While we have adopted
out some, we like to say that we re -home animals for residents
that are in the process of maybe moving or with the foreclosure
rate and people needing to change residences and may be
going into a rental situation, all of a sudden the family dog is the
one that goes by the wayside. So we help them re -home. We
lel them use our pet finder account. We will take them to
adoption events at PelSmarl or PetCo, but ultimately it's up to
the owner and the new homeowner to make an agreement on
any adoptions because we simply don't gel involved in the
adoption process.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thankyou. I appreciate it.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyone else? I think you've given it a pretty comprehensive
explanation. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask
for a motion.
Mr. Wilshaw:
These types of services, spaying and neutering, and even the
wellness services of vaccinations and so on, can be quite
expensive to a pet owner. I can appreciate the fad that this
organization is trying to make those services available to the
community at a reduced rate, which is a very nice service that
they offer. Based on that, I'm going to offer an approving
resolution.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-89-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2012, on
Petition 2012-09-02-23 submitted by Tail Wagger's 1990
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(f) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
operate a wellness-spay/neuter center at 28418 Five Mile Road
within the Harrison Square Plaza shopping center, located on
the north side of Five Mile Road between Harrison Avenue and
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, which
property is zoned C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-09-02-23 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Plan received by the Planning Commission on
September 21, 2012, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
October 23, 2012
25394
2. That the operation of the subject use shall not permit the
boarding of household pets;
3. That all animal remains, medical and animal waste shall be
stored in a freezer or other such closed container inside
the building and disposed of properly;
4. That adequate soundproofing shall be installed to the
extent necessary to insure the elimination of all noise from
the area used for the treatment and temporary keeping of
such sick and diseased household pets;
5. That open or outdoor runways, kennels, or pens are
prohibited;
6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
and
7. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
October 23, 2012
25395
ITEM #3 PETITION 2012-09-02-24 LAS PALAPAS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
09-02-24 submitted by Agustin Ochoa requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the existing full service
restaurant (Las Palapas) and add seating at 33308 Plymouth
Road within the Fountain Park shopping center, located on the
north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and
Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request for a waiver use to expand an existing
restaurant and add seating. It is the Las Palapas restaurant
located within the Fountain Park shopping center on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield
Avenue. The zoning map identifies the properly in question as
G2, General Business, as are the adjoining parcels both to the
east and west. Fountain Park residential is located immediately
to the north and is zoned R -8-C, Residential Condominiums. To
the south is the Sheldon Center shopping complex zoned G2,
General Business, the same as the site in question. Las
Palapas currently occupies the westedy 3,280 square feet of
Retail Building "A". This space is about 42 feel by 77 feet in
overall size. This plan shows two of the buildings that make up
the Fountain Park commercial development, Retail Building "A"
and Retail Building "B". Building "B" is the larger building to the
west and "A" is the building we're considering this evening. To
the east is a bank. To the west is a Dollar Store, formerly a
Walgreen's drugstore. All of these buildings were approved as
part of a larger development referred to as Fountain Park. The
petitioner would like to expand the restaurant and occupy the
entirely of Retail Building "A", bdnging the space up to about
5,287 square feel. Currently the eastedy portion of this building
is occupied by a tobacco retail store. They would relocate thus
allowing Las Palapas to utilize the entire building. It was in
February, 2010, that Las Palapas received waiver use approval
to operate as a full service restaurant, and then in May, 2012,
they were approved to construct an outdoor dining patio and to
add seals. Together, the approvals bring the allowed seating to
114; that includes 94 interior seats and 20 outdoor seats. The
new proposal by expanding into the adjacent space, the 2,000
square feel to the east, would add about 44 seats. The seating
arrangement would be somewhat similar to what currently
exists. There would be a vadely of tables and chairs and booths
as well as a second bar sealing area. The plan shows the
layout of the existing restaurant and the space adjacent to it,
which is the tobacco shop, and what it would look like after the
October 23, 2012
25396
expansion, as well as the outdoor seating area. It shows the
area and how it would be utilized for customer seating and other
ancillary uses. The additional 44 seats would bring the interior
seating up to 138. When you add the 20 outdoor patio seats, it
brings the total seating count to 158. In terms of the parking,
Fountain Park was originally computed on the basis of a group
commeroial center at a ratio of one parking space for every 125
square feet of useable floor area. You will recall that the overall
parking was figured collectively for all the buildings that make up
Fountain Park. When all of the parking is considered, the
existing number of parking spaces does comply with the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance. However, from a practical
standpoint, we know that the separation of the various uses and
buildings that make up Fountain Park makes this shared parking
inconvenient at limes. So when we go back to this plan and
look at the parking area that is available for all of Retail Areas
"A" and "B", while that is somewhat limited, it was the original
approvals that considered the parking on all of the adjoining
properties. Again, we figured those collectively as part of a
group commercial development. Recognizing the concern about
parking, the petitioner, as part of this petition, is proposing to
add 17 parking spaces along the east side of the driveway that
leads from Plymouth Road north and then turns to the west
providing access to the rear of three of the commeroial buildings
as well as the residential portion of the development. These are
spaces that are currently on the bank's property. We're not sure
what type of arrangement is being made here; whether it's an
acquisition of the property from the bank or some form of an
easement agreement, but they are showing the additional 17
spaces, the sizes of which would comply with the ordinance.
They are 10 feet in width by 18 feet in depth, but the depth
limitation is permitted where there would not be an obstruction
to any walkways. In this particular case, it abuts a landscaped
area. There are also exterior changes proposed to the building.
We're not sure exactly on the details. Currently, the canopy
along the front of building is a flat type of structure. There would
be a peak added to it and covered with a thatch material to give
it the characteristic look of the theme of the restaurant and to
match some of the interior improvements that have been made
there. We do have a companion petition that is requesting to
expand the Class C liquor license in connection with the
enlarged restaurant. We're not aware that any additional
signage is being proposed as part of this petition. With that, I'll
read out the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please do.
October 23, 2012
25397
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 15, 2012, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use and
liquor license request. The written and drawn legal descriptions
are not in agreement and need revision. If this project proceeds,
the error should be corrected on the project plans. The address
for this site is confirmed to be 33308 Plymouth Road. The plans
also indicate the addition of 17 parking spaces to the existing
parking lot Additional storm water detention will not be required
for this minor site change. We are providing the owner, for
informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City
Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and
Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary
sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, and provides
information on grease trap(nterceptor requirements." The letter
is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 11,
2012, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in
connection with Las Palapas Restaurant - Class C License,
located at 33308 Plymouth Road (northeast comer of Plymouth
and Farmington Roads). The Police Department has no
objections for the expansion of the business as submitted as
long as the licensee complies with: (1) All State Laws, (2) City
Ordinances, (3) Stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic
Bureau of the Police Department." The letter is signed by
Donald E. Borieo, Sergeant, Special Services Bureau. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
September 27, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed
the plans for approving this petition for a waiver use approval
request to expand the full service restaurant and Class C Liquor
License at 33308 Plymouth Road. 1 have no objections to this
on the condition that the building must have a monitored (fire
alarm), fully automatic fire sprinkler system; this is based on
code and compliance to the National Fire Protection
Association's rules." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire
Marshal. The last letter is from the Division of Police, dated
September 26, 2012, which reads as follows: 7 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 October 17, 2012, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. The proposed increase
in the size of the restaurant will require that the building be
equipped with a fire suppression system to code. This will be
addressed at time of our plan review if this project moves
forward. This Department has no further objections to this
October 23, 2012
25398
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant
Director of Inspection. Thal is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here? We will need your name and address for
the record please.
Cesar Ochoa,
Las Palapas, L.L.C., 14172 Arlene Lane, Belleville, Michigan
48111.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Is there anything you want to add to what you've
heard?
Mr. Ochoa:
Not really. Just kind of missed you guys a little bit, so I'd
thought I'd ask for something else and come back and see you.
Mr. Morrow:
If you don't have anything to add, we'll find out if the
Commission has comments or questions.
Ms. Smiley:
Congratulations on your plans to expand. I'm not surprised, and
I think the parking is an excellent move. I can tell you right now,
though, I don't think I'm a fan of the outside changes to the
building and to the center. Did you want to talk about that a little
bit?
Mr. Ochoa:
Yes. It might seem a little bit radical, but at the same time, it's
just a small cosmetic look. I think it would help our business
tremendously. I don't even know how many people come in and
say, look, I didn't even know this place was here. By adding
such a small element, we'll pitch the roof a little bit, add some
palm thatching. The palm thatching, the life on it is about five to
six years. I'm still waiting on some of the specs from the
manufacturer. I know it's inexpensive. We're going to have to
redo it every three to four years to keep up with it. But I think at
the end of the day when people drive down Plymouth Road and
they look at that building, they'll say, look, @'s a Mexican
restaurant. I've never been there before. I want to go there. It
would help our business tremendously. I think its something
that needs to happen. Its small. Overall, @'s not going to
change anything structural on the building. Knock on wood we
don't go out of business. If we do, remove it and go back to
what the building looks like now.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Taylor:
That was in the line of my questions also. I dont think you need
for business because you can't gel in your place right now,
and that's why you want to expand. I understand that. But I
October 23, 2012
25399
think it will give a unique look to it. My question is, how long is it
going to last and is it going to gel shoddy looking? It used to be
we had canopies that were made out of a different material,
cloth, and they didn't Iasi at all. Do you know how long this is
going to Iasi? You said you dont know for sure, right?
Mr. Ochoa: I talked to the manufacturer. They are saying four to five years.
With the snow you might be looking at two to three years. Al
the same time, I'm willing to commit. I'll sign a contract with you
guys. I'm willing to have the Inspection Department take a look
at it once a year. If they say it needs to be replaced, we'll
replace it. It's actually relatively inexpensive. We can go ahead
and change it every single year. At the end of the day, I don't
want to own a business that looks like a dump from the front,
you know. If we have to replace the palm thatching, we'll
replace the palm thatching. That's it.
Mr. Taylor: How does that compare to what you have outside, the
umbrellas?
Mr. Ochoa: It is the same exact material
Mr. Taylor: Same material?
Mr. Ochoa:
Same exact material. They are very few palapas; that's what
it's called. That's what the restaurant means. There are very
few palapas that are constructed indoors. I'm assuming all you
guys have been on vacation in many different spots. That's
what most of the homes are actually roofed with. It lasts a
relatively long time. And believe it or not, you actually have to
add moisture to the palm thatching to make it last a lot longer.
A lot of people don't know this, but we actually take a water
hose once a month to the interior of the restaurant and add
water to the palm thatching to make it last. If you don't, it dries
up and fades away.
Mr. Taylor:
Now, tell me about the parking arrangement that you have. Did
you make a lease with the bank next door?
Mr. Ochoa:
Its been an ongoing process with the landlord. The reason why
R look this long to come up to Planning for the expansion,
they're either waiting on the bank to agree to sell the property to
them. They've agreed to sell the property as long as you guys
are willing to let us expand. That area is actually their properly
now. We'll add the parking spaces, we'll go ahead and expand,
and I think it would be great for everybody.
October 23, 2012
25400
Mr. Taylor: You definitely need the parking. I know that, even before the
expansion. Thankyou.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ochoa, its great to see that you've been so successful in
this location and that you're looking to continue that. The palapa
material, this palm thatching that you're referring to, as you
mentioned, as I think about it, in Michigan it just seems like it
wouldn't hold up very well with the snow and all the elements
that we have in this area as opposed to a southern climate
where you dont have as much to worry about. It's amazing the
amount of material available that is out that that looks like other
materials. I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here. There's
metal roofs that looks like shingles. There's plastic or resin
materials that look like other materials. Have you looked to see
if there's any other material that would give you the appearance
that you're looking for but the durability for this climate and this
area?
Mr. Ochoa:
We have. We've actually looked at terra cotta tiles, which is
more like Spanish tiles. It's got a Mexican look. At the end of
the day, I think that we're willing to make the expense. Even if
every April we have to go in and replace everything, we're okay
with that. We're willing to make the expense. At the end of the
day, I want people from the minute they walk up to the
restaurant to say, what's a palapa? What's a fiki hut? That's
what a palapa is. We're willing to make the expense to give the
restaurant a real authentic feel. I can always go with a synthetic
one. Yeah, it looks okay. At the end of the day, it looks fake. I
don't want to have that. I think once you see the real thing up,
you'll really be impressed by it, and yeah, the maintenance
sucks on it. It's just like having a deck in your backyard. I still
don't know why people do it. To me, I'd just spend the money
on a brick paver patio and not have to redo it every summer and
hear my wife complaining about it, but people still do it. Well,
that's how I feel about the palm thatching. I'd just rather see it
up there. See the real thing and just get the real feel from it.
Mr. W Ishaw:
That's a good answer. You want something authentic, just like
your food. Right?
Mr. Ochoa:
Yep.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
For the benefit of the audience and myself, is there anyway you
can explain what this palapas is? What is it?
October 23, 2012
25401
Mr. Ochoa:
It's really nothing more than a tiki hut. It's a palm thatched hut.
Al the same time, I think everybody, the minute they see a
palapa or a tiki hut, it just makes you feel like you're on
vacation. It makes you relax a little bit, enjoy yourself, and just
kind of leave your worries behind. Honestly, I think that's one of
the main reasons why we've been so successful because of the
feel inside the restaurant. You have the tiki bar. You have the
little but area with some booths underneath it. We just want to
expand and add onto that, you know. I think if you add it to the
exterior of the building, especially next year, I think 96 is getting
shut down next year for some construction. Plymouth Road has
been redone. I talk to a lot of business owners down Plymouth
Road. We've all just become friends. And everybody is saying
they're down 50 percent, 60 percent from the years prior. Well,
we dont have much to go on because we've only been there for
two years, but if I'm down 50 percent from where I used to be, I
need more space. We need more space.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm sure I've seen tiki huts before, but I can't recall what the
material is.
Mr. Ochoa:
Its palm tree leaves.
Mr. Morrow:
Palm tree leaves? What color are they?
Mr. Ochoa:
Its a tan color. It's a dried palm tree leaf. The exact same stuff
that's on top of our bar now. It's the same exact stuff that's on
our umbrellas on the exterior of the building on the patio.
There's no signs on it. Its really hard to explain unless you
really see one. You're more than welcome to come by the
restaurant at any time to look at one.
Mr. Morrow:
I hope everybody can follow that. Can you magnify that a little
bit, Mark? That's it?
Mr. Ochoa:
That's it.
Mr. Morrow:
And that's a palm leaf?
Mr. Ochoa:
Its palm tree leaves woven together to make a roof.
Mr. Morrow:
That would be the material put on the roof?
Mr. Ochoa:
That's it right there.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
October 23, 2012
25402
Ms. Scheel:
Mark, can you go back to the picture where it shows it actually
on the building, the side view that you had shown us? The
roofing material that you're talking about, that's attached to
plywood?
Mr. Ochoa:
No, it wouldn't be attached to plywood because we're doing the
exterior. It would be either to aluminum or another type of metal
that won't rust, kind of similar to what we have now. The
canopy is actually already there. It just doesn't have that pitch
added to it. We'd use some of the same material to add the
pitch to it so it wouldn't rust away, and then on lop of that you
would layer it about 10 to 12 inches thick, just to give it that look.
If you did have to replace it, the only thing that you're replacing
is the actual rolls. It comes in rolls 250 feet at a time. Just layer
it on lop and do it. So, yeah, it costs about $2,000 to $3,000 to
redo it, but like I said, we'd be more than willing to have one of
your inspectors come by every April and take a look at it. If it
needs to be replaced, we'll go ahead and replace it. That's fine.
We're okay with that. I just really do believe it's such an
important part to our expansion. Just the fact that people would
drive down Plymouth Road and say, look, there's a Mexican
restaurant there.
Ms. Scheel:
How sturdy would that be?
Mr. Ochoa:
It will be on metal beams to add support to it. Nothing is going
to be on top of it. It would be just as sturdy as what's there now.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
On the same item, how is it attached to the metal?
Mr. Ochoa:
It is stapled on.
Mr. Taylor:
Its stapled on? Okay. I know now you have a couple doors.
You only use one. Are you going to use another door at the
new section you're talking about?
Mr. Ochoa:
We actually have two doors that make the entrance, and then
we have the outside door. We would like to continue to just use
the two main doors, close out the other one where Wild Bill's
Tobacco was. They actually just left a couple days ago.
They're already closed.
Mr. Taylor:
You're not going to use that door at all?
Mr. Ochoa:
No. We would like not to unless we have to.
October 23, 2012
25403
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Anything else? I think we've satisfied that. Is there anyone in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of
this petition? If so, please come forward. We will need your
name and address for the record please.
Raymond Gnx, 11716 Farmington, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm a resident of
the Fountain Park complex. My concern is with the outside area
that exists now. Specifically, going back to the approval that
was granted in March or Apnl, the petitioner indicated at that
time that there would be no outside speakers in that area, and
one of Mr. Taylor's requirements or stipulations in the petition
was that there be no outside speakers. There is currently on the
outside of the building over the door on the outside seating area
a speaker. And if you're going to grant a petition for his
expansion, I would ask that you would enforce the stipulations
that were made in the previous petition for the outside spaces.
Again, that there be no outside speakers or anything. The
petitioner may not consider the volume to be any kind of an
issue, but by the same token, he agreed that there would not be
any outside speakers. Again, Mr. Taylor made that part of the
petition approval previously, and I would again ask that it be
enforced if you're going to go ahead and grant this new request,
that the agreements that he made previously be enforced and
that he abide by them. Thank you.
Patricia Moore, 11726 Farmington, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm a resident at
the condominiums. I'm also on the Board as President of the
Association. First, I'd like you to know that I commend these
young men for a wonderful job. The way we are today with
communities losing their businesses and losing their homes, it's
nice to see a couple of young men be successful. I love their
food. I lake it out and I eat it in. I'm excited that they are
expanding. I do have one concern as a representative of the
Association and 94 homeowners is that there, right now, is not
enough parking spots. The road common with the retail and us
is being used as a parking lot. There have been motoroycles
that have parked on the sidewalks because there's not enough
parking. As I hope you approve the expansion of the restaurant,
I would like you to consider making the condition that they do
receive approval for 17 new parking spots, otherwise the
expansion is only going to further the problem of parking, and
we share the parking spaces behind the retail section. They are
shared with the condominiums and retail, and that would also
limit my co-owners from being able to park in those spots if we
have not enough parking for the restaurants. Thank you.
October 23, 2012
25404
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anyone else? I see no one else coming forward. Any
other comments?
Mr. Taylor:
If we could bang the petitioner back up and find out about the
speaker, what's going on, how loud it is, what its used for, and
why it's there because we did say there would be no speakers
outside.
Mr. Ochoa:
I do know that we had said there would be no speakers outside.
Initially, for the first month and a half, we did not have a speaker
outside. We didn't add a speaker until just about every single
customer that we've had said we would really like a speaker
outdoors. Al the end of the day, our customers are the ones
paying the money, paying our taxes. So we added a speaker.
It is controlled by the volume on the inside. It also has a shutoff
control on the speaker where we can control the volume. I know
it gels a lot louder inside the restaurant than it does outdoors,
and we do control the volume on it. Honestly, I've never driven
up to the restaurant and ever really heard the music. I'm not
saying that our neighbor behind us can't listen to the radio, but I
really, really doubt that he can from his house. If he really can, I
guess 1, you know ...
Mr. Taylor:
You want to be friendly with the neighbors. That's the main
thing you want because those are your customers loo.
Mr. Ochoa:
Ido.
Mr. Taylor:
I have no idea how loud it was. I don't even remember the fact
that it was in there that there were to be no speakers. Mark, do
you remember? It was there?
Mr. Taormina:
It is absolutely a condition that there be no outdoor speakers or
sound equipment.
Mr. Taylor:
So you might want to adhere to that resolution that we have.
Thankyou.
Mr. Bahr:
My question was covered. Thanks.
Ms. Scheel:
In the approving resolution should we choose to go that way,
approving the site plan, does that make it that the parking has to
be part of it also?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Absolutely.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. I just wanted to double check that. Thank you.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-90-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2012, on
Petition 2012-09-02-24 submitted by Agustin Ochoa requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the
existing full service restaurant (Las Palapas) and add seating at
33308 Plymouth Road within the Fountain Park shopping
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 C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2012-09-02-24 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
October 23, 2012
25405
Mr.
Ochoa:
Actually, I'm not interested in expanding our restaurant as it is
right now if we can't get the parking.
Ms.
Scheel:
I just wanted to be sure.
Mr.
Ochoa:
No problem.
Ms.
Smiley:
With that being said, the landlord is in negotiation to buy the
property?
Mr.
Ochoa:
They've actually already agreed to the sale. The only thing that
they're wailing on is the approval for our expansion to make the
sale complete.
Ms.
Smiley:
And then they'll put the parking in.
Mr.
Ochoa:
Yes.
Ms.
Smiley:
I've actually left because we can't park. If it was raining or
something, I thought I'm not hiking over from the bank.
Mr.
Ochoa:
And I hear that a hundred times a week, and that's the only
reason why we're expanding.
Ms.
Smiley:
Good. Thank you.
Mr.
Morrow:
It sounds like you have a lot of good problems.
Mr.
Ochoa:
I know. It's still a headache.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. I think that's it. I'm going to close the public hearing and
ask for a motion.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-90-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2012, on
Petition 2012-09-02-24 submitted by Agustin Ochoa requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the
existing full service restaurant (Las Palapas) and add seating at
33308 Plymouth Road within the Fountain Park shopping
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 C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2012-09-02-24 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
October 23, 2012
25406
1. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. AO.1.2 dated
September 21, 2012, as revised, prepared by Serra -Marko
& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross access agreement, that gives notice and outlines
the terms of how the subject properly would share parking
and access with abutting property(s), be supplied to the
Inspection Department at the time a building permit is
applied for;
3. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed a total of one hundred fifty eight (158) seats,
including one hundred thirty eight (138) interior seats and
twenty (20) outdoor patio seats;
4. That the Elevations Plan marked Drawing No. A2.0.1 dated
September 21, 2012, as revised, prepared by Serra -Marko
& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That the outdoor storage of refuse shall be limited to the
screened compactor area as shown on the approved site
plan for this commercial development, and there shall be
no additional outdoor refuse storage areas on the site in
connection with this use;
6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
7. That no LED lighiband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8. That the petitioner shall repair or replace the thatched
material, as needed; 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
October 23, 2012
25407
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?
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Taylor, do you feel that you have sufficient information about
that thatching? I'm not really comfortable with that yet.
Mr. Taylor:
That's what is in Condition 4, the Elevation Plan, I believe.
Ms. Smiley:
I think I could support it. I just would like to see more information
before it goes to Council, maybe some actual thatching. I've
been south of the border, but I just am not real comfortable with
that sluff as far as the look to the front of the building. Maybe if
you could provide some more information before it gets to
Council that would be helpful.
Mr. Morrow:
About the only way we could do that would be to table it. As an
alternate, we could make sure that the petitioner lakes samples
with him to the City Council level. I think I'm the only one that's
not really sure what we're talking about here tonight. I've seen it
but I don't recall it. I notice that the petitioner is in some kind of
time constraint and he's asking for a seven day waiver. If that's
all right with you?
Ms. Smiley:
That would be agreeable with me. I don't want to hold him up.
Mr. Morrow:
Because City Council has the final say so as to whether the
material is accepted or rejected.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Then that's fine.
Mr. Taylor:
We could put a number 9, possibly Mark, and maybe you could
help me with the verbiage, that the petitioner has agreed to, if
need be, replace the thatched roof every year.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we could fashion some language that addresses that
concern.
Mr. Taylor:
Or every two years. If someone is worried about the thatching,
and I understand what you're saying, we could put a stipulation
in there saying that it should be repaired or replaced every
second year if it doesn't hold up.
October 23, 2012
25408
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taylor, just to make sure I understand, is your concern with
what the material is going to look like or the longevity of d?
Ms. Smiley:
Both really. I mean what it's going to look like is dependent on
Michigan. We're nothing like Marco Island, Tel's say. It's going
to have an entirely different ...
Mr. Morrow:
I have no problem with the recommendation if that's your desire,
but I still think we should make sure that the sample of that
material goes forward to the City Council so that they can
actually see it live and in color.
Mr. Bahr:
I agree with what you're saying. I was disappointed that we
didn't have samples here tonight. I think it makes sense to lake
R to Council. I will say this: it is on the interior of the restaurant;
R is on the umbrellas today. Frankly, in a world of suburbia with
a lot of similar looking buildings, I'm kind of excited about the
idea, to be honest with you. I hear what he's saying. I think it's
kind of neat and it's consistent with what he's done already. We
also have someone here who's been a very success and
enthusiastic business owner within Livonia. I can support that. I
will say this though: while I personally can understand
customers desires to have music on the patio and your desire
to do it, it was in the resolution before, and you're not doing
yourself a lot of favors when you knowingly go against that. I
agree with everything that's been said here, but just to the
petitioner, abide by the resolution. It will make your life a lot
easier for this and future requests. If you want changes to that
resolution, there are appropriate proceedings to go through to
get that done.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, just make sure when it comes before Council that
he can present a sample of exactly what's being talked about.
Mr. Taormina:
We can do that.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Taylor:
They would like to gel rolling on this right away, and I'm going to
ask for a seven day waiver.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-09-02-25 LAS PALAPAS -EXPANSION
OF CLASS C LICENSE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
09-02-25 submitted by Agustin Ochoa requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the Class C liquor
license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the
premises) of the existing full service restaurant (Las Palapas) at
October 23, 2012
25409
#10-91-2012
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 date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2012-09-02-24 submitted by Agustin Ochoa
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand
the existing full service restaurant (Las Palapas) and add
sealing at 33308 Plymouth Road within the Fountain Park
shopping center, located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. You have your seven day waiver.
Mr. Bahr:
I just have to ask to be sure. I'm the least experienced Planning
Commissioner up here, so I'm sure this has been covered. The
idea was mentioned of putting a ninth condition into that. Was
that captured with what we just did, or does that need to be
added on separately?
Mr. Morrow:
You mean as far as replacement?
Mr. Bahr:
Yes. Was that captured with what we just did? Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
Because you said you agreed with everything.
Mr. Bahr:
And I did, I just didn't hear the separate motion for it. I wanted
to make sure we had done that.
Mr. Morrow:
I think, Mr. Taormina, you're adding that to the conditions.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-09-02-25 LAS PALAPAS -EXPANSION
OF CLASS C LICENSE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
09-02-25 submitted by Agustin Ochoa requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the Class C liquor
license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the
premises) of the existing full service restaurant (Las Palapas) at
October 23, 2012
25410
33308 Plymouth Road within the Fountain Park shopping
center, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 27.
Mr. Taormina: I won't add too much to this other than to indicate that with the
expansion of the Class C licensed business at this location, we
still need to recognize the requirement that it be at least 1,000
feel from any other existing Class C licensed establishment.
There are two such businesses within that distance. One is the
Red Olive Restaurant, which is located in Retail 'B" just about
160 feel away. Secondly, Slingers Bar and Grill, which is on
Farmington Road north of Plymouth, is at a distance of about
700 feel. The approval of this request will require that City
Council waive the separation requirement by a supermajority
vole in which two-thirds of the members concur. We have
fashioned the resolution with that language. The
correspondence is what I read on the previous item.
Mr. Morrow: Okay.
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 15, 2012, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use and
liquor license request. The written and drawn legal descriptions
are not in agreement and need revision. If this project proceeds,
the error should be comected on the project plans. The address
for this site is confirmed to be 33308 Plymouth Road. The plans
also indicate the addition of 17 parking spaces to the existing
parking lot. Additional storm water detention will not be required
for this minor site change. We are providing the owner, for
informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City
Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and
Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary
sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, and provides
information on grease trap/Interceptor requirements." The letter
is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 11,
2012, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in
connection with Las Palapas Restaurant - Class C License,
located at 33308 Plymouth Road (northeast comer of Plymouth
and Farmington Roads). The Police Department has no
objections for the expansion of the business as submitted as
long as the licensee complies with: (1) All State Laws, (2) City
Ordinances, (3) Stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic
Bureau of the Police Department." The letter is signed by
Donald E. Borteo, Sergeant, Special Services Bureau. The
October 23, 2012
25411
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
September 27, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed
the plans for approving this petition for a waiver use approval
request to expand the full service restaurant and Class C Liquor
License at 33308 Plymouth Road. 1 have no objections to this
on the condition that the building must have a monitored (fire
alarm), fully automatic fire sprinkler system; this is based on
code and compliance to the National Fire Protection
Association's rules." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire
Marshal. The last letter is from the Division of Police, dated
September 26, 2012, which reads as follows: 7 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 October 17, 2012, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. The proposed increase
in the size of the restaurant will require that the building be
equipped with a fire suppression system to code. This will be
addressed at 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? Would the petitioner care to come
forward and speak to this item? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Cesar Ochoa, Las Palapas, L.L.C., 14172 Arlene Lane, Belleville, Michigan
48111.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anything you want to add to the request?
Mr. Ochoa: Not really. The only thing we intend on doing is adding a bigger
bar area. We want to do away with our bar area now to just
make it more of a carry out section and people wailing on drinks
in the server area. All drinks would be dispensed out of our new
bar on the other side. In all reality, we do want to expand.
We're not asking for that many more seats. We just want to
make it a little more comfortable for you to wait, have a drink at
the bar with your wife, your husband, a place for the kids to sit.
Just to be a little more comfortable, that's really our biggest
intention. Al the end of the day, I still want people to wait.
Mr. Taylor: The bottom line is, it would be pretty hard to have place next
door without a license.
Mr. Ochoa: You could drink on this side but not on that side.
October 23, 2012
25412
Mr. Morrow:
I think we'rejust trying to comply with the letter of the law.
Mr. Wilshaw:
You're going to be serving Shirley Temple's to the children at
the bar, right?
Mr. Ochoa:
Yeah. No longer in the Marganta glass. We get the cops called
on for that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Excellent. All right.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else? 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 heating and request a
motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-92-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2012, on
Petition 2012-09-02-25 submitted by Agustin Ochoa requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the
Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for
consumption on the premises) of the existing full service
restaurant (Las Palapas) at 33308 Plymouth Road within the
Fountain Park shopping center, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, which properly is
zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2012-09-02-25 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; and
2. The Petitioner shall not engage in any form of solicitation
for business within the public right-of-way of Plymouth
Road.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
Mr. Taylor: Fine
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Taylor: Again, I would like to request a seven day waiver for the
petitioner to go along with his previous item.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-93-2012 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 2012-09-02-25 submitted by Agustin Ochoa
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand
October 23, 2012
25413
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. Taormina:
I think we can delete Condition 2. That was a carryover from a
previous petition that does not apply in this case.
Ms. Smiley:
That the waiver use is limited to the property ...
Mr. Taormina:
Regarding the service bar only.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that agreed with the maker and the supporter?
Ms. Smiley:
Fine.
Mr. Taylor: Fine
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Taylor: Again, I would like to request a seven day waiver for the
petitioner to go along with his previous item.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-93-2012 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 2012-09-02-25 submitted by Agustin Ochoa
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 19.06 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand
October 23, 2012
25414
the Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirts for
consumption on the premises) of the existing full service
restaurant (Las Palapas) at 33308 Plymouth Road within the
Fountain Park shopping center, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield
Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. As you heard, the seven day waiver on
this petition has also been approved. Good luck.
ITEM #5 PETMON 2012-10-08-06 HOME SENIOR CARE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch Senior Services Company, d/b/a
Home Instead Senior Care, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to the existing building at 16013 Middlebell
Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between
Puritan Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 14.
Mr. Taormina: This is a site plan request for the construction of an addition
onto an existing office building located on the west side of
Middlebell Road between Puritan Avenue and Six Mile Road. It
is a lot that is on the northwest corner of Puritan and Middlebell
Roads. The zoning of the properly is OS, Office Services. The
properties across Middlebell Road include various commercial
uses. To the south, is a Bank of America. Immediately to the
north is a vacant lot zoned OS, and then under the same zoning
classification further north are other office buildings.
Immediately to the west are residential homes that are under
the RUF, Rural Urban Farm, zoning classification. The proposal
is to construct a two story addition onto the existing one story
office building. The existing building measures about 1,500
square feel in size, and the two story addition as shown on the
plan is about 3,400 square feet in total area. That would bring
the overall area of the building when it is completed to 4,900
square feel. The addition is situated in the north and west
corner of the building. The lot is about 0.4 acres in areas. It
has 88 feel of frontage on Middlebelt Road and has a depth of
about 200 feel along Puritan. The OS zoning district requires
that all buildings be set back at least 40 feel from any public
rights-of-way. This proposed addition is shown at 36 feel from
October 23, 2012
25415
Middlebell Road. The existing building is located within the
required building setback and is therefore nonconforming. To
add to a nonconforming building requires a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. While the proposed addition does not
conform to the zoning ordinance standards with respect to the
setback requirements, it is in fact set back a little further than
the existing building is from Middlebelt Road. In terms of parking
for office uses, parking is calculated at a ratio of one space for
every 200 square feel of useable floor area. With the addition,
this would require a total of 20 parking spaces. The plan shows
exactly 20 parking spaces. Access would be provided as it
cumenfly exists off of Puritan Street. There is a screen wall
required along the west property line where it abuts the
residential district. The site plan indicates that a six foot high
masonry wall would be constructed along the west property line.
For those of you who visited the site, there is a slight grade
increase between this property and the home immediately to the
west. There is probably a two or three foot drop between that
residential property and this site. They are showing the
pavement going all the way to the edge of the property. Thus,
the required wall would be built along that property line. The
ordinance requires that the wall be at least five feet in height as
measured from the highest grade. So the fact that the
residential property here has a little bit higher grade, ifs going to
have to be at least six feet from the grade of the parking lot in
order to meet the five foot minimum requirement on the
residential side. It may actually have to be seven feet on the
commeroial side, depending on what that actual grade
difference is. Landscaping as shown on this plan constitutes
about 32 peroent of the total site area, which is about 17 peroent
more than what the ordinance requires, which is 15 percent. In
terms of the floor layout of the building, the main floor of the
addition would be used primarily as a training facility for
employees. It also has several mock rooms that would be
created as part of this, including a Irving room, bedroom,
bathroom and kitchen. Again, this is a request from Home
Instead Senior Care services. This would be used primarily for
their administrative offices and training facilities. The second
floor would be divided into offices and conference rooms. We
also have sketch drawings showing the exterior elevations. It
would be the intention here to match the exterior of the existing
building, which is constructed out of horizontal siding and
shingled roof. You get somewhat of a sense of the scale
difference from the existing house, a single story structure, and
then the scale of the two story structure that is being built
alongside. I want to point one thing out on this plan and the fact
that they are showing the expansion of the parking lot to the
west. Currently, that parking lot ends somewhere about halfway
October 23, 2012
25416
across the property. Everything you see on the westerly half of
the property would be expanded parking area in order to
accommodate the additional building area. One of the things
we note is the dimension of the parking lot. They are showing
40 feet of space between the parking spaces on the south side
of the lot and the parking spaces on the north side of the lot.
That is really to accommodate the four spaces on the west side;
otherwise, the requirement would only be about 22 feel for the
width of the drive aisle. One of the things we'd like to explore
with the petitioner is the precise parking needs and whether or
not the number of spaces can be reduced or a change made to
the configuration of the lot to pull some of these spaces back
along the right-of-way of Puritan Avenue and provide some
additional buffering and green space. That would also benefit
the petitioner from the standpoint of stormwaler management
because they will be required to provide some degree of
stonnwater detention, in addition to providing an increased
buffer from the residential area. So particularly along this west
side, if there's any opportunity to remove a few of those spaces,
even if it requires approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, with
your support we would encourage that if lhafs something that
they can live with given the amount of parking that they need for
the site. With that, I will read the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 15, 2012, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced plan approval
request. The written legal description provided is correct. The
address for this site is confirmed to be 16013 Middlebelt Road.
It would appear that no work is planned in the Middlebelt Road
right-of-way. Should this change, the petitioner will have to
obtain required permits from Wayne County. Storm water
retention and treatment are required for this project, and is to be
based upon the increase in impervious area." The letter is
signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
October 3, 2012, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the
plans for approving this proposal to construct an addition to the
existing building at 16013 Middlebelt Road. 1 have no objections
to this on the condition that all exit doors are made to swing in
the direction of egress as NFPA rules and regulations dictate:
NFPA 0106 14.5.1.3 Excerpt. A door shall swing in the direction
of egress travel under either of the following conditions: (1)
Where the door is used in an exit enclosure, unless the door is
the door of an individual living unit that opens directly into an
October 23, 2012
25417
exit enclosure, (2) When the door serves a high hazard contents
area [101:7.2.1.4.3]."The letter is signed by Ead W. Fesler, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
October 3, 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 October 15, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) The petitioner is adding to an existing
non -conforming building in regards to setbacks. A variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain
these deficient setbacks. (2) An elevator will be required for the
second level. This will be addressed at the time of our plan
review if this project moves forward. (3) This space must meet
all current barrier free codes. 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. Taylor:
Mark, I was out there today. The property line, is that where it
looks like a dirt wall with blocks on lop of it or something? Is
that the pefitioner's or does it belong to the resident?
Mr. Taormina:
I can only guess that it's probably on the residential property,
but its hard to tell.
Mr. Taylor:
Its hard to tell where the property line is.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Its in that general area but I'm not sure exactly where.
Mr. Taylor:
And there's probably three or four trees right in that area too.
Mr. Taormina:
Comect.
Mr. Taylor:
The roof on this existing building looks extremely high to me for
a residential look to it. The existing building itself, I was kind of
surprised when I went by it. I know there's a ramp going up to
the building. I think at one time it was an insurance building, but
I'm not positive of that.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't have the building height. It's not identified here, but
you're right about the pitch. It is relatively steep, and I think
they'd probably want to match the pitch of the roof on the new
part. You can see the actual height difference here on the
elevation plan. It
probably is a good 10 feet or maybe 12 feel
higher than the existing
roof line.
October 23, 2012
25418
Mr. Taylor:
Thank you. I'm anxious to hear from the petitioner.
Mr. Bahr:
Mark, is there anything about the zoning that doesn't allow two
stories?
Mr. Taormina:
No, two stories is allowed with a maximum height of 35 feel
measured to the top of the peak. I'm guessing that this is
approaching the 31-32 feet in overall height.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Mr. Taormina, I don't expect you to speak on behalf of the
Inspection Department, but looking at the comments that the
Inspection Department made, it sounds almost like they are
treating this building as though it is a senior home care center
by requiring an elevator and some of the other items they
mentioned. Does that seem logical to you? All two story
buildings don't require an elevator. Correct?
Mr. Taormina:
I think there is probably going to be a requirement for an
elevator, even as a general office building. I don't know what
those thresholds are. There could very well be a requirement
for an elevator in this building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Because looking at the plan, I didn't see one on there,
and I know that can be an expense.
Mr. Taormina:
It can be quite an expense, but there might be alternate ways of
addressing the issue. Other options should be explored with the
Inspection Department to see whether or not they can comply
with those less expensive options.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right, like the stairway lifts that lake a wheelchair up.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will
need your name and address for the record please.
Glenna Yaroch,
Yaroch Senior Services Co., d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care,
18867 Canterbury, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm the owner of
Home Instead Senior Care. I've been a resident of Livonia for
18 years, and I'm a really, really proud business owner of Home
Instead here in the community for 10 years. I'm really happy to
be a part of the community. We have serviced almost 1,500
families here in Livonia and the surrounding cities. Our business
October 23, 2012
25419
really is in the homes of the seniors. We help seniors as an
alternate to going to a nursing home. So we help them with
showers and preparing meals, getting to doctor's appointments
and things like that. In our building, what we do is scheduling
and billing, and we bring caregivers in and we'll do some
training with like a hospital bed and things of that nature.
Actually, everything we do on the second floor we would also be
doing on the first floor. The elevator would be something to talk
about a little bit. Our business is really in the homes. We work
really closely with Livonia Senior Center. We've been doing an
Alzhiemer's support group for many years here and educational
programs with the Senior Center as well as Westland's Senior
Center. We're very involved with St. Mary Hospital. We're
really an integral part of the community. I believe really strongly
in being part of the business community that I live in. So that's
what we do.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you currently doing business in the current building?
Ms. Yaroch:
We are. We've been in this building for six years now. We
don't care for seniors in our building. We do scheduling and
billing in our building. We've been at this location for six years,
and we were across from the Rec Center for the first four years.
Mr. Morrow:
But this new addition will be for (mining?
Ms. Yaroch:
Training and office space. We have ten administrative
employees; half are part-time, half are full time. Right now
we're in that 1,500 square feet, which is really more like about
1,000 useable square feet. Some days there's just not even
enough oxygen.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you doing training in this current facility?
Ms. Yaroch:
We have one tiny little room we do training in.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. So this is an expansion. It's the same use, just
expanding.
Ms. Yaroch:
Correct. We work with hospital beds. We work with mannequins.
We need a litfle more space to do it properly.
Mr. Morrow:
Good.
Ms. Yaroch:
And our staff is currently sitting in one particular room. I have
four office staff all on phones at the same time. You can't even
hear yourself anymore. They need offices.
October 23, 2012
25420
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Ms. Smiley:
Did Mark talk to you about the parking lot and the big gap
between the two sides? Have you thought about that?
Ms. Yaroch:
You mean the wall in the back?
Ms. Smiley:
No. See the big space between the parking spots? Did you say
it was 40 feel? Do you really need 40 feet in between those?
Do you need all the parking spots? Let's start there.
Ms. Yaroch:
I would love to have as many parking spots as I can be allowed.
With growth, parking spots are always a good thing. We do
have families that will slop in. They may only stay for len
minutes to get information, but I would like whatever parking
spots are allowable.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay, but I'm wondering if you need that much space between
the parking spots. Would there be some way to restructure that
parking so they can move it back away from the street a little
bit?
Ms. Yaroch:
Oh. I see what you're saying, the distance between. Absolutely.
Ms. Smiley:
To get it off of the street, so close to the edge of the street,
would be nice.
Ms. Yaroch:
The existing building itself is still even closer to the street. I
don't know how much difference that will make, but that's the
problem. The existing building is close on both sides. So that
parking is sitting deeper than the existing building.
Ms. Smiley:
Yeah, I guess it is.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, did you calculate the number of spaces required?
Mr. Taormina:
What they're showing is precisely what they would be required
to have. She cant really pull that parking further away from the
street without reducing the number of spaces. If what she's
showing is just compliance with the ordinance but she can live
with fewer spaces, then I think we could support a variance. But
I think what the petitioner is indicating here, she needs all 20
spaces, in which case there's really little we can do to pull that
back without reducing the spaces because the way she has it
laid out is pretty efficient right now.
October 23, 2012
25421
Mr. Morrow:
When I was out there site checking, we did have some
parking
on the street. I guess what I'm saying, if we reduce it
in size,
they're going to make up for it on the street.
Ms. Yaroch:
We currently have about six parking spots in the lot we have
right now. The building, the new structure, is really where our
parking lot is right now, and all that parking is currently all grass
that we just landscaped. We don't park on it. It's all grass. It's
just a big grass lot. Its just a big deep lot.
Ms. Smiley:
How many employees would you have?
Ms. Yaroch:
We have ten administrative employees, five full time, five part
time. I have about 150 caregivers that work for me, but they
work in the seniors' homes. They don't come into the building
unless we ...
Ms. Smiley:
You're doing a class. But I mean how many would be in a
class?
Ms. Yaroch:
Our class sizes are small, about five to eight. Its really meant
to be one-on-one time with them, with our nurse.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I think the thought process was, if you could lose a couple of
those parking spaces, which would then allow you to pull the
parking that's along the road up a little bit to give you some
additional landscaping, that was the thought process there, but
it sounds like you really want all 20 spaces.
Ms. Yaroch:
I don't have to have all 20. Definitely not. I mean, 16, 18, 20. 1
have len employees and they're not all there at the same time.
So, no I dont need 20 parking spots. Would I like 20? Sure.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just as an example, if we took away two of the spaces along the
back of the property, which would allow you to pull that other
parking up about 20 feet and give you a larger landscape area
between the road and the parking, would that be something you
would consider?
Ms. Yaroch:
In other words, you're saying you want landscaping between the
road and the parking, and you want to bring those rows closer
together?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Its allowing for more of a buffer and for the parking area not to
just be a large voided area. Just a thought process there.
October 23, 2012
25422
Ms. Yaroch:
Sure. Sure.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I do have a few questions for you though. One thing that I
would have liked to have seen is a color rendering to sort of
understand exactly how your building is going to look. The
drawing that we have is sort of flat and doesn't really allow me
to fully visualize what this building is going to look like when @'s
completed. Do you have anything like that?
Ms. Yaroch:
My architect was on his way here and he got pulled over by the
police so he didn't make it in time. He had the colored drawing.
So I don't have it with me.
Mr. Wilshaw:
All right. We'll see what we can do without R. Hopefully, you'll
at least have it for the Council if it moves on. A couple other
questions. How are you handling trash in your building?
Ms. Yaroch:
Currently, we really dont have a lot of trash. We just have two
trash cans that are picked up by the City.
Mr. Wilshaw:
As you expand and have a much larger operation, will that be
adequate?
Ms. Yaroch:
I absolutely think @ will be.
Mr. W Ishaw:
Okay. So no need for a dumpster or anything like that?
Ms. Yaroch:
No. We don't have trash like that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Fair enough. What are the hours of operation?
Ms. Yaroch:
Generally, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay.
Ms. Yaroch:
We operate around the clock, but we work remote by phone.
We're in the office building 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So you're not doing any training or anything in the
evening?
Ms. Yaroch:
No.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Will there be any need for any lighting then in the back part of
your building or in the parking lot for the evening hours?
October 23, 2012
25423
Ms. Yaroch:
I guess go back to evening training. We have training classes
at 5:00 p.m. That's not considered true operation hours, but if
you mean training up to 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m., yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So there's people there possibly at 7:00 p.m. So would you
need some lights for people to be able to see where they're
going in the parking lot? Are you going to have lights?
Ms. Yaroch:
Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
How are those lights going to be set up? Are they going to be
pole lights or are they going to be mounted on the building?
Ms. Yaroch:
I guess depending on how the parking lot ends up playing out.
I'm going to imagine we're going to need at least a pole in the
back. I can't imagine building lights covering that deep of a lot.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Ms. Yaroch:
I'm not an electrician.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. The thought then would be, obviously you have a
neighbor, residents directly behind you. We would want any
lighting to make sure it doesn't shine onto his house.
Ms. Yaroch:
Sure.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay. That's some of my thoughts right now, but I'll see how
things go. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
I agree with Mr. Wilshaw that we need a color rendering to see
what's going on. The buildings that most of the times we
approve now, especially on a main road like that, we'd ask for it
to be brick. I don't know what this building is. I don't whether
its clapboard or whatever it is, aluminum siding or ...
Ms. Yaroch:
The existing building is siding. So the plan would be to match
that same look.
Mr. Taylor:
To me, it just seems like it doesn't fit in this area for one reason
or another. What you're doing, I understand is a great business,
but I don't know whether it should be in this particular area.
You're right in a residential area. There's a big brick bank
across the street from you, and most of those buildings along
there are brick. I know it's probably not feasible to build brick
because of what you want to use it for, but to me, I just don't like
the looks of it, and unless this rendering would show me
something different with that huge high roof, which doubles the
October 23, 2012
25424
size almost of the roof that you have there now, from what I can
see.
Ms. Yaroch:
The building is actually two stories today. The upstairs, though,
is just storage because it's nonconforming. It was an insurance
building.
Mr. Taylor:
Most two story colonials are about 28 feet to the peak. You're
talking about 31 or 32 feel at least on this particular one. So
anyway, that's where I'm coming from right now.
Mr. Bahr:
The prospect of brick on this, is that a game breaker for you, or
is that something that you could do?
Ms. Yaroch:
If you combine it with an elevator, its a game breaker, yeah.
I'm a small business in Livonia.
Mr. Bahr:
I understand. Actually, I have a question about that to Mark, if I
could real quick. About the elevator, you said there's some
requirements around that. Are those State requirements that
we have no control over or are those something that we can
waive?
Mr. Taormina:
Those are most definitely State requirements. I suggest that
she talk to our Inspection Department and find out precisely
what is needed and what her options are.
Mr. Bahr:
Relative to the appearance. I'm sensitive to you being a small
business owner. I know you run a great business. I'm very
familiar with the area. I go back and forth along Middlebelt
probably four times a day, and I go to church just a couple
blocks from you, and I'm over there many, many limes. On the
corner of Wentworth and Middlebelt, there's a building there that
was put on a similar type of lot that you have, a dentist office.
Its just beautiful what was done there, and its got the brick
look. Just with that as a standard, and I love what that's done
for Middlebelt along there, I'd love to see something like that
happen at your building. That's why I was just trying to see
what. . .
Ms. Yaroch:
I'm curious that the three story building, that's like about six
buildings south of me, that's three stories. I don't think that's
brick.
Mr. Bahr:
Its not
Ms. Yaroch:
And its three stories.
October 23, 2012
25425
Mr. Bahr: It is. And I haven't been real pleased with how the appearance
of that building has looked. I'll withhold loo much judgment on
that. But for not a very old building, I would have concerns
about that building similar to what Commissioner Taylor has
said. I'm not saying I'd be against siding at this spot because I
don't think your building now looks bad. I just really like what's
been done along there with the brick buildings and I would like
to see that consistency maintained if it was feasible.
Ms. Scheel:
Are you under any kind of a time constraint to gel this
construction going if we table this until we could get a color
rendering and gel a better understanding of what type of
products you're using?
Ms. Yaroch:
No, other than just banks. You know, banks rule on that.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anything else? Questions, comments?
Ms. Yaroch:
I guess I would like to throw in one other comment. I dont know
how often you've seen our building, but we've had many of our
neighbors frequently say that they'd like to nominate us for the
best looking business in Livonia award many limes. We
decorate that building for every holiday. We have hundreds of
flowers out there every Spring. I think if you drove by
consistently, you probably saw all of our Fall decorations when
you were there today. We're probably the best looking building
in Livonia with the most charm, and we've given an awful lot to
this community for 10 years, and I really would ask for your
support to stay in this community. We've serviced hundreds
and hundreds of families and kept their parents home. We work
and donate thousands of dollars to the hospital and work with
the Senior Center. I'd like to stay in Livonia, but I'm asking for
your support.
Mr. Morrow: I was on the Commission when we originally approved that
building, which was a relatively small impact into the
neighborhood there, the commercial and office. I can see
where Mr. Taylor is coming from now. Now we've upped the
scale and we don't have anything in front of us that gives us
exactly what it's going to look like. We did get the question of
the light. One of our requirements is that the light be positioned
and the height be established. I just wanted to add those
comments that we appreciate what you're saying with the
comments about the neighbor, but we're going to at least
double, triple what we have there now. We just want to get a
better look at what it will look like.
October 23, 2012
25426
Mr. Taormina: After listening to the discussion this evening and the petitioner
indicating that maybe a couple weeks will not be a hardship to
her in terms of timing, maybe it would be appropriate to table
this item. My staff has had a brief discussion with the architect
about some of these issues, including the parking lot. Now that
we've heard from the petitioner indicating that maybe a few
spaces could be removed and still meet her needs. That plus
the rendering issue, we could have them provide a detail on the
lighting. She could investigate with the Inspection Department.
I'd be more than happy to arrange a time when she can come in
and talk to the appropriate person about the requirements for
the elevator so she can understand how that affects her overall
proposal on this, and then come back. In one week we have a
study session, so maybe we could gel a lot of these items
covered by next Tuesday, a week from today. We skip a week
for the election, and then it comes back on the 13t of November
for reconsideration. So if that's not an imposition on the
petitioner, maybe that's something you would consider.
Mr. Morrow: As you indicated eadier, the elevator is an integral part of some
of the things we talked about today, what her options are,
because I have no idea what an elevator costs, but I'm sure it's
up there. We will be recommending for or against your petition.
Your best chance to get approval at the Council would be to go
forward with the best possible plan, the most complete plan. I
think that's where we're coming from, that if we were to take
action on it tonight, we'd be leaving a lot of loose ends.
Mr. Taylor: Mark, are we talking about a landscape plan also?
Mr. Taormina: That was one thing that I failed to mention also. One of the
things that we can do is identify some of these existing trees.
We know that there's some along Pudlan Avenue. I don't think
those will be impacted by the construction either way, but there
are some others of concern that somebody noted along the
west property line. Maybe we could plot those out and see how
any change in the dimensions of the parking lot can maybe
protect those trees. Right now, everything would have to be
cleared right to the edge of the property line. I think another
important consideration for the petitioner is, there's got to be a
tradeoff. We can substantially reduce the amount of pavement
with maybe only a couple parking spaces being affected. That
could save her considerable time and money, not only in paving
costs but also in slormwater management. These are other
issues that I think she should factor into the final design.
Hopefully, two weeks is enough for the arohitect to consider
some of these issues.
October 23, 2012
25427
Mr. Taylor: If you reduce the aisle way too, the 44 aisle way, you could
have some landscaping along the street there also, can't you?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, there are some existing trees. We'll look at whether or not
those should be supplemented, but there are a few relatively
mature trees along Puritan. I'm not sure how healthy they are
and what kind of trees they are. I'd have to take a closer look.
Mr. Taylor: I would ask for a tabling resolution, Mr. Chairman.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-94-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 2012-10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch Senior
Services Company, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in
connection with a proposal to conslmct an addition to the
existing building at 16013 Middlebell Road, located on the west
side of Middlebelt Road between Puritan Avenue and Six Mile
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It has been tabled, and we're going to table
without a date certain. You want to move it along as fast as you
get with your architect and fill him in on some of the things
we've talked about tonight. If he has any ideas or questions, he
could contact the Planning Department and clear up some of
these items. You heard that it even affects your stonnwater
management. If the parking lot is going to be asphalt or cement,
it reduces that. That's where we are right now. I guess the ball
is your court to contact the Planning Department and work on
when you can come back to one of our study sessions.
Ms. Yaroch: Okay. Great. Thank you
ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,031" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,031" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on October 9, 2012.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
October 23, 2012
25428
#10-95-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,031" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October
9, 2012, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Wilshaw, Scheel, Bahr, Smiley, Taylor, Morrow
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Krueger
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,032otl Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 23, 2012, was adjourned at 9:22
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman