HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-07-2523382
MINUTES OF THE 929° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 25, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 929" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William La Pine R. Lee Morrow
H. G. Shane Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra
Walter, Clerk -Typist II; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also
present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a 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 ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2006-06-01-04 D'ORAZJO
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-06-
01-04, submitted by Angela D'Orezio requesting to rezone
property at 18421 lhru 18491 Farmington Road, consisting of
Lots 1331hm 139, also the adjacent vacated alley of Seven Mile
Super Highway Subdivision, located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Curtis Road and Pickford Avenue in
the Northeast % of Section 9 from R-3 to OS.
23383
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated July 10, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the legal description contained therein. There are no
additional right-of-way requirements for this site and we have no
other objections." The letter is signed by James Zoumbaris,
Superintendent of Public Service. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, Mr.
D'Orazio.
Angelo D'Orazio, 15530 Farmington Road, Suite One, Livonia, Michigan 48154
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr. D'Orazio:
I'd like to build a general office building with 4,000 square feel,
same as the one I have on Farmington Road. I'd like a
recommendation if possible to rezone this piece of property.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. D'Orazio, do you have a tenant currently for the building?
Mr. D'Orazio:
Pardon?
Mr. Shane:
Is this a spec building or do you have a tenant in mind?
Mr. D'Orazio:
No, I don't have a tenant. No.
Mr. Shane:
Thanks.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. D'Orazio, I understand you are looking at the possibility of
purchasing that property to the south. Is that right?
Mr. D'Orazio:
I'm interested in the piece in the front.
Mr. LaPine:
When you say in the front, are you talking about just a small
strip here or the other parcel behind it too that's available?
23384
Mr. D'Orazio: I could buy the whole thing, but what I need is the front of the
property there.
Mr. LaPine:
I'll come back to you. Let me ask Mark this: is that all one
parcel?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, it is. You can see from the zoning map the city owned
parcel includes frontage along both Gillman Avenue as well as a
small amount of frontage on Farmington Road.
Mr. LaPine:
So if he was successful in purchasing that, he'd have to rezone
that small portion that he wants to add on to his office, and then
the only other thing that could go in there off of Filmore would
be residential. Is that correct? The only way to gel at it is off of
Filmore.
Mr. Taormina:
That would depend on what his plans are for the utilization of
that property. Its not likely that we would consider any rezoning
of the property that includes the frontage on Filmore Avenue.
Now whether or not he would have to rezone this portion of the
site, the area that lies immediately south of the lots that we're
considering this evening, that would depend on the type of
improvements that he would propose there. If it's simply a
stormwater detention basin, then it could probably remain zoned
under the R3 category. However, if he wanted to include a
portion of the parking in this area, then it would either have to be
rezoned to OS or the parking classification.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. While I have you on the floor, that was another question I
was going to ask Mr. O'mzio. He has to have a water detention
basin here?
Mr. Taormina:
As part of any new development, he would be required to detain
the slormwaler in accordance with Wayne County's regulations.
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. D'Orazio, is the front of your building going to line up with
the AAA building?
Mr. D'Orazio:
Yeah.
Mr. LaPine:
The third question I have, I recall at our study session you
mentioned something about putting a greenbelt there in lieu of a
wall. The only problem I have is when I went out there to check
the properly, there is already a wall behind the AAA building. It
seems logical to just extend the wall. I mean that's my personal
opinion, but is there a reason why you think the greenbelt would
23385
be better than the wall? Let me just say that the wall, once it is
up, you don't have any maintenance. Once you put up the
greenbelt, you have the watering, the cutting of the grass, the
planting of the flowers. If the trees die, you have to replace
them. I'm just wondering what your thinking is.
Mr. D'Orazio:
My thinking was the wall, yeah, because of the maintenance,
but the neighbor would rather have the greenbelt because he
lives behind d. But to me, it doesn't matter. If he wants a
greenbelt, I go along with that.
Mr. La Pine:
If the owner of the property now wants the greenbelt, that's fine,
but 10 or 15 years down the line, he moves and someone else
might wish they had the wall. But that's fine. I thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. D'Orazio, do you have any interest in that little parcel to the
south that the City owns?
Mr. D'Orazio:
If I could use it for retention or parking or something like that.
Mr. Morrow.
The reason I ask, I think it's owned by the city, is it not? And it
would lake a while, probably, for them to go through their
actions, and would that hold up whatever plans you have if you
gel the zoning?
Mr. D'Orazio:
I would have to come back to the Planning Commission again
for that piece because of how I'm going to use it.
Mr. Morrow:
Yeah. Okay. As far as the wall, if the rezoning goes through,
then we can address that at that time.
Mr. D'Orazio:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
If you do not get that piece of property to the south, where
would you put your retention pond?
Mr. D'Orazio:
Itwould be underlhe parking lot.
Mr. Alanskas:
Under the parking lot. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
My question is for Mr. Taormina. This property that the city has
that they were talking about it, is the side of it that abuts Filmore
usable for a residential development in the future? Its pretty
sleep property as I recall, the grade on it.
Mr. Taormina:
That's difficult for me to answer. You're correct, there is some
topographic limitations on the properly, but there is some high
ground right up here at the northwest comer. Whether or not
23386
there is sufficient land area to construct a residental structure, I
can't answer that.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. With that question in mind, if you were to acquire that
property to the south, Mr. D'Orazio, do you think that you would
potentially put a residence on it, or look to put a residence on
Filmore, or would you just be interested in the part of the
properly that abuts Fanni ngton?
Mr. D'Orazio: No. I don't know if I could build over there.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Just for our audience here tonight and people watching, all that
is in question at the present time is privately owned properly.
The city properly has not been negotiated, sold, discussed.
This is purely speculative at this point.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Terrence R. Shay, 18358 Filmore Street, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 live directly
behind this properly. I own the property, and I'm selling it to Mr.
D'Orazio. I am the one that requested the greenbelt instead of
the wall. We've had the properly since 1942. We're not going
anywhere, and we maintain that if you've look at our properly,
we maintain our property very well. I don't think there would be
any concern over whether we're planting trees or dying trees.
Mr. D'Orazio takes excellent care of his property also. But I did
request a greenbelt instead of a wall.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you for being here tonight.
Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this item? Seeing no one, I'm going to dose the public
hearing on this item, and a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-72-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-01-04 submitted by Angelo D'Orazio
requesting to rezone property at 18421 thru 18491 Farmington
Road, consisting of Lots 1331hm 139, also the adjacent vacated
alley of Seven Mile Super Highway Subdivision, located on the
west side of Farmington Road between Curtis Road and
Pickford Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 9 from 1-3 to
OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
23387
City Council that Petition 2006-06-01-04 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
additional office uses in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical
extension of existing OS zoning that occurs on land
immediately to the north of the subject properly;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the Farmington Road frontage
properties in the area between Curtis Road and Seven Mile
Road;and
5. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the
Future Land Use Plan which recommends office use in this
area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? I would like to indicate that should this
pass, the issue of the wall versus a greenbelt will come up when
we actually look at the site plan. So tonight we're simply talking
about the zoning of the property. Mr. D'Orazio will then lake this
to the City Council. Following their approval, it would come
back for site plan review, and at that point, we would have a
thorough discussion of the wall versus the greenbelt. Would the
Secretary please call the roll?
Ms. Smiley: Certainly.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
recommendation.
23388
k1=lAi Eib'M9=k IY Ile] 7 IK I*-Erb4rYl5 PP 911 It711*1e1W
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
05-02-12, submitted by Paradocs, LLC requesting waiver use
approval to construct an outside deck addition and increase the
sealing capacity of the existing full service restaurant at 19265
Victor Parkway (Doc's Sports Retreat), on property bcated on
the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and
Pembroke Street in the Southeast''/. of Section 6.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning oflhe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 17, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposal at this time. The legal description as submitted
is connect." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated June 30, 2006, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct an outside deck addition and increase the
seating capacity of the existing full service restaurant on
property located at the above -referenced address. We are
unable to review this site plan as submitted due to the
inaccuracies of the following information: (1) Parking
calculations with submitted plans show deck having 144 seats.
Occupant load computed from plans is actually 158. (2) Parking
calculations with submitted plans show 245 seats in dining area.
Our cunent occupant load information has 271 seats. (3)
Parking calculations show 17 employees per shift. Our current
occupant load information is based on 24 employees. The
additional deck seating will require an increase in staffing.
Cunent topography limits Fire Department access to this
building. Additional construction will further inhibit Fire
Department ability." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker,
Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
dated July 6, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with a proposal for Doc's Sports Retreat
located at 19625 Victor Parkway. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 30, 2006,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 30,
23389
2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The seating counts and required parking
appear to be incorrect on sheet SP -1, 3-1-2006. It appears the
dining room has 271 seats and the deck has 149 seats. These
inaccuracies (along with the incorrect site address, same page)
should be corrected. (2) The proposed freestanding sign does
not show the proposed location. The sign as proposed is too
tall (6 foot allowed, 10 foot 2 inches proposed) and is
approximately 33 square feet where only 30 square feet would
be allowed. Variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be
required for these and possibly the location. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
I have one question. These letters came before we recalculated
the parking. So our parking is okay, right?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct. We relied on the counts taken from the plans and from
the review by the Inspection Department to verify that there was
adequate parking on the site.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. And then my second question is, because of the
easements, they cant put the sign out where it normally would
be. So have we ever done anything since the sign is back away
from Victor Parkway, or away from the street, that we allow it to
be taller?
Mr. Taormina:
Do you mean have we done that for other properties along
Victor Parkway?
Ms. Smiley:
Right.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know. I would have to research that.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
If my math is correct, the 212 parking spaces matches what the
Inspection Department provided.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Because I see we had it noted as different from the
Inspection Department.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure what the difference is that you're referring to.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I'm looking at my notes. It says, 245 seats, 144 seats and
17 employees, but the calculation at 212 is correct based on the
Mr. Taormina:
That is the parking that is provided within the parking lot.
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
We exceed what's required. I guess that's the bottom line.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, by only a few spaces. What we do think is shy is the
number of employees.
They identify 17. From our experience at
other full service
restaurants of this size, we believe that there
would be a few more employees than 17 during the largest
working shift.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? How are you?
F. Robert Suchyta, Paradocs LLC, 27015 W. Warren, Dearborn Heights,
Michigan48127. Fine,thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Suchyta:
If I'm going to have trouble with the sign, I would comply with
the city requirements and keep it at six foot if it's not permitted.
The fact that it's being setback 37 feet, that's why we went a
little bigger, but I didn't know about the requirements on the
height. Al 33 feet, I'm sure we can cut it down to 30 feel to
make it comply with city requirements.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, on your new seating on the outside, will you be having your
big screen TVs where people can see the sporting events?
Mr. Suchyta:
We're not planning on that.
Mr. Alanskas:
You're not. Okay. So in the winter months, you would not have
that open at all. How many months would you hope to get out
of that summer sealing?
Mr. Suchyta:
As many as possible.
Mr. Alanskas:
Weather permitting, say from June to September, October?
23391
Mr. Suchyta:
Maybe even May.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Alanskas just took one of my questions. I was going to ask
iflhe seating was going to be open during the winter months.
Mr. Suchyta:
I don't think it would be feasible to heat it in the winter.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Have we hammered out what the seating on this deck is
going to be? I know there's been a couple different reports
here.
Mr. Suchyta:
I've heard numbers from 144 to 149.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And you're not going to have any sound system out there
either playing audio sports games or anything? Its just going to
be a silenldeck?
Mr. Suchyta:
We haven't got that far. I don't know if we would put a TV out
there or not. Not a big screen, though, for sure.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Certainly if there is going to be some sort of sound
system out there, we would want to be careful that the audio is
nollooloud.
Mr. Suchyta:
I agree.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Of course, you don't have loo many neighbors around there, so
that is good.
Mr. Suchyta:
Forsure.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The other question I have is, the deck itself. That's being held
up by cement pilings that are going to support the weight of that.
Mr. Suchyta:
There will be cement footings and metal and steel girders
coming up out of that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Suchyta:
It will be a metal deck with cement floor so there will be no wood
construction in it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Suchyta:
The Fire Marshal wanted it all steel and cement.
23392
Mr. Wilshaw:
And tie only access to the desk is going to be through the
restaurant itself. You're not going to enter the deck through the
parking lot.
Mr. Suchyta:
Not from the parking lot. We want control over who goes on the
deck.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good.
Mr. Suchyta:
But there will be emergency exits on both ends according to the
Fire Marshal's request.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm glad to hear about the steel and concrete deck because that
was one of the things that concerned me. Maybe Mark can
answer this question for me before I have one other question for
you. The Fire Marshal is saying they need equipment if they
have to fight a fire from the south side of the building. How
would they get down in there to have equipment? Have you
talked to the Fire Marshal as to why they have that objection?
The Fire Marshal says the "current topography limits Fire
Department access to this building. Additional construction will
further inhibit Fire Department ability." If they had to evacuate
people, how would they gel out there? How would they get
down there?
Mr. Taormina: There are three access points. There is one on the west side of
the building, one on the east side of the building and one
through the building. So there are multiple points of egress and
ingress to the deck, and it's really no different from the current
situation. That topographic limitation exists whether there is a
deck or not for that side of the building. They pointed out that
concern. However, in discussing this matter with the Inspection
Department, ilwould still meet all codes relative to access.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. The times I've been in your bar, that retention pond is not
what I call a beautiful thing to look at if you're eating your dinner
outthere. Can you do something about that?
Mr. Suchyta: Two fountains in the pond to help dean it up and get rid of the
algae and hopefully keep the weeds down.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. That's good. I'm glad to hear that. That's good news.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23393
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? If so, would you please step forward?
Michael Mitchell, 31547 Five Mile, Livonia. I would like to speak in favor to see
that this deck would be placed on this restaurant. As it stands
now, there are no outside decks that I'm aware of to lake the
family to eat outside and enjoy a water feature other than, I
believe, what is that, the Lake Pointe Yacht Club. And I don't
really consider that to be a family environment. So I press for
the approval of this. Thank you.
Tim Racey, 17977 University Park Drive, Livonia. I'm here to express my hope
that you would approve what Doc's doing. It's a very good bar,
a good place to come down and get a drink and bring your
family.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for coming out tonight.
Mr. Racey:
You're very welcome. Thank you.
Don Artushin,
31397 Mayville, Livonia. I would just also like to give my support
for the improvements that are requested to be added to Doc's
Retreat. I think it is really a good idea to have outside dining
and it gives a nice atmosphere for my wife and 1. We've
enjoyed his place also.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for coming. Is there anybody else in the audience
wishing to speak this evening on this item?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Chairman, I just have one more question. What do you plan
on doing in regards to mosquito control?
Mr. Suchyta:
We have a bug killer. It works very well. It covers large
acreage. And I plan on putting two of those underneath the
deck or near the deck on the outside, and they work very well.
Plus with the fountains in the ponds, that will cut down on the
breeding element of mosquitoes out there. Its a breeding
ground now for mosquitoes if you've been out that way.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Seeing nobody else in the audience coming forward, I'm going
to close the public hearing. Al this point, a motion would be in
order.
23394
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alan skas, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-02-12, submitted by Paradocs, LLC requesting
waiver use approval to construct an outside deck addition and
increase the sealing capacity of the existing full service
restaurant at 19265 Victor Parkway (Doc's Sports Retreat), on
property located on the west side of Victor Parkway between
Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Street in the Southeast % of
Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2006-05-02-12 be approved
subject to the following conditions
1. That the Proposed Outside Deck Addition Location Plan
prepared by S.T. Soderquist, Licensed Land Surveyor,
received by the Planning Commission on May 24, 2006, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Proposed Outside Deck Elevation Plan and Floor
Plan marked Sheet A-1 prepared by Kobeissi Associates,
Inc., dated March 1, 2006, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, with the qualification that the maximum total
number of customer seals in the restaurant shall not
exceed 389 seals, including 245 interior seats and 144
outdoor deck seats;
3. That the Proposed Rear Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2
and the Proposed North Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3,
prepared by Kobeissi Associates, Inc., both dated March 3,
2006, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the height and area of the proposed ground sign shall
conform to the ordinance;
5. That no exposed neon shall be permitted on this site
including, but not limited to, the building or around the
windows; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for the building permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
23395
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. Walsh:
Is there discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, he said he would lower the sign and make it fit. Do you
want to modify condifion 4 for me?
Mr. Walsh:
We will modify this section then to indicate that he will comply
with the height restriction.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chair?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we can modify Condition 4 so that the sign will comply with
the height restriction. That's no problem.
Ms. Smiley:
And then he said it would also be the right 30 feel.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, 30 square feel.
Ms. Smiley:
So, how do I say that?
Mr. Walsh:
You've said it.
Ms. Smiley:
There you go!
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, because of the extreme setback requirement, I
would not be opposed to allowing the extra height as originally
proposed by the petitioner. If it was a normal setback, I would
feel that it should be reduced.
Ms. Smiley:
In size or in height?
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I think the area is exceeded by three square feet, but the
height is taller. Just as it is originally submitted.
Mr. Walsh:
Are you suggesting an amendment to the motion?
23396
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I would like that to be considered.
Mr. Walsh:
So we will accept that as a motion put forward amending the
original resolution. Is there support?
Ms. Smiley:
I have no problem.
Mr. Walsh:
You have no problem? If there is no problem from the maker,
and the second, Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, the only question I have is, if the petitioner is willing to
conform to our regulations, why should we give him a bigger
sign? If he didn't want to do that, I would say I wouldn't mind
giving him the bigger sign, but if he's willing to do that ...
Mr. Suchyta:
I would like the bigger sign because the setback is so far from
the street. We're almost 40 feet from the street and a 30 square
fool, 6 fool by 5 fool sign is not going to be that visible. So
that's why I wanted to raise it up a littler higher off the ground,
but I would like to avoid a hassle of going through the Zoning
Board to gel it approved if that's possible.
Mr. Alanskas:
But because you want a larger setback, you still have to go to
the ZBA regardless for your setback.
Mr. Suchyta:
If it's approved here, then I think it would be easier ...
Mr. Alanskas:
You'd still have to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Suchyta:
But it would be easier for me to get through there, I think, if
Planning approved it.
Mr. Alanskas:
It does not have to go to the ZBA for that?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not for the increased setback.
Mr. Alanskas:
No, but for the size of the sign he does.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, for the extra three square feet of the sign.
Mr. Suchyla: What about height?
Mr. Taormina: The ordinance limits the height to six feet, the area to 30 square
feet, and the minimum setback is 10 feet as measured from the
fight-0iway. He's proposing a sign that is 37 feet back from the
right-of-way, which is permissible, 10 feet in height and 33
23397
square feet in area. So he needs variances for both the height
as well as the area.
Mr. Alanskas: So he would still have to go to the ZBA for that.
Mr. Walsh: Right. And he does understand that.
Mr. Alanskas: Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Walsh: I'm going to ask for the motion to be formalized, M. Morrow,
and then see if there's a second for it. Are you willing to put the
motion forward for an amendment?
Mr. Morrow: For the amendment, correct.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-73-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-02-12, submitted by Pamdocs, LLC requesting
waiver use approval to construct an outside deck addition and
increase the sealing capacity of the existing full service
restaurant at 19265 Vidor Parkway (Doc's Sports Retreat), on
property located on the west side of Vidor Parkway between
Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Street in the Southeast % of
Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2006-05-02-12 be approved
subject to the following conditions
1. That the Proposed Outside Deck Addition Location Plan
prepared by S.T. Soderquist, Licensed Land Surveyor,
received by the Planning Commission on May 24, 2006, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Proposed Outside Deck Elevation Plan and Floor
Plan marked Sheet A-1 prepared by Kobeissi Associates,
Inc., dated March 1, 2006, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, with the qualification that the maximum total
number of customer seats in the restaurant shall not
exceed 389 seals, including 245 interior seats and 144
outdoor deck seats;
3. That the Proposed Rear Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2
and the Proposed North Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3,
prepared by Kobeissi Associates, Inc., both dated March 3,
2006, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
23398
That the Proposed Ground Sign Location Plan prepared by
S.T. Soderquist, Licensed Land Surveyor, received by the
Planning Commission on July 12, 2006, and the Proposed
Free Standing Sign Detail marked Sheet SGl prepared by
Kobeissi Associates, Inc., dated March 1, 2006, are hereby
approved, subject to the granting of variances for
excessive ground sign area and height by the Zoning
Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining thereto.
Any additional signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
5. That no exposed neon shall be permitted on this site
including, but not limited to, the building or around the
windows; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for the building permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
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. Walsh: Is there any discussion on the amendment? Mr. Wilshaw?
Mr. Wilshaw: My personal view is that I'm not necessarily in support of
increasing the size of the sign past the ordinance if the
petitioner is willing to have a conforming sign. The nature of
traffic on Victor Parkway is such that if you're going to Doc's or
to Lone Star, you're going down that street and you know where
it is at that point. Its not a transient type traffic going by, so I
don't think it's necessarily an issue of poor visibility of his
restaurant.
23399
Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Suchyta: Could I ask that question?
Mr. Walsh: Sir, I'd like to proceed. Al this point, we're under Robert's
Rules. I'd just need to keep the conversation here at the table,
if you don't mind. Thank you. Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, would the secretary please call the roll on the
amendment?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Shane, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES:
LaPine, Alanskas, Wilshaw
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh: The motion passes. The original motion is then amended to reflect
the original request from the petitioner. Is there any further
discussion on the motion on the table? Seeing none, would the
Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Morrow,
Wilshaw, Walsh
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh: What this means is the motion has passed. It will go on to City
Council with an approving recommendation and it includes in the
motion that was just approved the originally requested sign.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2006-06-0243 UORAZIO CONTRACTING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-02-13, submitted by D'Orazio Contracting Corp. requesting
waiver use approval to develop a Planned Residential
Development consisting of three attached dwelling units,
pursuant to Section 20.02 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, at
15126 Brookfield, located on the east side of Brookfield Avenue
between Five Mile Road and Meadowbrook Lane in the
Northwest % of Section 22.
23400
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 30, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the legal description or the proposed layout contained in the
submittal. The Developer should be made aware of the fact that
then; is no water main located at this site and the Engineering
Division and Fire Marshal will require that the water main be
extended from Five Mile Road or from the existing hydrant south
of the site and a hydrant be placed at the end of the main,
regardless from which direction the main is extended." The
letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
June 19, 2006, which reads as follows: `This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
develop a planned residential development on property located
at the above -referenced address pursuant to Section 20.02 of
the Livonia Zoning Ordinance. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
July 6, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in regards to the proposal for D'Orazio condominiums at
15126 Brookfield. We have no objections orrecommendatfons
to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W.
Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated June 30, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 13, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The deficient front, rear and side yard setbacks may be
approved as modified with a determination by Council that such
modification will result in a more efficient use of the land and will
not be injurious to surrounding land and to the public as a
whole. (2) The document provided does not detail the material
to be used in the gable end walls and the fascia and trim. The
material is to be essentially maintenance free. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the
petitioner? Seeing none, Mr. D'Orezio has already joined us. Is
there anything you'd like to add or should we go straight to
questions?
23491
Angelo D'Orazio, D'Orazio Contracting, 15530 Farmington Road, Suite #1,
Livonia MI 48154. 1 want to put those three condos in because
there is a little house over there and no basement. We will
demolish the house, remove the house, to make room for three
condos. Two houses is not working.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Will you be able to save all the large trees on the north side of
the properly which abut the carports?
Mr. D'Orazio:
Most of them yes. The one in the back ...
Mr. LaPine:
The one in the far back looks like it might interfere.
Mr. D'Orazio:
That one is okay. The one in the front needs to be removed.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know we asked for a coloring rendering. What color is the
brick going to be?
Mr. D'Orazio:
The brick is going to be . .
Mr. Taormina:
There is a rendering right there.
Mr. D'Orazio:
About this color right here.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you. I see where you're going to have a Roman
brick. Isn't that a narrower brick?
Mr. D'Orazio:
This one?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. D'Orazio:
This is all limestone.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman? Could we have that put on the easel?
Mr. Alanskas:
I thought a Roman brick was not a four inch brick. It's a narrow
brick. Its a nice brick.
Mr. D'Orazio:
It is a full standard brick, with limestone around the windows.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. D'Orazio, if you could hand that to Mr. Nowak, he'll put that
on the tripod so it can be shown to our audience. Any additional
questions?
23402
Mr. La Pine:
Just one. What kind of a price range are we talking about for
these condos?
Mr. D'Orazio:
$250,000 - $270,000.
Mr. La Pine:
That's starling out?
Mr. D'Orazio:
$270,000 more like. There will be good stuff inside too.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have a question about your backyard landscaping. I see that
you have a number of trees and so on. Are you going to have
any fences between the properties, the three units, or is it just
going to be an open back yard?
Mr. D'Orazio:
I have no plans. Just landscape.
Mr. Wilshaw:
You have two door walls in the rear of each unit.
Mr. D'Orazio:
Yeah.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going
to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 0 was
#07-74-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-02-13, submitted by D'Orazio Contracting
Corp. requesting waiver use approval to develop a Planned
Residential Development consisting of three attached dwelling
units, pursuant to Section 20.02 of the Livonia Zoning
Ordinance, at 15126 Brookfield, located on the east side of
Brookfield Avenue between Five Mile Road and Meadowbrook
Lane in the Northwest % of Section 22, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2006-06-02-13 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 06027
prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., dated May 11, 2006, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Building Elevation Plans prepared by Gallagher
Group Construction Co., Inc., dated July 19, 2006, as
revised, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, with
the qualifications that brick shall constitute not less than
85% of the exterior wall materials and that the side
234 3
elevation gable ends, fascia and trim shall be essentially
non -maintenance type materials;
3. That the brick used in the construction of the condominium
building shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions;
4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 submitted by
D'Orazio Contracting Corp., dated May 30, 2006, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. That all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
7. That an automatic, underground irrigation system shall be
provided for all landscaped and sodded areas; and
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time of application for the building permits.
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
requirements as set forth in Sections 20.02 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area;
3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
4. That the proposal represents a reasonable and well
designed land use solution at a density that is considerably
less than the maximum density allowed under the R-7
district regdations.
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.
23404
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2006-06-0244 WINESTYLES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-02-14, submitted by WineStyles requesting waiver use
approval to utilize a Class C liquor license and an SDM liquor
license at 17386 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest % of Section 7.
Mr. Walsh: Before we move onto this item, first I need to note that I was
remiss in recognizing that we have a new Vice Chairman. Mr.
LaPine was elected Iasi week to serve as Vice Chairman. I'm
going to press him into service at this point. I am an employee
of SchoolcraR College. This facility will be on our property and
to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, I am going to
pass the gavel and will not participate in the discussion or vole.
Mr. La Pine: Thankyou. Mr.Taormina.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nowak, I see we have some correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 30, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division is
providing the approximate legal description as follows." The
letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
June 19, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
operate a Class C liquor license and SDM liquor license on
property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six
Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest X of Section
7. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed
by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated July 6, 2006, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by
WineStyles located at 19625 Victor Parkway. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
23405
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June
30, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
June 14, 2006, the above- eferenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There are several other
licensees within the ,1000 foot required separation distance.
Council may waive this distance requirement. (2) This petition
appears to propose one wall sign at 32.8 feet and 2 signs on
awnings. This site would be allowed only 1 wall sign with
square footage equal to or less than their lineal feet of store
frontage (can not determine from documents provided).
Anything else would require a variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals. This Department has no further objections to this
Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. LaPine: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the
petitioner here this evening?
Scott D. Edwards, Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. 38505 Woodward Ave, Suite 2000,
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. 1 am the attorney for
WineStyles. Kathleen Groman, the petitioner, is also here
tonight. I believe you've had the pleasure of meeting her.
Unfortunately, we came here with a full load of wine samples
tonight, but we saw there was no food or beverage allowed in
the auditorium, so we put it back in the car. I'm sorry about that.
Mr. LaPine: That's what happens when you're a public servant. Who is
going to be the spokesperson, you or Ms. Groman?
Mr. Edwards: Well, I guess really we're here to answer any questions that you
have.
Mr. LaPine: Why doesn't the owner of the establishment give us a rundown
of what you're going to do here. You're on television. People in
Livonia are listening. You're a new business. Tell us what your
establishment is going to be, how you're going to operate, and if
we have any questions, we'll ask you.
Kathleen Groman, WineStyles, 7112 Cowell Road, Brighton, Michigan 48116.
Okay. That sounds fine. I'm the owner of the WineStyles store
that we're proposing in Livonia. WineStyles is a store that ...
our goal is to demystify the wine buying experience. We were
founded back in 2005. That's when I first looked at this
franchise. When I first looked at it, there were six stores, and
now there's over 50 across the country and there are 118
franchises total across the country that are in the works. What
we are really in the marketplace trying to accomplish is to just
take the mystery out of wine buying. I don't know about you, but
M
I've been into several wine stores, and you go and it's just a
confusing process. Which is the right wine to choose with
maybe what meal you're having or whatnot and trying to gel
someone to help you is usually ... the help is not available.
What we do is we categorize our wine by style rather than by
region or variety. So once you gel to know your palate and
what your style would be, its very simple then to choose a wine.
And we have categories such as crisp, bold, mellow, etc., etc.
And really, once you gel to know the type of wine that you like,
it's very easy then to choose the right wine. And you might ask,
well, how do you gel to know your palate? Well, Wineslyles is
unique because we do the tasting on -premise so you can come
into a Winestyles store, you can try some wines that we have
available for sampling, and also we do Thursday night wine
tastings where we will have someone from the vineyard who's
available to explain anywhere from the soil to the end product.
So it's really a wine education type of a situation where you're
not coming in and guessing what you want to purchase. You're
actually having the opportunity to try the wine, to be educated,
and we also have gift items and gift baskets and corkscrews,
glassware, and that type of thing. Our goal is really to make
wine buying fun rather than intimidating. So that's kind of an
overview of what we have to offer. This would be the first store
in Michigan, and we've really done our homework on locations,
and we've chosen Livonia for a specific reason. The clientele
here, we feel, would be very receptive to this concept, more of a
sophisticated clientele, and with the restaurants that are in the
area and whatnot, we really feel that Livonia is a great venue for
our first wine store. We do plan on doing more than one store,
but we're really excited about the community of Livonia and
what it has to offer. So that's pretty much what we do. Do you
have any questions?
Mr. Alanskas:
How long is your lease for?
Ms. Groman:
Its five years with a five year option.
Mr. Alanskas:
Number two, do your employees wear any special attire when
you're doing this?
Ms. Groman:
Absolutely. We have a uniform that we require our employees
to wear.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just roughly, what is the average person's age that comes into
this store for this type of business - like from 20 to 25 to 50?
Ms. Groman:
Our target market is really probably from 30 to 50.
23497
Mr. Alanskas: How many people would you have in your store at one time do
you think at your busy peak hours?
Ms. Groman: All depending. I mean the Thursday night wine tastings are
probably going to be the busiest time, but we are going to put a
cap on how many people. I know some other stores have
limited it to like 35 people ata tasting event.
Mr. Alanskas: So you're talking no more than 50 at a tasting?
Ms. Groman:
Oh absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, you mentioned the wine lasting party. Is that done by
ticket sales or is it a walk-in type of a situation?
Ms. Groman:
That is something that you would have to purchase a ticket for
to do the wine sampling.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay, but you could walk in and buy a ticket if there's room?
Ms. Groman:
Absolutely, but we do email blasts just like the other stores. I'm
just basing it upon what's happened across the country.
Normally, with an email blast they will pre -sell the tickets and
limit it, and a lot of those do sell out beforehand.
Mr. Wilshaw:
What are the hours of operation?
Ms. Groman:
Across the country its different. We were looking at 1100 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. However, I'm thinking with the restaurants in the
area we may be wishing to extend that to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And that's Monday through Saturday?
Ms. Groman:
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Are you going to have a selection of local Michigan wines
available as well?
Ms. Groman:
I was just up at the vineyards this past weekend, as a matter of
fact, so that's something that we're very excited about and
corporately they're very excited about that as well.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes, I'm sure that would appeal to the customers around here.
And you're okay with having a sign for your store that is
23408
conforming, roughly 20 square feet or whatever is appropriate
for that space?
Ms. Groman:
Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Great. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
On most of the pictures you gave us, there are awnings. Are
their awnings on this store?
Ms. Groman:
There is an awning at the location. I believe its a striped
awning.
Mr. La Pine:
Oh, there's one already there and you're just going to use the
same awning.
Ms. Groman:
Yes, because we want to comply with ...
Mr. La Pine:
The other question I have, I guess Mr. Wilshaw asked, about
the opening of the store. Are you going to be able to get some
help from the restaurants by putting some flyers or
advertisements out that this wine store is there because some
people go to a restaurant and they may want to walk over and
see it. Have you talked to the owners?
Ms. Groman:
We definitely plan on doing some cross -promotional events with
the restaurants. A lot of the stores across the country will do a
wine dinner at one of the local restaurants so they kind of work
together. We provide the wine and they provide the food and it
works out really well.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? If not, a motion would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I will go ahead and make an approving resolution. I think this is
a nice business. It's unique and I think its a good location.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, ilwas
#07-75-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-02-14, submitted by WineSlyles requesting
waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license and an
SDM liquor license at 17386 Haggerty Road, located on the
east side of Haggerty Road between Six
Mile Road and Seven
Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 7, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
M
Petition 2006-06-02-14 be approved, provided that the 1,000
foot separation requirement between Class C licensed
establishments as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning
Ordinance is waived by the City Council by means of a separate
resolution, pursuant to Section 19.06(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance, in which two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the City
Council concur (since the subject use is not an establishment
utilized primarily as a restaurant or for dining facilities), and also
subject to the following additional conditions:
1. That the customer sealing provided in connection with the
subject use shall be in accordance with the Floor Plan
submitted by WineSlyles, as received by the Planning
Commission on June 7, 2006;
2. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than eleven (11) seats;
3. That the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on
the premises shall be limited to wine only, as defined under
the Michigan Liquor Control Code;
4. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
5. That wall signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
6. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows.
7. That the awnings of this unit shall not be backlit; and
8. 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;
23410
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. LaPine: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Did you want the lop of the paragraph included in the approving
resolution regarding the 1,000 fool separation requirement?
Mr. Wilshaw: I would be happy to read that.
Mr. LaPine: I guess that really should be in there. Thank you, Mr. Alamkas,
for pointing that out. Is there any other comment? Hearing
none, we'll have a roll call vole.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Wilshaw, Morrow, Alanskas, Shane, Smiley,
LaPine
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
None
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM#5 PETlTION2006-06-0245 FLEMING'S
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-02-15 submitted by Fleming's/Great Lakes 1, Limited
Partnership, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C
liquor license in conjunction with a full-service restaurant
(Fleming's) at 17400 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest''/. of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
23411
Mr. LaPine: Is there a ny correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 17, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposal at this time. The legal description for Fleming's
follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated June 19, 2006, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a Class C liquor license in conjunction with a
full-service restaurant on property located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest % of Section 7. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
July 6, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in regards to the proposal by FlemingsrGreat Lakes
Partnership in regards to the Flemings Restaurant located at
18600 Haggerty Road. It appears that the sidewalk and parking
area are at the same elevation. If this is true, they must install
parking blocks between the parking area and the sidewalk."
The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June
30, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
June 14, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. There are several other
licensees within the 1,000 foot required separation distance.
Council may waive this distance requirement. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Taormina, isn't it true that the reason they want these
licenses is that they start a bottle of wine and they can take it
home and consume the rest of it there? They don't have to
drink the whole bottle on site. Isn't that what they primarily told
us at the other restaurants?
Mr. Taormina:
The Class C license allows for the consumption on the premises
of beer, wine and other mixed spirits. I do believe there is a
provision under the Michigan Liquor Control Code that may
allow you to do that, but I'm going to pass that question on to
the attorney.
23412
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. La Pine:
We'll get to him in a minute. Are there any other questions for
the staff? The petitioner is at the podium. Can you answer the
question?
Scott D. Edwards, Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. 38505 Woodward Ave, Suite 2000,
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. 1 can indeed. I did such a
formidable job for Ms. Groman here tonight, I thought I'd try
again for Flemings. In answer to your question, what you're
talking about is the "cork and go" bill. Before the bill, you would
order a bottle of wine. You would drink half of it and half of it
would slay there. To conform with what other states are doing,
you can now order a bottle of wine, drink half of it, and then take
it home. It has to be sealed properly. You have to cul the cork
off at the lop and have it put in a proper container, and then you
can take it home with you so you can drink later. The idea is
that so you don't have people who ordered a bottle of wine
feeling compelled to finish it. They can slop. They can gel a
better bottle of wine if they choose. It's been around for about a
year. So that's what the "cork and go" bill is.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. Edwards:
As far as for our petition here tonight, I believe the waiver of the
restaurant use was approved some time ago. Unfortunately, it
was an out -state architect, and he didn't really understand that
you need to appear again for liquor license approval, which is
usually done at the same time. So we're cleaning up that matter
here tonight. If you have any questions, hopefully I can answer
them for you.
Mr. Morrow:
Just to follow up on the "cork and go" You're not allowed to sell
an unopened bottle, though? That's a packaged store.
Mr. Edwards:
That's correct, unless you would have an SDM license, which
we're not asking for.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I was trying to bring out. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion would be in
order.
23413
On a mot on by Smiley, seconded by Ala nskas, and adopted, it was
#07-76-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-02-15 submitted by Fleming's/Great Lakes 1,
Limited Partnership, requesting waiver use approval to utilize a
Class C liquor license in conjunction with a full-service
restaurant (Fleming's) at 17400 Haggerty Road, located on the
east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven
Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 7, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2006-06-02-15 be approved, provided that the City
Council waives the 1,000 fool separation requirement between
Class C licensed establishment as set forth in Section 11.03(h)
of the Zoning Ordinance, for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any discussion? Would the secretary please call the
rolh
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Alanskas, Shane, Morrow, Wilshaw,
LaPine
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. Mr. Walsh has returned to the podium at 8:55.
23414
ITEM#6 PETITION 2006-06-0246 HERTZ
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-02-16 submitted by the Hertz Corporation requesting waiver
use approval to operate a car rental facility at 29070 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebell Road and Camden Avenue in the Southwest'''/ of
Section 25.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 10, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the legal description contained therein. There are no
additional right-of-way requirements for this site and " have no
other objections." The letter is signed by James Zoumbaris,
Superintendent of Public Service. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 26, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in cronnection with a request to operate a car rental
facility on property located at the above -referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by
Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated July 6, 2006, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal for
Hertz located at 29068 Plymouth Road. We have no objections
or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 10, 2006,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 22,
2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) These plans and details are not sufficient
to do a proper review and should be upgraded and resubmitted.
(2) Our records do not indicate three addresses nor who the
occupants are. There is no zoning compliance for the parts
store nor for an apparent automotive repair shop in the center
space. The landlord should obtain three valid addresses for
these spaces from Engineering. (3) The dumpster is not gated.
(4) The parking area needs clean-up, vegetation removed,
23415
repair, resealed and double striped. The accessible parking
needs to be properly striped and signed. (5) There was no
access to the rear area to review the lot and the condition of the
protective screening wall. (6) This site may need to be
evaluated to determine if the building has been partitioned
properly and to code. (7) Exterior elevations are needed to
document needed maintenance and changes to the exterior. (8)
There are vehicles stored outside in various states of disrepair,
including dismantied/non-operational. (9) There are unprotected
HVAC units (in violation of the code) located in a drive area.
(10) A car rental facility requires X acre of property for itself.
The site is slightly over Y acre and proposes one tenant that
requires X acre and two tenants for the other .27 acres. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, the notes indicate that the two westerly uses
require len parking spaces. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
That is based on the number of work stations that are within
those two structures which are currently being utilized for
automotive repair purposes.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Assuming that is correct, if I read that site plan correctly,
there's only five parking spaces within the immediate vicinity
and the rest are all on the larger portion of the parcel. Is that
correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, if you look at the site plan, these are the two westerly units
as they've been refered to. If you divide the site along the
demising wall between this unit and the proposed car rental
facility, that line extending north, you would see that there would
be only five parking spaces directly behind those two units.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. Is there
anything you would like to add?
Cad Johnson,
Hertz Corporation, 33910 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan
48150. Good evening. Just a few items if I could. It was
discussed Iasi week at the pre -meeting that the Council would
like to have the properly owner, Mr. Angelo Mauti, present to be
able to address specific concerns with regard to the existing
tenants. Mr. Mauti is in attendance this evening if the Council
23416
would like to ask any questions of him. Also, I did have a
conversation with the genflemen from the Inspection
Department, Mr. Bishop, with regard to his concerns about the
plans. I think it would be fair to characterize his concerns as
largely revolving around the current tenants that are in the
building today and questions with egard to parking and what
the future use of the building will be, more so than the changes
that Hertz proposes to make to the building to accommodate its
use as a car rental facility. Al the meeting Iasi week, it was
requested that elevations be provided which previously we had
been told would not be necessary. Unfortunately, our architect
was not able to, on short notice, provide elevations. What I was
able to do, if you're interested, was to take some color
photographs of the building that exists today to allow you to see
the building, the awning thafs there, and to see in color the
changes that we plan to make. I have copies here.
Mr. Walsh:
If you could hand them to Ms. Watson, she will pass them along
for us to lake a look at.
Mr. Johnson:
As you can see, the color of the building is very similar to a light
gray that we would paint the exterior of the building, similar to
what we did at our current office, 33910 Plymouth Road. You
can see that the roof of the building is painted red. You can see
that there is an existing metal awning there as well that does not
have a covering at this point. We're flexible with respect to what
the Commission would like to see. Whether you'd like to see us
simply recover the existing awning, in which case we would just
put a black covering on it with the gold Hertz logo. Or if you
would like to see the awning come down, we're certainly flexible
and would be willing to take the awning down, in which case we
would just paint the roofline black and put the gold 36 inch Hertz
channel letters that you may have seen at our current Plymouth
Road store up on the Plymouth Road front or facing southward
onto Plymouth Road. So we're flexible there. But structurally,
we're not proposing any changes to the building, which is why I
think there was some initial confusion about the requirement to
produce elevations.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you planning on any interior changes to the building as far
as how its developed inside?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes. Primarily ifs re -carpeting; ifs a new drop ceiling. There's
some interior non -load bearing walls that are broken up
currently to provide interior storage. We'd like to move one of
those to be able to make some functional offices out of them.
You have three small spaces that really should be two offices as
opposed to a small storage room.
23417
Mr. Shane:
Was that provided in our packet?
Mr. Johnson:
The packet does show a breakdown of the interior with each
room labeled.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess I dont have it. Al least I didn't see it. That was the only
question I had relative to that. In looking at the building, it
seems to be in fairly good shape, and the interior looks fairly
well cared for. My biggest concerns are with the parking and
the condition of the parking lots and the general housekeeping
around it. I'll defer that until we have a chance to talk to the
properly owner.
Mr. Johnson:
If I could address maybe part of that concern. Hertz is
prepared, in terms of our build -out, to reseal and re -stripe the
entire parking lot and dean up all of the existing landscaping.
You can see maybe in some of the pictures that there's some
overgrown plants that sort of border the existing fencing area -
lo clean all of that up and really bring the building up to what
you'd expect for a Plymouth Road establishment. Those are
things that we would want to do to be able to bring our
customers in and present the right image that the customers
expect of Hertz Rental Car.
Mr. La Pine: I, loo, was out to the building looking in the front. The interior
building looks in pretty good shape. It looks like the floors have
been recently painted. The ceiling, quite frankly, looks in pretty
good shape to me. But I wouldn't call this red, whoever painted
this. It's pink, in my opinion, and it looks terrible. The outside
gray looks like it was just recently painted and it's in pretty good
shape. The other concern I have, it probably would help the
building if you put an awning up there to cover this, but what
color would you use for the awning?
Mr. Johnson: If we were to recover the awning, we'd like to keep it with our
corporate colors which would be a simple black awning with the
gold Hertz logo on both faces.
Mr. La Pine: And that would hide all this, I'm going to call it pink, right?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, it would.
Mr. La Pine: You mentioned that you're going to wash cars in the rear. Is
there a large drain in there to take the water away? You're not
going to be pushing it out in the back or anything?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, there is an existing drain there.
23418
Mr. LaPine:
Now, the other question I have, I'm confused as to where the
fence would go. You have the one, two, three building. Are you
going to start your fence al the rear of the building, all the way to
the back, so that where all your cars are stored in the rear, will
be surrounded by a fence. Is that your plan?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes, basically, if you see the customer area parking, if you just
extended that north and just carried the fence right on back to
the rear of the properly.
Mr. LaPine:
Would ilgo across to the north and then back down south?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes, to lie in with the existing fence that's there. That would
provide secure parking for all of the parking area.
Mr. LaPine:
The existing fence that is there, I don't care if it's on your
properly or somebody else's. Its not in very good shape. Are
you going to put up a new fence?
Mr. Johnson:
We would be willing to make any necessary repairs and if it
needs to be replaced ...
Mr. LaPine:
I don't want necessary repairs. The fence is rusted and is in
bad shape. It should be taken down.
Mr. Johnson:
Sure, we would be willing to do that.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Now my next question is, when people come in, they will
come in off that one driveway. Will you have a straight shot to
the back parking lot for the cars?
Mr. Johnson:
There is currently a fence there that blocks access from
customers pulling into the rear lot. So the rear lot would be
primarily for storage of rental cars. The front six spaces
that
you see would be for customer parking to provide
in and out
use.
Mr. LaPine:
Is it your plan to not have a free-standing sign but to have your
logo on the south and the east side ofthe canopy or awning?
Mr. Johnson:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
The only problem I see about that, I would assume a lot of your
business would come from Metropolitan Airport. Is that correct?
Mr. Johnson:
No. We have a large presence at Metropolitan Airport. Our
local customer base comes primarily from local corporate
23419
customers that dont want to drive out to Metro Airport, as well
as the residents of Livonia that may need a larger car for
vacation or business purposes, as well as anybody who may
have a car in for insurance -related repairs. So primarily we
draw from the Livonia customer base.
Mr. LaPine: I was out to your location on Plymouth Road, and there you're
wide open. You dont have something on either side of you that
blocks you off. You can see your sign very dearly. Here,
people coming from the west or from the south, will never see
this building until they turn on Plymouth, and hopefully they
won't pass it. But the parking lot, definitely, not only needs
cleaning up but some of it should be ripped right out and new
paving done on the whole parking lot, in my opinion.
Mr. Ala nskas:
Sir, if this petition was denied by the Planning Commission and
City Council, would you still want to slay on Plymouth Road
where you are now?
Mr. Johnson:
No. To be quite frank, the last three years have been very
difficult in the car rental industry. I had the opportunity last week
to speak a little bit about some of the cost increases. Our cars
make up roughly 40 percent of our total cost, to give you some
idea. When you spend a dollar with a car rental company,
typically 40 cents of that goes roughly just to pay for a car to be
available to you. That cost is driven up as much as 100 percent
in the last three years just with the turmoil of the auto industry
here in Michigan. The manufacturers are making fewer cars
and fewer cars available to car rental companies. There was
some discussion about closing our Livonia operations. We had
a three-year lease at the current site. That is now expired. We
were able to negotiate a five-year lease with two five year
options with Mr. Mauti. I've been in the car rental business 10
years. I've managed competitor stores in Livonia. I believe it's
a great marketplace that Hertz needs to be in, but from a
financial standpoint, the cost of that building, along with just the
general economic atmosphere, have made it very difficult for us
to continue operations there, which really is what prompted the
decision to look for another location that makes more financial
sense for us, as well as provide some geographic advantages
that the current location doesn't have in terms of centrality.
Mr. Alanskas:
Don't you think where you are currently you have better visibility
for people to see you there?
Mr. Johnson:
To be honest with you, I don't. That's something we've looked
at a lot. As you drive by, you look at the beautful monument
sign that we put up there and you say, it's Plymouth Road. Its
23420
got great visibility, but we struggle with customers I think
because of the setback. Both the other buildings that are on
either side of us are much closer to the road than our current
location. We have a lot of customers that say they struggle to
find us because they drive by, even with the monument sign
there. They just don't see the building. That was one of the
things that was appealing to us about this site is the fad that it's
closer to the road and provides a little bit better visibility, not to
mention the fad that its a little bit more central in terms of some
of the body shops and our current customers, folks like Ford
Motor Company down the road. Roush Industries and Roush
Technologies are large Hertz customers, and the new site puts
us very close to them.
Mr. Alanskas: What percent of your customers are drawn from the car
dealerships on Plymouth Road?
Mr. Johnson: You know, three years ago it probably would have been 35 to
40 percent. Today I would say less than 10 percent of our
customers come from the service aisles of dealerships now
when you look at their collision shops. All collision shops, in
general, probably account for 35 percent of our overall market
share, but that includes not just dealers, but free standing body
shops that reside in the Livonia area as well.
Mr. La Pine: Is this Hertz store owned by Hertz, or is it a franchise and you're
the franchisee?
Mr. Johnson:
It's a corporately owned store.
Mr. La Pine:
All the improvements that we are discussing tonight are being
borne by Hertz?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes, sir.
Mr. La Pine:
The owner of the property is not doing anything?
Mr. Johnson:
That's correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Johnson, if you were not to gel a monument sign and had
awning signs instead, you're okay with that?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And if you were to put a sign on the south facing awning, you
have a fairly large tree that's in the middle of that awning space.
Do you have any idea what you would do as far as placement of
23421
that sign on the awning, or would you chop the tree down, or
what would you do there?
Mr. Johnson:
Typically, we don't like to chop trees down. Perhaps we could
trim it. But as you can see on tie photo, there's a section
already in the current awning that is recessed where the logo
would go. So we're sort of limited there with the existing awning
in terms of where the actual Hertz placement would go. I think
R's pretty much in the middle there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. All right. Yes, that's certainly a visibility issue for your
sign. Are you planning any signage in the windows to
advertising anything?
Mr. Johnson:
We typically don't. Occasionally we may put up a sign that talks
about weekend availability and that type of sluff on the interior
of the building, but just thinking on our current store, there is
nothing currently in our windows in the existing Plymouth Road
store so it's not something we typically do.
Mr. LaPine:
Could we gel the owner up of the whole parcel. I have a few
questions I'd like to ask.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Mauti, if you could join us please. Thank you for joining us
tonight.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you have any plans to do any upgrading? Seeing that
lheyre going to upgrade this building, are you going to do any
upgrading to the two buildings to the west of here?
Angelo Mauti,
17017 Doris, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Upgrading as far as ...
Mr. LaPine:
Cleaning them up because they're not in the best shape in the
world.
Mr. Mauti:
When they gel leased out to somebody, some income comes in,
it's lough paying taxes right now. A lot of buildings are vacant.
Mr. LaPine:
I realize that. That is the question. I want to know, the question
is here, he's willing to upgrade his building. It would be nice if
the two buildings next door were upgrade at the same time.
Mr. Mauti:
I had them all painted last year. All of them. All the way
around. All the buildings were painted last year. I put new roofs
on the other two buildings, on three other buildings. I'm doing
what I can. Believe me. Times are ...
23422
Mr. La Pine:
Well, if he's willing to fix the parking lot, are you willing to fox the
parking lot behind the other two buildings?
Mr. Mauti:
I don't understand what you're ....
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. He's going to upgrade the parking lots.
Mr. Mauti:
You mean re -asphalt or something?
Mr. LaPine:
Right.
Mr. Mauti:
Yeah, I'm willing to work with him. I mean, believe me, if you
know what we're working out, I am taking care of the problems
over there.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm just mindful of what the Inspection Department has said. Do
we have sufficient plans to go forward on this or do we have to
have the plans modified to meet the concerns. They say 'these
plans and details are not sufficient to do a proper view and
should be upgraded and resubmitted." I wonder if you could
answer that or if the staff could answer that.
Mr. Taormina:
We are recommending at this time that the item be tabled to
allow for that additional information. This is not adequate
information to act on this evening. We don't have a rendering.
We don't know what the awning is going to look like, where
exactly the fence is going to be located, or confirmation that
there is going to be gates put on the dumpsters. So there is
some missing information here. We need to know about the
repair of the parking lot, details on landscaping and the cleaning
up of the landscaping, and the removal of the dismantled,
abandoned or unlicensed vehicles in the back of this property.
That's something that hasn't been addressed. Maybe you want
to ask the owner while he's here this evening what his intentions
are in cleaning up that aspect of the site. We would like to have
these issues addressed prior to an approving resolution.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you for the input, Mr. Taormina. Al this point, I'm in favor
of what the petitioner wants to do, but I want to make sure we
have everything necessary so we can made an educated
decision on it ultimately. So with that, I think we'd like to have
the owner address what Mr. Taormina was referring to.
Mr. Taormina:
I want to pant out that the tabling for a couple weeks here at the
Planning Commission level is a lot more cost effective and
timely than it would be for him to go into committee at the
Council level.
23423
Mr. Walsh:
The point he is trying to make is, we appreciate everything that
Hertz has done. Mr. Mauti, we appreciate that you came
tonight. I promise you that should this be tabled, we will
reschedule it as quickly as we have the information to us. It is a
quicker process, as Mr. Taormina just indicated, than going to
the Council and then being sent to committee to review this.
We can't promise you that the Council will or will not go to
committee, but we think if you do the homework now, @ will be a
little more expedited process.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'd also like to add that when this is tabled, I would like you to
come back before us with a complete rendering on how this
building is going to look when its done. Because the one you
have now on Plymouth Road is a very good looking building and
I would hope that if this does go through for you to move, that
this building would look just as good or better than what you
have now. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Maut, do those vehcles belong to you?
Mr. Mauli:
They belong to the, I guess you can call him a tenant. He pays.
They are his personal vehicles and they all have titles and they
are all registered. Alex Bishop I understand went through there
and looked through a fence and just assumed they were not
deeded. So I called him. He went down yesterday to the city
and he talked to John Dauffenbach, I can't say his name, and
he brought everything with him. He showed him all the vehicles
were his and they're just his personal property. He's got no
signage. He's leasing the building for very, very ... its very
cheap. Just for his own vehicles. He's not doing any business
out of there right now. He said when he does, he's going to
register with the city with a business license. But right now, all
those vehicles are his and they're all registered. So that's a big
miscommunication there.
Mr. LaPine:
On lop of the building where Hertz wants to move in, there are
buckets up there laying on lop of the roof.
Mr. Mauti:
Wejusl redid the roof. They're all coming down.
Mr. LaPine:
You just redid the roof?
Mr. Mauti:
We just redid it. We just didn't want to walk on it so fresh.
They're all coming down.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I just wondered what they were up there for.
23424
Mr. Wilshaw: To the owner of the properly, right now you have sort of a half -
tenant, if you will, in that facility on the west leasing some space
from you. What is your long term plan for those other two
parcels of your building? Are you looking at having auto repair
tenants?
Mr. Mauli: It's been rezoned for heavy auto. Right now, I wish I could
answer that.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are you actively seeking tenants for that right now?
Mr. Mauli: I was, but now they're in there.
Mr. Wilshaw: So you're just basically waiting and seeing what's going to
happen with the existing tenants that are there?
Mr. Mauli: Yes. I divided the property next to me for KFC, trying to do what
I can to split the property and make it feasible for Plymouth
Road. I've spoken to John Nagy. I know they had that
beautification project on Plymouth Road, and believe, me, I'm
doing everything I can. I don't know what else to tell you.
Mr. Alanskas: The alternator repair shop. How long is their lease with you
there?
Mr. Mauti: He has been there for about 13 years, and his lease is up, but
he just wants to stay there for another 13. It looks like he's got
a good business. All his business are deliveries. He gets, you
know, maybe 5 percent he tells me off the street, but he's got
two or three employees there and one of them is always on the
road picking up alternators and delivering them to these
garages. So he doesn't need any parking. His one or two cars
are right there.
Mr. Alanskas: But what I'm asking you, does he have a five year lease now, or
a 10 year lease or what is his lease there now?
Mr. Maub We have a five year with a five option. They expired and he will
sign anything tomorrow.
Mr. La Pine: You say he repairs alternators there? Is that what he does
basically?
Mr. Mauti: Alternators and starters.
Mr. LaPine: He was working on cars when we were there the other day.
Mr. Mauti: Not the building he's talking about. No.
23425
Mr. Morrow:
There was a little one on the end.
Mr. La Pine:
On the west end, that's what I'm talking about.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, the one in the middle is where we were talking to those
guys.
Mr. La Pine:
Yeah. Was that the one in the middle?
Mr. Morrow:
Yeah.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. The one at the end looks like its all storage in there to
me. I don't know.
Mr. Mauti:
That's what it is. Nobody even knows about R. He has little
electric motors that make no noise.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions? If there is a tabling
resolution, I think this would be the opportune time to offer that.
Mr. Alanskas:
So moved for a dale to be determined.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr.Chairman, did wewanllo gotothe audience?
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Morrow. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, we
haw a motion on the floor from Mr. Alanskas.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-77-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-02-16 submitted by the Hertz Corporation
requesting waiver use approval to operate a car rental facility at
29070 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebell Road and Camden Avenue in the
Southwest % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does
hereby table Petition 2006-06-02-18 to allow more time for the
preparation of revised plans that will address building and site
maintenance issues.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. As soon as we have some plans in our hand, you can
work with the staff directly. We will put you right on to our
agenda to move forward.
23426
Mr. Hughes: Thank you very much.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2006-06-03-02 COVENTRY VACATING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-03-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution 276-06, and Section 12.08.015(A) of
Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to determine whether or not to vacate portions of the Coventry
Drive right-of-way adjacent to Lots 132 through 142 (33992
Coventry, 33972 Coventry and 33950 Coventry) in the Coventry
Gardens Subdivision, located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between Coventry Drive and Stamford Road in the
Southeast'''/ of Section 16.
Mr. Taormina: This vacating request involves a triangular portion of public
right -of way located at northeast corner of intersection of Five
Mile and Coventry Drive within the Coventry Gardens
Subdivision. For years, homeowners in this area have
maintained sidewalks paralleling both Coventry Drive and Five
Mile and also have been responsible for maintaining the
landscaping in the area between the sidewalks. Accordingly,
the Mayor has requested the Council to initiate action to vacate
portion of Coventry Drive right-of-way adjacent to Lots 132 thru
142. Generally speaking, those are the lots that contain these
three parcels: 33992 Coventry, 33972 Coventry and 33950
Coventry. Coventry right-of-way was originally called Fordson
Highway and containing a width of 120 feel that was dedicated
to the City in conjunction with the platting of Coventry Gardens
Subdivision in 1925. Coventry intersects Five Mile Road at an
acute angle and extends from Five Mile in a northwesterly
direction. Also, the traveled portion of Coventry Drive actually is
on the west side of the planted right-of-way area. The rigMof-
wayto be vacated is triangular shaped area that lies east of the
roadway. It consists of a landscaped area bordered on the
north and south sides by sidewalks. Again, this triangular area
borders the three properties as I indicated earlier. Each property
contains a single family residence. The area proposed to be
vacated has a dimension of approximately 265 feel abutting the
single family lots. Because subject right-of-way was dedicated
as a part of the plat, the reversionary rights of the street right-of-
way, if vacated, would accrue to the owners of the adjacent
platted properties. What I have shown here conceptually is
what portions of the vacated right-of-way would revert to the
abutting owners. For example, 33992 would obtain ownership
23427
to this portion of the vacated right-of-way, 33972 would obtain
ownership to this portion and 33950 would obtain the smallest
portion as it abuts that properly. Vacating the subject right-of-
way would place this land back on the lax rolls and would allow
for its utilization in conjunction with the adjoining properties. As
you can also see, portions of the sidewalk abutting the subject
properties along Coventry would no longer be public. The
homeowners would likely choose to remove the sidewalks that
would bisect the front of their properties. Therefore, a new
public sidewalk should be constructed along the east side of the
new right -of way line on Coventry in order to conned the
sidewalk along Five Mile with the existing sidewalk along
Coventry. In addition, the Engineering Division does
recommend retaining an easement for the City water main that
is located within the area proposed to be vacated.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated July 10, 2006, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the legal description contained therein. We would recommend
retaining an easement for the City water main that is located in
the proposed vacation. We have no other objections." The
letter is signed by James Zoumbaris, Superintendent of Public
Service. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
I have one question. Mark, on lot in the middle, is that a
driveway where it looks like there is grass? Is that a driveway?
Mr. Taormina:
This is actually just off the approach within what is currently the
Coventry Drive right-of-way. There is a turnaround area. It
allows vehicles to back up and then safety tum onto Five Mile
Road without baclang out onto Five Mile. So it's basically a
turnaround. The balance of area is all landscaped area.
Mr. LaPine:
But that turnaround will no longer belong to the city. I twill
belong to that property owner. Am I right?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. If vacated, this turnaround area would then be located on
private property attached to 33972 Coventry.
23428
Mr. La Pine:
So no one could use that as a turnaround any longer?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. It's not really intended to serve as public turnaround. It's
really only intended currently to serve this residential structure,
but it is located within right -0f -way.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
We have some individuals in the audience. Does anyone wish
to speak for or against this item? Good evering.
James Fedrigo, 33972 Coventry, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Good evening. My
home is directly in the center. I am the lot that does have the
extended concrete area on the bottom. Basically, I think it came
about parking in that area was not in the ordinance, not allowed
to park in that area. Twenty or 30 years ago when they moved
the street, before then, when they designed it, I could park
another vehicle on the street. With the moving of the road, that
would not permit me to do that so that left me with just a
driveway. So 20 years ago, the people that lived there had put
in that section. It doesn't go all the way through. It is, as you
staled,
just to back up and turn around. One thing that I do like,
I have
three kids, being right on the main mad, I like to park a
vehicle down there so that my kids can come down to the first
sidewalk and then travel their bikes along that first sidewalk.
There was some mention of removing or that sidewalk would
become private property. We have no intentions or changing or
doing anything with the existing.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. And there is somebody behind you. Good evening.
Waller Miloaj,
33992 Coventry, Livonia, Michigan 48154. I have no problem
whatsoever with you guys abandoning the land. I do take care
of it and water it and cul the grass. I'm just curious about taxes.
Like my taxes go up because you're giving me some land?
Mr. Walsh:
It will in fact, but I don't know what the dollar amount will be.
Mr. Miloaj:
Because the way I see it, I don't really need. And you're not
going to do nothing with it. You see my point.
Mr. Walsh:
Understood, but it won't change the laws. That's beyond our
purview.
Mr. Miloaj:
Right, but you do see my point?
Mr. Walsh:
Absolutely. We understand.
23429
Mr. Mitoaj:
We really don't need this land. I just got it to make it look nice
for the neighborhood, and I can't just see you giving me a piece
of land and then my taxes go up?
Mr. Walsh:
Your taxes will go, and whether it has an impact on the sale of
Mr. Miloaj:
your property and increases your sales prices or not someday
when you sell it, is anybody's guess.
Mr. Miloaj:
I can sell it with or without it, correct? I mean it sold without it. I
think I have a very good black and while point here.
Mr. Walsh:
Well, sir, if we approve this and you are assessed ... Mark,
what is the process? If we approve this, does the property
Mr. Walsh:
owner automatically ... do we automatically assign the property
to the property owner or do they have the right to reject the
Mr. Miloaj:
vacated property.?
Mr. Taormina: I'm going to pass on that question. Obviously the Planning
Commission is not the final approving authority in this matter. It
would require an ordinance that would have to be adopted by
the City Council, so this gentleman still has the opportunity to
present his arguments before the Council and maybe gel the
answers to some of your questions regarding if he's obligated
the lake ownership or for that property to revert and attached to
his or not. I really can't answer that.
Mr. Walsh:
I think what we'll do tonight, we'll gel this into the record - your
concerns. When it goes to the Council, they will have the City
Attorney present and you can address that in a manner we are
unable to.
Mr. Miloaj:
If its a few dollars or something, I can understand that, but also,
your survey and your records show that I own - there was a
mistake and I actually own 20 or 2 feel this side of the sidewalk.
I built an addition on my back and they had to re -survey. He
came out and measured himself. He's saying I own 25 feel of
the sidewalk already.
Mr. Walsh:
Again, we're not going to be able to determine that, but we will
put that into the record. It clearly will be in our minutes.
Mr. Miloaj:
Yeah, because he went out there and measured it.
Mr. Walsh:
I'll contact the City Attorney and ask if he can work with the
Assessors Office so when it gels to the Council, they will be
prepared to discuss that item.
23430
Mr. Miloaj: Other than that, I really don't have no problems with it. That's
about d.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, then a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-78-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-03-02, submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 276-06, and
Section 12.08.015(A) of Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City
of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate
portions of the Coventry Drive right -0f -way adjacent to Lots 132
through 142 (33992 Coventry, 33972 Coventry and 33950
Coventry) in the Coventry Gardens Subdivision, located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Coventry Drive and
Stamford Road in the Southeast % of Section 16, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2006-06-03-02 be approved, subject to the retention of
an easement for existing public utilities as recommended by the
Engineering Division, for the following reasons:
1. That the subject right -0f -way is not needed for public
access purposes;
2. That the subject right-of-way can be more advantageously
used in private ownership;
3. That vacating of the subject right-of-way will place the
property back on the City's tax rolls; and
4. That no reporting City department or public utility has
objected to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of
the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. I did fail to note, Madam Secretary, that Mr. Shane
did have to leave, so from this point forward, he would just be
considered absent.
23431
ITEM #8 PETITION 2006-05-06-02 DAY CARE PLAY AREAS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
05-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #252-06, and Section 23.01(a) of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether
or not to amend Section 8.07(a) of Article VIII, Section 9.030) of
Artide IX, Section 10.03(d) of Article X, and Section 11.02(i) of
Article XI of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in order to
reduce the minimum outdoor play area requirement for child day
care nurseries.
Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution #252-06 referred the subject of a possible
ordinance amendment pertaining to outdoor play areas at child
care facilities to the Planning Commission for a report and
recommendation. The current requirement, based on a ratio of
150 square feet of outdoor play area per child, with a minimum
of 5,000 square feet, is considered excessive. This request to
have the Planning Commission consider amending the Zoning
Ordinance in large part stems from the Council's recent review
and approval of a site plan involving the development of The
Learning Experience, a day care nursery on property located at
the Northeast corner of Victor Parkway and Bethany Road.
The Learning Experience will be licensed to accommodate a
total of 180 children and, as such, would be required to maintain
27,000 square feet of outdoor play area. However, the plan as it
was approved provides for fenced -in outdoor play area totaling 5,000
square feet. According to the owners and operators of the facility,
which have been involved in the development of hundreds of
commercial child care centers across the country, 5,000 square feet is
an appropriate amount considering the need for security, safety,
and the fact that only one or two classes use the outdoor play
space at the same time, which is far fewer than the total number
of children licensed at the facility. Another consideration is the
fad that the City's waiver use requirement is far more restrictive
than that of the Stale, which requires a minimum of only 1,200
square feel. Based upon a random survey of communities from
across Michigan, a large percentage of them do not contain any
special provisions regarding the amount of outdoor play area.
Thus, they rely upon the stale to govern this aspect of the use.
For these reasons, in our opinion, the ordinance should be
amended by eliminating the requirement for 150 square feet of
outdoor play area per child, and simply the reduce the minimum
amount of outdoor play area to 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? That was a good
explanation and there are no remaining members of the
23432
audience here to speak. A motion would be in order. Mr.
Wilshaw?
Mr. Wilshaw: It seems like 5,000 square feet is four limes the State
requirement and is reasonable. For that reason, I will make an
approving resolution.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-79-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-06-02 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #252-06, and
Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
to determine whether or not to amend Section 8.07(a) of Article
VIII, Section 9.030) of Article IX, Section 10.03(d) of Article X,
and Section 11.02(i) of Article XI of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, in order to reduce the minimum outdoor play area
requirement for child day care nurseries, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2006-05-06-02 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the proposed language amendments will provide
adequate standards and requirements for outdoor play
area for child day care facilities;
2. That the proposed language amendment will maintain
appropriate and proper regulation and control over the
location and nature of the subject use; and
3. That the proposed language amendment is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which,
among other things, is to protect the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
23433
ITEM#9 PETITION 2006-06-06-03 MICHIGAN ZONING ACT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #323-06, and Section 23.01(a) of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether
or not to amend Section 12.03 of Article XII, Section 19.05 of
Article XIX, Section 21.09 of Article XXI, and Section 23.06 of
Arfide XXIII, in order to comply with recent changes made to the
public notification requirements of the Michigan Zoning Enabling
Act (PA 110 of 2006); and to amend Sections 4.02 and 4.11 of
Article IV and Section 5.14 of Article V, in order to treat group
day care homes as conditional uses pursuant to changes
necessitated by the Michigan Zoning Enable Act.
Mr. Taormina: Public Act 110 of 2006, which become effective on July 1, 2006,
repealed three zoning enabling acts — one for Counties, one for
Townships and one for Cities and Villages — and established a
single new Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. The three previous
statutes were written at different times and, while they had the
same general purpose and thus contained similar provisions of
law, they contained different language. Therefore, the main
purpose for combining the statutes was to consolidate the
various provisions into a single requirement that would be
applicable to all jurisdictions. This is particularly true in the case
of public notice requirements, which, under the new law, have
been consolidated into a single common set of requirements. In
the case of Livonia, the new statute does require a number of
changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Changes include
amendments to Sections 12.03, 19.05, 21.09 and 23.06 to bring
the notice requirements in line with the Act's provisions, and
changes to Sections 4.02, 4.11 and 5.14 in order to treat group
day care homes as conditional uses, rather than uses which are
prohibited unless a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The new Zoning Act provides that notice shall be sent
by mail or personal delivery to all persons to whom real property
is assessed within 300 feel of the property and to the occupants
of all structures within 300 feet of the property regardless of
whether the property or occupant is located in the zoning
jurisdiction, and that notice needs to be sent not less than 15
days before the dale the application will be considered for
approval. Now this standard will apply to all zoning matters,
rezonings, special land requirements or waiver petitions, and
vacating petitions. So we're going to use a single standard now
for all types of petitions that are filed before the Planning
Commission. Also in line with the new Enabling Act's provisions,
23434
group day care homes will be treated as conditional uses rather
than uses which are prohibited unless a variance is granted by
the Zoning Board of Appeals. Section 4.05 which applies to the
R-1 through R-5 District Regulations and Section 5.14 which
applies to the RUF District Regulations, will be amended to
provide for group day care homes as uses requiring a
conditional use permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So
it's really just a change in the semantics. The Zoning Board of
Appeals will still be the body that reviews petitions involving
group care homes, but instead of it being considered a variance,
it will be referred to as a conditional use.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. La Pine:
I notice when I read this letter from the Department of Law, if I
approve this, does that mean I'm agreeing to this: that one
regular member of the ZBA be a member of the Planning
Commission? Does that have anything to do with this?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not this aspect.
Mr. La Pine:
Because it's in the letter, and I don't want to be voting on that.
Mr. Taormina:
That is not being acted on this evening. That's a completely
separate issue and we're going to be addressing that in the
future.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, 0 was
#07-80-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 25, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-06-03 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #323-06, and
Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
to determine whether or not to amend Section 12.03 of Article
XII, Section 19.05 of Article XIX, Section 21.09 of Article XXI,
and Section 23.06 of Artide XXIII, in order to comply with recent
changes made to the public notification requirements of the
Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (PA 110 of 2006); and to amend
Sections 4.02 and 4.11 of Article IV and Section 5.14 of Article
V, in order to treat group day care homes as conditional uses
pursuant to changes necessitated by the Michigan Zoning
Enable Act, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
23435
to the City Council that Petition 2006-06-06-03 be approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendments will bring the
Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the public
notification requirements of the Michigan Zoning Enabling
Act (PA 110 of 2006); and
2. That the proposed language amendments will provide for
group day care homes as uses requiring a conditional use
permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals in accordance
with the provisions of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 927'" Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 927"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on June 13, 2006.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07$1-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 927" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 13,
2006, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Wilshaw, Alanskas, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Shane
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 929" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 25, 2006, was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman
23436