HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-04-24MINUTES OF THE 943x" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 24, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 943d 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: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ashley Varloogian 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 lonighfs 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 PETITION2007-02-01-01 RONALD EMLING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-02-
01-01 submitted by Ronald W. Emling requesting to rezone
property at 39115 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in
the Southwest % of Section 30 from RUF to R-1.
Apri# 24, 2007
24006
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 two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 21, 2007, which reads
as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time and the legal
description is comect. The future 60 foot oneha/f width right-of--
way is indicated on the preliminary plan. The detention facilities
will require the approval of Wayne County under their storm
water management ordinance. The drive approach to Plymouth
Road will also require County approval." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
Michael and Renee Meeker, 39201 Plymouth Road, dated
March 19, 2007, which reads as follows: "We are writing in
response to the above -referenced petition. As we are not able
to make it to the meeting, we are providing this letter to state our
views. We live to the west of the referenced property. Our
house faces east, towards the property to be rezoned. We live
in a great part of this city. And we really dont want it to change,
but sadly, we know that it will. Therefore, we have a couple of
concerns. If a subdivision is built, we hope there will be some
serious thought given for a wall of greenery separating the front
of our home from it. Also, we want the houses to be built in a
price range that will prevent any loss to our property value.
Thank you for taking our concems under advisement." That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
I have one. We have to have that as a 50 -fool road. Isn't that
right because of the size of the lots?
Mr. Taormina:
That is what is shown. That is correct.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
I'm the designer of this layout. I'm representing Mr. Ronald
Emling, who is also here with me tonight. Mr. Taormina did a
fine job presenting this to you, as always. There's not much I
can add to it. If there are any questions, I'd be more than happy
to try and answer them.
April 24, 2007
24009
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley: It is an unusual piece of properly in shape. I was wondering if
there had been any effort made to square it off a Iitfle bit.
Mr. Donnan: Yes, there has been. Mr. Emling has contacted the owner of
the property to the west and offered an exchange of property or
outright purchase of some property to square that jog off in the
east and also maybe to bring it a little further away from his
house, and he was denied that request.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: Are you pulling the retention pond underground?
Mr. Donnan: Yes, sir. I think it's seven fool diameter pipes to gel the volume
that's required there. There's quite a drop off from there to
Hines Drive. The detention would be channeled into this
underground detention and then outlet to a storm sewer in
Hines Parks.
Mr. La Pine: On the two private parks you have along Plymouth Road, is
there going to be a berm there orjust flat?
Mr. Donnan: There is going to be a landscaped berm on each one of those
parks.
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Its been a long time since I've seen a piece of property
like Lot 8, the way that its laid out. See how it goes up and then
around, and then Lot 9 is loo narrow on one side. Is there
anyway that conceivably that house ... maybe Lot 8 ... can be
a little shorter in depth because there's a lot of depth on that lot,
and this house being moved over. Is there any way to gel that
one side up to 120 foot? Is that possible?
Mr. Donnan: No. We've moved that lot line south, so this lot is about 700
square feet more than the minimum. The further you move that
line to the south, the shorter it gets.
Mr. La Pine: All right.
Vartoogian: With respect to the correspondence from the Meekers, the
neighboring property owners, have any considerations been
made for a greenbelt in that area?
Mr. Donnan: Yes, Mr. Emling said he would provide some landscaping along
his western property line in the vicinity of the Meekers house to
soften that view for him.
April 24, 2007
24010
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Our zoning ordinance generally requires that the park property
for Lots 12 and 1 that abut those two properties closest to
Plymouth Road accommodate a 30 foot buffer zone between
the property line and Plymouth Road. You have 25 feet. Is
there any possibility that these property
lines can be moved
down 5 feel to accommodate the zoning ordinance?
Mr. Donnan:
Yes, it could, but the reason that's a 25 fool park is that if that lot
is made 90 feel wide to comply with the ordinance, the setback
is 25 feel. So the building would be able to be within 25 feet of
the right -0f --way. By putting a 25 foot park there, the property
line is the south line of that park, then the building has to be at
least 5 feet from the property line, so the building is forced to be
30 feet from the right -0f -way instead of 25, so it actually moves
it back about 5 feel.
Mr. Wilshaw:
All right. Which is the intent of the zoning ordinance, as I
understand it.
Mr. Donnan:
That's correct. The other reason for making it a park is that the
park would be privately owned by the property owners'
association, and all the landscaping and the bene will be
maintained by the property owners association to assure that it
will be kept in a neat and presentable manner.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. I don't know that I completely understand why its not
possible to do that. You explained basically our zoning
ordinance to us, but why is it not possibly in this case?
Mr. Donnan:
It is possible, but we're achieving a little more by making the
park there a little more than the zoning ordinance requires.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So if we were to proceed forward with the zoning on this,
when we get to looking at the site plan itself, you think that could
be accommodated?
Mr.Donnan:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. McDermott:
I wanted to ask about the road that Mrs. Smiley had referenced
earlier - the 50 fool public road.... why that's not 60 feet, which
is the standard.
Mr. Donnan:
On the southern part of the property, there is not enough width
to maintain the lot that's at 120 feel. That is one of the reasons
Apr# 24, 2007
24011
why he tried to acquire addilional property to the west so that
the lots could be made 120 feet deep and the road could be 60
feel wide.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-38-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, on
Petition 2007-02-01-01 submitted by Ronald W. Emling
requesting to rezone properly at 39115 Plymouth Road, located
on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road
and Eckles Road in the Southwest'''/ of Section 30 from RUF to
R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2007-02-01-01 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning
districts in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject property in a manner that will
be consistent with existing residential developments in the
general area along Plymouth Road between Eckles Road
and Newburgh Road;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
family residential development similar in density to what is
existing in the neighboring area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of Medium Density
Residential land use in this general 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?
April 24, 2007
24012
Mr. La Pine: Just one thing. This is just the rezoning. When the site plan
comes before us, we will want the Meeker's request for
landscaping on the side to be addressed allhat point. Okay.
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#2 PETITION 2007-03-01-02 MASOUD SHANGO
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-01-02 submitted by Masoud Shango requesting to rezone
property at 13820-13840 Merriman Road and 31281 SchoolcraR
Road, located on the south side of SchoolcraR east of Merriman
Road in the Northwest % of Section 26 from OS to C-2.
Mr. Walsh: I understand from our staff that the petitioner has failed to
comply with our signage requirements. As a result, we are not
able to proceed with this item. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Walsh: Is this something that we need to table or is 0 just subject to
rescheduling when they've met the requirement?
Mr. Taormina: This is something that would be rescheduled for the next public
hearing, which will be May 29.
Mr. Walsh: This item will be rescheduled to May 29 because of the
petitioner's failure to comply with notice requirements.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 0 was
#04-39-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2007-03-01-02 submitted by Masoud
Shango requesting to rezone properly at 13820-13840
Merriman Road and 31281 SchoolcraR Road, located on the
south side of SchoolcraR east of Merriman Road in the
Northwest % of Section 26 from OS to G2, be tabled until the
next Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of May 29, 2007,
inasmuch as the required signage was not posted on the
property 15 days in advance of the public hearing as required by
city ordinance.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Apel 24, 2007
24013
ITEM#3 PETlTION2007-03-02-06 FINISHLINE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petifion 2007-
03-02-06 submitted by Finishline Powersporls, Inc., requesting
waiver use approval for the outdoor display of recreation
vehicles at 29220 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Parkville
Avenue in the Southwest''/. of Section 1.
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 March 5, 2007, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
submitted is correct and no additional nghtof-way is required."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated March 5, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for
approval of an outdoor display of recreation vehicles on property
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1)
Access around building shall be provided for emergency
vehicles. (2) After hours storage of vehicles shall comply with
Fire and Building codes" The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated April 4, 2007, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with Finishline Power Sports
located at 29220 Seven Mile. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 10, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 2,
2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) There are 18 parking spaces currently on
the site which is what the zoning ordinance requires. However,
only the 10 parking spaces (including 1 barrier free space) on
the south side of the property is cumently useable due to the
nonconforming outdoor storage of new and used equipment on
the north side of the building. It appears that the employees
and some customers art; using the adjoining properties for
parking. (2) No outdoor stooge, placement or display of
ApT# 24, 2007
24014
merchandise shall be permitted at anytime on this site per
Council Resolution 167-05. (3) Any outdoor storage on this site
according to the zoning ordinance shall be enclosed by either a
6 foot cyclone fence or a fence approved by the Inspection
Department and that no utility hailers or recreational equipment
shall be displayed within 20 feet from the front or side lot line
abutting a public street. These conditions may be waived or
modified by a super majority affirmative vote of Council. (4) A
tree has been cut down on this site in the front area and should
be replaced. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Building
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow: I'd like to ask the staff, is there any distinction between the
outdoor display versus the outdoor storage as it relates to the
chain link fence?
Mr. Taormina: There are separate provisions in our ordinance for the enclosve
of outside storage in connection with automotive repair uses.
It's not a requirement typically for used car dealers or new car
dealers. It is, however, for recreational vehicles and the outdoor
display of other merchandise. There is some inconsistency with
respect to that. The differentiation is between certain types of
vehicles in display lots versus merchandise that is displayed
outside.
Mr. Morrow: So the chain link fence would have to be waived?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, the chain link fence would have to waived in this case.
There is a specific requirement under this provision of the
ordinance that requires that area to be enclosed.
Mr. LaPine: I am confused about the Inspections Department's comment
about the parking. They have parking in front. There were two
or three cars out there when we were there on Saturday. I don't
understand where they're talking about this 'noncronforming
outdoor storage of new and used equipment on the north side of
the building." They had a few items out there, which they were
taking apart and getting ready to assemble. What are they
talking about? Is stuff out there 24 hours a day? I don't think
so.
Mr. Taormina: As I understand it, there are times when deliveries are made to
the site which are stored out of doors at the rear of the building
before being placed in the building. Again, this is something the
applicant can describe more fully. It is my understanding from
April 24, 2007
24015
talking to him, as well as what I have observed, that there is not
material out there after closing hours. This is something that
occurs strictly on a temporary basis.
Mr. La Pine:
That's the understanding we had when talking to the sales
manager. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one clarification. Mr. Morrow
had asked earlier about the need to waive the requirement for
the fence. The other special requirement that would have to be
waived by separate resolution of the City Council is the need to
have a 20 foot setback of the merchandise. He's only showing
a setback of 5 feet, whereas the ordinance requires a 20 foot
separation from the front lot line.
Mr. Morrow:
So several things go along with this particular waiver.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, two special resolutions will need to be granted.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the pefitoner here this evening?
Fred Owen,
Finishline Powersports, Inc., 1210 Craven, Highland, Michigan
48356. I'm the President of Finishline Powersports. Our
business address is 29220 West Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Owen:
No. I think Mr. Taormina has done a good job explaining what
we're requesting. As a matter of fad, it's only going to be used
on good weather days as well as business hours. Bad weather,
we don't put stuff outside anyway. At dose of the business day,
it would all be locked up. You can't afford to leave this stuff out
anyway because it won't be there in morning, you know. It's
only a business hour request.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
The only comment I would make is when Mr. LaPine and I
checked it out, as I recall in your original pefition, you incurred
quite a bit of expense to put a second story display area
consisting of windows. I think the fad that it's hard to see that is
probably the reason for the request, in addition to the two big
trees in full bloom that practically shield the whole upper story.
Mr. Owen:
That's true. That's one of the reasons we're coming before you
now. That is, we weren't aware of the trees during construction.
Once the store got up and operating, Io and behold, the trees
went full bloom and you could not see that store traveling east
April 24, 2007
24016
bound, heading east on Seven from Middlebelt. We need more
visibility.
Mr. Morrow:
The other comment I would make, it came up earlier about this
storage in the rear, I left there after talking to your sales
manager. Most of the merchandise is moved back into the
building.
Mr. Owen:
That's everything, sir. We do not leave any motorcycles, any of
the sluff outside. You cant. Once again, they won't be there in
the morning. We do our very best to make the property clean
and presentable everyday.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Is there any reason why you couldn't or wouldn't want to move
those back to one of the parking spaces closer to the building?
Mr. Owen:
Its funny you brought that up because my son had brought
something up to me last week. We had already submitted this
petition to you. What he was saying pertaining to your approval,
if you had a problem on the setback up there, right across the
front the building here, in front of the glass, sideways, silting on
that sidewalk approach. But once again, that would be your
call. If that would be more satisfactory versus using a parking
spot, whichever, you know, we can do it either way. By putting
it back here, we satisfy the 20 foot setback. We're just trying to
gel visibility. So whichever way we can do it and satisfy
everybody, we're open for it.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I'm not sure I understand what the other option was.
Mr. Owen:
Where those two arrows are coming down there, that's a
sidewalk that runs across the front of our building. Have you
been to our store?
Ms. Vartoogian:
I've seen your store.
Mr. Owen:
Okay. Its a cement sidewalk. I think its five or six feet off the
glass. You can feasibly put four units across, which is a 70 foot
building. You could place four units sideways across there and
it would do the same thing as out here as far as showing off
what we're aboul.
Ms. Vartoogian:
And they would still be on the exterior of the building and not on
the inside?
ApT# za, 2007
24017
Mr. Owen:
Yes. Only during business hours, just like this request. The
only difference is we get rid of the five fool problem. We go
back to the front of the store, whichever way you guys want to
go. We're very flexible on this.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Owen, you might want to step back to the microphone now
so our audience can hear.
Mr. Owen:
Have I explained that?
Ms. Vartoogian:
Yes, you have.
Mr. LaPine:
Quite frankly, I think it isn't a smart idea to have it on the
sidewalk because when we were out there, that sidewalk looks
like it's five or six feel wide. How are people
going to walk on it?
They're going to have to walk in the parking
lot, so I don't think
that makes a good solution. I think the comer is probably your
best solution. But my worry about the ones on the corner,
you're not going to have any flags or any signs, special sale
today, or anything like that?
Mr. Owen:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Just strictly the vehicles.
Mr. Owen:
Strictly a visibility to show what we're about.
Mr. LaPine:
Secondly, I think the visibility will be better out there than on the
sidewalk. I have to agree with Mr. Morrow. When we drove up,
with the reflection from the sun and everything, I couldn't even
see into those windows up above. They just were useless
really. But I would like to comment that your sales manager
was really cooperative with us. He explained the whole
operation for us. He's really a nice young man.
Mr. Owen:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Your store is impeccable. Its clean as a whistle. We went back
to your repair area and everything. Normally, I wouldn't be
voting for this, but I was impressed with what I saw there, so
you swung my vote.
Mr. Owen:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment to go along with what Mr. LaPine was saying.
The storage in front of the store might be a problem because
most of your parking is going to be in front of the store.
Apni 24, 2007
24018
Mr. Owen: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Because when Bill and I were out there, there was a car right
next to your display shown there, which blocked the view.
There's a lot of other open parking spaces. When we were
there, it was blocking as you were going east on Seven Mile
Road, but that probably doesn't happen. So I'm not sure. If
you're trying to gel activity, I think this is the best spot for it
providing the Council approves it.
Mr. Owen: That was my argument to my son.
Mr. Morrow: It would be outdoors, but most of your parking is going to be in
front anyways.
Mr. Owen: Yes, that's true. And originally when we went through this
whole thing, I wish I could keep every spot full because we sell
high end, expensive toys. If they were all full, we'd be making a
lot more money, but unfortunately in our business, it's not like a
drug store where people are constantly coming in to gel a can of
pop or something, you know. But I agree with you. That was
my argument to him loo. I thought it would be better for visibility
out by the street.
Mr. La Pine: Just one other thing. Your sales manager told us something
that I thought was very interesting. I don't know how long
you've been here - a year or so? And out of 228 stores
throughout the country, you're like 12"' in sales.
Mr. Owen: Yes, we were notified from Suzuki Corporation. In nine months,
we went to number one in the stale, and we were at that point
number 30 in the country. We were notified two weeks ago, we
moved up to number 12 in the country for Suzuki. And we're
already number one for Arlic Cal in the Slate of Michigan.
Mr. LaPine: You have a tremendous amount of vehicles in that building.
Your overhead has got to be fantastic.
Mr. Owen: Oh yeah.
Mr. Morrow: Well, maybe you dont need that outdoor storage?
Mr. Wilshaw: We talked about this at our study meeting, but just for the
record, how many vehicles do you intend to put in that storage
space at any given time?
Mr. Owen: The petition requests for four. I would probably say no more
than four, but probably two or three. I don't want to crowd R. If I
Apr# 24, 2007
24019
put two nice bikes out there - and it's going to change per
season. In the snowmobile season, we'll put a couple
snowmobiles out there, and vice versa, four wheelers. I don't
foresee overcrowding. I want people to see it. Lel each unit
stand by itself.
Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#04-40-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, on
Petition 2007-03-02-06 submitted by Finishline Powersports,
Inc., requesting waiver use approval for the outdoor display of
recreation vehicles at 29220 Seven Mile Road, located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and
Parkville Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2007-03-02-06 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
That Condition #18 of Council Resolution #167-05, which
prohibits outdoor storage, placement or display of
merchandise at any time on the site, is hereby amended
and modified to permit the outdoor display of recreation
vehicles on a land area corresponding to one, single
parking space in the extreme southeasterly comer of the
front parking lot only during limes that this business is open
and not permitting outdoor overnight storage or placement
of such vehicles;
2. That one additional parking space shall be provided in the
rear parking lot so that the site will be in compliance with
the requirement of 18 parking spaces for the use;
3. That the elimination of the requirement that the display
area be enclosed by a fence shall be contingent upon the
waiving of that requirement by the City Council by means
of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members
of the City Council concur;
4. That in order to allow for display of recreation vehicles
within 20 feel from the front lot line, this site will need to
obtain specific approval from the City Council by means of
April 24, 2007
24020
a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of
the City Council concur;
5. That the missing tree in the front yard area that is
referenced in the correspondence dated April 10, 2007
from the Inspection Department shall be replaced, unless
the approved Landscape Plan is modified to eliminate the
tree;
6. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulations
contained in the correspondence dated March 5, 2007 from
the Fire Marshal;
7. That the elevated outdoor display of vehicles on lifts,
ramps or other similar apparatus is prohibited;
8. That no additional signage is approved in connection with
the granting ofthis waiver use request; and
9. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#167-05 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the 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?
Mr. LaPine: Yes, I have one question for Mark. I was out there Saturday,
and I'm confused. Where is this tree that is missing? I never
saw anything that looked like it was taken out.
Mr. Taormina: Apparenfly, Mr. Owen knows precisely where it is.
ApT# za, 2007
24021
Mr. Owen:
That tree is in the front, just about 10 feel east of our ground
sign. I'm the guy who backed over it by accident. I had to saw
R down to pick it up. It was lying on my sidewalk. I have every
intention of replacing it.
Mr. LaPine:
I never noticed it.
Mr. Owen:
There were two of them out there.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
If the maker of the motion could consider an additional condition
that would prohibit any vehicle stands, hoists or lifts to make
sure all the vehicles that are being displayed outside are kept on
the ground. I think we have some standard language that we
have used with other dealerships.
Mr. Morrow:
So we don't want to elevate them is what you're saying?
Mr. Taormina:
Right.
Mr. Morrow:
I have no problem with that.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no problem with that.
Mr. Walsh:
Then the resolution stands as amended. Is there any additional
discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just want to make a comment that I think Mr. Owen is an
excellent proprietor of a business, and he's definitely got a good
business there based on his sales records that he's indicated.
That being said, this is a precedent setting type of proposal we
have here. There's been a lot of other establishments that have
come to us in the past that have asked for outdoor storage,
including the neighboring Toys R Us, that we have not
approved. I think of other retailers that are more in line with Mr.
Owen's business such as Commercial Lawn Mower who used
to have outdoor storage at their former location, and when they
moved to a new location, they specifically designed the building
to not have outdoor storage. I see this as a bit of regression to
that type of arrangement. With that, I will not be supporting this,
but in no way does this reflect upon my view of Mr. Owen or his
business. I think it's an excellent business, and I wish him a lot
of success.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Would the secretary please call the roll?
April 24, 2007
24022
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the
following:
AYES:
Morrow, La Pine, McDermott, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES:
Wilshaw, Vartoogian
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
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 2007-03-02-08 ROCKY'S ROTISSERIE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-02-08 submitted by Newburgh Plaza, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant
(Rocky's Rotisserie) at 37337 Six Mile Road in the Newburgh
Plaza shopping center, located at the southeast comer of Six
Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Northwest''/. of Section
17.
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 dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 29, 2007, which reads as
follows : 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
submitted has several errors, but they do not affect the current
petition since they deal with the overall center. The first
description does not acknowledge the dedication of the Six Mile
or Newburgh right -0f -ways or the Big Boy parcel. There is a
typographical error in the third line of the second description,
which should read 60.00 feet and not 50.00 feet. The third
description is incomplete. No additional nghtof--way is required.
An address of 37337 Six Mile is correct. The following legal
description is provided for the waiver use." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 26, 2007,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited
service restaurant on property located at the southeast comer of
Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Northwest X of
ApT# 24, 2007
24023
Section 17. 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 March 28, 2007, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with
Rocky's Rotisserie located at 37083 Six Mile. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Stud(, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April
2, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
March 23, 2007, the above- eferenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This use may be a
complete change of use group (no address given) and as such
will require the entire space including entry doors, restrooms
and service counters to meet the current State of Michigan
Barrier Free Code. The entry foyer does not meet current
requirements and there may be other issues as well, such as
the dual hinged egress door. Although #1 is not a zoning issue,
it is a design issue that would otherwise not be addressed until
our plan review, which is much later in the process. We felt it
prudent to make the applicant aware of these issues as early as
possible. (2) This space is to be posted for a maximum seating
of 30. (3) Signage has not been reviewed. 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? Seeing none, could the
petitioner please come to the podium.
Derrick Frankel, Newburgh Plaza, L.L.C., 2301 W. Big Beaver, Troy, Michigan
48084. I'm here on behalf of Newburgh Plaza.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation or go
straight to questions?
Mr. Frankel: Straight to questions.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Are there any questions for tie petitioner? It's pretty
straightforward then. No questions, ladies and gentlemen?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just for the benefit of the people that are listening, Rocky's
Rotisserie, as I understand it, is related to the Rocky's of
Northville restaurant.
Mr. Frankel: That's correct. Charles Rocky Rakawitz is here, along with his
representative, Henry Logan. He's developed a rotisserie
chicken concept and decided to locale his first store in
Newburgh Plaza.
Apr# 24, 2007
24024
Mr. Wilshaw:
This will be his first location?
Mr. Frankel:
First location of this business.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Is this primarily going to be a carry out restaurant?
Mr. Frankel:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Are you going to be open for lunch and evenings?
Mr. Frankel:
I will defer to Rocky on that but I believe he's going to do lunch
to obviously target local businesses, as well as dinner, but its
primarily a takeout restaurant.
Mr. La Pine:
Say from 11:00 a.m. to what time in the evening?
Mr. Frankel:
11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no objection to it. There's a lot of restaurants in there
and that can be a busy place for parking. As long as people can
find a place to park, I think you'll do fine there.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'd like to make an approving resolution. With the recent closing
of the Boston Market across the street from this center, I think
this is a very appropriate use, and I think it will do very well.
With that, I'll make an approving resolution.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#04-41-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, on
Petition 2007-03-02-08 submitted by Newburgh Plaza, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant (Rocky's Rotisserie) at 37337 Six Mile Road in the
Newburgh Plaza shopping center, located at the southeast
comer of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Northwest %
of Section 17, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-03-02-08 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
April 24, 2007
24025
1. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated Apnl 2, 2007 from the Inspection Department shall
be resolved to that department's satisfaction:
- That this entire space including entry doors, restrooms
and service counters shall meet the current State of
Michigan Barrier Free Code;
- That this space shall be posted for a maximum seating
of 30;
2. 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; and
3. That the use of LED lightbands or exposed neon, such as
to outline windows or building features, shall not be
permitted.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
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? I do intend to support this. I'm glad
Rocky's is coming to Livonia. I dine at your restaurant in
Northville on a regular basis. It's really quite nice. Mr. Frankel, I
think Newburgh Plaza, in my personal opinion, is one of the
finest shopping centers we have in Livonia. You continue to
attract very good tenants, and I'm grateful for that.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Apr# 24, 2007
24026
ITEM #5 PETITION 2007-03-02-09 MARCOS MAKOHON
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-02-09 submitted by Marcos Makohon requesting waiver use
approval to operate a sport therapy and hockey training facility
at 33174 Capitol Avenue, located on the north side of Capitol
Avenue between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the
Southwest % of Section 27
Mr. Walsh: We have a letter that we received as of April 23, 2007 from the
petitioner who has withdrawn hs petition. As a result, there will
be no further consideration of this item. Mark, we need not take
any further action. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the letter of withdrawal.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-42-2007 RESOLVED, that in connection with Petition 2007-03-02-09
submitted by Marcos Makohon requesting waiver use approval
to operate a sport therapy and hockey training facility at 33174
Capitol Avenue, located on the north side of Capitol Avenue
between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the
Southwest % of Section 27, the Planning Commission does
hereby determine to take no further action with regard to this
matter since the petitioner has formally withdrawn its request by
letter dated April 23, 2007.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#6 PETITION 2007-03-0240 STONE MOUNTAIN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-02-10 submitted by Slone Mountain Coffee requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a drive-lhru
restaurant at 28085 Plymouth Road, located on the south side
of Plymouth between Harrison Road and Deering Avenue in the
Northeast % of Section 36.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
April 24, 2007
24027
Mr. Taormina: I'd just like to point out that a critical aspect of the plan review
relates to the drive approaches. The petitioner has been made
aware of concerns related to the stacking and the circulation of
vehicles on the site, and also whether or not the geometrics of
what they're showing as far as the ingress and egress would
comply with the Michigan State Department of Transportation's
requirements. MDOT has jurisdiction over Plymouth Road. The
petitioner is in the process of meeting with Stale officials to
determine precisely what the geometrics of this drive approach
will have to be. We don't feel that the plan as presented will
meet all of the Slate's requirements and that there will be
changes to the plan at some point. We are, therefore,
requesting that this item be tabled. However, it was advertised
for a public hearing, and we should proceed with the public
hearing, Mr. Chairman. But I did want to point out to the
Commission that the staff does not feel that there is sufficient
information at this time in order to act favorably upon this
request.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any questions for the staff?
I do suggest that we allow the petitioner to come forward, and if
there is anyone in the audience that wishes to address this item,
they should do so with the express understanding that we have
a firm recommendation from our Planning staff that we table this
item until additional information is available. Would the
petitioner please come to the podium? Good evening.
Chris Byron, Stone Mountain Coffee, 34484 Richland Court, Livonia, Michigan
48150. Good evering.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr. Byron: I did speak with Mike Budai from MDOT today. We're going to
go over the driveway situation. He basically told me what they
expect. I'm just relaying it to my engineer, and we're going to
have to redraw the plans to meet his code.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. I think we will reserve our questions until we see the new
information, but I do want to take public testimony. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
Margaret Milliron, 28056 N. Clements Circle. I live right behind Slone Mountain.
Anyway, a few of us are here, four of us are here, and a couple
other neighbors wanted to come but couldn't come. We're
concerned about how high hal wall will be. We're concerned
about the noise. Right now we have the bar over there, which is
very noisy. Al 10:00 p.m. on, its very noisy from the bar, and
Apm 24, 2007
24028
we don't want any more noise than necessary from the
restaurant. How high is that wall going to be, the scenic wall.
How high is it usually?
Mr. Walsh:
It's 5 feet.
Mr. Taormina:
The ordinance requires a minimum of 5 feet and a maximum of
7 feel. So this Commission could determine anywhere between
5 feel to 7 feel for the height of the wall.
Ms. Milliron:
Okay. The lights. We had Burger King at one time. Somebody
had some problems with them and the big bright lights at night
shining through. Are they real bright lights or dull lights?
Mr. Walsh:
Ma'am, as I indicated eadier, I'm going to ask that you pose
your questions. We may not answer them this evening because
we are going to table this item until we have additional
information. They have to meet some substantial impediments
having to do with their ddveway before we really have
something that we can look at. So we may not have answers
for you tonight, but if you pose your questions, we can be ready
at our next meeting.
Ms. Milliron:
What about the time of operation? Do you have that
information?
Mr. Walsh:
We can ask the petitioner. Do you know what your hours will
be?
Mr. Byron:
The hours of operation are probably going to be from like 6:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Milliron:
6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.?
Mr. Byron:
Correct.
Ms. Milliron:
So we dont have to worry about night lights and all of that?
Mr. Byron:
No.
Ms. Milliron:
Oh. Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
As long as the petitioner is here, what are your peak business
hours?
Mr. Byron:
Well, we have one in West Branch right now. The peak
business hours are probably from 9:00 a.m. to noon, and then
again from 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
ApT# 24, 2007
24029
Mr. Morrow: That's all I have.
Mr. LaPine: We'll ask more of these questions at the next meeting, but are
all your pastries brought in? You don't make anything on the
premises.
Mr. Byron: No, we don't.
Mr. LaPine: Just your coffee.
Mr. Byron: Correct. Coffee and smoothies.
Mr. LaPine:
Everything else is brought in?
Mr. Byron:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
One other thing. This is kind of an overall statement to the
young lady that stepped to the podium. Routinely, we make
sure any light is shielded from the neighbors. I notice you have
a couple light poles on your site. Those are limited to 20 feet
lops.
Mr. Byron:
I have a rendering of what they look like.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll get into that later. I'm just making general comments for
the benefit of the audience. The lady was concerned about the
lights and hours of operation.
Mr. Byron:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, sir, for being here. It was a little bit of an odd
function for us. Normally when we table things, there is no
discussion, but I wanted to respect that the neighbors came
here tonight. They do have some work to do with the Michigan
Department of Transportation that's beyond our control. When
that is completed, you will be notified of our next meeting. Yes,
ma'am?
Ms. Milliron:
If they do come, they are going to put a wall extending from the
lire company down beyond their property. Right?
Mr. Walsh:
They have an obligation to put a wall behind their properly. It's
possible that it can be waived under certain procedures, but that
is a requirement.
Ms. Milliron:
Okay. Thank you.
April 24, 2007
24030
Mr. Morrow:
The zoning requirement is to do it on his properly, no more, no
less. You might want to gel their name and address to notify
them.
Mr. Walsh:
Ladies, if you could leave your names and addresses with
Margie Watson, we'll make sure you gel a letter when we have
this matter come back up on the agenda. With that, I'm looking
for a motion to table this item.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-43-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2007-03-02-10 submitted by Slone
Mountain Coffee requesting waiver use approval to construct
and operate a drive-thru restaurant at 28085 Plymouth Road,
located on the south side of Plymouth between Harrison Road
and Deering Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 36, be tabled
to the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to be held
on Tuesday, May 15, 2007.
Mr. Walsh:
We will reschedule this item as soon as we hear back from the
petitioner.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, could you table this to a date certain if that's
possible?
Mr. Walsh:
Do you have a date in mind?
Mr. Taormina:
The voting meeting would be on May 15. We have a study
session on May 1. We may not have any new information by
next Tuesday, but do you think its possible to have it by our
voting meeting on May 15?
Mr. Byron:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
So we can let these people know this evening that Tuesday,
May 15, will be the evening that the Planning Commission will
reconvene for the purpose of hearing this item.
Mr. Walsh:
I still suggest that you do leave your addresses or a phone
number with Marge just in case his progress is not as fast as we
anticipate. I'd like you not have to come out if it's not
necessary. So we will table this, Mr. Taormina, until May 15
unless we hear otherwise.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
April 24, 2007
24031
ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 941" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 941st"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on March 20, 2007.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#04-44-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 941s' Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March
20, 2007, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, LaPine, McDermott, Morrow, Wilshaw,
Vadoogian
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 943`° Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 24, 2007, was adjourned at 8:40
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman