Loading...
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