HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-04-03MINUTES OF THE 942ntl REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 3, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 942n° Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:30 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a pefition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has len 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 filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight. Since I was not able to be here at the last
meeting, I would like to welcome Ms. Vartoogian to the Commission as its
newest member.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-02-08-06 S & K INVESTMENTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-02-
08-06 submitted by S & K Investments, Inc. requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a general office park
consisting of three separate buildings on properties at 14815
and 14801 Farmington Road, located on the west side of
Apel 3, 2007
23967
Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road
in the Northeast % of Section 21.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a three -building
office complex on properties located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road.
The subject site consists of two adjoining parcels, 14815 and
14801 Farmington Road. The combined size of the two parcels
is 1.78 acres with a total frontage of 132 feel on Farmington
Road by a depth of approximately 584 feel. Immediately south
of the subject properly is the parking lot of the Bright House
Networks building. Bordering the subject site along its west
property line is the Silver Village senior citizen housing
community, which is zoned R-9, Housing for the Elderly.
Directly north of and adjacent to the subject properly are two
adjoining parcels zoned OS, Office Services. These properties
recently received site plan approval for the construction of a
three -building office complex. Further north is a private road
(Luther Lane) that provides access to the nursing facility known
as the Livonia Woods Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
(formerly Lutheran Heritage Village). This nursing home sits
behind the properties that front along Farmington Road. The
properly immediately north of Luther Lane contains the
Centennial Plaza North office development consisting of two
office buildings. Directly east of the subject properly, across
Farmington Road, is the Heritage Commons office complex.
The subject site is in the process of being rezoned (Petition
2006-07-01-06) from R-2 (One Family Residential) to OS (Office
Services). The Planning Commission, after holding a public
hearing on October 3, 2006, recommended approving the
requested rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City
Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning at its
December 4, 2006, Regular Meeting. Second Reading and a
Roll Call Vole are scheduled at the time the site plan is
presented to City Council for action. Review of this petition is
based on the assumption that the subject properties will be
rezoned to OS. The submitted site plan shows that the three
proposed office buildings would be positioned behind one
another back from Farmington Road. The front building,
identified on the plans as "Building 100,' would sit 40 feel back
from Farmington Road. Forty feel is the minimum required front
yard setback for buildings in an OS zoning district. This building
would be one story in height and the smallest of the three
buildings at a total of 5,218 square feel in size. The next
building, identified as "Building 200," would be situated directly
behind 'Building 100" The two buildings would be separated by
a distance of approximately 82 feel. Building 200 would be one
story in height and the largest of the three buildings at a total of
Apel 3, 2007
23968
7,051 square feel in size. The third building, idenfified as
'Building 300,' would be located at the rear of the property.
Between this building and the west or rear lot line would be a 45
foot greenbelt. Building 300 would be one story in height and
just slightly smaller than Building 200 at a total of 7,040 square
feet in size. According to the site plan, all three buildings would
be occupied by general office type uses. Parking for the
development would be situated along the north properly line and
within the areas between the buildings. Seventy-seven parking
spaces are required, and they are providing 86 spaces. The
Zoning Ordinance allows office centers that contain over 15,000
square feel of gross floor area up to 90% of the required parking
spaces striped at 9 feel in width by 20 feel in length.
Subsequently, in order to provide an adequate number of visitor
and customer spaces, no less than 10% of the total parking has
to be 10 feet in width. This development qualifies for 9 fool
spaces because the combined gross floor area of the three
proposed office buildings would be 19,309 square feet. The site
plan notes that 56 or 65% of the provided parking spaces would
be striped at 9 feel wide. Access to the site would be by a
single two-way drive off Farmington Road. Slone water runoff
for this development would be handled underground. The plan
illustrates and notes an underground storm water detention
easement along the northern section of the property. Proposed
landscaping equals 20% of the site, which exceeds the required
15%. Because this site abuts residential (Silver Village) along
the west property line, a screening wall or greenbelt would be
required along this area. The petitioner is requesting approval
to substitute a permanent greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall
along the rear lot line. The proposed greenbelt between
Building 300 and the west property line would be 45 feet in
width. A note on the landscape plan indicates that 35 feet of the
greenbelt would be classified a "preservation area,' meaning the
existing trees and undergrowth would be left undisturbed. The
architecture of all three proposed buildings would be basically
the same. All three proposed buildings would be constructed
out of a combination of brick and cast stone. The cast stone
would have the appearance of limestone. Design elements
would include flat roof construction with step parapets and face
wall variations. All three one-story structures would have a
maximum height, measured from the finished grade to the
highest peak, of approximately 18 feet.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four 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
April 3, 2007
23969
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time, and the legal
description is comect. No additional right of way is required.
The detention facilities will require the approval of Wayne
County under their Storm Water Management Ordinance. The
drive approach to Farmington Road will also require County
approval." The eller is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 12, 2007, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a general office park consisting of three
separate buildings on property located at the above -referenced
addresses. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided
and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (2) Any
curves or comer of streets shall accommodate emergency
vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an
inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (3) This Division
requests that 'Fire Lane - No Parking' be posted on the south
side of the two buildings on the entrance drive. (4) Fire lanes
shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to
withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of
13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (5) An approved
turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is
dead -ended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The
turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of 53 feet wall-
to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. The
authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface,
and location of the fire lane. (6) Fire lanes shall be marked with
freestanding signs that have the words 'Fire Lane - No Parking'
painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and
spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The
letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 2, 2007,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with the Kzirian Office Park. We have no objections
or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 22, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February
27, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) The number of parking spaces
shown appears to be sufficient for this use. However, the 9 -foot
wide parking spaces are prohibited for medical offices and may
be used as designated employee parking if approved by both
Planning and Council. The Commission and/or Council may
wish to further specify how the 9 foot wide spaces are controlled
and marked for employee use or that the 10 foot wide spaces
April 3, 2007
23970
are designated for customer use only. All spaces that are 10
feet wide must be in close proximity to the entrances. This will
require spaces to be redesigned as the cument plan is not in
compliance. (2) This plan does not make provision for a
dumpster(s) ordumpsterenclosure(s). The Commission and/or
Council may wish to determine how trash disposal will be
maintained at this site. (3) Any rooftop mechanical equipment
must be property screened and meet all codes. (4) 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?
Mr. Wilshaw:
One question regarding the letter from the Fire Department.
Item 3 in their letter states 'that 'Fire Lane - No Parking' be
posted on the south side of the two buildings on the entrance
drive." The south side of the two buildings is basically right on
the properly line. Is that a typo?
Mr. Taormina:
I think it is intended to be along the north side of the buildings,
which would be the south side of the drive.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
With regard to the trash dumpster, this new site plan we
received shows a trash enclosure on it. Is that accurate on this
plan?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I'm going to refer that to the architect. They do show an
enclosure. I'll note that it shows scored block as being the
exterior material. We would prefer that to be a material that
would match the building. Also, instead of a wood fmme gate,
we would prefer that steel gates be provided. I believe the
approving resolution that has been presented to you this
evening does include those changes.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, looking at the plan, I really can't follow this parking. They
have some nines, some tens. I dont know what it all means.
Anyways, the main question I have, the Inspection Department
is talking about these 9 -fool wide spaces designated for
medical. Now, it is my understanding that the front building is
going to be for real estate. I don't know what the other two
buildings are going to be. My question is, the 10 -fool wide
spaces, which are supposed to be in close proximity to the
entrance, will they have a sign out there that this is for customer
Apel 3, 2007
23971
parking only? Will the 9 -fool spaces have signs on them saying
employees parking? How do we control that?
Mr. Taormina:
I would suggest that if there are fewer visitor spaces than there
are employee parking spaces, i.e., a fewer number of 10 -fool
spaces as opposed to 9 -fool spaces, that those would be
marked for visitor parking. Those do have to be in close
proximity to the entrances. That is not the case in a couple of
areas on the site, and that's what Mr. Bishop was referring to -
that there would have to be some changes to relocate or adjust
those visitor parking spaces.
Mr. La Pine:
Will that be taken care of before the final plan is approved?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. It is a condition that is included in your resolution, and that
is something that should be modified prior to going to Council.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Richard Zischke, Richard Zischke Associates, 18324 Middlebelt Road, Livonia.
I'm the architect for the petitioner.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr. Zischke:
No. I'm just here to answer any questions that you might have.
I do notice that the dumpster is, and I will say it's mislabeled.
That should be the same material as the building, which would
be a red brick.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
I wonder if Mark could show us exactly where the dumpster is
located.
Mr. Taormina:
It would be located between the two westerly buildings, closer to
the center building on the south side of the site.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there site lighting shown on this plan?
Mr. Taormina:
It is not shown on this plan. That is something that was
requested of the applicant - to provide a detail for that site
lighting. Maybe he has new information this evening.
Mr. Zischke:
Yes. That's the correct location. That's where we plan to
provide the dumpster. We removed a parking space so we
Apel 3, 2007
23972
could provide that dumpsler. So this plan that you are showing
now is a new plan from the original submitted.
Mr. Morrow:
The question was, do you have site lighting indicated on the
plan?
Mr. Zischke:
Yes, we have. In fad, I brought with me tonight a revised site
plan indicating site lighting. I can review it. There will be a pole
light at the entrance along Farmington Road. There will be a
pole light in the large island between Building 200 and 300. The
remaining lighting will be from the building itself by using wall
packs with a short throw so that we don't throw light off the
properly. There will be no lighting, other than security lighting,
behind Building 300. There will be very small lights beside each
door, which is required by the Building Department. There will
be no major lighting behind that third building.
Mr. Morrow:
Thirdly, will the 10-foot wide parking spaces be double striped?
Mr. Zischke:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
A question for Mark. Mark, do the 9-fool spaces require double
striping?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
So all parking spaces will be double striped?
Mr. Zischke:
Yes. And we will work with the Building Department to iron out
any discrepancies there might be between the 9-fool and the
10-fool spaces. It seems to me the 9-foot is not to be used or it
sounds like it's not to be used in the medical condition. This is
basically right now general office.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I had picked up from the presentation. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I just noticed on the site plan that there's a note that the titre
work hasn't been provided; therefore, any possible easements
or encumbrances that affect the property might not be shown on
this. Has title work been done?
Mr. Zischke:
Just second. Lel me ask the structural engineer.
Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 SchoolcraR, Livonia. This titre work note
is in regard to a boundary survey. It's just a standard note that
when we did the boundary, we didn't have title work. There
were no easements evident on the property by inspections, and
Apel 3, 2007
23973
there were none that we knew of record that would affect the
use of the property.
Ms. Vartoogian:
So the title work has been done?
Mr. Donnan:
We haven't got it yet. No.
Ms. Vartoogian:
So it hasn't been done?
Mr. Donnan:
I don't know if it's been done or not, but we don't have it. There
is absolutely no evidence of easements on the property.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Ms. Vartoogian, that would be covered thoroughly at the Council
level. Its good to mention it, but they will catch that.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay.
Mr. La Pine:
Are these buildings going to have sprinkler systems in them?
Mr. Zischke:
No. They are small enough buildings that they are not required,
and this type of use group is not required. So we're not
providing automatic fire suppression.
Mr. LaPine:
The next question I have, and Mark can answer this for me - the
farthest western building, that's the 7,000 square foot one. If
fire apparatus had to get behind the building, is there a road that
goes behind it?
Mr. Taormina:
There would be no road. Those would be landscaped areas.
No, that is not unique in terms of access to the buildings. While
they may not have complete perimeter coverage with their
vehicles, they could still gel access.
Mr. LaPine:
Would each one of these buildings have a fire hook up on them,
or would the fire apparatus have to come in all the way from
Farmington Road, or is there one in the middle of the project?
How is that handled?
Mr. Taormina:
I can't answer that specifically. That is something that would
take place at the time
of plan review with the Inspection
Department in terms of precisely where all the hydrants would
be located.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Apel 3, 2007
23974
Mr. Wilshaw: I just wanted to ask the petitioner if he had brought material
samples with him.
Mr. Zischke: No, I did not. I do apologize for that but like I say, we're using a
red brick, which is on the top of the building. The bottom is a
manmade limestone and it is exactly the same color of Indiana
limestone. The coping and the canopy over the front door are
bronze anodized aluminum. Those are basically the three
materials that are being used. The windows are aluminum.
They are anodized. As of now, we're looking at what is called a
redwood, which is a brownish red color which accents very
nicely with the red brick and the limestone.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And the color rendering that's on the screen up here is
pretty closely representative of what we'll see?
Mr. Zischke: Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: All right. 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 Smiley, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0432-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-08-06
submitted by S & K Investments, Inc. L.L.C. requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a general office park
consisting of three separate buildings on properties at 14815
and 14801 Farmington Road, located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road
in the Northeast''/. of Section 21, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated March 26, 2007,
as revised, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked LP-1 dated February 20,
2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject
to supplemental plantings along the rear of the property,
where necessary, to be determined by the Planning Staff,
to effectively screen the building from the adjacent senior
residential complex;
April 3, 2007
23975
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet
Number PRE -1, PRE -2 and PRES-3 prepared by R.A.
Zischke Architect, as received by the Planning Commission
on February 27, 2007, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building, and the enclosure gates shall be of steel
construction and maintained and when not in use closed at
all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feet in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
Apel 3, 2007
23976
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
March 12, 2007;
13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
16. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: If I could request the maker of the motion to consider a slight
change to Condition #2 related to the Landscape Plan, and that
is that supplemental plantings be provided where necessary
along the rear of the property, or the westerly end of the
properly, to screen that area from the adjacent residential
structure. That is something that would be determined in the
field by staff upon completion of the clearing and grading in that
area.
Ms. Smiley: Excellent. It is acceptable.
Mrs. McDermott: Yes.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
April 3, 2007
23977
ITEM #2 PETITION 2007 -03 -SN -05 BAR LOUIE TAVERN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03SN-05 submitted by Tischco Signs, on behalf of Bar Louie
Tavern, requesting approval for awning signage for the
restaurant at 37716 Six Mile Road in the Laurel Park Place
shopping center, on property located on the northwest corner of
Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast I/ of
Section 7.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for awning signage for the
Bar Louie Tavern, which would occupy one of the tenant spaces
of the Laurel Park Place shopping center. This shopping center
is located on the northwest corner of Six Mile Road and
Newburgh Road. Laurel Park Place falls under the classification
of a Regional Shopping Center. A Regional Center is a planned
complex of buildings containing a total gross leaseable area of
500,000 square feel or more and shared common parking area.
The total retail space of Laurel Park Place exceeds 500,000
square feet. Bar Louie's exterior entrance would front on Six
Mile Road. The most recent occupant of this unit was Tony
Roma's restaurant. The petitioner is proposing to install a
fabric -type awning over the outdoor eating area in front of the
restaurant. Presently the area contains a wooden trellis. This
trellis would be removed and replaced with an awning that
would exle nd out from the building approximately 10 feet. The
fabric color of the awning would be black and the lettering of the
sign would be white. According to documentation submitted in
the sign package, the maximum readable distance of the
proposed sign on the awning would be 200 feet. The restaurant
has already been issued a permit for a 67 square fool wall sign.
This wall sign was considered a replacement sign by the
Inspection Department because the previous tenant, Tony
Roma's, had a similar size wall sign when it was in operation.
Bar Louie's wall sign would be attached to the wall over the
awning. Wall or awning signage for each building in a Regional
Center is based on the length of the building's storefront but
cannot exceed 500 square feet. There is no limit on the number
of signs or any specifications as to where the signs have to be
located on the building. The amount of existing exterior wall
signage on Laurel Park Place already exceeds the 500 square
feet of allowable sign area. They are proposing five awning
signs at a total of 23 square feel in area. The wording of the
signs is "Lunch, Dinner, Cocktail Lounge, Late Night Dining and
Open Daily." Because the proposed signage is in excess of
what is allowed by the sign ordinance, a variance would be
required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Apel 3, 2007
23978
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated March 26, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request received March 14, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
This site is part of a Regional Shopping Center, Laurel Park
Place. The only signage permitted would be a direct
replacement of existing previously approved signage.
Therefore, any changes or additions will require a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals (as this Regional Center has no
signage availability) and approval from the Commission and/or
Council. 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:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Terry Hancock,
Tischco Signs, 2107 Henry Sl., Muskegon, Michigan 49441. I'm
representing Bar Louie. I'm a signage contractor, Tischco
Signs.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Hancock:
Well, you know, basically what we're doing here is replacing a
wooden trellis awning that is approximately the same
dimensions. I believe it's 8 foot wide. What we're looking at
now is extending it another couple feet, but essentially it's
around the same size. The wooden trellis awning really is not
only out of dale, but it doesn't really represent the best image
that Bar Louie wishes to project with their corporate image.
Awnings play a very big part in their corporate image, and I
believe that these aluminum awnings look great. I mean they
look fantastic. As far as the actual signage on there, I
understand that originally Tony Roma's had approval for a 90
square fool sign. What we have here with the oval sign is 67
square fool. We have the 1 by 15 sign underneath it, which is
15 square feel. So we're looking at 82 square feet there, which
leaves a little bit. We're a little bit under what was previously
approved. Obviously, what we've got there, as Mark pointed
out, is now 103 square feet. So we're talking a 13 square fool
increase. I guess my client is opening in four weeks time. Its
important. It really is very important I have that awning.
Obviously by now it's unlikely, even if we do get approval, that
we're going to be able to have the outdoor patio awning up
there for the opening of the store. And of course this is an
outdoor eating area so people will be able to sit down under
Apel 3, 2007
23979
cover. So I'm here to answer any questions you might have,
and I'm hoping that you might look upon this favorably.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
Is Bar Louie a chain? Is there another Bar Louie around?
Mr. Hancock:
Yes, ma'am, it is. In fad, what I should have done . . I'm
happy to pass this around. We recently did a store for them.
They are a national store. They have 28 stores around the
Slates now. They've only recently started here in Michigan. We
did their first store in Grand Rapids Iasi year and another store
in Flint, at the Genessee Center in Flint. Here there are a
couple photographs of a very similar type of awning installation
that we did for Bar Louie with all these similar type of graphics,
which is part of their slogan that they use. This is not something
that they dreamt up yesterday or something that I dreamt up.
This is something that "the eat, drink, be happy, late night
dining,' so on and so forth, is something that they use at every
store. As you'll see by these photos, this is exactly what we did
in Flint for them.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Are these ancillary signs that are on the awning, the "Late Night
Dining' and 'Cocktail Lounge," those types of things, are those
necessary to the business or are those just something that they
prefer?
Mr. Hancock:
Well, sir, like I said, they are part of their slogan. They use this
wording with most of their advertising.
Mr. Wilshaw:
It seems like a long slogan because you're saying the slogan is
basically, eat, drink, be merry, late night dining ...
Mr. Hancock:
Eat, drink, be happy, yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's pretty long.
Mr. Hancock:
Well, okay. Wrong terminology. Its part of their corporate
image.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Hancock:
This is what they have on all of their stores if they can. Of
course, they can't always do that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Do you have other locations where Bar Louie put up
awnings without these signs on them - the open daily, lunch,
dinner, those types of things?
Apel 3, 2007
23980
Mr. Hancock:
Yes. In Grand Rapids we weren't allowed to do that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Hanock:
It was actually the shopping center management would not
allow any graphics on any exterior awnings at all.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. The history of Laurel Park is such that when it was
designed, there wasn't suppose to be any exterior signage on
any part of Laurel Park originally, and over the years, various
tenants have bended that rule somewhat. We've been flexible
in allowing some of these tenants, such as Tony Roma's and
Max & Ira's and now Bar Louie, to have exterior signage
because they feel it's necessary to draw people into their
establishments. I don't have any problem with your primary
sign. I don't have any problem with the "eat, drink and be
merry" corporate slogan sign that's below it, and I think the
awnings are very attractive. My only problem at this point would
be the "lunch, dinner, cocktail lounge, open daily" those types of
signs, which are quite redundant. It's sort of a given that this is
a restaurant and its going to be open for lunch and dinner. It's
going to be open daily, that type of thing. So those are my
comments aphis point. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm curious. When you mention late nighldining, whaldoes that
mean?
Mr. Hancock:
Well, they're open for dinner at night, you know, supper. You
can eat until midnight.
Mr. Morrow:
It doesn't specify any hours. Late night means maybe you get
something to eat at 11:00 at night, midnight I assume you
close at 2:00 a.m.?
Mr. Hancock:
Yes, l would think so.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. I agree with the other commissioner. The reason I ask
about Tale night dining, that's about the only thing that isn't
implied on your other signage. I mean you have a martini glass
there. It says Bar Louie, tavern and grill, and eat, drink and be
happy. It seems to be redundant. Most places pretty much
have Tale night dining at all the bistros or grills or taverns. So I
juslview it as redundant as well. Thank you.
Mrs. McDermott:
I just wanted to add that I agree with the two gentlemen. I think,
in this case, less is more. I think it actually would look classier
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to make you feel like we've singled you out because
we see this quite often. Some of the latitude we've given people
on awnings is some form of artwork, but as far as letters and
words, we try to refrain from doing that. So you're not unique in
what we're seeing here tonight. Livonia has fairy strict sign
ordinances, and we try to comply with them wherever we
possible can. There will be extenuating circumstances where
the Zoning Board has to gel involved, but in this case, as we've
used the well worn word redundant, that's kind of where we're
coming from that this lettering doesn't add anything to it that
your other sign doesn't say. 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.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, I think this is going to be an attractive awring that's going
to be added to this building, which will upgrade it. I do agree
with the commissioners comment that less is more in this
situation. So therefore, I'm going to offer a resolution that the
awning shall be allowed without the requested signage.
Apel 3, 2007
23981
without that on the awning. The lettering on the awning just kind
of disturbs me.
Mr. LaPine:
Could you give us a little run down on what type of a restaurant
Bar Louie is? What kind of food do they serve? Is it Italian? Is
it Mexican or what is it? What type of food do they serve there?
Mr. Hancock:
American, traditional American dishes.
Mr. LaPine:
And you're open for lunch and dinner. That's all. You're dont
have any breakfast or anything like that.
Mr. Hancock:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
I have to agree with the other commissioners. I just don't
understand. Everything down here on the awning is redundant.
Eat, drink and be happy pretty much tells you everything is
inside there. You have a bar, you eat, you drink and be happy.
As Mr. Wilshaw pointed out, when this center was first built, we
were opposed to having any signage on the exterior of the
building, but over the years, we've allowed it. To get lessees
into the building, they wanted the outside signage. We wanted
the center to be successful and we went along with it, but I think
we're going a little bit overboard here unless there's some
overriding reason that we haven't heard at this point that could
convince me otherwise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to make you feel like we've singled you out because
we see this quite often. Some of the latitude we've given people
on awnings is some form of artwork, but as far as letters and
words, we try to refrain from doing that. So you're not unique in
what we're seeing here tonight. Livonia has fairy strict sign
ordinances, and we try to comply with them wherever we
possible can. There will be extenuating circumstances where
the Zoning Board has to gel involved, but in this case, as we've
used the well worn word redundant, that's kind of where we're
coming from that this lettering doesn't add anything to it that
your other sign doesn't say. 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.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, I think this is going to be an attractive awring that's going
to be added to this building, which will upgrade it. I do agree
with the commissioners comment that less is more in this
situation. So therefore, I'm going to offer a resolution that the
awning shall be allowed without the requested signage.
Apel 3, 2007
23982
On a motion by Wilshaw, it was
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Pefition 2007 -03 -SN -05
submitted by Tischce Signs, on behalf of Bar Louie Tavern,
requesting approval for awning signage for the restaurant at
37716 Six Mile Road in the Laurel Park Place shopping center,
on properly located on the northwest comer of Six Mile Road
and Newburgh Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 7, that the
awning shall be allowed without the requested signage br the
following reasons:
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the
requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has not justified the need for the
proposed awning signage;
3. That the requested signage is deemed redundant and not
necessary;
4. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the
City's best interest.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So this will be a denying of the signage but allowing the awning.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there support?
Mr. La Pine:
No, I can't support it because I think Mr. Wilshaw made the
wrong motion. He made the denying motion, and we should
make the approving resolution. On Item #1, we should add: is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the
applicant has not justified the need for the proposed awning
signage and that the request for signage is deemed redundant
and not necessary ... and then go on with the rest of that
motion. Do you follow me? There's an approving resoluton on
page three.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
I think that's advisable. I understand why you made the denying
resolution, but it doesn't pick up the entire sign package.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure.
Apel 3, 2007
23983
Mr. Walsh: So if you were to proceed as Mr. La Pine, suggested, I think it
reaches your goals.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thalsounds reasonable.
Mr. Walsh: So it stands as amended. Is there support?
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#0433-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petifion 2007 -03 -SN -05
submitted by Tischce Signs, on behalf of Bar Louie Tavern,
requesting approval for awning signage for the restaurant at
37716 Six Mile Road in the Laurel Park Place shopping center,
on property located on the northwest comer of Six Mile Road
and Newburgh Road in the Southeast I/ of Section 7, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the plan for the awning, submitted by Tischco Signs,
as received by the Planning Commission on March 13,
2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except
that the wording on the awning shall be eliminated;
2. That the awning shall not be illuminated;
3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building, the
awning or around the windows; and
4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Mr. Hancock, what's occurred is we've approved your
sign package, including the awning, with the exception of the
printing on the awning. So the wall sign, the 1 by 15 strip, has
been approved. Your awning has been approved, but it would
be a solid black awning, no printing would be on there. And that
will go on to the City Council in that fashion.
Apel 3, 2007
23984
ITEM #3 PETITION 2007-03-08-07 BYBLOS CONTRACTING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-08-07 submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and
reconstruct the gas station (Mobil) at 29401 Five Mile Road, on
property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and
Middlebelt Road in the Northeast % of Section 23.
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to demolish and reconstruct the
existing Mobil gas station located on the southwest comer of
Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road. The location of the
existing island canopy and gas pumps would not change. The
subject site was recently denied a similar request for demolition
and reconstruction. The Planning Commission, at their Regular
Meeting on September 19, 2006, recommended approving a
convenience store/gas station with a second story office. City
Council denied the petition (Council Resolution #17-07) at its
January 7, 2007, Regular Meeting. One of the reasons for
denial was that it was determined that a two-story gas station
would have a detrimental effect on the neighboring commercial
properties. The new proposal is for a similar looking structure
but the station would be only one-story with a clear floor. The
subject property is square in shape, measuring 150 feet along
Five Mile Road and 150 feet along Middlebelt Road.
Encompassing the property to the south and west is the Mid -
Five Shopping Center. To the east, across Middlebelt Road,
are a number of commercial establishments including a
Precision Tune and the Szechuan Empire Restaurant. Directly
to the north, across Five Mile Road, is Thrifty Florist and a
McDonald's Restaurant. Diagonally across on the northeast
corner of Five Mile Road and Newburgh Road is another gas
station. The subject property is zoned G2, General Business.
The existing building is approximately 900 square feet in size
and is situated near the middle of the site, halfway under the
existing pump island canopy. It sits back approximately 80 feet
from Five Mile Road and 46 feet from Middlebelt Road. The
existing gas pumps and overhead canopy extend along the
Middlebelt Road frontage of the property. The proposed one-
story convenience store/gas station would be located in the
southwest comer of the site with its main entrance facing east in
the direction of Middlebelt Road. The footprint of the new
structure would measure 42 feel by 85 feel or 3,545 square feet.
The previous denied request was for a slightly smaller building
with 2,775 square feet with a partial second story of 888 square
feel. The new proposed structure would have a clear floor in
Apel 3, 2007
23985
place of the second story. From the outside, the buildings
would look similar, but on the inside, the second floor has been
removed and replaced with a vaulted ceiling. The majority of
the interior space of the new station would be utilized for the
sale and display of convenience items. The remainder of the
floor area would consist of a utility room, his and her bathrooms,
a cashier space, and the owners main office. Nineteen parking
spaces are required, and they are providing only 11 spaces.
Because of the deficient parking, a variance would be required
from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The site's enclosed trash
dumpster area would be located along the edge of the parking
lot next to the northwest corner of the building. Vehicles could
enter or exit using the two exisfing driveways off Five Mile Road
or the two existing driveways off Middlebell Road. Required
building setbacks for gas stations are 75 feel from the right-of-
way. The station only sits back 66 feel from Five Mile Road and
107 feel from Farmington Road. Because the proposed building
would be deficient in front yard setback from Five Mile Road, a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required.
A single existing overhead canopy structure, which measures
approximately 120 feel in length, covers the existing gas pumps.
Proposed landscaping equals 13% of the site, which does not
meet the required 15%. The rebuilt station would be
constructed out of brick on all four sides. Limestone would
decorate the corners and define the clear floor section of the
building. To help lighten up and defuse solid walls of brick, a
limestone band would also run along the top portion of the
building. The east elevation facing Middlebell would present
itself as the front of the station. A slack window treatment would
cover a large part of this facade and surround the main
entrance. The north elevation facing Five Mile would maintain
and continue the same stack window treatments as the station's
storefront. The west and south elevations would only include
the window design on the upper level of the clear floor. A metal
seam peak roof would crown the lop of the clear floor portion,
with the rest of the building having a flat rooffine. The one-story
station would have a maximum height, measured from the
finished grade to the highest peak, of approximately 28 feet.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four ile ms of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 16, 2007, which reads as
follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention will be
required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water
Management Ordinance. No legal description was shown on
April 3, 2007
23986
the plans at this time. Our records indicate that the collect
address is 29401 Five Mile Road." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 20, 2007,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a
commercial building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulation: Access throughout parking areas
shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum
vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius of 53 feet
wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches."
The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 23,
2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
regards to the proposal by Byblos General Contracting
Company for the Mobil Gas Station located at 29401 Five Mile
Road. The intersection of Mlddlebeft and 5 Mile is one of the
highest traffic crash intersections in the City of Livonia. One
third of all crashes at this intersection are driveway related. In
an attempt to make our roads safer for our citizens, we
recommend the following. (1) Eliminate the eastern most
driveway on 5 Mile. (2) Eliminate the northern most driveway on
Mlddlebelt. (3) Add 10 feet in width to the remaining two
driveways. This would eliminate two points of traffic conFlfct —
one on each major roadway, and extend the buffer for the
unavoidable conFlfcts. (4) Add 7 more parking spots in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance." The letter is signed by
David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated March 26, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 15, 2007,
the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following
is noted. (1) This site requires 19 parking spaces where 11 are
provided. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be
required for this deficiency. (2) A front setback of 75 feet is
required where 65' 9" is provided. This setback deficiency will
require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The
calculation of required and provided landscaping does not
appear collect and is in conflict on page SP02. The
Commission ander Council may wish to have the Petitioner
provide the correct information or may waive the minimum 15%
landscaping requirement altogether. (4) All landscaping should
be irrigated and designed to the Commission's and/or Council's
satisfaction. (5) All regular parking is to be 10 feet wide by 20
feet deep and double striped. Barrier free parking is to be 8 feet
wide with an access aisle 8 feet wide property signed and
marked. As down this plan is incoffect. (6) This building
requires two exits that meet all code requirements and located
Apel 3, 2007
23987
remotely from each other. It currently is deficient as drawn and
will require changes. (7) This entire building must be fully
barrier free including any service and/or cashier counters.
(Although #8 and # 7 are not zoning issues, they are design
issues that would not be addressed until our plan review, which
is much later in process. We felt it prudent to make the
applicant aware of these issues as early as possible.) (8) No
mention is made of providing free air at this service station. If
the Commission and/or Council wish this practice to continue,
we recommend its inclusion in the resolution as follows: That
free air shall be provided at all times this station is open for
business, the free air shall be dispensed at the point -0f -service
without having to enter the station or the performance of any
extra action in order to obtain the air without charge. (9)
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?
Mr. Morrow: Does the ordinance allow them 20% of window signage?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, and that is included with the 100 square feel of total
signage allowed for the site.
Mr. Morrow: So that would be the maximum?
Mr. Taormina: If the petitioner opted to have the maximum amount of window
signage at 20%, it could easily exceed 100 square feel. So we
work backwards. We take a look at what he is proposing under
this plan when he provides all those dimensions to us, and then
whatever is left over is what he might be permitted in terms of
window signage.
Mr. Morrow: I guess where I'm coming from is the stacked windows on the,
for lack of a better term, the second floor. I would like to have
those excluded from the formula.
Mr. Taormina: That would be a condition that should be added.
Mr. LaPine: I'm just curious. The Police Department talked about dosing off
two of the driveways, one on Five Mile and one on Middlebell,
because of accidents. Has that been discussed with the
petitioner? Has anything been done? Has it been changed?
Apel 3, 2007
23988
Mr. Taormina:
The petitioner has been made aware of the Police Division's
recommendations, and they have not made changes at this
point.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess for the record, I guess those driveways are existing now.
Is that correct?
Mr. Walsh:
That is correct. They are existing driveways.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening.
Nasser Choucair, Byblos General Contracting Company, 5693 Hubbell Street,
Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. Good evening. Scott
explained enough about this site. The other day I got this letter
of recommendation from the Police Chief about closing these
two approaches. Actually, none of the approaches were
touching on this project, you know, when we start doing even
the canopy, the pumps. We are only moving the building from
under the canopy and selling it in that corner. Plus, eliminating
these approaches is going to give us a hard time for the patrons
to pump the gas into the tanks. That's the only two approaches
that we have that we can unload the gas from the trucks. The
approach on Middlebell that they want to eliminate, the truck
would go in from Middlebell, go over to the tank and unload the
gas. The truck comes in here and parks over here, and he
unloads the gas into the tank, and then he comes out from here.
There is no way we can eliminate that approach. From here,
okay, he can cross over and come in. If it's really necessary to
close that one out, maybe its fine with the owner. I haven't
discussed that with the owner. But this one, this is the approach
that we get all our customers in. That's from the owner. He's
telling me this is the most important approach he has. All the
customers come in from here, most of them. To let the
customers come from here, this is going to create a major
conflict in this gas station, and now, we have six pumps. If you
eliminate this, the cars cannot maneuver.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Mr. Morrow had another question for you.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. Other than the building, what changes were made from
the plan we saw before? Were those four approaches on the
plan we saw before?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
How about the pump isles? Has anything changed?
Apel 3, 2007
23989
Mr. Choucair:
Everything is the same except the building. The second story
has been eliminated because I don't know why they didn't like it
at the Council meeting. They didn't like the second story in the
gas station, so we eliminated that. And we did a metal roof, like
a little dome, and it's an open ceiling gas station. So when you
go in there, it will be really bright and nice. It's covering almost
25 percent of the area inside the gas station. It's like a skylight
but in a different way. It looks nice even with these windows
because they grab light in from here and there. If you put brick
here, this is going to look really useless. So why don't we chop
this building from here and leave it as a box?
Mr. Morrow:
I guess the point I was trying to make, we had approved the
plan with the building before this rendition. The Council didn't
like the second floor concept. So apparently that was their only
problem with the site plan at that time was the architecture of
the actual station building, but as far as pump islands, the
entrances and exits, that has not changed.
Mr. Choucair:
They mentioned something about one of the approaches. They
were thinking why do you need that approach on Five Mile dyou
need this one? And we were discussing that, but they turned it
down because of the second story, but they didn't turn it down
because ofthalapproach in particular.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Nasser, the comment I wanted to make was in regard to the
approaches. As Mr. LaPine mentioned, I'm sensitive to traffic
safety issues. I have been for a number of years. And this is
certainly an issue we talked about at the previous site plan
approval process. As I recall, the site plan we had approved at
one point did have the eliminafion of one of the approaches on
Five Mile. It was put bade in in the Council approving process.
So this Commission, as I recall, did approve a plan with one of
the drives eliminated. I would very much like to see one or both
of those drives that were mentioned eliminated, the ones doses(
to the intersection. Clearly there is a traffic safety issue at this
intersection just because of the volume of cars, particularly on
Middlebelt, and there's a number of gas stations throughout the
city that I've seen go to a two wide drive approach. Remember
that the proposed recommendation from the Police Department
would be to widen the remaining drives an additional 10 feel to
make the accessibility easier. So you're correct that the bulk of
your traffic probably does come in on Middlebelt. They will
continue to be able to come in on Middlebelt even if that drive is
closed, and I think there's probably adequate space on the
Apel 3, 2007
23990
property - you can correct me if I'm wrong - for a truck to be able
to maneuver from that drive, either back out that same drive or
to the one on Five Mile past the pump islands. So that's my
question to you. Let's talk about these two drives and see if we
can decide if we can eliminate these at this point. What do you
think?
Mr. Walsh:
Can I interrupt before you answer? Mr. Taormina, do you
know? Did we in fad pass the site plan?
Mr. Taormina:
Let me clarify that. The original plan that was presented to the
Commission voluntarily offered the elimination of the westerly
drive approach on Five Mile Road. That plan was approved by
the Planning Commission with the elimination of the driveway.
Shortly thereafter, he came back to the Commission requesting
that it be added back to the plan after considerable debate
regarding discussion as to the traffic circulation on the side. It
was approved to add that drive back in, and that's the plan that
was presented to the Council. It was ulfimately rejected for the
reasons stated previously.
Mr. Walsh:
I appreciate that background. Mr. Wilshaw, your quesfion still
stands.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I would like to explore that.
Mr. Choucair:
I was going to say the same thing that we submitted at the
beginning with the approach closed. And then the owner told
me, no, we need all the approaches. Then I had to resubmit it
and you guys approved it for me. Then when we went to the
Council, they rejected that. But the quesfion is, why Police
Division is now saying that we have to close this and they have
an objection about this? We submitted this twice before and
they never mentioned the approaches. That's my main concern
now. If they close these approaches, the owners thinks he's
going to lose business. They're enhancing the site and their
enhancing the area there, plus they want to do good in that
business when they spend that kind of money to enhance the
site. Its really clear to have the trucks come in, park here,
unload the gas into the tanks, and come out. If you put a 40
foot approach here, I think really, even if the approach is 40
feet, this is going to be a disaster right here for cars to come
out. This area is going to be really tough. So that's why we'd
like to have these two approaches, and this one I don't mind. It
goes back to the owner, not to me really about this one, but
that's fine, if on Five Mile, like the original first plan we blocked
this one off. That's fine, but this one, the other three, we would
like to have them if it's possible because I don't think this one
April 3, 2007
23991
would cause any traffic crashes, this approach here. This one it
might, but this one I don't see it. I can't picture how it's going to
do so on Middlebelt.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything else, Mr. Wilshaw?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. I do have a comment to say very quickly in response to
that. Certainly, if you did close approaches, that gives you an
opportunity to add landscaping which would allow you to come
up to the 15 percent requirement. Perhaps also to add a few
additional parking spaces where those drives were, which would
bring you closer to being in conformance with that as well. So I
think there are some benefits. I think it is an enhancement. But
the owner is standing behind you, I believe, so he may have
some additional comments.
Mr. Choucair:
The landscaping in the back here ...
Mr.Wilshaw:
That's substantial.
Mr. Choucair:
This is way more than enough, and this is not included with our
landscaping.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right.
Mr. Choucair:
That's why we figured that the 2 percent that we are short, I
mean it's not going to be any detriment to the city. That's why
we left it, but we can come up with the 2 percent somewhere
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, did you wish to speak? Could we have your name and
address please?
Alex Ali, 29401
Five Mile Road. The reasons for the investments - to attract
more traffic, to improve the business. These days it's very hard
for us to gel customers in. The first driveway on Middlebell,
almost 75 percent of the business comes through that driveway.
Really. I've been there since 1990. I've never seen an accident
happen when I'm at the station, and I spend about 12 to 14
hours a day there. There is no accident that happened because
of the driveway, somebody is pulling in or slowing down to get
into the station and something happened. The County did the
right turns on Five Mile a few years back and it's fine. I don't
see why it's going to be a traffic problem now. We've never had
any problem with this driveway. And whe n we came in the first
time, we didn't have an issue with the driveways. We had an
issue with the way the building looked. We agreed to change
that. See, if you look where the tanks are right here right now.
Okay. They're going to have to move up front because the way
Apel 3, 2007
23992
the building is going to go right now. If you're familiar with the
trucks and how they come in, they come through this driveway
to unload the gas right here and get out through this driveway.
To unload, it has to be on the passenger side. So he has to
come through here to unload and gel out on Middlebelt.
Mr. Choucair: The pipes that go underground should be on the passenger side
so when he goes in ...
Mr. Ali: Right. If he comes through here, the only way he's going to get
out has to come out of this driveway. He cannot maneuver
under the canopy because the size of the island. Now, the way
the truck comes in, it comes through here to the back and gets
out this driveway. That's the way its going right now. Or he
comes through here and has to come out of this driveway, the
first one on Middlebell. The reason for this investment is to
improve the business. If you look at the first driveway, the north
one on Middlebell, its very convenient after the light. People
slow down and there's no problem. Now if he's going to go to
the second driveway, you've got to slow down. He's holding
traffic up. I think traffic -wise, its not going to be wise to close it.
I'm there for almost 15 years, and I see it.
Mr. Choucair: Now the trucks go from Middlebell, they go to the back, they
park here, they unload, they go out but they come from here,
they unload, they come out from here. Now, our plan changed
completely, we cannot get the trucks from this approach.
Mr. Ali: There's not enough room for the big truck to get out of the east
driveway on Five Mile Road. There's not enough room to make
a right tum onto Five Mile. To answer your question why we
voluntarily on the first driveway on the westbound on Five Mile,
really I didn't even gel to see the plan, to tell you the truth. He
did it and I didn't even look at it. I don't know why they were
going to close the driveway. I didn't gel to see it until we went
outside in the parking lot.
Mr. Walsh: All right. I'm going to stop you there. Mr. Ali, thank you for
giving me the reminder of what we did cover. I appreciate your
answers today. I suggest since we spent considerable time on
this in the past, we will be visiting the situation that's existing
with the exception of the second story. I'd like to tum the
discussion to any items that are unrelated to the passage.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to make one comment.
Ms. Smiley: I wanted the history and you answered it
Apel 3, 2007
23993
Mr. Morrow: A very brief comment. Most of the gas stations I frequent in
Livonia, I'm trying to think of any of them that do not have the
four drives. I can't think of any. Most of them I pull into have
two drives on the corner on each street. It's not that I'm against
public safety, but sometimes if you're trying to take an existing
station and upgrade it, sometimes it gels a little tight, particularly
if you've been there a while to upgrade it and then perhaps get
rid of driveways. Like I say, most of the stations I frequent
pretty much look like this as far as the drives. Dimensionally
they may be different, but that's all I had.
Mr. LaPine:
This is not unique that we close off an exit in a gas station. I
can recall within the last couple years, the BP gas station on the
corner of Merriman and Five Mile Road. We made them close
off the one entrance into the gas station because we thought it
was loo close to the intersection. So it's not unique. But my
question is, up here where you have this loading and unloading
area, I assume that's for trucks to come in to service the mini -
mart. Is that correct?
Mr. Ali:
Yes. The dumpsler is right here and we moved it right there.
The only way the truck is going to come, it has to come through
this driveway. Right here. This is where the dumpster is going
to be.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand. Down there where you have the crosshatch,
that's where the trucks are going to park to unload to take their
produce or whatever you've got. Right?
Mr. Ali:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
You've got large double tandem trucks, Pepsi Cola trucks. I
don't know how long they are. When they leave, how do they
gel out? Do they back out and go out that way? Do they come
around the building? What's the difference between that and
down al this end? I don't understand what the difference is.
Mr. Choucair:
There is a difference between ...
Mr. LaPine:
The size of the trucks?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes. For the beverage trucks, we can call them to the site and
look at it. We can put a restriction on the site for the loading
and unloading zones.
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me just say that I voted for this to let you put back the other
drive when you came back the second time. But at that time, I
don't remember seeing any report from the Police Department
Apel 3, 2007
23994
complaining about this as a high accident area. Mr. Wlshaw
was chairman of the Traffic Commission for many, many years
and he knows more about the traffic problems than I do. But I'm
just curious. Are you telling me that if a truck comes in here off
of the farthest driveway, goes in here, pulls in and gets gas, he
can't come out and go out the other drive out onto is it Five Mile
or Middlebell?
Mr.
Choucair:
Delivery trucks ...
Mr.
LaPine:
I'm talking about the gasoline trucks.
Mr.
Choucair:
Gasoline trucks?
Mr.
LaPine:
Now, go down. Go over to the other entrance on the other side,
the farthest one down here.
Mr.
Choucair:
Here?
Mr.
LaPine:
No, over here. Is this Middlebell? Okay. Go to the next exit.
Right there. Okay, now he comes in there. He pulls in and
unloads. Can't he just pull out here?
Mr.
Choucair:
No. He can't.
Mr.
LaPine:
Why?
Mr.
Choucair:
There is not enough room. This is 60 feet. It comes from 50 to
60 feet.
Mr.
LaPine:
Can't the building be moved into this area here? I guess it's a
landscape area.
Mr.
Choucair:
That landscaping is not ours. We are zero setback here. This
is for the mall next door.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay.
Mr.
Choucair:
This landscaping you mean?
Mr.
LaPine:
Yes.
Mr.
Choucair:
Then we're short on landscaping.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay.
Apel 3, 2007
23995
Mr. Walsh:
I'm going to leave the remainder of the questions to non-
driveway issues. Are there any additional questions or
comments?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'd just like to make a beef comment. We haven't talked much
about the building. I think it's a very attractive building and I
think its very similar to what we saw before with the exception
of the upstairs office. I've been very impressed with Nasser's
previous site plans that he's presented to the City and I'm very
happy with this one as well, notwithstanding the driveways.
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 Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0434-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-03-08-07
submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and
reconstruct the gas station (Mobil) at 29401 Five Mile Road, on
property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and
Middlebell Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 23, be approved
subject to the following conditions
1. That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Sheet SP-02
dated July 17, 2006, prepared by Byblos General
Contracting Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid-point ofthe top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated July 17,
2006, prepared by Byblos General Contracting Company,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
April 3, 2007
23996
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building, and the enclosure gates shall be of steel
construction and maintained and when not in use closed at
all times;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the gas pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 feet
in height, and its support columns shall be covered with the
same brick used in the construction of the building;
10. That the leading edge of the pump island canopy shall not
be any closer than 10 feet from the properly line;
11. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be
recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination
is decreased;
12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
13. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
14. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated March 26, 2007;
15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
March 20, 2007;
16. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
building setback and parking spaces and any conditions
related thereto;
April 3, 2007
23997
17.
No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise
shall be permitted at any time on this site; however, the
foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the
pump
islands only, of oil based products as permitted in
Section 11.04(a) ofthe Zoning Ordinance;
18.
That free air shall be provided at all times this station is
open for business. The free air shall be dispensed at the
point -0f -service without having to enter the station or the
performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air
without charge;
19.
That no vehicle vacuum equipment or the outdoor
placement of propane cylinder storage units shall be
permitted on the site;
20.
That the sale of ice shall be restricted to the inside of the
building;
21.
That only conforming signage is approved with this petition.
The placement and display of window signage above a
point of len (10') feel as measured above grade shall not
be permitted, and any additional signage shall be
separately submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
review and approval;
22.
That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the
exception of the embossed logos, shall be illuminated;
23.
That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island
canopy, building or around the windows;
24.
That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
25.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there
any discussion?
Mr. Walsh: I'm going to support this. I do appreciate the investment that
you've made. Its been a long haul, and I appreciate your
patience in this. I recognize the safety situation, but we did
discuss this previously. We discussed it, I think, thoroughly
tonight, at least to my satisfaction. I do note in the Police letter,
and I respect the officer who wrote it, but it does not attribute the
one-third to these driveways in particular, installed driveways at
the corners, so it's difficult for me to judge. The other problem, I
have the owner here who's telling me over 15 years you haven't
had a problem with your four driveways. So its an existing
situation. I'm glad to have the investment and hopefully the vole
will be in your favor.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Apel 3, 2007
23998
Mr. Morrow:
As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to delete the original Condition
#5 regarding items from the Engineering Division and Police
Department. I'd like the site plan approved as it's shown.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Was there a clause we were going to add in regards to window
signage on the upper story of the building?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. I requested that the vaulted glass not be counted as part
of the window area, or words to that effect.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm going to vote for the proposal, but to be honest with you, I'm
very unhappy about not closing off the driveway. Basically
because when we get a letter from the Police Department
stating this is a very high accident area, I think we should
adhere to and give it a lot of consideration because we don't
want any accidents. They're just doing their job and they feel
this is a bad location. But seeing that the petitioner has been
trying to gel this station, and I want to gel a new station there. I
think it will enhance that neighborhood, but still, I really feel
reluctant about not closing off at lead one of those entrances on
the station.
Mr. Walsh: I'm going to support this. I do appreciate the investment that
you've made. Its been a long haul, and I appreciate your
patience in this. I recognize the safety situation, but we did
discuss this previously. We discussed it, I think, thoroughly
tonight, at least to my satisfaction. I do note in the Police letter,
and I respect the officer who wrote it, but it does not attribute the
one-third to these driveways in particular, installed driveways at
the corners, so it's difficult for me to judge. The other problem, I
have the owner here who's telling me over 15 years you haven't
had a problem with your four driveways. So its an existing
situation. I'm glad to have the investment and hopefully the vole
will be in your favor.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
April 3, 2007
23999
ITEM #4 PETITION 2007-02-02-04 PLYMOUTH FOOD STORE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add
an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600
Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of
Section 25.
Mr. Walsh: This item was tabled at our meeting of March 20. 1 need a
motion to remove it from the table.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0435-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2007-02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth
Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an
SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the
existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster
Road in the Southeast % of Section 25, be removed from the
table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Walsh: This item was discussed at public hearing held by the Planning
Commission on March 20. A draft of the minutes is already
available. It had to be tabled because there were two
resolutions that were proposed and both ended up in a three -
three tie. I was traveling on business during my day job. I'd like
to tell you that the Planning Commission pays me enough to not
travel when told to, but unfortunately it does not. In any event,
all kidding aside, it is here tonight because we had a three -three
be on an approving resolution and a three -three be on a denying
resolution. Because there was public testimony taken at the last
meeting, my suggestion for tonight is simply this: the petitioner
is welcome to speak again, and those members of the audience
who did come out tonight that were not able to attend the last
meeting, I will take testimony. But we've all had a chance to
hear from people who were here the last time. I've watched the
video and I've read the minutes. So tonight's testimony is going
to be restricted only to new information. Does the petitioner
wish to add anything?
Apel 3, 2007
24000
Patrick Howe: Good evening, members of the commission. I will be very brief
as I'm sure you read the minutes and watched the video. As
you know, we're looking to renovate this space completely and
add the SDD license. I'd just briefly like to respond to the
comments of last week regarding the 400 fool space
requirement with the church, which really I think is the issue at
hand here within the confines of the other ordinance
requirements. Mr. Yono and myself, a religious man, deeply
respect the views of the neighboring church, and I respect that
they are not desirous of liquor use in this location, a liquor use
that currently exists and that will exist regardless of the
decision that's made tonight. However, they did admittedly
state that Mr. Yono is a great neighbor, and you also heard that
from the neighbors in the neighborhood two weeks ago. And
the distance requirement in question with the 400 feet is
intended to put a buffer between that use and a church use.
Now it was admitted to the Commission that you couldn't ask
for a better neighbor, you couldn't ask for a better licensee.
With all due respect to their views on liquor use which currently
is in existence, Mr. Yono wants to completely renovate the
building, go from beer and wine to beer, wine and liquor,
improve the neighborhood, and you really couldn't ask for a
better neighbor. With that said, we request a recommendation
to the City Council, and thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe he included his name and address
for the record.
Mr. Walsh: I'm sorry. If you could just add that for the record.
Patrick Howe, Carlin, Edwards, Brown & Howe, PLLC, 2855 Coolidge, Suite 203,
Troy, Michigan 48084. Sure.
Mr. Walsh: I do have a list of the individuals from the minutes who spoke
the last time this item was before us. Is there anybody in the
audience that was not here two weeks ago that would like to
address the Planning Commission? If so, would you please
come forward?
Michael Goettlicher, 11894 Cavell. I just wanted to say that I agree with the
approval of it. I live on that street, and that's pretty much all I
have to say.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you.
Paul McCartney, 27726 Plymouth Road. I have a store next to Brian and I
support his request for the license.
Apel 3, 2007
24001
Jack Holmes, 11637 Cavell. I've lived in this neighborhood for 37 years. I've
watched a lot of development in Livonia. I was born and raised
in Livonia. I will back his project 100 percent myself because
the Plymouth Road corridor looks good. It needs a lot of
improvement, and I think it would benefit the City of Livonia lam
wise and any other wise for our city. Thank you.
Nancy Secord, 11564 Cavell. I would like to say that this proposal has been
turned down many limes already, and there's a reason that you
have turned it down before. There is a church within 400 feel.
You shouldn't allow a waiver. You haven't before and you
shouldn't again. There's a laloo parlor right next door.
Packaged liquor should not be allowed because there are young
adults that are getting taloos and they're getting piercings and
it's literally just a hangout. I think if you allow it, it would be a
bad decision. Thank you.
Mary Hoefler, 12010 Arcola. I support Brian enlarging the store. You don't see
kids hanging out around there. You don't see a bunch of
teenagers. It is kept clean. It a dose place for all the kids in the
neighborhood. Theyre safe just to walk that block to go to the
store because Brian keeps things that the kids can gel. I think it
would improve that comer of Plymouth Road very much to have
him enlarge it and for the kids and the people in the
neighborhood.
Carolyn Buffer, 18492 Wakenden, Redford, Michigan. I don't see how the
alcohol will improve their building, and it has destroyed lives.
My brother almost died of alcohol. When he went to the
hospital, they told him if he didn't quit drinking he would die.
And my neighbor had died of cirrhosis of the liver from drinking.
I'm against the alcohol in the neighborhood because it does
cause people to gel out there and drink and drive and cause
accidents. My brother was in an accident and almost died in an
accident because of drinking and driving. I just dont approve of
alcohol.
Patrick J. Higgins, 11736 Cardwell. I spoke last week.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Higgins, we're only permitting people who didn't speak last
week. We do have your testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: If there is nobody in the audience coming forward, then we'll
take no further testimony at this point. If there are any
questions or comments from my colleagues or a motion.
Apel 3, 2007
24002
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Vartoogi an, and adopted, it was
#0436-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 20, 2007, on
Petition 2007-02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor
license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business
at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the
Southeast ''/ of Section 25, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-02-
04 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That this approval to expand the SDM license and add an
SDD license shall be contingent upon the completion of all
building addition and exterior renovation work approved
under Petition 2006-08-08-17;
2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #534-
06, which granted site plan approval to construct an
addition and renovate the exterior of the subject building
under Petition 2006-08-08-17, shall remain in effect to the
extent that they are not in conflict with the conditions of this
approval;
3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
4. That the use of LED lighthands or exposed neon, such as
to ou0ine windows or building features, shall not be
permitted on the site;
5. That the expansion of the SDM license and use of an SDD
license shall be permitted only under the circumstances
that the requirement for a 400 fool separation distance
between SDM and SDD licensed establishments and an
existing church building is waived by the City Council by
means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the
members of the City Council concur;
Conditions pertaining specifically to the use of an SDD license
at this location are as follows:
6. That all liquor products allowed to be sold in connection
with the use of an SDD license at this location shall be
displayed behind a counter with no direct public access in
Apel 3, 2007
24003
accordance with the Floor Plan marked Sheet 2 dated
August4, 2006, prepared by Scope Data, L.L.C.; and
7. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Reasons to approve the request to expand the SDM license and
to add an SDD license are as follows:
1. That the proposal 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 proposal complies with the Zoning Ordinance
requirement that there be at least a 500 fool separation
between SDM licensed establishments and the
requirement that there be at least a 1,000 foot separation
between SDD licensed establishments, as set forth in
Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposal;
4. That the proposal is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
Additional reasons pertaining specifically to the use of an SDD
license at this location are as follows:
5. That the use of an SDD license will complement the
existing use of the subject property and will provide an
additional service to customers;
6. That approval of this petition will enable the owner to
expand and upgrade his store and to remain competitive,
which might not otherwise be possible given the small size
of the building and the limits this places on his existing
operation;
7. That the approved plans for the addition and renovation to
the petitioner's building represents a plan of action to
substantially upgrade the facility and to accommodate the
increased spatial needs of an SDD licensed business; and
8. That the petitioner has a proven track record of compliance
with the regulations of the Michigan Liquor Control
Apel 3, 2007
24004
Commission with respect to the sale of alcoholic
beverages.
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: I voted against it originally and I'm going vote to against it again.
I have no problem with the operation. It is apparent that the
neighbors think this gentleman does a terrific job. He spends
long hours there. The bottom line is, this is not a popularity
contest. This is an issue and we're talking about a waiver use.
This gentleman, five years from now, ten years from now, two
weeks from now, who knows, he may sell that business if he
gets the liquor license and the next individual that buys that
store, a waiver use goes with the property. Therefore, if the
new owner that buys the property can pass all the background
checks, he may come in there and be an awful guy to do to
business with, an awful type of person. We have an ordinance
that says it has to be 500 feel from a church. If the ordinance is
wrong, then we should change the ordinance. Otherwise, we
should adhere to what's been going on all these years. We've
had two different pastors of that church speak against this. One
pastor claims the church has been there for 50 years. I do not
know how long the store has been there. I have no idea. I think
its been there probably 25-30 years, and it's been operating all
these years, maybe not by this owner, but previous owners.
They've all survived. Al this time, to put another SDD license on
Plymouth Road I think is wrong. People in the area over the
years have been able to gel their liquor at other locations along
Plymouth Road. We're not depriving them of going there and
getting their liquor. I just don't think it's right to approve it that
close to the church and therefore I will vole against it.
Mr. Morrow: I'm going to vole in favor of the motion for a couple reasons.
First, his SDM license has coexisted with the church for a
number of years, and as the record indicates with the State and
with the City, he's never had a violation. Secondly, he wants to
improve his business. I'm sure if you go to some of these mega
stores, the supermarkets, the Costcos, they all sell beer and
wine. So I've got to feel that impacts his sales because they
can't go to his place for a supermarket item. So he wants to
improve this business, make the place look nice, so I think this
is the main reason he wants to expand his business through the
SDD license. And his testimony last week, he is a small
entrepreneur. Well, he's kind of from the old school. From the
Apel 3, 2007
24005
testimony last week, if someone is a litlle short of money, they
need bread and milk and whatever, he gives it to them and says
pay me when you can. It's a dying breed out there with these
mega stores coming in. So going back to what I said originally,
he coexisted with no problems, and as one commissioner, I
have no problem with this petition.
Mr. LaPine: I agree with probably 90 percent of what Mr. Morrow said. He
and I normally agree on everything. The bottom line here is, its
a waiver use, and because its a waiver use, in my opinion, it's a
different situation because that waiver use goes with that land
and we dont know what's going to happen in the future. Thais
one of my big hang-ups in not voting for it.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, Vartoogian, Morrow, Walsh
NAYES:
LaPine, McDermott, Wilshaw
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#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 940"' Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 940"' Regular Meeting held by the City Planning
Commission on March 6, 2007.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#04-37-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 940" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on March 6, 2007, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Wilshaw, LaPine, McDermott, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Vartoogian
April 3, 2007
24006
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 942n0 Regular
Meeting held on April 3, 2007, was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman