Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-08-14MINUTES OF THE SW PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 14, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 949'" 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 Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has 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 fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 2007-06-01-04 JENKINS REZONING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-06- 01-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #280-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to rezone properly at 27680 Joy Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between Cardwell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 36, from C-2 to R-1. August 14, 2007 24231 Mr. Morrow: The Commission submitted this petition at the request of Council, and I just want to be sure what we're doing tonight because when I went to look at the property with Mr. LaPine, there was no posting of the possible zoning change. So I'm just wondering what our mission is here tonight. Mr. Walsh: We are actually considering the rezoning of the property. Mr. Morrow: So would that require the posting of a sign? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, if this comes to us by virtue of the Livonia City Council, is there a need to post a sign? Mr. Taormina: I will have to defer that question to our Legal Department. I would suggest that we proceed this evening with the rezoning request as submitted. If for some reason, it has to come back for consideration, we'll do that. I acknowledge the fad that there was not a sign posted on the property, but this is unique inasmuch as it's a petition that has been brought forward by the City Council. Mr. Morrow: I wanted to know what grounds we're proceeding on. Mr. Walsh: Unless there is objection, we will lake Mr. Taormina's suggestion. We'll proceed this evening. If it needs to come back to us on the posting issue, they we will reschedule at that time. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence for the record? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated July 17, 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 is correct. No additional right-of-way is required. An address of 27680 Joy Road is correct" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Morrow: I think we're the petitioner. August 14, 2007 24232 Mr. Walsh: We mightwant to hear from the properly owner though. Mr. Morrow: Oh. Okay. Mr. Walsh: Good evening. Cynthia Jenkins, 27680 Joy Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mrs. Jenkins: My husband is in Arizona at this time. He went to find work there and to find us another place. He had mentioned because of my health and that we have to move west. Like I said, we have our house up for sale now and we've depleted all our funds on my health. We were just hoping that we could get this done. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mrs. Jenkins or for the staff? Thank you, Mrs. Jenkins. Mrs. Jenkins: 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 Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-87-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-06-01-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #280-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to rezone property at 27680 Joy Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between Cardwell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 36, from C-2 to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-06-01-04 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning will reflect the established residential use of the subject property; 2. That the proposed change of zoning would provide a residential zoning classification that would reasonably relate to the size of the subject property; August 14, 2007 24233 3. That the proposed change of zoning will remove unneeded commercial zoning in the area; and 4. 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, 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 2007-07-01-05 MARYCREST MANOR Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 07-01-05 submitted by Marycresl Manor requesting to rezone properly at 15475 and 15495 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Five Mile Road and Wentworth in the Southeast % of Section 14, from R-7 to R -9-I. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence for the record? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated July 20, 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 descriptions are correct except that we believe that the first bearing in each description should be N. 01'11'00" W. The dimensions on the drawing should be checked against the typed descriptions. No additional right-of-way is required. The addresses of 15475 and 15495 Middlebe# Road are correct" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner present? Mr. Ron Spear, RWS Development, L.L.C., 7949 Golden Bay Trail, Waterford, Wisconsin 53185. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm August 14, 2007 24234 privileged to have been appointed the Project Manager on behalf of Marycrest Manor. I think Mark has highlighted a little bit of the history of the operation. They've been involved in serving the needs of the community since 1962. The purpose, as this is a non-profit organization, is not merely just to build housing for people. Ifs actually to build housing to have the opportunity to retain folks within the community, to put some quality housing up that we think is sorely needed. Our market studies have determined that. And the hope is that folks that live in this area will retain citizenship and still continue to shop in some of the areas that they've been used to. However, they've determined that possibly the home is no longer something (hats going to work for them just from the standpoint of maintenance and those kinds of things. So the quality construction, a carefree lifestyle and a secure environment is our goal here. Obviously with the Franciscan Sisters of Sl. Joseph, we believe we want to create something that we've been continuing to do since 1962 and serve the needs in a continual care campus rather than just the nursing home services that we provide. In addition, we're looking to put some rehabilitation space in there that we hope will also attract some of the citizens to the property for those needs as well. We look a proactive step in inviting our neighbors to an open house Iasi week to allow them to see the conceptual plan. I realize tonight you're not approving the site plan. You're actually just looking at the rezoning concept, but of course we need that for the density. Ifs very important that we get our neighbors involved in understanding the concept of the mission. We gave them tours of the nursing home as well as talked a little bit about our design plan. As you know, the back of the property, which is the west, is abutting the residential area. We were very proactive in trying to stay with the one-story design back there. We're 75 feel off the site plan. None of this conceptual plan is going to request any type of variance from the zoning that we're requesting. So we look that step. We invited our neighbors to the north and south as well. The attendance was about 60 percent of what our bordering properties were. We had no oppositions after we explained the program to them. I think we had some pretty good support from our neighbors but, of course, they have the opportunity to speak as well. So I thank you for your consideration. I think this project is going to serve the community well and is part of the mission of the sponsorship to continue to do what they've been doing for decades. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I think you covered the ground pretty good between you and Mr. Taormina. We appreciate you being here this evening. Is there anybody in August 14, 2007 24235 the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion is in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-88-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-07-01-05 submitted by Marycresl Manor requesting to rezone property at 15475 and 15495 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Five Mile Road and Wentworth in the Southeast'''/ of Section 14, from R7 to R -9-I, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-07-01-05 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the zoning of a portion of the adjacent property immediately north of the subject property; and 3. That the change of zoning is consistent with the existing land use on the subject property and will provide for the development of additional senior housing facilities. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I just have one comment. I have nothing against the rezoning. As I stated at the study session, I do have a problem with a non- profit onprofit organization where we have to supply them with city services and the city gels no taxes. I think some kind of arrangement has got to be made so we gel reimbursed for some of the services the city is going to have to give to this parcel when it is developed. Thafs all I have to say. Thank you. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. August 14, 2007 24236 ITEM #3 PETITION 2007-06-02 23 SUTARIYA FOODS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 06-02-23 submitted by Sulariya Foods, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a full service restaurant (Kokopelli Fresh Mexican Grill) at 37140 Six Mile, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 8. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 17, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at his time. The legal description for the waiver use follows. No additional right-of-way is required. An address of 37140 Six Mile Road is connect for this premises." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 17, 2007, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with Kokopelli Fresh Mexican Grill, located at Newburgh and Six Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 19, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 25, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The Petitioner's property is located closer than 1,000 feet to a property with a Class C liquor license. The 1,000 foot minimum requirement may be waived by City Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner in the audience? Raj Sulariya, Sulariya Foods, Inc., 37140 Six Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Obviously, I don't know any of you. I'll just introduce myself. I'm a local practicing attorney here, and I also own and operate the Kokopelli Mexican Grill. The whole reason behind our intent in obtaining this Class C liquor license, which we have August 14, 2007 24237 already attempted to do and passed the Slate investigations, is to conform with the concept of Kokopelli. It is a franchise based out in Arizona, and the concept does give way for us to serve domestic and imported Mexican beers and also Margaritas to kind of go along with our Mexican food. Given the location of our store in the center the way it is and our signage restrictions, I think its just important to have in order for us to succeed and continue to thrive in Livonia. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Sulariya, I have a question about the process in which you go about serving alcohol to the customers. Normally, a Class C liquor license establishment would be a full sit down restaurant where a person sits at a table and orders a drink and it is brought out to him. How is it done at your restaurant? Mr. Sulariya: We're a fast casual restaurant so we do have seating and the people are seated. However, the food is more or less built to order. They come up in line and order something that's built right in from of them and served to them. However, the beer or the margaritas or whatever it may be will be served at the table itself. Mr. Wilshaw: So it will be taken out to the table? Mr. Sutariya: Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Is there anything that would be in place to prevent a person who obtains an alcoholic beverage to walk out with that beverage? Mr. Sulariya: Aside from being closely monitored by the employees, that's pretty much all we can do. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you do carryout services as well? Mr. Sulariya: We do delivery but we will not be delivering any alcoholic beverages. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. How many Kokopelli restaurants are there? I know I looked at the web site. There's a dozen or so of them. How many of them do serve alcohol and do not serve alcohol? Do you know? Mr. Sulariya: I own another Kokopelli restaurant in Toledo and we serve alcohol there. I believe out of the remaining franchisees there may be three or four additional ones. August 14, 2007 24238 Mr. Wilshaw: Do you know iflhe one in Waterford serves alcohol? Mr. Sulariya: There is not one in Waterford. Mr. Wilshaw: Oh, there is not? Mr. Sulariya: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Varloogian: I just have a quick question. Al what point do they pay for the alcoholic beverage? Do they pay for it then consume it? Mr. Sulariya: They'll pay for it at the same time they pay for their food prior to even being served. Ms. Varloogian: So when they have it at the table, they will have already paid for K? Mr. Sulariya: Yes. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. That's it. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I assume you're going to have a full range of beer and wine? Mr. Sulariya: We will not have wine. We'll simply have margaritas and beer. Mr. Morrow: Mexican and domestic beer. And you keep referring to margaritas. Would that be the extent of your alcohol by the glass? Mr. Sulariya: Yes. Mr. Morrow: In other words, you're not going to operate a full-service bar? Mr. Sutariya: Absolutely not. Mr. Morrow: So it's just to go along with your concept. Mr. Sulariya: Absolutely. Aside from beer, the only other thing we'll have is margaritas. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McDermott: You mentioned as far as the monitoring of the alcohol being taken from the premises, that would have to be done by the August 14, 2007 24239 employees. How many employees do you anticipate having or do you have now? Mr. Sulariya: We currently have roughly 15 employees, and there's always 5 to 6 on staff. Ms. McDermott: Five to 6 on one shift. Mr. Sulariya: Where the employees normally work in the front of the restaurant, ti's in plain view of the seating area. There's virtually no separation. Ms. McDermott: Okay. I guess my concern is if the average age of the employees might be fairly young, they may have a hard time telling someone that they can't take the alcohol from the premises. Is your average age ... Mr. Sulariya: Greater than 50 percent of our employees are over 25. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Thank you for being here this evening. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion is in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by La Pine, and adopted, itwas #08-89-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-06-02-23 submitted by Sulariya Foods, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a full service restaurant (Kokopelli Fresh Mexican Grill) at 37140 Six Mile, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest % of Section 8, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-06-02-23 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1,000 fool separation requirement as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council and also subject to the following additional conditions: 1. That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed 48 seats; 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; August 14, 2007 24240 3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 4. That all conditions imposed under Council Resolution #818-94, which granted waiver use approval for a restaurant use at this location, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this approval. 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. Wilshaw: I just want to mention at this point that I will not be vofing to support the approving resolution. I think its worth stating why. The reason behind my lack of support is because I have some concern over the fact that this is going to be a unique situation with a Class C licensed establishment that does not order and serve and pay for ... serve alcohol right to the table and then pay for it afterward which provides some method of control as to whether that alcohol either slays or leaves the building. My other concern is just that this is a waiver use which runs with the land. In the event that the Kokopelli restaurant does close at some point in the future, any restaurant or operator could come into this same space and operate a Class C license without any additional approvals. Ms. McDermott: I would like to second Mr. Wilshaw's comments. I'm a little hesitant, actually more than hesitant, to approve something that, again, I'm not sure that's going to be easy to control. If there was a different method to do that, which is the traditional method of serving the alcohol beverages, then I wouldn't have a problem with the request, but I also won't be supporting it. August 14, 2007 24241 Mr. Walsh: Anyone else? Seeing no one, would the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, LaPine, Smiley, Walsh NAYES: McDermott, 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 2007-07-02-24 TACO DEL MAR Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 07-02-24 submitted by Taco Del Mar requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 37294 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest''/. of Section 8. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 17, 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. No additional right-of- way is required. The description for the restaurant area follows. An address of 37290 Six Mile Road for the overall complex is correct" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 16, 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 above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 20, 2007, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with Taco Del Mar located at August 14, 2007 24242 37294 Six Mile Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 18, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 13, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. Signage has not been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the petition please step forward? Mike Daher, Taco Del Mar, 24997 Gregory Drive, Brownstown, Michigan 48183. Lel me just tell you a little bit about Taco Del Mar. We're a national franchise headquartered in Seattle with about 270 stores. We're in the process of developing the Michigan market. This would be our first store in Michigan and basically our showpiece. We're hoping to develop about 60 more stores in the next few years. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: Could youjusl give me an idea of what your menu is? Mr. Daher: We're a fast casual Mexican restaurant. The food is made to order. The customer comes in and it's made in front of the customer. Just basically Mexican food, burritos, tacos, quesadillas. Mr. Monow: Is it table service or do you go to a counter? Mr. Daher: No. It's made to order. The customer orders it, pays for it and takes it to a table and sits down and eats it. It limited seating and take-out. Mr. Morrow: You have takeout? Mr. Daher: Yes. Mr. La Pine: What are your operating hours? Mr. Daher: About 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. La Pine: 10:00 a.m. in the morning until 10:00 p.m. in the evening? Mr. Daher: Yes. August 14, 2007 24243 Mr. La Pine: What is basically your busiest time? Noontime? Mr. Daher: Lunchtime is our core business. Dinnerwould be supplemental. Mr. La Pine: Do you have a place outside where people can sit and eat? Mr. Daher: No. That's something applied to Del Taco. That's like a full service. Mr. La Pine: So basically, they sit down in the restaurant and they eat. I was worried about them eating outside and who's going to police d. Mr. Daher: No. There's no outside seating. Mr. Wilshaw: Are you going to have just a conforming sign on the front of the building? Mr. Daher: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. How does your operation differ from Qdoba or Kokopelli's that we just heard from? Is it a similar type restaurant? Mr. Daher. Its similar to Qdobas. I've never been to Kokopellis, but ft's closer to Qdoba except we don't grill. We doral grill the food. Our food is commissary service. It does the cooking and packaging, and its all shipped to the store. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I see. So it's not prepared at the store. Mr. Daher: Its off-site cooking. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And you say there's 250 stores currently in operation? Mr.Daher: 270. Mr. Wilshaw: 270. 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 McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was August 14, 2007 24244 #08-00-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-07-02-24 submitted by Taco Del Mar requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 37294 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest ''/ of Section 8, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-07-02- 24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed 30 seats; 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; 3. That wall signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; and 4. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. August 14, 2007 24245 Y 1=l Ai EiL",M9=k IY Ole] Ll I : I : V" 11LIJ:IN: Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 07-02-25 submitted by P&N Ventures, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Johnny's Lunch) at 29499 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 35. Mr. Walsh: I am going to tum the gavel over to Mr. La Pine. I have a business relationship with the owners of P&N Ventures. So to avoid any appearance of impropriety, I'm going to step aside. Mr. La Pine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. LaPine: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 19, 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 for parcels C, D and E is correct. No additional right-of-way is required. An address of 29499 Plymouth Roadis correct for this premises." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 19, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 35. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 24, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Johnny's Lunch, located at Middlebelt and Plymouth Roads (northeast cameo. We have no objections or rec mmendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 25, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 17, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter August 14, 2007 24246 is signed by Jerome Hanna, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent ofthe correspondence. Mr. La Pine: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Wilshaw: Are we going to see a sign on this at some point, or if they give a conforming sign, it will not come to us? Mr. Taormina: I believe the prepared resolution addresses signage. Typically, as long as it's conforming signage, it's not something we would want to see come back. I'm looking at Condition #2 that says no wall signage is approved with this petition. I would say that if they generally comply with the ordinance, I'm not sure that we need to see it again, but I'll lel the Commission make that decision. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Is the petitioner here this evening? Nondo Basoukeas, P&N Ventures, L.L.C., 17913 Maple Hill Drive, Northville, Michigan 48168. I'm the petitioner for P&N Ventures with my partner. We did submit the signage. I apologize for this. Schostak Brothers has the signage. We did meet all the criteria. It is 9 feet by 3 feel in width and height, which meets the criteria of the 27 square feel. I apologize. The signage was emailed to Schostak and there was a color copy sent just the other day. I was surprised not to see it up here, but I'll make sure you get a copy of it. All the signage does meet the criteria that's required by the facility. Mr. La Pine: Just make sure you get all that information and paperwork to the staff so that when they submit it to Council, it's all there and you won't be held up. So please continue with your presentation. Mr. Basoukeas: As was mentioned before, we basically are a fast food franchise - coney islands, French fries, onion rings, milk shakes and also rice pudding. Its a very simplistic operation. All the food is served just like you would do at a MacDonald's restaurant, and then they would sit down with the food. The food is delivered through the franchise, all self -serve. Its very simplistic and very efficient and very economical. Mr. La Pine: Are there any questions forlhe petitioner? Ms. Smiley: Who's Johnny? Is this a chain? August 14, 2007 24247 Mr. Basoukeas: Yes, it is. Johnny is the original owner. He's from Jamestown, New York. The family started in 1936. If you go on Google, Johnny's Lunch, we're the first one that comes up. The first franchise opened up in Toledo, Ohio. The second one is in Waterford, Michigan, and we hope to be number four. There will be one in Hamtramck right before we open up. So we'll be the fourth store that opens up as part of the franchise. The grandson, who lives in Toledo, finally convinced the family to allow the franchise to lake over the secret recipe of the coney dogs. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Could you let us know what your hours of operation are? Mr. Basoukeas: Yes. We were going to go from 10:00 a.m. in the morning to 12:00 midnight. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. La Pine: I'm confused about one thing. You go in and you order and pick up your loose hamburger and your coney and your pop and all. I assume you have trays, not like the coney island downtown where the guy hands it like this? Mr. Basoukeas: Correct. There are trays. Everything is all served on a tray and you make the order right there and, of course, there also are carry -outs too. Very similar to a Burger King/MacDonald's style only we do the coney dogs and the french fries and the milkshakes. Mr. La Pine: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing and a motion would be in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, it was #08-01-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-07-02-25 submitted by P&N Ventures, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Johnny's Lunch) at 29499 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-07-02-25 be approved subject to the following conditions: August 14, 2007 24248 1. That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed 48 seats; 2. That approval is granted for one (1) wall sign not to exceed a maximum sign area of twenty-seven (27) square feet. Any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine: Is there any discussion? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McDermott, Wilshaw, Morrow, Varloogian, Smiley, LaPine NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Walsh ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Al this time, our Chairman, Mr. Walsh, will return to the podium. August 14, 2007 24249 ITEM#6 PETITION 2007-07-02-26 L.A. FITNESS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 07-02-26 submitted by L.A. Fitness International, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct a 45,000 square fool building at 30255 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast'''/ of Section 35. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 26, 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 right-of-way is required. It appears that the existing drive approaches will be used for this project. An address of 30255 Plymouth Road is correct for the overall premises at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 19, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a 45,000 square foot building on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast X of Section 35. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. Current plans show fire suppression tap entering the building about 190 feet from the nearest hydrant tap. (2) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (3) West and south sides of the building shall be posted (on the building) FIRE LANE — NO PARKING. (4) 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 Ead Fesler, Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 24, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with LA Fitness, located at 30255 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or August 14, 2007 24250 recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 24, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 17, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This has been reviewed as part of the regional shopping center. (2) This Petitioner would be allowed any number of wall signs totaling 215 square feet. Any square footage over that amount will require a zoning variance hom the Zoning Board of Appeals. A regional center monument sign will require a variance as the maximum number has been exceeded. We would recommend that this request be made in conjunction with two or more future building areas to coordinate that signage request. (3) Two of the required 8 barrier free parking spaces must be van accessible, an 8 -foot wide space with an BJoot adjacent access aisle. (4) Although this building as proposed exceeds the 35 foot maximum height allowed in a C-2 district, it is permissible by setting the building back an additional feet over the minimum setback per Section 18.41. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Building Director. That is the extent oflhe correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we'll go to the petitioner. Gary Collins, L.A. Fitness International, L.L.C., 1350 E. Touhy Avenue, Suite 180W, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'd like to pass through a material sample board that we prepared. Mr. Walsh: Sure. If you'll hand it to Mr. Wilshaw, he'll pass it along. Mr. Collins: Mark, thank you for your very thorough presentation. It's been a pleasure working with everyone here at the City of Livonia. I'll tell you a little bit about L.A. Fitness. It is privately owned. We were established in 1984. We currently operate over 200 facilities in 17 stales. The Midwest market is a rapid growth territory for us right now. I have facilities under construction and in operation in Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, soon to be under construction here in Michigan, and proposals out in Ohio, as well in this Midwest market. Our facility is a membership facility open to individuals 14 years of age and older. Our prototypical facility is a 45,000 square fool club, which is made up of a 42,000 square fool ground floor footprint much as you see here which houses the functions and uses that Mark outlined in his presentation as well. We have a 3,000 square fool mezzanine that is a part of our typical plan where many of our cardiac August 14, 2007 24251 activities take place in-house. As I mentioned, our facilities are open to the general public on a fee -for -membership basis. We do have a central controlled access point at the front entry where members are greeted, their key fobs swiped and then are allowed access to the facility. Our typical hours of operation are from 5:00 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Thursday; Fridays from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. With that, we're very, very excited about this prospective location here in the City of Livonia. We are also fully entitled in Troy, Bloomfield Township and Southfield, Michigan. So we look forward to having Livonia be a part of our expansion in the Midwest. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Collins? Mr. Morrow: Will you own your site or will you be leasing? Mr. Collins: The development here is in partnership with Schostak Brothers. We will be a leasing tenant. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Very good. As far as the panel brick that you just passed around, is that fairly substantial? I mean I'm not an expert and sometimes when I hear panel, I gel a little nervous. Mr. Collins: As far as the precast concrete panels? Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Collins: Its an insulated sandwich panel structure, so it's a 10 inch wide panel that has concrete insulation and additional concrete on the inside. It is a structural panel. Its very stable, a very straight plumb and then it receives a textured finish which is represented there on the material board. Mr. Morrow: The key word there is substantial and I'll lake your word for it. Mr. Collins: Oh, yes. Very substantial. They pour them in one length, the length for the building, which would be the 35 fool high span and an 8 -fool wide panel is brought out on tractor -trailers and they go up with a crane. Mr. Morrow: Because I see it gives a brick appearance, that's why I asked. Mr. Collins: The brick elements in front would be a full width brick, self - supported, that would be structurally tied into framing in front of the concrete precast panel. So the main wall is the precast concrete and then the accent elements along the front entry and on the east and west sides would be full width brick. August 14, 2007 24252 Mr. Morrow: It will be full width brick? Mr. Collins: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Guess I was a little confused. I thought I was getting paneling all the way around, but you will have the full face brick where it's indicated here on the rest of the panels. Mr. Collins: That's correct. And that allows us to provide the three dimensional relief as well for those arcades where we have the glass. It helps break up the mass of the building. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Your memberships now you said include 14 year olds. If a14 year old becomes a member, he has to have his parent's permission. They sign off or you need the money. How do you handle it? Do you have a family plan? Do you have an individual plan? Give me some idea of how this operates. Mr. Collins: We do have individual plans. You become eligible for the individual plan at 16 years and older. So the 14 year olds would be part of family plan, and they would be then as a minor would be accompanied by an adult. Mr. LaPine: Now based on that, can you give me some idea of what the costs are from a single person to a family plan? Mr. Collins: The costs are very competitive in the market. In a public forum such as this, I'm not at liberty to divulge our exact fee schedule but they are very competitive. Mr. LaPine: To be successful here, how many members do you feel you have to have a year to ran a successful operation? Mr. Collins: Again, I dont have exact numbers that I can divulge at this time. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Collins. I hate to repeat some of the questions a little bit, but we're talking about membership and my question is, do you offer montl -to-month memberships or is it a contract that is signed for a period of time? Mr. Collins: It is a month-to-month membership. August 14, 2007 24253 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. And when talking about the brick veneer as it's called on the plan, you said it's a full width brick. Is it a full depth brick as well? Mr. Collins: That's correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So it really is a real brick. Mr. Collins: It's a real brick that is self -supportive, bears its own weight and has horizontal braces back to the steel framing. Mr. Wilshaw: The only other questions I had were in regards to signage. You have basically almost a conforming sign on the building, within 15 square feet. You have one that is pushing you quite a bit over on the east side of the building. We talked about this a little bit at our study meeting, and it was described that this was necessary at least maybe initially until the second building is put on the properly. Do you truly need that sign or can you do without it? Mr. Collins: Its certainly our desire to pursue that sign. I think we do truly need it. The future development is somewhat in the distant future. Given the setback of the building from Plymouth Road, certainly there is emphasis on the north elevation, but then there is also opportunity for good exposure from the east and the development that is currently in operation to the east of the parcel. So it is our desire to pursue the necessary variances to peril that sign. Mr. Wilshaw: The monument sign that is going to be placed on Plymouth Road is a 16 foot high sign that appears to be made of back with your sign and then the additional future tenant sign on it, is that sign - maybe this is a more appropriate question for Mr. Cole - is that sign in conformance or similar to other signs that are within the Wonderland development al this point? Mr. Bill Cote, Middlebell Plymouth Venture, L.L.C., 17672 Laurel Park Drlve, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Yes, it is. It mirrors the other signs that are along Plymouth and Middlebelt. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So they will be matching. Mr. Cole: They will be consistent. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I appreciate that. The only other question I have is for Mr. Taormina. In regard to that sign on the eastern side of the building, it sounds basically like it's almost a temporary sign, that if this other building is developed, it would be obstructed by John Glasnak, Quality Inn & Suites, 30375 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm the owner of the Quality Inn & Suites. I have some handouts for you. First of all, I'd like to say that I'm very much in favor of this project. I mel with the Project Manager some time ago when we were dealing with the back property, and I haven't had the opportunity to make another appointment with him to talk about the adjacent property that divides our property line on the east and west side. Had I had the opportunity to meet with him, I may not be here today, but I didn't have that opportunity. A few weeks ago, there was a civil engineer out there running lines so I went and looked out there. I did see some problems that we were experiencing, and I wanted to address them so that they could be addressed now. I think one and two may be preconstruction problems that hopefully there are plans in place to take care of that. One is the weed problem. There is about a three to four fool patch between where the elevation increases August 14, 2007 24254 the second building. Is there any way that we could craft the ordinance to allow that sign only until the second building is built? Mr. Taormina: Its probably better assigned to the Zoning Board of Appeals considering that they'll have to take this issue up. They will be the final approving authority with respect to that second sign. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: My question was to Mark, Mr. Chair. Was there something in that letter from Engineering that the height of the building, they need to move the building back seven feel? What was that? Mr. Taormina: Typically, commercial buildings are limited to a height of 35 feet. However, there is a provision in the ordinance that applies to major business buildings that allows for that height to increase actually up to a total of 155 feel. For every one foot of additional height that is proposed above 35 feet for a major business building, you have to have one additional foot of setback. As it is, this building is set back so far from the properly lines it easily meets that standard. So there is no need to change the site plan. The letter from the Inspection Department was pointing out the fact that the standard applies in this case. Ms. Smiley: We wish you well. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? If so, would you please step forward? Good evening. John Glasnak, Quality Inn & Suites, 30375 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm the owner of the Quality Inn & Suites. I have some handouts for you. First of all, I'd like to say that I'm very much in favor of this project. I mel with the Project Manager some time ago when we were dealing with the back property, and I haven't had the opportunity to make another appointment with him to talk about the adjacent property that divides our property line on the east and west side. Had I had the opportunity to meet with him, I may not be here today, but I didn't have that opportunity. A few weeks ago, there was a civil engineer out there running lines so I went and looked out there. I did see some problems that we were experiencing, and I wanted to address them so that they could be addressed now. I think one and two may be preconstruction problems that hopefully there are plans in place to take care of that. One is the weed problem. There is about a three to four fool patch between where the elevation increases August 14, 2007 24255 and our fence. We always had a problem with Kmart with that problem with weeds coming through the fence, and speaking to people at Kmart, we ended up always having to cut the weeds ourselves. So I'm hoping there's a plan there to take care of that because, as you can see, there's pictures of all the weeds coming through and debris and things like that. Secondly, we're experiencing some water drainage from the site and it's undermining our parking lot and coming into where we have storm sewers. I've got some pictures of that loo. In speaking to the civil engineer, he didn't have any drainage files along that area so I don't know what's going to lake care of that because that will obviously increase. especially if you're putting irrigation in. I dont know if there's going to be a retaining wall to hold that additional three, possible four feet - I'm not quite sure of the height of the elevation there - so the erosion doesn't continue because we've also been experiencing mudslides coming into the parking lot. Now, as I said, those may be preconslmction issues and they may be for not. They may be issues that are going to be taken care of when construction begins, but I'd like to have them addressed here at this meeting. Mr. Walsh: Sir, I'm going to ask Mr. Cole in a moment, as soon as we're done with the public hearing, to come up al the end and address some of your questions. Mr. Glasnak: Great. Mr. Walsh: We do not have the luxury of engineering staff here. That is better handled at the Council level where the City Engineer is present to discuss those items, particularly with regard to drainage. Our job is more oriented toward the site plan itself. Mr. Taormina may have some things to add, but he's not a civil engineer nor are any of us. So what I'm trying to tell you is we may move forward with this tonight. How the vole goes I dont know yet. If it does move forward with an approving resolution, then I would suggest that you go to the Oly Council meeting and at that point they can handle your issues specifically. But Mr. Taormina, is there anything you can add while he's here this evening that might be helpful? Mr. Taormina: I'll only say at this point that the plans as submitted do provide for a full improvement all the way to the westerly limit of the property, that would be the property line that you share with the petitioner, that would be on the west side of the site. In fact, this overhead shows the detail on the landscaping that would go all the way to that westerly property line of the Schostak-owned properly. You can see a number of trees are proposed there. I have had discussions with Mr. Cole relative to the relationship August 14, 2007 24256 between the two sites, and I believe he was at some point going to solicit your assistance in possibly addressing the issue of that fence line. I'm assuming that would also include the grading and the drainage in that area. So I'll defer to Mr. Cote. I know many of these details still need to be worked mt. This is still relatively conceptual from those types of specifics as far as engineering, but we have had some general discussion in that direction. Mr. Glasnak: Okay. The third issue comes from experience that we had with the prior tenant, Kmart. We have had cars crash through that fence. One was a senior citizen that instead of stepping on the brake, stepped on the gas and came plowing through into our parking lot. The other one was a drunk driver that came plowing through. My concern is, because of the elevation being increased three or four feet, it's almost like a platform to take off into our lot and possibly create property damage or personal injury. So I don't know if there's going to be a wall there to prevent that. I'm hoping there's something there other than just a curb because it does present a potential hazard. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, we just have the trees there. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Yes. We don't have detailed grading at this time, although again that's something that Mr. Cote may be able to shed more light on at this point. Mr. Walsh: As I mentioned, Mr. Glasnak, what we'll do at the conclusion of the public hearing, because there is at least one other person that wanted to speak this evening, I'll ask Mr. Cote to come up and address some of these questions. They may not be done in totality. You may need to confer with him and/or attend the next meeting if it moves forward. Mr. Glasnak: I want to apologize, Mr. Cole, for hitting you broadside here because I didn't intend to hit him broadside. Mr. Walsh: Well, the good thing is, there isn't a problem bringing this forward. I just want to stress to you that, as a recommending body, there are some things we can address. Engineering we can't because its not within our ability, but there will be time between now and the Council meeting that these issues could be addressed in their totality. Mr. Glasnak: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything else you'd like to bring to our attention? August 14, 2007 24257 Mr. Glasnak: No, chats it. I've been wailing for the project. I'm very much in favor of it. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. Good evening. Andrea Kolhoff, 9903 Flamingo. Good evening. I'm also Devonaire Civic Association President. We are in favor of developing this particular parcel, especially as it will rid the neighbors of dealing with all the dust that we've been having, so the quicker the better. I would ask, though, if it's possible, if there is an approving resolution, if the hours of operation be put in there and also that they would match Wal -Marts 6:00 a.m. to midnight. We negotiated and very successfully with the Wal - mart and with the whole Wonderland development trying to get a more conducive environment to the neighbors that abut this development. If that could be done, that would be great. Mr. Walsh: We will take that into consideration. Ms. Kolhoff: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, Mr. Cole, if you're comfortable or able, can you address any of the issues that were just brought forward for our benefit before we vole? Mr. Cote: Yes, I'd like to. At the moment, we're just rough grading the site and it's not at the finished grades that we intend to build it at. We're just preparing some of the earth moving ahead of time. I plan on getting with Mr. Glasnak regarding the fence issue as Mr. Taormina discussed relative to how we're going to handle the fence in the future as it relates to our landscaping. We do intend to landscape the west side with trees and shrubs. I think my engineer said he's looking at doing a small berm, but we would provide drainage to take care of that side of the properly. I think what I'll do is I'll get with Mr. Glasnak in the next few days and walk the site with him, see some of his current concerns and I'll take care of those so he's not put out. Then I'll bring my engineer along and we can talk with him about how we're going to handle the edge of that property and work some things out. I've talked to him before prior to starting this project so we have connection; we have phone numbers. I'll make a point to gel with him as soon as possible. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Very good. Are you able to address the hours of operations or would that be Mr. Collins. Mr. Cote: That would be Mr. Collins. August 14, 2007 24258 Mr. Walsh: Mr. Collins. Mr. Collins: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As discussed earlier, our proposed hours of operation, the typical hours of operation for our clubs, do start at 5:00 a.m. I think we have a litlle different use. We're a destination oriented facility where our members our coming in specifically to work out. A lot of that entails people that have a business to do and they would like to gel a quick workout before they're at their desk at 8:00 in the morning. I think the request to restrict the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. would be something that would be a detriment to our operations and our facility. Mr. Walsh: What is your closing fime? Mr. Collins: Midnight on Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 p.m. on Friday and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Morrow: That one hour from 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., typically how many people do you have showing up? I mean, what is the volume? Mr. Collins: Our peak volume would not be reached until 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m., but certainly there are people starling workouts as early as 5:00 a.m. They want to gel there when the doors open, gel their workout, which is usually a 90 minute workout, shower and gel on with their day. Mr. Morrow: Typically, we're not talking about very many people? Mr. Collins: No, I think we're probably talking about under 50 people. Mr. Morrow: Probably max? Mr. Collins: Max 50. Again, they're coming in as a destination to work out. They're not hanging around the parking lot. They're parking their car, they're going in, they're working out, they're laking a shower, they're in their car and they're gone. Mr. Morrow: So the restriction of that hour would really impact a lot of your promofion for people who want to come in early before they go to the office? Mr. Collins: Correct. Yes, it would. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. August 14, 2007 24259 Ms. Smiley: Mark, could you back it out so I can see where their parking is for those people that typically would be coming at ... Mr. Taormina: This is the building here, and this is the customer entrance. Ms. Smiley: And the neighborhood would be where? Mr. Taormina: This is the slormwater detention basin. The closest house would be somewhere around here. Ms. Sriley: Typically, everybody would go in that front entrance, wouldn't they? Mr. Collins: That is the only point of access into the club. That's where we have our reception desk and access control. Ms. Smiley: So you wouldn't expect any activity in the back, even like your employees. Where would they be parking? Mr. Collins: Employees would probably park on the east side of the building. Ms. Smiley: In front oflhe retention and everything, right? Mr. Collins: Well, the retention is to the south side of the building. Ms. Smiley: Oh, okay. Mr. Collins: In between the two buildings. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Good. Thankyou. Mr. La Pine: Livonia's Community Recreation Center opens at 5:00 a.m. or 5:30 a.m. It's surrounded by residential and its a lot closer than the homes that are over here to this building, so I don't really see it as a problem. As far as I know, there has never been any complaints from the Community Recreation Center being open that early in the morning. So I dont really see that as a real big problem. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for Mr. Collins? Thank you, Mr. Collins. With that, unless there are any other questions or comments from the commissioners, a motion is order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #08-92-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on August 14, 2007 24260 Petition 2007-07-02-26 submitted by L.A. Fitness International, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct a 45,000 square fool building at 30255 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-07-02-26 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet L.A.-1 prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., dated July 13, 2007, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets L.A.-2, L.A.-3 and L.A.-0 prepared by Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., all dated July 13, 2007, as revised, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to the following stipulations: That all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be provided with an automatic underground irrigation system; 3. That the Concept Exterior Elevations Plan submitted by L.A. Fitness International, L.L.C., received by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick; 5. 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; 6. That the three walls of the trash dumpster enclosure shall be constructed 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 gales, which shall be of steel August 14, 2007 24261 construction, shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 7. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be provided and shall be properly located, sized and signed; 8. That all parking spaces on the site shall be double striped; 9. That pole mounted light fixtures in the parking lots within the southerly portions of the site shall be "shoe -box" style, full cutoff fixtures no more than 35 feet in height. Closer to Plymouth Road, decorative "acorn' -style luminaires shall be used and shall not exceed a height of 20 feel; 10. That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed in the correspondence dated July 19, 2007 from the Livonia Fire and Rescue Division; 11. That the wall signage portrayed on the above -referenced Concept Exterior Elevations Plan is hereby approved, subject to the granting of a variance for excess wall sign area by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining thereto. Any additional wall signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 12. That the Monument Sign Plan prepared by Spectrum Neon Co., dated July 26, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to the granting of a variance for exceeding the maximum number of ground signs for a Regional Center by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining thereto; 13. That signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 15. That the hours of operations shall be as follows: Monday through Thursday from 5:00 a.m. to midnight; Fridays from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. August 14, 2007 24262 16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department al the time the building permits are applied for; and 17. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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 surtounding 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: The only thing I would like to see added, I beleve the gentleman from L.A. Fitness gave us the hours he was going to be open, if we could include that in our motion. Could you give us the hours again? Ms. Smiley: I have them. Monday through Thursday 5:00 a.m. to midnight; Fridays from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Collins: That's correct. Mr. Walsh: If that is acceptable to the maker and supporter, the resolution is amended unless there is any objection. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. August 14, 2007 24263 ITEM #7 PETITION 2007-07-02-27 NOODLES & COMPANY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 07-02-27 submitted by Pasta Per Trio requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Noodles & Company) at 29459 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast'''/ of Section 35. Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 19, 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 for parcels C, D, and E is connect. No additional right-of-way is required. An address of 29459 Plymouth Road is connect for this premises." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 19, 2007, Mich reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast X of Section 35. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 24, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with Noodles & Co., located at Mlddlebelt and Plymouth Roads (northeast comer). 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 July 26, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 17, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been n=viewed. The following is noted. This entire Retail C & D building would be allowed any number of wall signs totaling a maximum of 360 square feet. Based on 1 foot per 1 foot of frontage, this petitioner would be allowed approximately 112 square feet of wall signage. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent ofthe correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the slaty? August 14, 2007 24264 Ms. Vartoogian: When calculating wall signage, is that sign that appears to be hanging in the window in that tall portion of the building considered? Mr. Taormina: They have provided details for three signs. The one sign you are referring to is not directed to the public from any rights-of-- way or public areas, so I don't believe that would be considered part of the sign package. We're only looking at the two main identification signs, one on the north facade and the other one on the east facade. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the pefifioner here this evening? Ralph Staelgrave, Pasta Per Trio/Noodles & Co., 7000 Sober Road, Fowlerville, Michigan 48836. 1 represent our partners. We have the franchise rights in Michigan purchased from Noodles & Co. corporate. This would be our tenth store in Michigan. We do business as Noodles & Co. for we are the franchisees. It's a fresh saute and grill style restaurant. It's a globally inspired noodle concept - anything from Japanese pan noodles to a pesto cavatappi, macaroni and cheese. Its rather unique. We have a few on this side of the state, two in Ann Arbor, one in Royal Oak, one in Northville and one in Troy, and looking forward to coming to Livonia. Our hours of operation are typically 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., pretty much Monday through Sunday. It is a fast casual dining restaurant where you order and pay for it right up front. You're then seated. It is full service from what point on. We serve you on real plates with real silverware. We bus the table. We dont allow tipping at all. No alcohol is served. Any questions? Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. LaPine: Is this store larger than the one you have in Northville? It looks like it is. Mr. Staelgrave: The patio would obviously be substantially larger. The square footage of the building itself is probably only about 120 square feel bigger on the site. Mr. LaPine: I'm just curious. On the sign elevation where you have Noodles & Co., I like the concept of the flying pan. Mr. Staelgrave: Yes, that's a saute skillet. August 14, 2007 24265 Mr. La Pine: Why isn't that incorporated in the sign? Mr. Staelgrave: Itwould definitely be above the square footage allotment. Mr. La Pine: Is that the reason? Mr. Staelgrave: Yes, it is, unfortunately. I would love to have it if you would give me the right to do it. I'll put them all up there for you. Mr. La Pine: If you make it a little smaller ... 8 just hits me as a nicer looking sign. That's all. Mr. Staelgrave: I agree with you. Unfortunately, unless we double the cost of the signs to reduce them, they have plated signs already. Unless we do something unique, we have to stick with what the corporate sign offers at this time. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I just want to make a comment. In comparing the previous sign package to the current one, I appreciate the removal of the red panels on either side of the door. It seems a little more attractive. Mr. Staelgrave: I thought so as well. Corporate tries to push us to follow specific expectations on their part, and then we bicker with them and we reduced it, as you can tell. Mr. Wils haw: I like the overall sign package better. Mr. Staelgrave : The second one. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. 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 McDermott, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-03-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petifion 2007-07-02-27 submitted by Pasta Per Trio requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Noodles & Company) at 29459 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 35, the Planning August 14, 2007 24266 Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-07-02-27 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sealing and Floor Plan marked "Concept A" submitted by Pasta Per Trio, dated July 2, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 102, including 62 interior seats and 40 exterior patio seals; 3. That the outdoor patio seating shall be confined to the area designated for that purpose on the above -referenced Seatng and Floor Plan —"Concept A"; 4. That trash receptacles shall be provided for the outdoor seating area and shall be emptied regularly as needed; 5. That the Sign Package prepared by Jones Sign Nationwide, dated August 6, 2007, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 6. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 7. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. August 14, 2007 24267 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: Mrs. McDermott, I think we are able to act on the sign plan before us dated August 6. Mrs. McDermott: So we can strike that from the ... Mr. Walsh: I think we need to make specific reference since this is slightly larger, so specific reference to the August 6 revision of the sign package. Mrs. McDermott All right. I'm fine with 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. ITEM #8 PETITION 2007-07-02-28 TISEO (TACO BELL) Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 07-02-28 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant with a drive -up window facility (Taco Bell) at 33193 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3. Mr. Taormina presented a rrep showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 23, 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. No additional right-of- way is required. The legal description for the combined parcel is comect. Detention facilities have been shown. The drive approaches require the approval of Wayne County. An address of 33193 Eight Mile Road has been assigned for the Taco Bell. An address of 33101 Eight Mile Road has been assigned for the Restaurant D." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & August 14, 2007 24268 Rescue Division, dated July 19, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to build a full-service restaurant with a drive up window facility on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 24, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Taco Bell (8 Mile Place), located at 8 Mile and Farmington Roads (southeast comer). 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 July 26, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 17, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Although a comprehensive plan review cannot be done at this time, there may be an issue with the remoteness of the two exits in the customer areas. Should this be approved, it will be fully addressed at this Department's plan review. (2) This building would be allowed one wall sign on the front elevation of 35 square feet Any other wall signage would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) There appears to be a difference in zoning lines between provided documents and the architect's drawing. This may or may not necessitate a small greenbelt in the southwest comer of this site. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Jan Irvin, a Livonia resident, which was received by the Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, and lists concerns about the project. It is quite lengthy but I wanted to acknowledge that this has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: We have that letter in our packets. Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Good evening. Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Mark did a good job of presenting everything here. I did want to make mention that from our last meeting, we did make some modifications to the documents as submitted. There was a request to look at providing some landscaping along Shadyside and the adjacent property and get a variance from the City Council on the sidewalk. We have done that. This whole area, we did modify the parking ratio as was recommended at the last meeting we had. I know there are August 14, 2007 24269 some comments out there regarding the noise and the light. If I can address those, I'd like to go ahead and do that. Mr. Walsh: Please do. Mr. Tiseo: A couple things Iwanled to point out. The fad is that this whole area here in the back up to this point, from here to here, is somewhere around 98 feel. Thalwhole area will be Iandcaped. I believe there are five berms there. They vary in heights from 3 feet to 5 feet. There is going to be a significant amount of landscaped area that is the rain garden area. So there is a huge buffer between the residential district, which is here, and the actual start of the asphalt. The light poles are at this location here, here and also here. This side here is away from the residential property. The only neighbors that might be affected by the light would be across Shadyside. Shadyside is 60 feet wide. The first light pole is 40 feel back. If you lake the diagonal to the property line, you're probably in the neighborhood of 110 - 120 feel just to the front right-of-way line of that first house. If you add more footage to the actual location of the house, you're probably going to be another 150 feet plus to the house itself. I'm not sure if there are street ighls on Shadyside. If there were, they'll probably gel more light from the streetighls than from any light in our parking lot as a result of both poles. These are going to be 20 feel high, as Mark pointed out. They will be shielded. I don't see anyway that any light is going to come across that property onto that site given the distance that we have from that first light pole to our property. We're probably in the neighborhood of 140 feet. That's a pretty significant number. When we looked at this project, we deliberately designed it with the residential in mind providing this huge buffer in here. This room is probably 150 feel wide. That's how much buffer we will have between our end of the pavement and the rear property line of the residential structures. On lop of that, we have another 100 feet from the edge of the property to the actual building. So we are a significant distance away from the residential. We're not trying to ignore them. If they want to come in and want to talk about adding some evergreens or something along this area, we'd be more than happy to do that and work this out. There is no reason we have to be debating this issue. The dumpsters are dumpsters. We have to have dumpsters. There is some concern about how often they will be picked up. That's easy enough. Typically, they're picked up once a week. Heck, we can have them picked up everyday if they need it, but I don't know if we would need that here. So I'm open to any questions that you might have. August 14, 2007 24270 Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Tiseo, I have two questions for you in regard to the overall site plan. I'm sure its going to be addressed down the road. So I don't want to consume too much of your time here tonight, but the first one is in regards to the location of the dumpsters. You moved the one that was attached to the drugstore out 10 feet to improve site lines a little bit, and I appreciate that. But just as a thought process, is it possible to combine some of these dumpsters? You have dumpsters that are located at the back of the Restaurant "D" property. Can that be shared with the drugstore so this dumpsler does not need to be attached to the drugstore in anyway? Mr. Tiseo: Two reasons; probably not. For one, that site is owned by Walgreens. Number two, that area is needed for loading and unloading. If we were to add any more dumpsters in here, then they would not be able to have access to load and unload. Mr. Wilshaw: I'm talking about removing dumpsters, not adding dumpsters. Keep the loading zone there, but take that dumpster ... Mr. Tiseo: Take this dumpster and put it here? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Tiseo: We'd have to review it with them if they'd be willing to do that and bring it back to you. Mr. Wilshaw: That would hep improve the sight lines for vehicles existing the drive thru which is, of course, right up against the building. And as you know, the typical person leaving a dnve-thru is fumbling around with their bag and their receipt and their change and so on. So anything we can do to open that up would be good. Mr. Tiseo: I'll bring that to their attention and ask them about that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And while we're in that area, my other question, of course we talked about this in our study meeting, has to do with the traffic flow, vehicles between the drugstore and Restaurant D. There is a current two-way aisle between those two properties, and as we spoke about before, having two-way traffic there poses a problem when you have southbound vehicles crossing into northbound lanes to enter into Taco Bell's dnve-thru chute, if you want to call it that. In trying to figure out how we can better deal with that, to not have this cross traffic, one of the options that I came up with, and I wanted to run it by you, was to make that a one-way, southbound only lane. You could even angle the parking with the Tam Bell which would make it more obvious that it is a one-way lane and make it August 14, 2007 24271 easier for people to gel in and out of those parking spaces. You would eliminate the traffic conflict that occurs as a result of having the two-way traffic. Mr. Tiseo: If you made it a southbound lane, then these people here would need to go around this area. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Mr. Tiseo: And then the delivery trucks would then have to somehow maneuver this space and come and deliver and park here. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, and then exit to the east. Mr. Tiseo: They would have to exit around this way. Mr. Wilshaw: They could either go to the west or to the east. Mr. Tiseo: I think that's going to pose some difficulty and confusion to have a one-way at that location. I guess I don't see this as a problem. Its no different than exiling out of any two-way traffic from another driveway. You have the same configuration at any T intersection that you have right here. I guess I don't see that to be an issue or a problem. Mr. Wilshaw: I do have grave concern over it. Certainly at the lunch hour, you're going to have a significant amount of traffic coming down that aisle to cross over into westbound lanes to enter into the Taco Bell drive-thru. Al the same time, you're probably going to get a fair amount of traffic in your pharmacy drive-thru with people picking up their prescriptions on their lunch hour to exit north up that aisle. That concerns me. Even if that drive-lhru was to slack up beyond the nine cars indicated in your drawing, if its two-way traffic, they're going to be slacked up into the northbound lane. That's my concern at this point. Otherwise, it's fine with me. Mr. Tiseo: Thank you. Mr. La Pine: At the last meeting, I asked you if it was possible to take the building and move it to the west a few feet. The same thing that Mr. Wilshaw is talking about, you have taken care of the trash barrel there to some degree, but we also had those electrical lines inside there. Mr. Tiseo The transformer. August 14, 2007 24272 Mr. LaPine: The transformer. I was hoping you could move that to the west so they could still get a straight shot out of there when they leave the bank and drive-in. You keep talking about having room for deliveries. Deliveries to the Taco Bell or deliveries to the bank? Mr. Tiseo: There is no bank, sir. Mr. LaPine: I mean the drugstore. Mr. Tiseo: The delivery area is right in here. There's a 20 foot wide concrete drive for delivery trucks in the back of Walgreens. Mr. LaPine: You can't move the drrve-thru to the other side, to the west side? That's impossible? Mr. Tiseo: Move the drive-thru? Flip it? Mr. LaPine: Right. Mr. Tiseo: The problem with that, then yodre on the passenger side at the window. You need to be on the drivers side at the drive-thru. Mr. LaPine: Like Mr. Wilshaw, I think there's going to be some confusion in there. You have a 35-fool aisle on the west side. There's no way we can move the building to the west? Mr. Tiseo: This 35 foot is required for the truck turning radius coming down here. Mr. LaPine: Howdoes the truck come in? Are they coming in the center? Mr. Tiseo: They're coming in off of this driveway here, coming straight down, making this tum, come in here, fuming and parking here in the loading and unloading zone. Mr. LaPine: That's all I have right now. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to confirm the fad that we have no driveway onto Shadyside. Mr. Tiseo: That is correct, and it is not our intention to put any access onto Shadyside. Mr. Morrow: If I'm following this right, it will only affect the traffic of people coming through the drive-thru with the drugstore? August 14, 2007 24273 Mr. Tiseo: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: I assume your tenants are aware of that? Mr. Tiseo: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Do they anticipate a lot of accidents? Mr. Tiseo: They dont anticipate any problems on the site; otherwise, they wouldn'lsign off on it. Mr. Morrow: The only reason I mention this is because it looks like this plan has been pretty well etched in stone. Mr. Tiseo: Yes. We've gone through it numerous times. As a matter of fact, we should be getting corporate approval here next week. Mr. Morrow: Is there any way you can alleviate any problems, put arrows there, signs to say be cautious? Mr. Tiseo: We can do something like that. Yes. Mr. Morrow: Cautioning the people coming from the dnve-thru. Mr. Tiseo: Yes, we can put some type of caution sign right here. Mr. Morrow: Not a stop sign but a caution sign or something to look for possible oncoming traffic. Mr. Tiseo: We can probably put a yield sign or something of that nature. Mr. Morrow: Most of the people would move into the drive-thru lane by the time they're coming around here, caution oncoming traffic. Mr. Tiseo: That's a good idea. We can do that, yes. Mr. Morrow: I don't know if itwill solve the problem but it might ... Mr. Tiseo: We can do both, put the sign up and also striped the pavement at that location. Mr. Morrow: Something that gives them caution to look out for the Taco Bell traffic. I don't profess to be a traffic expert, but I'm trying to at lead mitigate the problem. Mr. Walsh: He's agreed to put some signage there. August 14, 2007 24274 Mr. Tiseo: Yes. That's correct. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything else, Mr. Morrow? Mr. Morrow: No. I think that's @ for now. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Ms. McDermott: The deliveries that you mentioned that turn around and are in that traffic pattern as well, that actually makes me even more worried with large trucks in there. Do deliveries arrive all day long or are they typically in the evening or you don't know? Mr. Tiseo: I don't know that much about the Walgreens operation. I'm sorry. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Because I have concern about the traffic flow and they're crossing over and coming through in the middle of the day at lunchtime. Iljuslfrighlens me even more. Mr. Tiseo: I doubt that there would be deliveries around lunchtime. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Are there any more questions? Mr. LaPine: I'd like you to go over the data on the hours of operation. Mr. Tiseo: Certainly. Mr. LaPine: It says Taco Bell will be open Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Is that correct? Mr. Tiseo: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: And Thursday, Friday and Saturday, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Mr. Tiseo: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Why do they have to stay open until 4:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday? The bars close at 2:00 no matter if it's a Friday, Saturday or Sunday, whenever it is. I just don't see any reason to have it open until 4:00 a.m. Mr. Tiseo: I cant answer that question. I'm not the operator owner. I think it probably has to do with the fact that its on Eight Mile Road and it's pretty heavy traffic. Its between two counties and two August 14, 2007 24275 cities. So they will have more traffic on Eight Mile Road, more so than they would have on Farmington Road at their current Mr. Tiseo: Right. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Please step forward to the microphone. Jan Irvin, 20181 Shadyside. I'm representing the 44 signatures that are attached to the packet we gave out this morning and are wondering how many of the panel have read it through. We would like to read it with your permission. It's about 4 minutes. location. Mr. LaPine: The restaurant that abuts the side street, Shadyside. That wants to be open 24 hours too. Mr. Tiseo: No. It does not. That restaurant is from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. LaPine: Seven days, but there's a drive-thru and they want that open 24 hours. Mr. Tiseo: No. Its 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The only one that's 24 hours is Walgreens. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Tiseo, your email indicated drive-thru 24 hours on Restaurant D. You're saying ... Mr. Tiseo: Oh, I'm sorry. If its in the email, then that is cored. The email is correct. Does it say 24 hours? Mr. Walsh: It says, Restaurant D: Lobby: 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days, and drive-thru 24 hours. Mr. Tiseo: Okay. My mistake. That is correct. Mr. Walsh: Any additional questions? Mr. Morrow: One final thing a; it relates to the dumpster pickups and the deliveries at Walgreens. You may want to caution the tenants or the owners about peak hours. Usually they can schedule pickups and deliveries, you know, pretty much what helps the site work. Mr. Tiseo: Right. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Please step forward to the microphone. Jan Irvin, 20181 Shadyside. I'm representing the 44 signatures that are attached to the packet we gave out this morning and are wondering how many of the panel have read it through. We would like to read it with your permission. It's about 4 minutes. August 14, 2007 24276 Mr. Walsh: We do have it in our packets. Is there anybody who has not read the letter? Although we did not receive it until today, we have read it. Ms. Irvin: Mr. Tiseo did talk about some of our issues, but I just want to highlight a few of them that were not covered in this talk. We definitely want tall evergreens along Shadyside because currently the plan shows bushes and they lose leaves obviously during the winter. We want the tall evergreens to kind of block all the light and everything you hear from drive-ins. As far as we know, the people were informed about the project being a Walgreens and drive-in bank. It wasn't until two weeks ago that we learned it was a Taco Bell. The 44 people that signed the petition are not in favor of the project as it stands at all because we don't want two drive-in restaurants. And we'd like to know what the last Restaurant D is going to be. Mr. Tiseo: I'm not at liberty to discuss that. Mr. Walsh: Just for the future, if you will direct your questons to us. Ms. Irvin: Okay. I'm sorry. And a little bit more on the signage. We would like a sign on the corner that says "no right turn to thru traffic' to keep people from cutting our comer. We know right away what's going to happen is that they're going to whip around, go down Shadyside, tum on Norfolk to cul the corner to go to Farmington to beat the light because this is going to become a really high traffic area. We would also like the slop sign replaced at Shadyside and Norfolk. It is a bus slop for the children, and we can foresee that snce the drive-in is going to be open on Restaurant D. that early in the morning that can be a problem with people slipping past the bus slop at Shadyside and Norfolk. Sowe definitely want that stop sign replaced. Mr. Walsh: We are not able to enforce that, but if this proceeds to the Council, we would be able to bring it to their attention. Ms. Irvin: Okay. We do not want the Walgreens 24-hour location. I scouted the six Walgreens in the area and there are none open past 12:00. The highest number, when I called over on Eight Mile in Farmington Hills is 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and we do not feel that, since there are only 37 other drugstores in Livonia, that the Walgreens is even necessary. We cannot see why it needs to be a 24-hour location. We are adamant about no driveway going onto Shadyside and right now Mr. Tiseo said that there is no driveway to Shadyside, but when the medical complex went in near us, they said there would not be a drive-in and at the Iasi minute they put it in, and we were unable to fight August 14, 2007 24277 having it closed. Once it was in, it was in. So we do not want any kind of driveway onto Shadyside at all and don't want it in the future. We ask that the construction traffic, should it go through, not be allowed to turn right and go down Shadyside at all. The rest is in the letter. We have a few more people that would like to speak. Mr. LaPine: Before you go, may I ask a question? Mr. Walsh: Certainly. Mr. LaPine: You said you didn't want the Walgreens open 24 hours a day, but you didn't mention anything about the restaurant. Ms. Irvin: We are like you. You already addressed the issue. We cannot see why it needs to be opened to 4:00 a.m. The Taco Bell that's at Eight Mile and Haggerty is open to 4:00 a.m. but that's not in a residential area. That's a completely commercial area there. No one is going to be disturbed by the all night, you know, I'll have three tacos over the drive-in. I mean if you really look at this, honestly, would you want to live next to two dnvein restaurants going all day long? I really dont think so. Kathleen Erngren, 20414 Shadyside. Good evening, Commission and Chairman. You'll have to excuse me because I'm pretty emotionally charged about this project. I have a letter here but I didn't get it to you today, but if you could circulate it. Ifs just a quick reading if I have your permission. Mr. Walsh: If you prefer to read the letter to us ... Ms. Erngren: Its quick and to the point. Mr. Walsh: That would be fine. Ms. Erngern: Our home is situated across from the proposed Eight Mile Place development. We are greatly distressed and opposed to the development, especially the expanded plans that include the Taco Bell and the unspecified Restaurant D on the corner of Shadyside and Eight Mile Road. Our concerns are many, starting with the huge impact it will have in the decrease to our properly value, which has already been compromised with the closing of Tyler Elementary. The change from constructing a bank to the possibility of two fast food restaurants is enormous and disturbing. The dumpslers, animals it will attract, trash pick- up noise, deliveries, late hours of operation, smell, lighting, crime and substantial increase in traffic and danger to the children in the area are only a few of the issues that will affect August 14, 2007 24278 our standard of living in this neighborhood. In response to the proposed mule -tenant Retail C, this area already has too many vacant retail spaces within a one -mile radius. The need for additional retail space seems inappropriate to this area, which cannot f11 or support the existing businesses. Agreeably, this parcel of property has been an eyesore for the 30 years we have been residents. However, the proposed development seems poorly suited and not well thought out in respect to the residents, the current economy and the climate of the Eight Mile and Farmington Road area. In closing, please honestly consider for a moment if you would be excited about this development across from your home. Would the prospect of this view from your yard or living room be comforting to you? We are not opposed to new growth, revitalization or increased revenue in Livonia, but this plan is a disaster for the residents who have invested their money and kept a well-maintained neighborhood even in the midst of this poody maintained property. Thank you for your mindfulness and consideration in proceeding with the development. And my neighbor who is here and myself, live directly across from it. We have put up with the property the way that's it been, and although we would like improvement, this does not seem suitable. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn. I don't live close enough to this development to have a strong opinion either way, but I wanted to mention something that hasn't really been mentioned, the rein garden. I like to hear that rein gardens are finally going to be used for our stormwaler management, and this is the first one I've come across that's in a commercial use. I've seen them as residential or on public property. This would be the first one. I'll certainly be looking into the details and how this will be created and how it will be maintained in the long term. While I'm a supporter of rain gardens, I think it's also important that the surrounding neighbors who have issues with the actual development know its purpose and what it might look like and how it serves our watershed needs as something that we need to do for our environment. I just wanted to bring that up. So that's a positive aspect aboutthe project. Good luck. Thankyou. Kevin Crowell, 20336 Shadyside. I live just across the street from where the project is going in. I'm quite concerned about the invasion of lighting as well as how they will bene the property on Shadyside. I'm really against any kind of access off of Shadyside onto the project. I dont want to see it in the future. I don't want to see any mistakes and a driveway going in. Pine trees would be fine but I think a wall would be better. a brick August 14, 2007 24279 wall, 6 to 8 feet tall, running the length of the street. No sidewalks please. We don't have any sidewalks on our street now. There's no streetlights on our street. It's very rural at night, quiet, dark. I'd like to keep itthatway. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Is there anyone else wishing to step forward and comment on this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. Mr. Tiseo, if we can ask a couple questions. I do have one. Can you describe the landscaping you proposed along Shadyside? Mr. Tiseo: Do we have that, Mark? Mr. Taormina: You're looking for... Mr. Tiseo: The landscaping along Shadyside. Do you have the latest landscape plan, please? Mr. Taormina: You'll have to give me a minute to see if I can find it. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions while Mr. Taormina looks for the landscape plan? Mr. Tiseo: As a result of the meeting that we had last time, we talked to our landscape architect and told him the concerns about wanting to have some kind of a buffer there, eliminate tie sidewalk and provide some landscape material there. Our primary look was to keep it somewhat low. Theyre smaller shrubs. There are no trees or higher evergreens there. That will be changed. The reason they didn't want to do that was because of the snow pushes and so forth along there that's going to happen at that side. We could probably accommodate that along the back area where the parking is because they can push the snow south. That's part of the reason why we kept the landscaping lay. It would also help any kind of paper that might blow across that would stop at that landscape area. But again, like I said earlier, we're more than happy to sit down and discuss this with the neighbors and come up with a landscaping plan. I don't believe this is the latest one, Mark. The one we had had landscaping all along Shadyside Road. Mr. Taormina: Yes, I apologize. I don't have the latest plan as part of the slide show. I'm not sure that I ever received a copy of it in digital form. We may have a hard copy of it. The area that I think Mr. Tiseo is describing in terms of what changed between this plan and possibly the one that you have in your possession is a number of plants were added to this area here. The edge of the parking lot associated with Restaurant D is about 4 feet from the August 14, 2007 24280 property line or the right-of-way line. They are going to utilize that four feet for planting some shrubs and perennial flowers, and then they're going to use another four feet within the right- of-way as part of that planting strip. What's being discussed now is including additional trees within the actual right-of-way of Shadyside Road. Whether or not those will be evergreens trees or a combination of evergreen and deciduous, we don't know but it is anticipated that as part of any resolution that would approve this plan, we're going to have to add trees along this area. Mr. Tiseo: This is a bene here. The way to address this, in my opinion, to provide some denser evergreens say from some point here going up to here where you have this parking area. And remember, this is the back parking. Quite honestly, I don't see very many people parking back there. I really dont. I mean this is where the activity is going to be, in the front of building, here on the side. lbu won't find very many parking spots back here being utilized. I'd be more than happy to add some landscaping here, more dense, some evergreens, as long as we keep it off the back, the side. I know that in talking to the landscape architect, he wanted to keep it back about two feel because of the salt and snow push and everything. Otherwise, they're going to die. But again, we're willing to sit down and work out some plan that would be mutually agreeable to all of us. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions or comments for Mr. Tiseo? Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, the subject of lighting come up in several instances, and I was a little confused because normally when we discuss lighting on sites, they're down lit so the light does not protrude into the surrounding neighbors. And I wasn't sure exactly what you meant. Do you see light leaving your site and perhaps protruding onto the neighbors? Mr. Tiseo: No. Its the standard down lights. The box lights. They're shielded. The light would go down. Mr. Morrow: And they're shielded. Mr. Tiseo: They're shielded. So I don't know ... Mr. Morrow: I wasn't sure when you were talking about going across Shadyside. Mr. Tiseo: No. What I was saying is that I don't see any light that would go onto Shadyside because of the fact that they're 20 fool high, August 14, 2007 24281 they're shielded. Remember, Shadyside itself is a 60 -foot right- otway. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to clear that up because I wasn't certain that we were retaining the light within your site. Mr. Tiseo: Yes, we are. Mr. Morrow: You are indicating that you are. Mr. Tiseo: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any other questions or comments? Mrs. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: Mine would be about the hours of operation. Are there other 24- hour Walgreens in Livonia? Mr. Tiseo: I'm not sure about that if there are or not. As a matter of fact, I was talking to some of the Councilmembers and the first thing they said about it was I hope they're 24 hours. Mr. Walsh: I do know that Six Mile and Farmington was approved with 24 - hours. They operated for some short period of time and then decided of their own volition, and not by action of the City, to go to shorter hours. Ms. Smiley: There would be a pharmacist on board? Mr. Tiseo: Yes, there is a pharmacist there. Ms. Smiley: There's a pharmacy there, but would there be a pharmacist to f11 prescriptions 24 -hours a day? Mr. Tiseo: I don't know. I'm not here to discuss Walgreens. That was approved at the last site plan approval process. Mr. Walsh: And Mr. Tiseo makes a good point. We have to remember the petition before us is on Taco Bell. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Walsh: The questions are relevant, and it's a good point. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Then talk to me about Taco Bell. Four o'clock in the morning. Does that seem late to you? August 14, 2007 24282 Mr. Tiseo Maybe when I was much younger, that would probably seem earlier to me. But now, that does seem late to me. Again, its the market. It's Eight Mile Road. It's a heavily traveled road. A lot of transifion going east and west. It's market share. Where it's located, I certainly don't have a problem with it. Even if I was a neighbor, I wouldn't have a problem with R. Ms. Smiley: Its the Restaurant B, right? Mr. Tiseo: That is correct. Ms. Smiley: But it looks like Restaurant D also is going to have 24 hours and that looks dnve-thru also. Mr. Tiseo: That's a dnve-thru. That's correct. Mr. Walsh: And that item, Mrs. Smiley, is the next item. Ms. Smiley: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Tiseo. Mr. Walsh: Are there any otherquestons? Mr. LaPine: Yes, what I don't understand is that its the same operation moved from Seven Mile to Eight Mile. The one on Seven Mile, when there was discussion, there was a lot of discussion about the hours. They finally agreed to a 2:00 a.m. closing time. They wanted it 4:00 a.m. and the Council knocked them down to 2:00 a.m. I don't see any reason, just because they moved a mile down the road, that they've got to be open two more hours. It just doesn't make sense to me. Mr. Tiseo: What makes sense on it is ... Mr. LaPine: You're saying Eight Mile is that much traveled. I travel Eight Mile Road 12:00 at night, 1:00 at night, sometimes come home, and I don't see that much traffic on Eight Mile Road. There's probably more traffic there in the morning, you know, going to work and noontime, which I can understand Taco Bell ... they even said that at the one on Seven Mile. Their biggest amount of business is at noontime. Mr. Tiseo: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: So after midnight or after 2:00 a.m. when the bars close, I just can't believe there's that much business going into that restaurant. August 14, 2007 24283 Mr. Tiseo: To address the question, when they were on Seven Mile Road, they did want the 4:00 a.m. They agreed to 2:00 a.m. as a concession to get that approval because it was rather lengthy. I think it went on for several years. That was a very difficult site to work with, so they felt that they were willing to give that up on that difficult site. At this location, none of us see the difficulty with the 4:00 a.m. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine, are you through? Mr. LaPine: Yes, but I don't agree. Mr. Morrow: I wonder if I might make a comment as one commissioner. I was steadfastly against the one at Seven Mile and Farmington. Also, we reviewed the plans for a Del Taco at Newburgh and Six Mile, which they never went forward with the waiver request. My concern on each of those petitions and the Taco Bell several limes was the proximity to the neighborhood dictated the hours as well as the waiver. And I don't see that same concern here on this Taco Bell. Its an entirely different site as to how it's going to impact the neighborhood. I don't see a great deal of business, the difference between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. They'll probably have some business, but I don't see a big difference. So as one commissioner, based on the site, location, I don't have a problem with the hours. I dont have a problem with the actual operation. I do have some concerns about the drive that we discussed earlier in conjunction with Walgreens. Mr. Tiseo: And like I said, we can address that with the signs and caution. Mr. Morrow: We fought the other ones but the location within the site and the way you buffered it with the rain garden and working with the residents on no exit onto Shadyside and the installing of the evergreens to try to again mitigate the impact on the neighborhood. That's where I'm coming from. Mr. Chairman, I hope I wasn't out of line. Mr. Walsh: That's okay. Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: Yes. The only reason I'm opposed to being open that late, unfortunately in this day and age, there's a lot of robberies. The longer you have a restaurant open, eventually, eventually, somebody is going to gel robbed because it's opened that late. I just can't see it being that close to a residential area, you never know what's going to happen. I just can't see why a restaurant August 14, 2007 24284 has to be open 24 hours a day. My personal opinion, I feel very strongly about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? We've gone into some commentary but we don't have a resolution on the table yet. Are there any additional questions before we move to a motion? Thank you, Mr. Tiseo. Al this point then, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-04-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-07-02-28 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant with a drive -up window facility (Taco Bell) at 33193 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest % of Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-07-02- 28 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. Plb dated August 8, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ouUines the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share parking, be supplied to the City; 3. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2 both dated August 8, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that additional plant materials to screen the site shall be provided along the Shadyside Road right - of way subject to approval by the Planning Department and the Engineering Division; 4. In regards to Restaurant "B" only, the Exterior Building Elevations Plan labeled"Restauranl'B' and 'D' Elevations" dated July 24, 2007 prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") brick; August 14, 2007 24285 6. 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; 7. That the walls of the dumpster enclosure 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 the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed 63 seats; 9. That the traffic lane serving the drive -up service facility shall be at least twelve (12) feel in width, unless this requirement is modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 10. That all conditions imposed under the Council Resolution #321-07 approving Petition 2007-04-08-08, granting site plan approval for the Eight Mile Place Development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this approval; 11. That the proposed signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council; 12. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 13. That the issues specified in the correspondence dated July 26, 2007 from the Inspection Department shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction; 14. That a sidewalk along Shadyside Road may be omitted only if waived by the City Council; 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; August 14, 2007 24286 16. That the landbanking of parking, if this option is utilized by the petitioner, shall be arranged and designed so that the subject parking spaces can be installed at a later date if the need arises; 17. That the existing drive approach to Shadyside Road shall be removed during the initial phase of construction and no construction traffic or direct vehicular access to Shadyside Road shall be permitted; and 18. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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: I'd like, if the maker of the motion would agree, to add to a condition that the hours of operation will be Sunday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and supporter? Mr. Morrow: Thursday, Friday, Saturday... Mr. LaPine: The whole week, the whole seven days. Mr. Morrow: My motion would contain the hours as I had outlined in my resolution ... as the correspondence stated. That's the email. August 14, 2007 24287 Mr. LaPine: You say until 4:00 a.m., and I'm saying change it from 4:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Mr. Morrow: No, I understand that, but I wanted to stay with the original 4:00 a.m. Mr. Walsh: So Mr. LaPine, you're free to offer an amending resolution if there is support for that. Mr. LaPine: All right. Mr. Walsh: So we have a motion to amend the resolution to require it to be closed at 2:00 a.m. Is there support? On a motion by LaPine, seconded by McDermott, it was RESOLVED, to amend the resolution to limit the hours of operation as follows: 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion on the resolution to amend the primary resolution? Seeing none, would the Secretary please call the rolh Ms. Smiley: On the amended one? Mr. Walsh: This is to amend the resolution for2:00 a.m. closure. A roll call vote on the amended resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McDermott NAYES: Morrow, Wilshaw, Vartoogian, Smiley, Walsh ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh: The motion fails. So the original motion then stands as made by Mr. Morrow. Is there any further discussion? Mr. LaPine: I'll vole for the original motion because I think it's more important that we clean up that eyesore that's been there for many, many years. I'm not happy with it, but I think in the long run it might be for the best. I'll probably support the motion. Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: I just wanted to make a comment since this is an appropriate time to do that. Just a few observations about the plan overall. August 14, 2007 24288 I appreciate Mr. Craig's comments about the rain garden. This is a very unique element that we've talked trout during the original approval process that you went through, and it is worth mentioning again that this is a unique way of dealing with water drainage issues and I hope it's very successful and can be used as a model for future developments. The building design is another element that we didn't talk much about, in particular the Taco Bell, but I do really appreciate the fad that Mr. Tiseo is able to gel Taco Bell to make the building look like the other buildings that are in this development so that they are unified and that you're not going to see a Taco Bell like the one at say Plymouth Road and Merriman, which has a lot of bright color elements and whatnot. I think that Mr. Tiseo's assistant architect was integral in designing the look of these buildings, has a done a nice job and I do appreciate that. This city has dealt with the Taco Bell at Seven Mile and Farmington for a number of years and as they've gone through the process, this Commission and I think all the way up through the Mayor's office has said to Taco Bell that they are not in an appropriate location for what they're trying to do and try to find another location. I think Taco Bell has done that. This is a large development. It's a redevelopment of a corner that's not the most attractive right now, and I think Taco Bell has done the right thing by trying to find an already exisfing commercial location they can fit into. The only concern that I have with this development, as I mentioned in the past and I will stress again, is the traffic flow between the drugstore and Restaurant B. I honesty think that would be a lot smoother and a lot less potential for traffic conflicts and accidents if that was made a one-way street and that those parking spots were angled as such along the western side of the restaurant. I would urge Mr. Tiseo, as he continues on to the City Council, to consider that proposal and maybe incorporate that into his design at the Council. Thank you. Ms. McDermott: I think that Mr. Wilshaw and I think alike on some of these issues. I wanted to mention also that I appreciate the redevelopment of this area. I support that. And I also support Taco Bell staying within the city and finding a new location. I would have liked to have the hours shorted a little bit. One of the reasons in the past that I didn't support the previous site and also the Del Taco was because that required a rezoning. This does not require a rezoning, so I think that the Taco Bell is placed there well. The other thing, I do have big concerns, as I mentioned earlier, about the traffic and the flow, and so if there is anything that still can be considered with that, I would really appreciate that. I just look at that as kind of an accident waiting to happen and not maybe once but multiple limes. Thank you. August 14, 2007 24289 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Tiseo has requested a seven day waiver. He has conferred with the President of the Council who has agreed to this. A motion would be order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #08-05-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2007-07-02-28 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant with a drive -up window facility (Taco Bell) at 33193 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest'''/ of Section 3. 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#9 PETITION 2007-07-0229 TISEOARCHITECTS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced tie next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 07-02-29 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant with a drive -up window facility at 33101 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3. 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 three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 23, 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. No additional right -0f - way is required. The legal description for the combined parcel is correct. Detention facilities have been shown. The drive August 14, 2007 24290 approaches require the approval of Wayne County. An address of 33193 Eight Mile Road has been assigned for the Taco Bell. An address of 33101 Eight Mile Road has been assigned for the Restaurant D." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 19, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to build a restaurant with a drive -up window facility on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 26, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 17, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The drive thru window lane sizes cannot be determined to be in compliance. If it is determined to not meet minimum requirements, this deficiency may be waived by separate resolution with a super majority vote of Council. (2) Although a comprehensive plan review cannot be done at this time, it appears that the proposed exits do not meet minimum egress requirements and that a second remote exit would need to be installed in the customer area. Should this be approved, it will be fully addressed at this Department's plan review. (3) This building would be allowed one wall sign in the front elevation of 35 square feet Any other wall signage would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, Mr. Tiseo? Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 did actually want to offer one thing and that is, tomorrow morning in my office we have a progress meeting at 9:30 with myself, the landscape architect and several engineers. I welcome anyone to give me their comments regarding the landscape on Shadyside so that we can incorporate that in our next submittal to the City. I make that offer to the neighbors if they want to gel a hold of me. I'd be more than happy to do that. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Very good. Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Mr. Tiseo: No. I think everything has been covered August 14, 2007 24291 Mr. Walsh: Are there any questons from the Commissioners? I have one. I agree with Mr. Morrow's comments on Restaurant D in terms of its distance and location for the 4:00 a.m., but personally I am struggling, as one commissioner, with a 24-hour drive-thru operation. Restaurant D is much closer to homes than Restaurant B. You can't disclose to us, I understand that, whoever this new tenant is, but it heightens for me some degree of nervousness in the fact that they want a 24-hour drive-thru. Mr. Tiseo: I guess I can understand that. I didn't see that as a major issue to begin with simply because literally across the street what we have is industrial zoned property and the cars would be well within that industrial zoned property. Mr. Walsh: 24 hours is a long time for a drive-thru though. Sound carries. Mr. Tiseo: I'm not the operator. As the landlord, I'm going to lease the dirt and the building. Mr. Morrow: By the time you gel to the Council level, do you think you'll be able to reveal who the tenant is? Mr. Tiseo: No. Well, wailjusl a minute. Yes, for final approval. They have a corporate approval meeting on the 23`° or 24" and once that's been approved, then we can go public on it. Mr. Morrow: Well, I guess I agree with the Chairman and probably other people not knowing who is going to be going in there. It creates a certain amount of apprehension. Perhaps if we knew the tenant, maybe decisions could be made. It sounds like the Council will have the benefit if everything goes according to schedule to know who the tenant is and gel an idea of who is going in there. Mr. Tiseo: I wish I could disclose it, bullhey specifically said I could not. Mr. Morrow: It's academic to me. It doesn't make any difference except the fad that you don't know what's going in there. Ms. McDermott: Actually, I think this is a question for Mr. Nowak. When you were reading that last correspondence, you mentioned something about a second access possibility. Could you go over that? It was at the end of the correspondence just because I know we want to make sure that the access is just onto Eight Mile Road. Mr. Tiseo: It had to do with the building. August 14, 2007 24292 Mrs. McDermott: The building. Okay. I'm sorry. That's what I wanted to clear up in my mind. Okay. Mr. Nowak: That would be reviewed when the plan examiners from the Inspection Department review it for building permits. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. I just wanted to make sure because we're trying to make sure there's no exit there on Shadyside. Mr. Tiseo: I don't know where that came from, but nobody can put an access onto Shadyside without someone's approval, unless you do it illegally. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. Mr. Tiseo: And a certain somebody would point that out if that happened. Mrs. McDermott: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions before we go to the audience? Thank you, Mr. Tiseo. Ladies and gentlemen, you have the opportunity again to address this item specifically if anyone would like to come forward. Jennifer Ingle, 20418 Shadyside. I live directly across the street from where this development is going. My house is the very first house when you come in on Shadyside. I have two small children. They're three and four. Their bedroom window is in direct line of where the drive-thm is going to be and that terribly disturbs me. Please take into consideration of not having a 24-hour drive- thm, please. Also, you've got to put up trees. It's going to be crucial for our area. Its going to affect a lot of residences and my children. If you can, put up a tall wall. There is a wall to the back of the properly, and I'm not opposed to a very tall wall or very tall trees, but this is just devastating. We're very, very upset and that's all I have to say. Please lake this into consideration. Kevin Crowell, 20336 Shadyside. As I said in the last petition about putting a wall up, something that would be brick, ornamental along Shadyside to block headlight traffic and noise of traffic going through the 24-hour windows or whatever hours they propose for their stores. I'm all in favor of a wall, probably 8 feet tall, and trees to help cul down on the noise. I think I read there was only a three or four fool green area to be put in. That sounds to me as if the developer would be obligated to three or four feet of trees or bushes, which is not a lot. Here again, not to have access onto Shadyside. Thank you. August 14, 2007 24293 Ms. Smiley: You're suggesting a wall along the back ordown Shadyside? Mr. Crowell: Down Shadyside. The back where they put in all the min garden might be beautiful for them and their development. Us, where we live, we'll never see it. We dont really want to see it. It will only be seen by people who patronize and work for those stores. We want to be shut off from this complex entirely. We don't want to see it. We doril want to hear d. We don't want to have anything to do with R. Ms. Smiley: So you're talking about a wall down the back and then up ... Mr. Crowell: There is a wall currently along the back side of the properly, south of the property line. There is currently nothing up along Shadyside and the property line heading north. Do you want me to show you? Mr. Walsh: Mark can show us. Mr. Crowell: Right there. As you can see, if the traffic is coming in and turning, the headlights will be shining into my property, Kathleen's and Jennifers. Our three houses are right there in a row with the traffic, the headlights coming in on our property especially at night at all hours with what they're proposing. Trees and stuff would be nice. A wall would be permanent. We wouldn't have people cutting through the trees coming onto our street. If they're going to be up at 4:00 in the morning, we're going to be dealing with people who are drunk. They'll probably be utilizing the back area, the park area for get-togethers and stuff like that. This is something I would have done when I was a kid. So I wouldn't expect anyone to be any different now. But if we can isolate that area and keep it out of our residential area, I'd appreciate it. Kathleen Emgren, 20414 Shadyside. I just want to say that I appreciate those who are sensitive to the proximity of the neighbors. I'm disappointed from the last petition to say the least, and I hope that you will consider it is a neighborhood, and this is really going to affect our standard of living, plus the small children in the area that ride their bikes with the increase in traffic. And if I may question, how do you pass a petition when the restaurant in question is not identified and it may be 24 hours? How do you base your decision if you don't know what the restaurant actually is? Mr. Walsh: I'll answer it in two ways. There is no requirement that we need to know who the restaurant is as long as they are legally Mr. Taormina: Can I describe that? Actually, if you look at this plan carefully, you can see the property line. If this is extended directly east, it matches the property line across the street on Shadyside, which is also the zoning line and separates the manufacturing property to the north and the residential property to the south. So imagine this line continuing straight east and the next parcel to the south is, I believe, her property, and the parcel to the north would be industrial zoned property. Unidentified audience member: Wrong, wrong, wrong Mr. Walsh: Their line is wrong? Unidentified audience member: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Do you have a different map by chance? August 14, 2007 24294 operating and meet ... it wouldn't be a topless club or anything that would violate our ordinances. Ms. Erngren: Right. I understand that. Mr. Walsh: But here's my second answer. We each have to address that issue. I have discomfort with it. Ms. Erngren: I have discomfort too. Mr. Walsh: But each of us has to address that when we vole. Ms. Erngren: Well, I'm opposed to this one also, and I stand behind my neighbors and what they have spoken about. I just wanted to reiterate that I'm very concerned about the neighborhood and the effect it's going to have on us. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Anyone else? Seeing no one coming forward then, I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Tiseo, any final comments? Mr. Tiseo: Again, as I said before, I'd be more than willing to put some evergreens along with some dense plant material to block lights or anything else that might go on the property. I don't think a wall would be appropriate at all. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: You heard the lady talking about that the drive-thm is directly across from her home. I'm looking at the map and it looks like it's manufacturing zoned up until a little bit past the rain garden. Does that match? Mr. Taormina: Can I describe that? Actually, if you look at this plan carefully, you can see the property line. If this is extended directly east, it matches the property line across the street on Shadyside, which is also the zoning line and separates the manufacturing property to the north and the residential property to the south. So imagine this line continuing straight east and the next parcel to the south is, I believe, her property, and the parcel to the north would be industrial zoned property. Unidentified audience member: Wrong, wrong, wrong Mr. Walsh: Their line is wrong? Unidentified audience member: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Do you have a different map by chance? August 14, 2007 24295 Mr. Taormina: Actually, that line is correct. Let me show you the aerial photograph. Mr. Wilshaw: You can see on the aerial. Mr. Tiseo: Right. See right here? Mr. Taormina: This line right here, that's the property line, and you can actually see just the corner of the industrial building. You can see what I believe is her driveway going to her house right here. Again, it's this line right here. I can't really show it on this plan but her house would be somewhere over here. Mr. Tiseo: So our drive-thm is 40 some feet, this line to the actual part. Mr. Taormina: I will point out, though, that the gentleman's comments relative to cars and lights coming down this drive aisle would actually be pointed toward the residential property, so that would be an issue that needs to be addressed relative to screening. As we talk about what we need to do to screen this area, at a minimum those trees are going to have to come up to this area in order to block any light spillage and to mitigate the impacts of not only the dine-thru but also this drive aisle here. Mr. Morrow: Would there be any opportunity, as far as your parking requirement, that could be bermed a little bit higher? Mr. Tiseo: Probably we world have to go into the right-of-way. Mr. Morrow: You have a surplus of the parking, you know, dedicate a couple parking spots to a berm. Mr. Tiseo: We could look at that. Mr. Taormina: One of the options we could look at would be to landbank these parking spaces here if there's a willingness on the part of the petitioner and the respective businesses. He's indicated that there isn't much need for these parking spaces from a practical standpoint. If there is an opportunity to landbank this whole aisle, from this point here, west from Retail C all the way to Shadyside, that might be an option that we could look at. As a result, you could probably change these light fixtures to two lamps as opposed to four. That's something to consider as a potential option, as a revision to the site plan, which is to not build these parking spaces as part of the initial development if they're not needed. August 14, 2007 24296 Mr. Morrow: Or at least berm it. Mr. Tiseo: I would be willing to look at that. I just want to make sure that we have sufficient parking. We have 11 to give. Is that right, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes. You have a surplus of 10, but what the ordinance would allow you to do is not build even more spaces. In the event that you need them, you can come back and construct them, but as long as the site plan shows that you have that ability to comply with the ordinance and build them in the future, we have a provision that allows for that Iandbantang, and that can be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Tiseo: We could look at that, but I do know that this user here wants the full 23 spaces. Again, I think the solution is to go in here, go into the nghl-0f-way prior to getting the waiver from City Council and do our landscaping in that area. We can put some dense evergreens, whatever we need to put in there to keep the lights out. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for Mr. Tiseo? Mr. Wilshaw: Did I hear you say that the nghl-of-way area alongside the western side of Shadyside is already bermed or are you planning on berming that or did you not say that? Mr. Tiseo: No, I said we could berth it if they allow us to go in the right-of-- way. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So I see on your landscape plan currently you have a significant number of small plants slated to be placed basically along the entire eastern edge of that property along that four fool strip that's on your properly, the highest of which, its hard to tell based on the plant schedule, but it appears to be aboul24 inches in height, which is about 2 feet. Mr. Tiseo: We can easily change that and make them higher and denser. Mr. Wilshaw: I think that's really what the residents are looking for, is to have a little bit higher natural screening wall to avoid the cars that are going around the drive-thru and restaurant because at some point they'll point their headlights at the residents' houses so that you can filter that and perhaps if you can do something in the right-of-way that would be even better. Mr. Tiseo: I'll make it happen tomorrow. August 14, 2007 24297 Mr. Walsh: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Tiseo. Mr. Walsh: Al this point, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by La Pine, and adopted, it was #08-06-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the Gly Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-07-02-29 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant with a drive -up window facility at 33101 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest ''/ of Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-07-02- 29 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. Pib dated August 8, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and outlines the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share parking, be supplied to the City; 3. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2 both dated August 8, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that additional plant materials to screen the site shall be provided along the Shadyside Road right- of-way subject to approval by the Planning Department and the Engineering Division; 4. In regards to Restaurant "D" only, the Exterior Building Elevations Plan labeled "Restauranl'B' and 'D' Elevations' dated July 24, 2007, prepared by Tiseo Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") brick; 6. 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; August 14, 2007 24298 7. That the walls of the dumpster enclosure 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 the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed 36 seats; 9. That the traffic lane serving the drive -up service facility shall be at least twelve (12) feel in width, unless this requirement is modified by the City Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; 10. That all conditions imposed under the Council Resolution #321-07 approving Petition 2007-04-08-08, granting site plan approval for the Eight Mile Place Development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this approval; 11. That the proposed signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council; 12. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 13. That the issues specified in the correspondence dated July 26, 2007 from the Inspection Department shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction; 14. That a sidewalk along Shadyside Road may be omitted only if waived by the City Council; 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; 16. That the landbanking of parking, if this option is utilized by the petitioner, shall be arranged and designed so that the subject parking spaces can be installed at a later dale if the need arises; August 14, 2007 24299 17. That the existing drive approach to Shadyside Road shall be removed during the initial phase of construction and no construction traffic or direct vehicular access to Shadyside Road shall be permitted; 18. That the hours of operation of Restaurant D shall be restricted to no later than 2:00 a.m., and 19. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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. Wilshaw: I think ifs appropriate to say on this particular item that additional landscape changes will be worked on by the developer and made in accordance with the Planning Department. I think the Planning Department certainly knows what we're looking for there. And I will add one additional condition, that the hours of operation of Restaurant D be restricted to no later than 2:00 a.m. Mr. Taormina: There was a change to condition #3 to require the additional landscape material specifically along Shadyside with the approval of the Planning Department. If we could add the Department of Public Services Engineering Division because that involves work in the right-0iway. That would be request number one. Number two would be that the existing drive August 14, 2007 24300 approach to Shadyside Road shall be removed during the initial phase of construction and no construction traffic or direct vehicular access to Shadyside Road shall be permitted. There is an old drive approach from Shadyside to the site. We don't want to use any part of that for construction purposes, so we will fashion language that will prevent that from taking place. And one other change and that is to allow the petitioner, if he desires, to landbank those parking spaces along the south side of the property. We'll leave that up to him. If that's something that he determines in the future that it's something his client can live with, then we can allow him to landbank a certain number of parking spaces back there to provide additional landscaping. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Wilshaw, is that acceptable? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Then the resolution stands as amended. Is there any further discussion? Mr.Wilshaw: Mr. Chair, I'll just comment that my additional item of the hour restriction is a result of concern for the proximity of this particular restaurant to the residential areas. I am willing to consider it either way, both 24 hours or with the time restriction, but I wanted to at least start with the time restriction and see how it goes. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Very good. Just to lel people know, a couple things. One, I really think this is a good development overall. I appreciate the fact that this parcel, which is separate from the rest, has come together so that we can do a single development at one time. I do appreciate your offer to invite people to your office tomorrow morning at 9:30. 1 hope you will extend your availability to those who cant make it. You'll have time between this meeting certainly and the Council meeting to confer with them on specifics. I still have trouble with the unknown idenfity of the enfity, coupled with the hours of operafion. There have been instances when I have voted on unknown activities, but not ones that I think will have an impact on a neighborhood that this one will. I do not wish you to take my vole as anything but concern on the hours of that window. I dont intend to support the resolution. There are still too many questions in my mind having to do with landscaping, the idenfity and hours that window will be open. August 14, 2007 24301 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, La Pine, Morrow, Varloogian NAYES: McDermott, Smiley, Walsh 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. Mr. Tiseo, did you ask for a seven day waiver on this item as well? Mr. Tiseo: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Did you speak to Mr. McCann about this? Mr. Tiseo: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Okay. That may be my mistake. Is someone willing to make a motion on the seven day waiver? On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #00417-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2007-07-02-29 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service restaurant with a drive -up window facility at 33101 Eight Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest'''/ of Section 3. 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 #10 PETITION 2007-06-06-03 TREE SPECIES LIST Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 06-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #247-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.45 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance to update the list of recommended tree species. August 14, 2007 24302 Mr. Taormina: As directed by the City Council, the proposed list of deciduous tree species as recommended by the Livonia Tree Committee has been incorporated into the table of suggested plant materials within Section 18.45(d)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. Currently, this table provides a guide in the selection of plant materials whenever planting is required to install or maintain a greenbelt in lieu of constructing a masonry screen wall. The proposed language would expand the list to include several other tree species. It would also eliminate a number of species that are no longer considered desirable. Al the same time, we're proposing that Table 1 serve as a guide in the selection of plant materials. As a general requirement for site plans, we're recommending that the language of Section 19.060) be modified so as to specify that the Approved Tree Species list as identified in Table 1 of Section 18.45(d)(1) be used as a reference in the selection of trees any time a site plan is required to be submitted pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. We've made a number of changes to the list since our study meeting. These were all changes that were requested by the Forestry Division. So while the list may not be fully complete, we feel it is an improved list. There may be a couple of other changes before this is finally adopted by the City Council, but we're working towards that end. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we have our resident tree expert and he's wailing in the front row. Is there anything you'd like to add? Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn: This has been a work in progress for the last three years. Its a small but very important step to take for this community. The Emerald Ash Borer certainly had a big impact on the surrounding area and certainly in the City of Livonia. This is an effort to diversify our species and give better guidance on how our city is developed in the future. It will have an overall effect of ensuring good tree coverage and good species diversity, not only for our right-of-way trees but at our future developments. And I can only say that I observed today that seven of these items that were brought before you were waiver use issues, and this will apply to them in the future. So @'s an important step to get this in our written language. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: And thank you for staying late. I appreciate that. Mr. Walsh: If there are no additional questions, a motion is in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it was August 14, 2007 24303 #08-08-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 14, 2007, on Petition 2007-06-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #247-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.45 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance to update the list of recommended tree species, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-06-06-03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment updates the list of suggested tree species consistent with current arbodculturel standards and the recommendations of the Tree Inventory Management Plan and the Livonia 'Tree City USA" Committee; 2. That the proposed language amendment will provide a useful guide in the selection of plant materials for landscaping as a required element of site plans and whenever planting is required to install or maintain a greenbelt in lieu of constructing a protective masonry screen wall; and 3. That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which among other things is to protect the health, safely and welfare of its citizens. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 947' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 947"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2007. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, ilwas August 14, 2007 24304 #08419-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 947" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Wilshaw, Morrow, Vartoogian, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: McDermott Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 394TM Special Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 394" Special Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2007. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #08-100-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 394" Special Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Varloogian, LaPine, McDermott, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 949" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 14, 2007, was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman