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