HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-07-10MINUTES OF THE 947° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 10, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 947" 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 R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley
Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh
Members absent: Deborah McDermott
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge
Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome oflhe proceedings tonight.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2007-05-01-03 AJAMCOINC.
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-05-
01-03, submitted by Ajamco Inc. requesting to rezone properly
at 16825 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of
Middlebell Road between Six Mile Road to the north and
Munger Avenue to the south in the Northeast % of Section 14
from P to C-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
July 10, 2007
24144
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence, Mr. Nowak?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated June 12, 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 and the legal description is correct.
No additional right-of-way is required. Detention facilities will be
required in accordance with Wayne County's storm water
management ordinance. The new drive approach to Middlebelt
Road will also require County approval The address for the two
northerly parcels is 16825 Middlebelt and the address for the
southerly parcel is 16815 Middlebett." 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?
Ms. Vartoogian:
Mr. Taormina, is this rezoning consistent with our Future Land
Use Map? I would imagine it is.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. It would be consistent with the Future Land Use Map. It
would complete the area with the commercial zoning by tying it
into the properly to the north and to the south.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
William J. GOodreau, Civil Design Services, P.O. Box 163, Fowlerville, Michigan
48836. I'm the civil engineer on the project. I'm here
representing Mr. Ali Ajami; he is the petitioner. Mr. Mike Saka,
from Dearborn Heights; he's the architect on the project. I won't
reiterate what has been said up to this point, but we've been
working with Mr. At Nowak and Mr. Scott Miller on developing
the conceptual site plan that you have copies of. Up to this
point right now, we are working very closely with the Tim
Horton's Restaurant representatives regarding developing a site
plan for the southern half. We have mel with Wayne County
relative to the approach and the storm water management
design, and we're moving forward. The rezoning is a critical
item in developing the site. So we feel with the adjacent
properties' zoning and uses right now, it is a reasonable
request.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
July 10, 2007
24145
Mr. LaPine:
Al this point, we're only looking at the Tim Horton's site. Is that
correct?
Mr. Goodreau:
Actually, we're working hand-in-hand with Tim Horton's right
now with developing that southern piece. Mr. Ajami is in contact
with a couple of lending institutions. That one is yet to gel into
the specific design.
Mr. LaPine:
So that is not, at this point, something that we can count on
we're going to gel. Hopefully, we're going to gel it, but there's a
possibility we wont gel a bank. Then we'll get something else
there. We don't know al this time if there will be a drive-thm. If
it's a bank, there's a drive thru. Do you anticipate it could be
another reslauranlwilh a drive-lhm?
Mr. Goodreau:
I couldn't say one way or another, but there have been serious
conversations with two lending institutions.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. That's good. The next question I have, down in the far
comer, you have a little square area with one parking spot. Can
that be eliminated and maybe increase the landscaping in that
area? Do they have enough parking, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
They are fully compliant at this time with their parking. They
have more parking than is needed for the bank and right at the
required number for the restaurant use.
Mr. Goodreau:
That parking space was provided for overflow for the drive-lhru
for the restaurant.
Mr. LaPine:
Overflow for the drive-thru for the restaurant? Otherwise, if
somebody comes out there and their order is wrong, they can
pull in there and go in.
Mr. Goodreau:
Exactly.
Mr. LaPine:
It just seems strange to be there. I'd like to see it all landscaped
but that makes sense. Okay. The other question I have is
about the dumpster. You are going to have steel doors on the
dumpster, correct?
Mr. Goodreau:
Whatever you folks would like, sure. We'll have a brick
enclosure that will match the brick for the buildings.
Mr. LaPine:
Just one more question. Is this Tim Horton's basically going to
be the same design as other Tim Horton's in Metropolitan
Detroit or is it a different design?
July 10, 2007
24146
Mr. Goodreau:
Actually, right at the end of last week we prepared this drawing
from some of their prototypical floor plans basically. We were
emailed from those folks last Friday more detailed drawings. So
we're working hand-in-hand with those folks. So the building
footprint may not be exactly as shown on this conceptual plan.
Mr. LaPine:
Is Tim Horton's a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Goodreau:
That's a good question. I don't know.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions? Thank you, sir. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? If so, would you please step forward? Good evening.
Rev. Stephen Sheridan, Bethel Baptist of Livonia, 29475 Six Mile Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. I represent the Bethel Baptist Temple. Part of
our land connects to the parking lot in the description that
theyve discussed. First of all, lel me say that we're very glad
they're going to develop this land because we've been watching
10 years it erode and turn into a very bad eyesore. We have a
few concerns and the concerns about our parking lot and the
parking lot that it touches right now. First of all, we're kind of
concerned about the lack of upkeep that we've seen over the
Iasi 10 years. We, in the last 18 months, invested $35,000 in
our outward appearance and landscape, and we feel we've kept
up our part of the social contract with the community, but the
developer or the owner of that property hasn't. Right now, it is
overgrown. It has weeds, poison ivy. Its being used as a
garbage dump. We've gone in there and cleaned out whiskey
bottles, condoms and used needles. We find various other
things, and this is not far from where our church and another
church allows its young people to play in a park right by it. What
we don't want, and what I haven't been able to tell right now, is
what the adjoining
property will look like. We don't want a
concrete wall.
Just this year, last year, we invested $4,000 in a
vinyl fence, and we ran it all the way down to the end of that
properly. Right now there are trees and some overgrown, but
right now we can't see Middlebell and we don't hear the traffic
from Middlebell. What we want to know is, what is that
adjoining property going to look like? That's our first priority.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, so I can explain the process on that point and then you can
continue. We break our reviews into two parts. The first is
zoning and whether it's compatible with zoning in the area. And
then the next item will be the actual site plan, at which time we
know what the building materials are, what they propose to do,
July 10, 2007
24147
landscaping. We have a general idea because they provided
that to us, but we'll have another public hearing on that
specifically to talk about walls and sight lines and such.
Rev. Sheridan:
We would like to go on the record that we do have some
reservations about what's being done until we can see
everything that's happening. The Grace Chnsfian Fellowship,
Pastor Mark Freer, was going to be with us also today. He has
some concerns about it. He wasn't able to be here because of
an emergency in his church, but they have some concerns
about drainage. Right now, the back of their properly is slowly
being eroded and their parking lot is being eroded because all
the water runs off. He has some serious concerns and
questions about this development if they will address the
drainage issues.
Mr. Walsh:
Just to explain, drainage will be handled by the City Council with
Engineering in attendance, and they comply with Wayne County
rules.
Rev. Sheridan:
Okay. Well, we'd like to go on record that we do have some
concerns about it, both churches, and we'd like to see the plans
before everything is approved, and we'd like to have some sort
of input about what we have to look at. We're a growing church.
We have about 400 members; most of them are Livonia
residents. We'd like to see the property developed. I have
pictures of what it looks like now, and I'm a little concerned that
the property right by @ is a strip mall, the back of it. That
property is allowed to deteriorate. There's weeds. There's a
jeep that for two months was on blocks with no wheels, nothing
inside it. That's been allowed to stand. Right now the property
is using - tracks are parking there. Will the same lack of
standards be applied to this property also?
Mr. Morrow:
As you indicated, we're talking strictly zoning, but I was
interested when you said you did not want a wall there. Our
ordinance requires a wall or perhaps some sort of screening in
lieu of the wall. What did you mean by you didn't want a wall?
Rev. Sheridan:
We don't want a concrete wall. There's one in the back part of
the other property that adjoins us. I have a few pictures of it
also. It just deteriorates. Our back parking is for the most part a
large part of our church because we park in the back and we
come into the church from the back. We've done some
considerable remodeling. And like I said, we invested $4,000 in
a nice vinyl fence. I've got a picture of the property and you can
see the difference of our side and the other side of the fence.
We don't want to lake our nice vinyl fence and have it butt up to
July 10, 2007
24148
a concrete wall. We're all for redoing that property and redoing
what's between it, but we have some concerns as a church that
the property next door has been allowed to deteriorate. Will this
property also go under those same substandards?
Mr. Morrow:
Well, the benefit here tonight is that engineering is hearing what
your concerns are. I'm not sure if the architect is here tonight or
not. If he's not, the main thing is to share your concerns. If you
can gel his card or something so you can at least lel him know
so when they come before us, anything they can do would be
appreciated.
Rev. Sheridan:
I understand this is a zoning issue.
Mr. Morrow:
We like it when the developer works with the neighbors.
Rev. Sheridan:
We would like to work with the developer loo.
Mr. Morrow:
I can't speak about the current condition. If its derelict property,
nothing on it is going to go down, but if he comes close to
putting on what he says he's going to do, if it Tums out to be a
bank and a Tim Horton's, those are two lop caliber lessees that
will probably keep their property up,
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, I want to make two requests of our staff if they will do me
this favor. If, Miss Watson, you can make certain that they are
notified when we have the site plan issue to attend that meeting
and, Mr. Taormina, if we can let the Inspection Department
know that there are some concerns with the adjacent property.
We could perhaps send an inspector out there to take a look at
that.
Rev. Sheridan:
We'd just like to go on the record that we do have some
reservations about the current property and how it's been left
and what it will look like in the future.
Mr. Morrow:
We share those concerns.
Rev. Sheridan:
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward,
I'm going to close the public hearing. Are there any additional
questions or comments? Seeing none, a motion is in order.
Mr. La Pine:
I'll make the approving resolution. A lot of us have lived in this
city as long as I have for 50 years. That parcel has always been
a restaurant. I remember when I first moved out there, Moy's
July 10, 2007
24149
was just a little hole in the wall, and over the years he expanded
and expanded. It turned out to be a beautiful Japanese
restaurant and this properly is zoned for a restaurant. For years
we thought we were going to gel a National Coney Island and
that never came to fruition. And so I think the C-2 zoning that
they requested is appropriate, so I'll make the following motion.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, itwas
#07-69-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-05-01-03 submitted by Ajamco Inc. requesting to
rezone properly at 16825 Middlebelt Road, located on the west
side of Middlebell Road between Six Mile Road to the north and
Munger Avenue to the south in the Northeast''/. of Section 14
from P to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-05-01-03 be
approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
existing zoning on other similarly situated properties in the
vicinity of the Middlebell Road and Six Mile Road
intersection;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoring and land uses in the
area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical
extension of existing C-2 zoning that occurs on adjacent
properties located both to the north and to the south of the
subject property; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will better provide for
the coordinated development and use of the subject
property in conjunction with the adjoining property to the
south.
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.
July 10, 2007
24150
ITEM#2 PETlTION2007-05-0247 QDOBAMEXICAN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
05-02-17, submitted by Agree Limited Partnership requesting
waiver use approval to operate a restaurant with a maximum
seating count of no more than 70 seats (Qdoba Mexican Grill) at
16971 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Mallory Drive and Six Mile Road in the Northeast
%of Section 18.
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 for our consideration?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 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
submitted for Parcel B, which applies to this petition is correct
as shown on sheet G3. No additional right-of-way is required.
The address for this parcel according to our records is 16971
Newburgh Road. This parcel will be served by the detention
facilities designed in conjunction with the Walgreens." The letter
is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 8,
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 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 June 18, 2007, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Qdoba
Mexican Grill, located at 17001 Newburgh 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 June
18, 2007, as revised, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of May 8, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Signage has not been
reviewed. (2) As this is a full service restaurant in a C-1 district
with a proposed 69 seats, a super majority of the Council must
approve this use by separate resolution. (3) This site,
Walgreens and Oberweis, utilize all available parking spaces.
In order to allow for any outdoor seating, a vanance from the
Zoning Ebard of Appeals would be required. One additional
July 10, 2007
24151
parking space is required for each 3 outdoor seats. Further this
site must be posted with the maximum available sealing of 69.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the
petitioner please step forward?
David Pmeler, Agree Limited Partnership, 31850 Northwestern Highway,
Mr. Morrow:
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add, or go straight to questions?
Mr. Pmeler:
Go streightto questions.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Are there any questions for Mr. Pmeler?
Mr. Morrow:
As it relates to the Mexican restaurant, do you know their hours
Mr. Morrow:
of operations?
Mr. Pmeler:
Hours of operations will be 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. weekdays,
Mr. Pmeler:
11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends.
Mr. Morrow:
11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the weekends?
Mr. Pmeler:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you know whether or not there is any sort of outdoor music
or speakers in the outdoor seating area?
Mr. Pmeter:
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm assuming they don't have it. The reason I ask that is
because of the proximity to the residential.
Mr. Pmeler:
I understand. Based on the letter of intent and the requirements
for the build -out of that space, I can tell you, from my review of
their criteria, that was not included. So I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. City Council might ask you that, but you can find that out.
If I understood correctly, you're saying that people, say they got
themselves an ice cream sundae and they wanted to eat it
outside, they could use that facility. Did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Prueler:
The intent is for both tenants to share the outdoor seating area
or utilize the fountain area if they so choose.
July 10, 2007
24152
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just curious about something. I understand the reason for
the C-1 and you can have a restaurant there, but you're going to
have 69 seals. Its almost double what you're allowed. I guess
my curiosity rises at the fact, is this whole parcel owned by
Walgreen or by Agree Realty?
Mr. Prueler:
Agree Limited Partnership owns both parcels.
Mr. LaPine:
Both parcels.
Mr. Prueler:
Right. The requirements for Walgreens is to have a separate
lax parcel, so we look the one entire parcel and split it into two.
Mr. LaPine:
Just so we don't run into any problems in the future, is there any
reason why you didn't try to get that parcel rezoned to C-2 for a
restaurant? Then they wouldn't have to go through all that
rigmarole with the Council for a two-thirds majority vole.
Because once we allow that, someone else can come in there
and operate a full service restaurant with the 69 seals. I'm just
curious why you didn't take the time to just rezone that parcel
for a restaurant, which normally you need a C-2 and a waiver
use for a restaurant basically.
Mr. Prueler:
We applied for C-2 and the recommendation by your body was
to down -zone to C-1.
Mr. LaPine:
That's because it was a drive-thru. There is no drive-thru. We
didn't want a drive-lhru restaurant there. That's a different
situation. But here you're not having a drive-thru. I would have
voted for it as long as it wasn't a drive-thru. The drive lhru is
what turned me off. I'm just curious. I mean I'm not going to
tum it down. It seems to me that I can see in the future we
might run into some problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow :
If I remember correctly on this, they originally applied for G2.
We asked them to step down from C-2 to G7 because it wasn't
required at that time for that use. Then I think when they came
through for the C-2 for the Del Taco restaurant, that never came
to fruition.
Mr. LaPine:
Originally a bank was going in there.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, which is in the C-1.
Mr. LaPine:
It fell into the C-1, right.
July 10, 2007
24153
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Pmeter, I have a couple questions about the Qdoba. Is
there any additional lighting that's going to be put on this site as
a result of this restaurant being there?
Mr. Pmeter:
No.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And I assume the dumpster, from what I can tell, will be
brick sided and metal screened and all that good stuff.
Mr. Pmeter:
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Excellent. Now signage. You have a conforming sign showing
on your site plan of 35 square feet. Are you going to have any
monument sign for this or the Oberwies?
Mr. Pmeter:
There are two existing monument signs. Walgreens is half of
each monument sign. The other half of that panel will be split
between the two tenants. Those monument signs are already
constructed.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So you're going to use the existing ones? Excellent.
And then the only other question I have or comment, you've
done a beautiful job of establishing that pedestrian plaza at the
corner. I've already seen many people using it. If you're
encouraging your patrons of either Qdoba or Oberwies to sit
there or even at the other outdoor seating area, can you please
provide some lmshcans so they don't throw their trash on the
ground?
Mr. Pmeter: Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw: I'd appreciate that. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian: Is there going to be lighting in the outdoor seating area?
Mr. Pmeter: Just what is required on the exterior wall for emergency lighting
or safety lighting. There are existing parking lot lights, which are
on the landscaping, but no specific lighting.
Ms. Varloogian: Okay. Thank you.
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.
Kelton Jones, 37568 Bloomfield, Livonia, Michigan. I don't know if I'm for or
against it. I just want to make some comments, I guess, and I'm
not sure if this is the place for it. I know he had mentioned that
July 10, 2007
24154
he was going to put in some additional landscaping there. I'm
actually kind of right behind it, like kitty comer behind it. Can I
show you the pictures I have, kind of a before and after?
Mr. Walsh:
Sure.
Mr. Jones:
This one was taken last year. That's kind of my backyard
looking at where the place is at, and this is currently what it
looks like. You can see how pretty much all the trees were
taken out. When I moved into my house three years ago, I
really couldn't see Newburgh Road. I couldn't see anything
there; the trees were there. Now, kind of take a look at what my
view is. I guess my concern is, what's going in there. Currently
there's no trees and they were there - you can see the shot of
building there. But the trees are near Newburgh and they're
small. It's going to be years before they block anything. I guess
my main concern is, what exactly is going in there landscape-
wise and how big will it be and exactly what it is. I would like it
to be where I can't really see it.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, could you bring up the view. f you could just
walk through, for Mr. Jones' benefit and our own, the
landscaping that abuts his properly, if any.
Mr. Taormina:
Could we have Mr. Prueter describe in greater detail the
landscaping?
Mr. Walsh:
Sure.
Mr. Pmeter:
If you can bear with me for just a second. The initial
landscaping that was installed as part of the original site plan
approval has been complete subject to some minor punch Ist
items. As part of the additional tenanting of that south retail
building area, we met with the adjacent homeowners and
subdivision representation. Based upon that, we came up with
this additional landscape plan. Anything that is clouded, is new
and above what was original approved at site plan approval.
The perimeter L consists of, I believe, it's 36 - the print is so
small I can't really read it - arborvitaes. Those are typically filo
8 feet in height. They will basically go around the comer of the
property. In the very corner of where the L meets, that's where
the resident's house is. To the south of the property is office, to
the west of the property is office, but right at the apex of the L is
the one resident's house. Then south of those arborvitaes ...
east of the arborvitaes along the south property line, there will
be a spruce tree installed. It's not shown on that plan, but we
wanted to provide an additional buffer between where the
arborvitaes end and where the new tree was installed. Then in
July 10, 2007
24155
addition, we buffered the rear of where the compactor area is, or
dumpster area, behind the retail store, and there's another six
arborvitaes along the back of that wall. And then we softened
up the outdoor seating area along the south wall of the retail
building by adding low flowering shrubs and a flowering tree. All
that will be additional landscaping that will be added as part of
this phase two.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that a canopy -type tree, or what kind of a tree is it, or is it a
tree?
Mr. Taormina:
That is a Honey Locust.
Mr. Pmeter:
I believe that was part of the original site plan approval. The
arborvitaes are new, then there are 12 lilacs going along the
southern wall. There are 5 boxwood and in the middle of the
lilacs is a dogwood tree.
Mr. Morrow:
So that's in addition?
Mr. Pmeler:
Yes, and in that outdoor seating area.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Jones, do you have anything else?
Mr. Jones:
That looks good. Just that one question there like to the right of
where the arborvitaes are going to be, where it says 14 foot
pine. Is that the parking lot?
Mr. Pmeler:
Yes.
Mr. Jones:
Okay. As you can see from the pictures, the first tree to the
right there, its not even in my view from the backyard. That
picture was taken on a deck, so really the first tree there to the
right is not visible. So I guess looking at that, I'll have one pine
and them some arborvitaes to the left. All right, I guess that's
my main concem. I just want to make sure something is going
in there, especially if we're talking about an outside eating area.
I mean you can see from the picture, that's right in my backyard.
My pool is back there where my kids swim. That's my main
concern on that. I don't want to see it. Another question is, as
far as lighting, the building that is behind me, which is zoned
office space, they have lights in their parking lot. I don't know if
they're dimmer or if they have an amber hue or what. They're
really not that noticeable at night. Since the new place has
gone in, their lights seem to be two, three times as bright. I
don't know if there's something we can do. It looks like
July 10, 2007
24156
Comenca Park over here and then an office building on the
right. I don't know if there's a difference between the kind of
light that went in or some kind of zoning.
Mr. Walsh:
I believe they meet our zoning requirements. Mr. Taormina, do
you have anything to add or observations?
Mr. Taormina:
Are you speaking about the new lights that were installed
adjacent to the wall that borders your property?
Mr. Jones:
Yes. Really, all the ones that were added back there because
there are other lights that are on this side.
Mr. Taormina:
There should be no glare onto your properly. If there is, then
that can be handled with some additional shields placed along
the backside of those fixtures, and I'm not sure if that's been
done yet.
Mr. Jones:
I don't know if it's really a glare problem. Like when I'm looking
at it, everything is lit up. I guess that's probably the way they
want it. They want their building lit up, but the office building
behind me is not nearly as harsh. If you come there at night,
you can see there's a huge difference between the two. I don't
know if there's something different with the office building.
Mr. Taormina:
That could very well be the case, a difference in wattage, but
any glare should be prevented through the use of shields. But
we can discuss that with the petitioner to see if there might be a
willingness to change out some of the lights.
Mr. Jones:
Okay. Somebody else asked the question about music in the
outdoor patio. I guess that would be a negafive for me and my
neighbors. We wouldn't want any music we can hear for sure.
Really one of the main reasons we're here is, I know he actually
met with us before and assured us all of this is going to happen.
I just want to make sure it is. But in the meantime, we've had
some problems with, I don't know if it's the construction crew or
who's in charge, but starling at 5:30 a.m. in the morning with
their heavy equipment and their beepers going off. I called the
police mulfiple limes. I don't know if there's fines there or what,
but the very next morning, they're out there again at 5:30 a.m.
running their equipment. I just want to make sure we have
some guarantees on the landscaping. That's it.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Jones, this is in our record, and we'll keep this in mind as
we move forward.
Mr. Jones:
Thank you.
July 10, 2007
24157
Mr. Walsh: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to
close the public hearing. Are there any additional comments or
questions? If not, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#07-70-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-05-02-17 submitted by Agree Limited Partnership
requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant with a
maximum sealing count of no more than 70 seats (Qdoba
Mexican Grill) at 16971 Newburgh Road, located on the west
side of Newburgh Road between Mallory Drive and Six Mile
Road in the Northeast % of Section 18, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2007-05-02-17 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Dimension and Paving Plan marked Sheet C-3
dated April 30, 2007, as revised, prepared by Professional
Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated April 30,
2007, as revised, prepared by Professional Engineering
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet SP -2.0
dated April 26, 2007, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That this space shall be posted with the maximum
available indoor sealing count of 69, as stipulated in the
correspondence dated June 18, 2007 from the Inspection
Department;
5. That any parking deficiency resulting from the provision of
outdoor seating, which shall be limited to 20 seals and
confined to the area designated for that purpose on the site
plan, shall require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
6. That the approval of this petition shall be subject to the
modification of the 30 seal limitation for a restaurant in a C-
1 district by the City Council by means of a separate
July 10, 2007
24158
resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City
Council concur;
7. 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;
8. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
9. That there shall be no outdoor speakers or sound
equipment in conjunction with the outdoor seating area;
10. That all conditions imposed under Council Resolution
#353-06, which granted approval for a commercial building
with a drive-thru pharmacy as well as a separate retail
building on the subject properties, shall remain in effect to
the extent that they are not in conflict with the conditions of
this approval; and
11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for building permits and for the
Certificate of Occupancy.
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?
July 10, 2007
24159
Mr. Morrow: To the maker and supporter of the motion, can we add that
there will be no outside sound equipment in conjunction with the
outdoor seating area?
Ms. Smiley: It is acceptable.
Mr. Walsh: Ms. Vartoogian?
Ms. Vartoogian: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: The motion then stands as amended. Are there any additional
questions or comments? Would the secretary please call the
roll?
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 #3 PETITION 2007-05-02-21 OBERWEIS ICE CREAM
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
05-02-21 submitted by Agree Limited Partnership requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant
(Oberweis Ice Cream and Dairy Store) at 16985 Newburgh
Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between
Mallory Drive and Six Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of Section
18.
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 additional correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: Because this is the same site as for the Qdoba restaurant, the
letters from the Engineering, Fire and Police Departments are
essentially the same. There are some additional comments in
the letter from the Inspection Department. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 13, 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 for Park B, which applies to the southerly portion of
the overall development, is cromect. No additional right-of-way is
required. The address for this development will be 16985
Newburgh Road. The address for the Qdoba Mexican Grill will
be 16971 Newburgh Road. The legal description for the waiver
July 10, 2007
24160
use area follows. This parcel will be served by the detention
facilities designed in conjunction with the Walgreens." The letter
is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 8,
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 west side of
Newburgh Road between Mallory Drive and Six Mile Road in
the Northeast X of Section 18. 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
June 14, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in connection with Oberweis Ice Dream. 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 June
18, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
June 5, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) An additional barrier free parking
space may be required. This department will further address
this at time of plan review should this project move forward. (2)
The current plan as presented does not meet the required
egress per the building code. An exit access shall not pass
through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or spaces used for
similar purposes. (Although Items #1 and #2 are not zoning
issues, it is a design issue that would not be addressed until our
plan review, which is much later in the process. We felt it
prudent to make the applicant aware of these issues as early as
possible.) (3) No signage has been reviewed. (4) As the
parking for this site is limited, this tenant space must be marked
and limited to 26 seats. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Building Inspector. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, Mr. Pmeler,
could you please step forward in case there are questions? Are
there any comments or questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a question about the Oberweis, sort of how the diary store
component works. I see coolers and freezers on the one side of
the store. Is the patron going to enter the store, go past the
seating area, and then go up to the cooler and grab a gallon of
milk and then go up to the counter? How does that work?
David Pmeter, Agree Limited Partnership, 31850 Northwestern Highway,
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. Yes, if they so desire.
July 10, 2007
24161
Mr. Wilshaw:
Do you have an idea of what percentage of sales they intend to
get for dairy store type functions versus people just going in to
get ice cream at this facility.?
Mr. Pmeter:
It's about 70 percent for the fountain items; 30 percent for the
packaged goods.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And because Oberweis is new in this area, explain to us
a little bit about them. I know they're obviously a premium dairy
company, but please enlighten us a little bit.
Mr. Pmeter:
They have about 40 plus locations in the Chicago area. That's
where they're from. They're coming to Michigan. Their first
stores will be Royal Oak, Novi and Troy. This store has been
submitted for approval, which would be their first in Wayne
County.
Mr. Wilshaw;
Excellent. And they're headquartered out ofwhere?
Mr. Pmeter:
I'm not sure of the specific town. Its a family-owned operation.
North Aurora, Illinois.
Ms. Smiley:
What would their hours of operation be? Similar to Qdoba?
Mr. Pmeter:
Yes, I have that. 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. during the summer
season; 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. the other three seasons.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Pmeter. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, I'll close the public hearing and motion is in
order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-71-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-05-02-21 submitted by Agree Limited Partnership
requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant (Oberweis Ice Cream and Dairy Store) at 16985
Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road
between Mallory Drive and Six Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of
Section 18, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2007-05-02-21 be approved for
the following reasons or subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Dimension and Paving Plan marked Sheet C-3
dated April 30, 2007 as revised, prepared by Professional
July 10, 2007
24162
Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated April 30,
2007, as revised, prepared by Professional Engineering
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet SP -2.0
dated April 26, 2007, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the following issues specified in the correspondence
dated June 18, 2007 from the Inspection Department shall
be resolved to that department's satisfaction:
As the parking for this site is limited, this tenant space
shall be marked and limited to 26 seats;
That this tenant space shall meet the required egress
per the building code;
That the matter of barrier free parking, and the possible
need for an additional space, shall be addressed at the
time of plan review by the Inspection Department;
5. That any parking deficiency resulting from the provision of
outdoor seating, which shall be limited to 20 seats and
confined to the area designated for that purpose on the site
plan, shall require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
6. 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;
7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8. That all conditions imposed under Council Resolution
#353-06, which granted approval for a commercial building
with a drive-thru pharmacy as well as a separate retail
building on the subject properties, shall remain in effect to
the extent that they are not in conflict with the conditions of
this approval; and
July 10, 2007
24163
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for building permits and for the
Certificate of Occupancy.
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 want to thank Agree for taking that corner of the city -owned
property and developing it into a beautiful park site. You've
done a beautiful job. It's an asset to that area. I'm hoping in the
future that other developers will look at that as a model to
spruce up some of our other corners. It really looks nice and I
appreciate what you've done there.
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 2007-05-0248 TARGET
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
05-02-18, submitted by Target Corporation requesting waiver
use approval to utilize an SDM liquor license at 29451 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.
July 10, 2007
24164
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 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
submitted is correct and no additional right -0f -way is required.
The address for this parcel according to our records is 29451
Plymouth Road." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E.,
City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police,
dated June 14, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans in connection with Target SDM License,
located at Wonderland Village. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 30, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 16,
2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This
Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the star? Seeing none, will the
petitioner please come forward?
Jennifer Carrier,
Target, 29451 Plymouth Road, Livonia. I'm the Human
Resources Manager at the Target store located at 29451
Plymouth Road. I reside in Livonia at 14300 Nola Street.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Ms. Carrier:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
I have a couple questions for you. On the Teter you sent to us
about how you train your employees for selling liquor and beer
and wine, will the beer and wine be in the same area as the
groceries?
Ms. Carrier:
Well, first off, we are only pefifioning to sell wine, not beer.
Mr. La Pine:
Nobeer. Justwine.
July 10, 2007
24165
Ms. Carrier:
That's correct, and we are not going to be displaying or selling
wine next to any toys or candy. So it would be restricted to a
very small area on the selling floor.
Mr. LaPine:
As we go through here, you say the employees have to take this
lest and if they dont pass it, they won't be able to run a register
that would include liquor sales. How do you have it? You have
so many outlets where people go through to pay for their
groceries. Will the people know before they gel in line that, if
they have liquor, they cannot purchase in that line or how does
that work?
Ms. Carrier:
Yes. All of point -0f -sale registers are programmed to prompt for
the purchasers age and to recognize and not allow liquor sales
during restricted selling periods. In addition, on the selling floor,
there will be signs posted that you have to go to the front
registers to purchase alcohol.
Mr. LaPine:
At that point is when they check the idenfificalion or the age limit
or so forth. Is that correct?
Ms. Carrier:
Yes, that's correct. Target uses in-store training and technology
to closely conform to stale liquor laws and only the registers at
the front of the store, like I said before, will take wine sales. The
POS system prompts for idenfification, and we will train all of
our team members who staff the cash registers in ways to avoid
underage sales, sales to intoxicated people, and how to identify
fake identifications.
Mr. LaPine:
Just one more question. On your other Target stores, do any of
those stores sell beer and wine?
Ms. Carrier:
That I am not aware of. I do know that we currently have more
than 690 wine stores together in the Super Target and Target
stores.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close
the public hearing on this item, and a motion would be in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#07-72-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-05-02-18 submitted by Target Corporation
July 10, 2007
24166
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM liquor license
at 29451 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the
Northeast ''/ of Section 35, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-05-02-
18 be approved, provided that the 500 foot separation
requirement between SDM licensed businesses as set forth in
Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance is waived by the
City Council, for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Section 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance;
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 have one question for Mark. They represent tonight they're
only going to sell wine. Should that be part of the motion, wine
only, and if they want to sell beer, they have to come back for
approval?
Mr. Taormina: No, I would just leave it the way it is.
Mr. LaPine: Okay.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2007-05-0249 MARCOS MAKOHON
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
05-02-19 submitted by Marcos Makohon requesting waiver use
approval to operate a sport therapy and hockey training facility
at 12830 Wayne Road, located on the east side of Wayne Road
between SchoolcraR Road and Glendale Avenue in the
Northwest'''/ of Section 28.
July 10, 2007
24167
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 five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 11, 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. No additional right -0f -way is required. An
address of 12830 Wayne Road 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 June 8, 2007,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a sport
therapy and hockey training facility on property located on the
east side of Wayne Road between Schoo/craft Road and
Glendale Avenue in the Northwest X of Section 28. 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 June 18, 2007, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with the Sports Therapy and
Hockey Training Center located at 12830 Wayne. 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 June
18, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
June 5, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviews d.
The following is noted. (1) The number of parking spaces
shown on the print appears to be adequate for this use. (2) As
rehabilitation, outpatient physical therapy facility, 20% of the
patienWisitor parking shall be accessible spaces, 8 feet wide
with 5 foot access aisle properly signed and marked. (3) For
every 6 or fraction of 6 accessible spaces, at least one shall be
van accessible parking space, 8 feet wide with an 8 foot wide
access aisle properly signed and marked. (4) The change in
use of this for this building requires the entire space to meet the
current barrier free code. The Department will further address
this at time of plan review should this project move forward. (5)
No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Building Inspector. The next letter is from the law
offices of Charles H. Marr, P.L.L.C., dated July 3, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Please allow this correspondence to confirm
my representation of Steelcmft Tool, Inc. Steelcmft built the
premises located at 12930 Wayne Road in 1977 and has
July 10, 2007
24168
occupied it continuously since that time, providing over 30 full-
time employment positions and generating a significant amount
of tax revenue for he city. We art= in receipt of a request for
waiver of the property immediately adjacent to us on the above
petition to allow for a sport therapy and hockey training facility.
A hearing is scheduled for July 10, 2007. Unfortunately, none of
the Board of Directors is available that week due to a previously
scheduled summer shut down. Instead, we ask that you
consider this correspondence in opposition to the request for
waiver for the reasons stated herein. This subdivision is an
industrial manufacturing subdivision. There are no residential
homes in the area, most of the factories have small offices
attached. In addition to the numerous employees at these
facilities, delivery trucks, salesmen, and fork -lifts currently
compete for the right of way on a daily basis. Parking is at a
premium, not only because of the volume of employees, but
also to allow adequate space for large delivery trucks to gain
almost daily ingress and egress to various facilities with supplies
and deliveries. These facilities regularty receive deliveries from
semis, most of which are 53 feet long and require a significant
amount of room to tum. Fed Ex and UPS trucks are the norm,
not the exception. The proposed waiver is completely out of
character for the neighborhood, and presents new and
unacceptable obstacles. By its very nature, a sports therapy
facility is likely to attract a large amount of short-term traffic, as
opposed to the facilities whose employees arrive, park, and
leave at the end of the day. A hockey training facility brings
visions of players, coaches, assistants, families and observers,
all of whom will have to.drive to the facility for relatively short
periods of time, and all of whom will have to park somewhere.
The parking situation at this facility is tenuous at best. When
these buildings were constructed, parking spaces were required
based on square footage and the presumption that employees
would arrive, stay until the end of their shift, and leave. We
submit that the nature of the proposed use will lend itself to a
more transient clientele requiring more parking spaces than
exist on the premises. Patrons have no loyalty to surrounding
factories and businesses, they will park where it appears to
them to be convenient despite signs indicating that parking is
private or that spaces are assigned. We have already
experienced young men visiting the premises and parking on
our property, presumably because it was more convenient than
parking on the south or east side of the building. When
confronted, the responses were that 'he wouldnY be long'. No
effort was made to move or accommodate the property owners,
who are paying significant property taxes for the privilege of
parking there. Even though he WouldnY be long,, the presence
of these vehicles creates a disturbance and interferes with the
July 10, 2007
24169
operation of our business. The facility is not yet open, this
situation can only escalate if the waiver is granted and the
volume of visitors to the premises increases. The anticipated
increase in the volume of traffic is also a concem. This
subdivision is simply not equipped for a significant increase in
haffic. We understand that numerous buildings within the city
are vacant or underutilized. While this situation is unfortunate, it
is a reflection of current economic times. The solution to this
perplexing problem is not an easy solution, nor is it to suspend
the rules. Allowing waivers of fairly strict zoning requirements as
requested here will not enhance the value of the surrounding
property or the problem in question, rather, it will lead to a mixed
use area, and invite other businesses to consider leaving the
area creating a greater long term problem. One of the main
reasons Steelcraft left Detroit and built in Livonia was that there
was meaning and consistency to zoning regulations. This
proposed waiver will eliminate consistency and dilute the
meaning of the zoning regulations. Our discussion with
surrounding businesses has yet to discover a single business in
favor of this request. We urge you to deny the request for
waiver. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional
information or if you have any questions. 1 thank you for your
courtesy and anticipated cooperation, and remain, very truly
yours." The letter is signed by Charles H. Man, representing
Sleelcrafi Tool, Inc., 12930 Wayne Road. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening.
Marcos Makohon, 26899 Northwestern Highway, Suite 208, Southfield, Michigan
48033. Good evening, Chairman and commission members.
I'm extremely pleased to be in front of you presenting this very
unique opportunity to create some adaptive reuse of a vacant
building. When we looked at this particular building, it is a
natural for the combination of the sports therapy in the front
office, which simulates more of an office setting, lower ceiling,
defined space, while the rear, the open area, certainly simulates
a hockey arena so the participants will feel more at home and
so forth. Mr. Nowak provided a copy of the letter that was sent
against this particular waiver use. I'm not going to go point by
point, but most certainly, the tone of the letter is more into, gee,
we've been here for this length of time. We're very comfortable
with an empty building next to us and we don't want a neighbor.
The traffic concerns are not there. We most certainly looked at
very carefully the impact of the neighborhood, and we feel that
the schedule of the production area just north of us and our
facility would not interfere with each other. Clearly, an industrial
plant works very early in the morning, 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 a.m..
July 10, 2007
24170
Students start coming in the middle of the day, towards the later
part of the day. Physical therapy is one or two people that
would come in mid-morning and then go on into mid-aftemoon.
So, again, the two traffics do not interfere with each other. What
the benefit is that we will start creating some traffic, diversified
traffic. The parents of the students and the participants of the
hockey training will see buildings that have police signs and,
who knows, there may be some additional activity and benefit
just because now people get to see Wayne Road and
participate in the traffic. I really don't have loo much else. I
think the project was adequately described, but I do have a
representative from the training facility that can enlighten you on
exactly what goes on inside. I know it but I'd rather have him
explain.
Mr. Morrow:
If I read the letter comedy from the company, they seem to be
also concerned about parking on their site as opposed to
parking on the proposed site. I assume there will be ways of
controlling that so your users dont park next door.
Mr. Makohon:
Most certainly. If the site plan can be brought up, the entrance
to the hockey training is in the rear of the building, where the
majority of the parking is. That is where the majority of the
students will park. So as the door opens, the trainers are there
greeting the students, certainly a quick visual check to anticipate
any problems, just like anybody else, the closest to the door that
you're going to go in. So we provided adequate parking in the
rear, but certainly it would be closely guarded based on this
letter.
Mr. Morrow:
His concern, you feel, shouldn't occur because of the way the
building is operating.
Mr. Makohon:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
The hockey school is primarily what its going to be used for, not
so much for therapy but for a hockey school. Now, what's the
age of the kids that will come here? Maybe the gentleman who
is going to operate this can tell us that.
Craig Channel,
13740 Plymouth, Michigan. The ages range from Mites, which
are 7 and 8 year olds, to pro players, NHL players. That's a
wide range.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my next question is, when a child, say from 5 years old
to 16, when they can start to drive, most of those individuals
July 10, 2007
24171
would be driven there by one of the parents. Would they just be
dropped off and the parents would go away and come back in
an hour and picked them up, or do they slay there?
Mr. Channel: There is the opportunity for them to stay there or to drop and
leave their child there and come back in an hour.
Mr. La Pine: How has it been handled before? Do you find that more parents
stay? What I'm getting at here, it seems to me when my son
was playing hockey, once I got him to the hockey rink and laced
up his shoes, I went away and came back in an hour and picked
him up. I would assume they still do that nowadays. When he
was 16, that was different. I'm talking about when he was a
Mile, 4 and 5 years old. Anyways, I've been out there twice. I
was out there Sunday and went through areas in good shape. I
was impressed when I saw all the empty buildings in the area,
especially across the street. I counted parking spaces at the
different locations. I don't see any problem with parking. I went
out there yesterday again at 11:00 in the morning. I figured it
would be a good time to go because of all the traffic. I didn't
see any problems at all. I really dont know what the gentleman
is talking about except for the fad that he's uncomfortable with
something in there that's not a business; it is more or less a
sports type of operation. What I'm trying to find out here is, if
every parent comes there and brings a car and stays there all
during the period, then there might be a problem. But I don't
think that's the way it operates. You're going to have to clue me
in on how it really goes.
Mr. Channel: With concerns of the first part, when we first open a business
and we've been telling people the traffic patterns, where they
need to park. At the beginning, the parents want to see it just
like other people want to see what's in there. So at the
beginning, when we're putting this together and people are
there, you might experience more people there at one time, but
as time goes and the parents see what we're doing and they're
comfortable with us training their children, then they just drop
and they go and do whatever they do because really, we're
trying to gel the parents away from the child so the child
concentrates on hockey and not messing around. We try to
teach them rules and discipline just like we do in every sport,
and that's one of the things that happens as time goes on, is
that the parents look and they gel bored with just silting there
and they go off and they can do some shopping. Parents can
plan things - to go down to Costco down the street or Wal -Marl
or Target or any other store around there and do something.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you
July 10, 2007
24172
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-73-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-05-02-19 submitted by Marcos Makohon
requesting waiver use approval to operate a sport therapy and
hockey training facility at 12830 Wayne Road, located on the
east side of Wayne Road between SchoolcraR Road and
Glendale Avenue in the Northwest ''/ of Section 28, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2007-05-02-19 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SDP -1 prepared by
Maros Makohon, Architect, dated May 21, 2007, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including
the provision of barrier free parking near the building entry,
and all regular spaces shall be 10 feel by 20 feel in size as
required;
3. That the following issues as listed in the correspondence
dated June 18, 2007 from the Inspection Department shall
be resolved to that department's satisfaction:
- As a rehabilitation, outpatient physical therapy facility,
20% of the patient/visitor parking shall be accessible
spaces, 8 feet wide with 5 foot access aisle properly
signed and marked;
- For every 6 or fraction of 6 accessible spaces, at lead
one shall be van accessible parking space; 8 feet wide
with an 8 fool wide access aisle properly signed and
marked;
- The change in use of this building requires the entire
space to meet the current barrier free code. This shall
be addressed at time of plan review by the Inspection
Department;
4. That any facilities for the outdoor storage of refuse shall be
screened by means of an enclosure constructed of
July 10, 2007
24173
masonry walls with metal enclosure gates which shall be
property maintained and, when not in use, closed at all
times;
5. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
any additional signage shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Planning Commission and City Council;
and
6. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time of application for the Certificate of Occupancy.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject property 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.
ITEM#6 PETITION 2007-05-02-20 WAL-MART
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
05-02-20, submitted by Wal -Mad Stores East L.P. requesting
waiver use approval to utilize an SDM liquor license at 29555
Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt 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.
July 10, 2007
24174
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 11, 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. No additional right -0f -way is required. The
address of 29555 Plymouth Road is correct." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 14, 2007, which
reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection
with Wal-Mart (SDM License). We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Stud(, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 6, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 5,
2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. This applicant is part of a large regional
center. There will be another SDM license within 500 feet
(should Target's application be approved and finalized). The
Council may waive the 500 foot separation requirement. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Stephen Ashen: Good evening, members of the Planning Commission, Mr.
Chairman. I'm a representative here on behalf of Wal-Mart. As
you know, this is our petition for an SDM license and a waiver
use under Section 11.03(r). For those of you that are not
familiar with the Wal-Mart Super Centers, they are full service
grocery stores, very similar to Meijers, which is a direct
competitor less than half a mile away at Middlebell and 96. We
understand, as Mr. Nowak indicated, that the City's internal
personnel have recommended the approval of the SDM license.
To just proactively address the concerns that were mised by
one of the commissioners with respect to Target, which is
similarly seeking the same waiver use approval, I would indicate
for the benefit of the Commission that the Wal-Mart associates
are required to complete an extensive training program before
selling beer or wine. This training includes age verification,
hours of sale and specific areas of compliance related to beer
and wine sales. There is also signage. This particular license is
only for beer and wine, is incorporated within the grocery
component of the store and is only one aisle of the store, very
July 10, 2007
24175
similar to any grocery store that you'd go into locally here,
Farmer Jacks, Meijers or Wal-Mart. I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you may have. Of course, this is obviously an
integral and necessary part of Wal-Mart's normal operation for
this type of business model.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any comments or questions from the Commissioners?
Seeing none, thank you, sir. We'll go out to the audience. 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 LaPine, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#07-74-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-05-02-20 submitted by Wal-Mart Stores East L.P.
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM liquor license
at 29555 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 2007-05-02-
20 be approved, provided that the 500 fool separation
requirement between SDM licensed businesses as set forth in
Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance is waived by the
City Council, for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Section 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance;
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: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. The
petitioner has requested that we grant a seven-day waiver. Is
there a motion in support of that request?
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
July 10, 2007
24176
#07-75-2007 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 dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2007-05-02-20 submitted by Wal -Marl Stores East
L.P., requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM liquor
license at 29555 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue
in the Northeast % of Section 35.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: The procedure has always been ... do they have approval from
the (Sty Council that they have no objection to the seven day
waiver, that they're willing to hear it, because I understand now
they're off for two weeks on vacation. So I dont know what they
accomplished by the seven-day waiver.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine, we're capable of acting on it. It's whether they wish
to receive it. That's at their discretion.
Mr. LaPine: That's not the way it worked in the past, John. I'm sorry to
disagree with you, but fine.
Mr. Walsh: I dont think I've sought permission in the three or four years that
I've been chair. It really is up to them to accept it.
Mr. LaPine: My 20 years of being on here, that's not the way it's been
operated. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM#7 PETITION 2007-06-02-22 BEARCLAVICOFFEE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
06-02-22 submitted by Shaw Energy, L.L.C. requesting waiver
use approval to add a drive-thru coffee shop (Bear Claw Coffee)
to an existing gasoline service station at 36375 Five Mile Road,
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan
Road and Golfview Drive in the Northeast %of Section 20.
July 10, 2007
tam
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 12, 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 36375 Five Mile Road 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 June 13,
2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to add a drive-
through coffee shop to an existing gasoline service station on
property located at the above-referenced address. The site for
the proposed coffee shop will cause severe congestion,
hampering the access of fire equipment in the event of a fire or
other emergency situation. Also, in my opinion, morning traffic
at that intersection will restrict the egress Flow of traffic from the
coffee shop/gas station creating a backup of traffic on Levan
Road." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 18,
2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in
plans in connection with the Bear Claw Coffee, located at 36375
Five Mile. We have the following recommendations: (1)
Eliminate the driveway that connects Bear Claw Coffee to the
Car Service building. (2) Eliminate the northern most driveway
on Levan. (3) Add at least 10 feet in width to the remaining two
driveways. This would eliminate two points of traffic conflict —
one from a major roadway, one from an adjoining business, and
extend the buffer for the unavoidable conflicts." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 18, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 11,
2007, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) As this drive thru is not directly associated
with the primary use of this site (gas station), its use must be
approved by a super majority of Council by separate resolution.
(2) This plan does not detail the noncronforming flag pole, coin
vacuum, coin air dispenser and coin product dispenser on the
east side north end. The Commission and/or Council may wish
to exactly determine the intent of the petitioner. As this is a
service station, we would recommend that the Commission
and/or Council may wish to stipulate that this station provide
free air. That free air shall be provided at all times this station is
July 10, 2007
24178
open for business, the free air shall be dispensed at the point -
of -service without having to enter the station or the performance
of any extra action in order to obtain the air without charge. (3)
The landscape plan does not specify exact landscaping in
several areas, sod in the approach infill and leaves out that
there art= existing plants in the areas labeled as trees in the SW
comer and the bed to the north. We would recommend that the
Commission and/or Council clarify to their satisfaction what the
petitioner's intent is, and to also require sod where needed and
that all landscaping be irrigated. (4) Signage has not been
reviewed. However, the Bear Claw sculpture may be
considered as signage, and as such is improperly located and
would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (5)
The gates in the dumpster are in disrepair and should be
replaced with proper gates. (6) The rooftop HVAC equipment is
visible from the ground and it is unclear if the intent is to screen
it. This should be clarified. (7) As noted the existing concrete
and asphalt pavement does need some repair, and all parking
must be double striped with barrier free parking property sized
(8 foot wide with adjacent 8 foot wide access aisle), signed and
marked. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley: For clarification, they want to cover the brick and put log cabin
looking wood over the lop of it?
Mr. Taormina:
Basically, that's what they are proposing. I'm looking at the
rendering. It may not include all of the brick, but certainly a
majority of it. Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Anything else, Ms. Smiley?
Ms. Smiley:
No, thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Anthony Morrow, I'm here representing Shaw Energy. We're going to be
purchasing this location from Shaw Energy, myself and my
partners, and we're trying to upgrade it and make it a more
viable operation. I'll try and answer questions for you.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners?
Mr. Wilshaw:
We received a revised site plan.
July 10, 2007
24179
Mr. Morroco: We teed to make some corrections on all the things that were
suggested to us, and we sent a letter that hopefully you all got.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, we did. I do see that you made improvements. You
closed two of the drives into the gas station leaving two open,
which is certainly what the Police Department was looking for,
and we appreciate that. But there still is a number of traffic
concerns with the site itself and on the site. One is the slacking
of vehicles, which could obstruct the gas patrons to the west
side of the gas station. Just looking at the site plan, you can
see how, if there's that many cars stacked up, it would become
difficult to gel in and out of the gas pumps. My other concern is
pedestrian traffic. You have gas pumps on the east side of the
gas station, which those folks may need to go inside and pay
after they pump up or before, and they're going to have to walk
through a drive-lhru line basically to gel in there. How are you
going to address those issues? Those are of deep concern to
me.
Mr. Morroco: Number one, okay, is the amount of cars that are going to be in
that area, and we've gotten some statistics from our new
supplier that shows that the maximum number of cars that will
wail in line for a cup of coffee is like five. If anybody is familiar
with Starbucks, which I'm a pretty big fan of, any Starbucks that
I've ever seen at any time of the day has never had more than
two or three cars at the drive-thru at the max. Coffee people
just won't wail for coffee. Its not like you're serving food
through the window where there's going to be a stack up. I
think the only thing you're going to see is two or three cars at
best. As far as the traffic across the island, I don't know what to
say to you other than I'm real familiar with the site. I operated it
at one time. The only thing we're trying to provide here is just
another point of pickup convenience for the people at the site.
Most people on the self -serve island, which this is a whole self -
serve station, almost 80 to 90 percent pay at the pump. It's a
huge, huge deal. Not as many people come inside as you might
think. There's great provisions to make easy payment at the
pump. I don't know how to address that, but what we've done
with the whole site obviously is try to improve the whole thing.
We closed the driveways that you recommended. We've
widened the ones you recommended. I think that the traffic will
flow much better. I think its a pretty good enhancement to the
site actually. We're trying to make the site more viable is what
we're trying to do. The coffee window is just an extra added
effect to it.
July 10, 2007
24180
Mr. Wilshaw:
The reason I ask is because we've heard for many years now
from the oil industry and whatnot that gas sales, especially with
gas stations, gas sales is not where gas stations make their
money. It's in the store. It's the products in the store. In this
case, maybe the coffee. So you're going to want pedestrian
traffic to go into that store. That's my concern, is that those
people can gel in and out of the store without becoming speed
bumps. You certainly made some improvements, and I
appreciate that. We'll talk traffic here as this goes on. The
other concern I have is signage.
Mr. Morroco:
Is what?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Signage. There's two issues that right off the bat caught my
eye. The one was obviously the bear that's sitting out on Five
Mile. That I'm not exactly keen on. The other one is, looking at
your east elevation plan, it shows an item that's, well, best
labeled as "new signage by others under separate permit." Do
you know what that is? It's a big white square that says, "new
signage by others underseparale permit"
Brian Foresta:
I'm the architect of this project. Signage typically is under
separate permit. We would not even propose anything that
would not pass. We just haven't designed the signage to this
point. We were more concerned with traffic and etc., but
signage would certainly be approved by the committee that
would approve signage. We just haven't designed the signage
at this point.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, so you would bring it back as a separate item to us after
this?
Mr. Foresla:
Or the signage company that designs it for Bear Claw. Either
one. The bear is an interesting situation because, to me, what
we're trying to do here is make this site look really interesting as
opposed to a bland gas station. I'm familiar with the Big Boy
that had the same issue on Plymouth Road. Is the Big Boy a
sign or a statue? It's not mandatory. M's desirable, and we
don't want it to cause any conflict whatsoever, and we would
remove it as such, but it is a playful, enticing thing to bring
people to the site. But whichever way you guys want to go. We
would like to see it because it is playful and fun. I dont know if
you're familiar with the Bear Claw down on Wayne Road in
Westland. It is a fun thing and this is a light site, but we can
eliminate that if it becomes an issue.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
July 10, 2007
24181
Mr. Foresta:
The other thing I'd like to comment about real quick is, the
Police Department I believe wanted the driveway to the car
wash closed off. We have no objection to that, but we find from
the access, in case of a fire or anything, that's very beneficial,
but we have no objection either way.
Mr. Wilshaw;
Okay. It sounds like you're being flexible to a lot of these items.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Foresta:
We just trying to embellish the site. We're not trying to cause
any problems. We're trying to just simply make it better.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sounds good. Thank you.
Mr. Varloogian:
I appreciate you trying to improve the site, as I'm sure the other
commissioners are as well. I share a lot of the same concerns
as Mr. Wilshaw as far as the traffic concerns, pedestrian flow.
Have you ever considered removing the drive-thru altogether?
It seems to me that would just make more sense on this
particular site.
Mr. Foresta:
That's what we're trying to add to the drive-lhm. Like Mr.
Morroco says, the pumps, 90 percent of the people buy gas at
the pump. You're talking potentially two cars, three cars at the
gas pump would go to the front of the building as opposed to
straight across. This is a circulation issue. I dont know that we
could solve every problem. Obviously, we don't want people
getting caught in the crossfire. We would hope people have
enough sense to understand that coffee is not a child item.
We're not selling candy in the store as such to entice, but we
believe we've developed the best option to improve the viability
of the station so that it doesn't sit there as a bland 80's gas
station that may fail. I don't believe the pedestrian traffic is
going to be a huge problem.
Ms. Varloogian:
Where would the pedestrians enter, from the east side where
the drive-thm window is?
Mr. Foresta:
No, probably on the west side.
Ms. Vartoogian:
They would walk around the building?
Mr. Foresta:
They would just go around the only car that's in the drive-thru to
the front. We haven't designed the inside yet based on Bear
Claws requirements, but they could either go to the front or to
the west side entry. So you've got 50 percent of the cars are on
the west side. So you're only talking a small percentage of the
50 percent of the cars that may be there getting gas, 90 percent
July 10, 2007
24182
of those are paying at the pump. We don't expect a lot of
pedestrian traffic. So you're talking maybe a couple people a
day might walk in front of the car that's being served. I would
hope they wouldn't tear out of there and kill somebody. It's a
concern of liability if somebody get hurts on your property, but
we feel this is the best possible scenario that we can come up
with.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
What's the operation of the drive thm? In the morning, what
time would you open and what time would you close in the
evening?
Mr. Morroco:
Presently, we're open at 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
At that time, does the station close?
Mr. Morroco:
At 11:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
I noticed when Mr. Morrow and I were out there, most of your
tanks are on the south side where they f11 the gas, so they
would have to come in there atter 11:00. They have no problem
with that? Okay. The second question I have, were you
involved in the location on Wayne Road that closed down?
Mr. Foresta:
No, they're in the process of putting a franchisee in there, I
believe.
Mr. LaPine:
They are? The other question I have, and I'm a little confused
here because when I looked at this the other day, I thought
there was a door on the east side. Isn't there a door there? Will
that door stay?
Mr. Foresla:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
You're saying if they want to gel in there, they have to go to the
west side?
Mr. Foresla:
We haven't designed the interior. I don't think we're planning on
taking it out. Again, if it's a major issue, and I don't see the
number of people creating an issue there.
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me ask this other question then. Let's assume somebody
pulls in off of Levan Road to gas up on the west side and they
park the car to gas up. Then they can walk into the
convenience store there. Can they purchase the coffee there?
From either side they can do that? I have to be honest with you.
July 10, 2007
24183
When I went out and looked at the one on Wayne Road, Joy
Road there, I wasn't impressed with the architecture. It just
didn't really turn me on, but that's just one member. Quite
frankly, I think there's too much going on here at this location to
have a drive-thru operation. I just dont think its going to work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: Bill asked the one question I had. This is the only point where
fuel is delivered where it's indicated here?
Mr. Foresta: Where the truck is shown
Mr. Morrow:
Where the truck is. In other words, we saw a lot of different
places where you could, and I think you indicated it would be
controlled so the hours wouldn't interfere with the peak times or
whatever, but I think where I'm coming from is, at least as I can
determine, the principle use of this is a service station for
gasoline and this petition relates to a secondary use. Our
zoning ordinance precludes a drive -up window for uses other
than for the primary use. Now we understand that can be
waived with a super majority vole of Council, but we put that in
the Zoning Ordinance for good reason. And the other thing I'm
concerned about, I'm not aware of any other service station that
has a drive-thru. I can ask my colleagues or staff if they're
aware of any, but I think this would be the first.
Mr. Walsh:
Any thoughts, Mr. Nowak or Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
There is a BP Service Station with a Tim Horton's at SchoolcraR
and Inkster. That one is a drive -up.
Mr. Morrow:
Where is it?
Mr. Taormina:
It is located at SchoolcraR and Inkster. It's relatively new
construction.
Mr. Morrow:
My other concern was, at least we wouldn't be precedent
setting, but it's probably something we don't want to see
proliferate through the city with all the service stations. We're
also taking in the motif it looks like for the secondary use and
not the primary use. And those are kind of the concerns I had
because when service stations decide to gel out of the car
service and oil change business, they went into the convenience
stores plus the gasoline. And I think the thought was, and this
predates I'm sure the pay -at -the -pump type of thing. So
anyway, now at the pay -at -the -pump, you're further reducing the
amount of traffic inside the store. When you have a drive-lhru
for coffee, it seems that it further erodes the traffic in the
July 10, 2007
24184
convenience store to pick up not only coffee but maybe a
newspaper and some impulse items, milk, pop, or whatever it is.
It seems this further causes the traffic within the convenience
store to go down pretty much. Those are just my thoughts. It
seems to me it would be counterproductive to what I think Mr.
Wilshaw indicated was maybe the more profitable end of the
business. Although when gas is going for close to $3.50 a
gallon, I might lake issue.
Mr. Foresla: I guess it could reach the point where coffee is the primary
product to sell here. If it goes to $5.00, no one is going to be
buying gas. They're going to be buying coffee and pouring it in
yourlank.
Mr. Morocco: We have some concerns here. The high prices just are
continuing to erode. They take the viability of the location away
because hose sites, as they were built, particularly that one,
and there are many types just like that one, were built for high
volume gasoline and low volume convenience. As gasoline
volumes erode and come to such a low level, which is where
they're gelling, all these types of locations can become failures
because they can't . unless you add something to this
location, they eventually will fail. They cannot survive in the
mode that they're in nor can the rest of them that aren't these
big billion dollar operations where you've got a couple acres to
work with and so forth. You take all these small sites and they'll
die out if there's not something found to put back into the vitality
of it. That's kind of what we're looking to do. We're not looking
to cause trouble here. We're looking to find a solution to a dying
situation, because if you look now, the majority of these sites
are in just gross disrepair. They are eyesores for the
community and that's because the people in them are
marginally profitable. They can't hardly exist anymore. They
just can't keep the thing going the way its supposed to be
going. It's kind of outlived its use. Somehow we have to
reconfigure this thing to make it up to speed and maybe find
some other profit areas other than the gasoline. In every case,
the dealer makes less money the higher the gasoline costs go
because his margin continues to be squeezed. Everything is
based on percentages - his credit card costs, his sales, tax, all
those things. These things escalate as the price escalates, and
therefore the margin on gasoline is reduced. If this continues to
go higher, you'll see more and more failures. And again, we're
just looking for a solution, something that would be aesthetically
drawing to bring people in and have a quality cup of coffee.
Definitely our deal is not to cause problems here. We're looking
for solutions to make this a viable business and enhance the
corner in the meantime. Its pretty shabby at this point.
July 10, 2007
24185
Mr. Wilshaw:
One question. The materials that are going to be on this
building, are they similar to the materials that are on the store
on Wayne Road?
Mr. Morocco:
I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The building materials of this store, will they be the same as the
Bear Claw that's down on Wayne Road?
Mr. Morocco:
Pretty much. The thing we're trying to do is create kind of a
theme of Michigan bear -moose -type thing.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Okay. And then based on the comments I've heard so
far tonight, I just have a couple comments. I think that we do
still need to work out the details on the site plan a little bit. I
think there's a few more improvements that could be made.
Would you be willing to remove the door that's on the east side
of this building? Obviously one of the things we're talking about
is concern of pedestrians crossing a drive-lhru line. If you move
that door, they wouldn't have to walk through the middle of that.
Mr. Morocco:
Wewould considerlhal.
Mr. Foresla:
That door is probably inconvenient, so it probably isn't a big
deal. It's probably very removable.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That's good. It sounds like you're willing to work with us
and try to hammer this out to be a decent plan, so I do
appreciate that. That's all I have for now.
Mr. La Pine:
The letter w got from the Inspection Department where they
detailed, there's a "non -conforming Flag pole, coin vacuum, coin
air dispenser and coin product dispenser on the east side north
end" of the building, that they don't allow free air. Are you
willing to include all those things?
Mr. Morocco:
The free air isn't an issue. We can handle that. That's not a
problem. The flagpole and coin-operated vacuum cleaners
actually belong to the car wash. They don't really belong to this
site. This is the way it's been br years. Al one time, this site
was one piece, the car wash and gas station, and that's why its
connected as it is. Now things have changed. There's a
different operator of all the pieces there. The flagpole, I don't
know if it was approved by you folks in Livonia to begin with.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Bingham used to own that whole parcel.
July 10, 2007
24186
Mr. Morocco: I'm friends with Mr. Bingham.
Mr. La Pine: Has the property been split off now? Is the gas station one
parcel and you're another parcel? Is that the way it works?
Mr. Morocco: I'm pretty sure, yes.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
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 at this time.
Mr. Wilshaw: In light of the fad that we have referred to a number of items in
the site plan that I think need some additional work done on
them, I think they've done some nice changes. I think there's a
few more they can do. What I'm going to offer at this time is a
tabling motion to give them an opportunity to make some
additional changes and present those to us.
On a motion by Wilshaw, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-06-02-22 submitted by Shaw Energy, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to add a drive-thru coffee shop
(Bear Claw Coffee) to an existing gasoline service station at
36375 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile
Road between Levan Road and Golfview Drive in the Northeast
% of Section 20, the Planning Commission does hereby table
this item.
Mr. Walsh: We have a tabling motion. Is there support? Again, is there
support for a tabling resolution? Seeing none, the motion fails.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw.
Mr. Walsh: Is there a motion for approval or denial?
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously approved, 0
was
#07-76-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 10, 2007, on
Petition 2007-06-02-22 submitted by Shaw Energy, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to add a drive-thru coffee shop
July 10, 2007
24187
(Bear Claw Coffee) to an existing gasoline service station at
36375 Five Mle Road, located on the south side of Five Mile
Road between Levan Road and Golfview Drive in the Northeast
% of Section 20, the Planning Commission does hereby deny
Petition 2007-06-02-22 for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance 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 this proposal would violate the provision of the Zoning
Ordinance which slates that a drive -up window shall not be
used for any purpose except the principal business use at
the site;
3. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that
the proposed use would be compatible to and in harmony
with the principal use of the subject properly as well as
other uses in the surrounding area;
4. That the drive -up window and its associated service lane
would conflict with pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow and
circulation to and from the fuel dispenser areas on the site;
5. That the proposed site layout and its relation to streets
giving access to it, particularly with respect to vehicular
turning movements in relation to routes of traffic flow,
would be hazardous and inconvenient to the neighborhood
and would unduly conflict with the normal traffic flow and
circulation patterns in the neighboring area; and
6. That the petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
that the site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
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?
Ms. Smiley: I didn't go along with the tabling because I didn't believe we
could turn it around. I think it's loo much going on in that area.
And also, if I were in the credit union or the dentist office or
whatever to the left or Sl. Mary's Hospital to the right, I'm not
sure I could ever accept the log cabin motif when they are trying
July 10, 2007
24188
to upgrade or build that kind of style of buildings in the area. So
I'm also in support of denying resolution.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other comments? I just want to let Mr. Wilshaw
know that if the rules of procedure had permitted me, I would
have supported your motion. I am going to support the denial
but I do encourage you to continue. You may want to work with
the Council. You have the right to appeal this decision. It may
pass. I suspect it will. You can work with the Council and
perhaps address some of the concerns that were brought up
this evening.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The petitioner has 10 days to appeal this decision in
writing to the Livonia City Council.
Mr. Foresta:
Thank you. Can I just ask a quick question? In your opinion,
we should appeal and go to the Council, because we'd like to
solve your issues as best we can.
Mr. Walsh:
Your only choice now to do that is to go to the Council. I think
you've shown enough cooperative spirit. I can't guarantee what
they're going to do. None of us could.
Mr. Forrest:
Right. Right.
Mr. Walsh:
But I think you've shown enough cooperative spirit to work on
some of the issues that we've brought up and take another
crack at it.
Mr. Foresta:
Who do we file the appeal with the Planning Department?
Mr. Walsh:
With the City Clerk's office. But you'll gel back with Mark
eventually.
Mr. Foresta:
Thank you.
ITEM#8 PETITION 2007-03-0240 STONEMOUNTAIN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-02-10 submitted by Slone Mountain Coffee requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a drive-lhru
restaurant at 28085 Plymouth Road, located on the south side
of Plymouth Road between Harrison Road and Deering Avenue
in the Northeast % of Section 36.
July 10, 2007
24189
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning oflhe surrounding area.
Mr. Taormina:
I will go over a couple of changes that were submitted with the
latest plan. A number of items were revised with respect to
elements of the site plan. The building has been moved further
away from the road right-of-way allowing for additional space for
staclang for the westerly drive -up lane. Originally that setback
was shown at 60 feet and now it's 80 feet, which is an additional
20 feet. Also the dimension of each of the drive approaches
has been narrowed. The width has been reduced to 16 feet, so
that would be a 4 -foot reduction. They are no longer bi-
directional but instead the westerly drive will allow for in only
and the easterly drive will allow for out only. Another change
was the placement of the menu board along the southerly
portion of the site. If you will recall, there was some concern
regarding the stacking along the east drive -up lane and whether
that would interfere with patrons using the west drive -up service
window. So that menu board has been moved about as close to
the building as it can be under this latest design. They've also
provided additional information regarding storm water detention.
That will all be handled within the paved surface areas of the lot.
There would be a sheet flow. There would not be any
underground or surface water detention basin provided on this
site, but instead it would be accommodated within the parking
lot areas of the property. Other minor changes involved
compliance with the parking size and issues related to the
screening of the dumpster. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is no additional correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go
to the petitioner. Do you have anything to add to the
presentation?
Chris Byron,
Stone Mountain Coffee, 34484 Richland Court, Livonia, Michigan
48150. 1 don't have anything to add, no.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
Did we get additional information from MDOT?
Mr. Taormina:
We did not receive any additional written correspondence.
However, I did contact Mike Budai of the Michigan Department
of Transportation, and he essentially confirmed what was
July 10, 2007
24190
discussed at our study meeting; that is, his initial review of the
plans. He found those to be acceptable. While he is not in a
position at this time to issue any permits because no application
has been submitted, he felt that he would be able to ultimately
approve a plan very similar to the one that was submitted. He
basically gave his endorsement of the plan but without
committing to it or issuing any kind of permit. That was based
on a conversation I had with him.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you, Mark.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just want to make a quick comment that I appreciate the
petitioners effort at accommodating all of the requests that
we've had, including the latest one of moving the menu board. I
do appreciate.
Mr. Morrow:
This is the primary use, right?
Mr. Walsh:
There is no gas at this site. Gentlemen, thank you for being
here tonight. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-77-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 24, 2007, on,
Petition 2007-03-02-10 submitted by Slone Mountain Coffee
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a
drive-thru restaurant at 28085 Plymouth Road, located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Harrison Road and
Deering Avenue in the Northeast''/. of Section 36, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2007-03-02-10 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 prepared by Melonio
& Ugoroak, Limited, dated June 26, 2007, as revised, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced Site
Plan, including steel fencing shown on the Ornamental
Fence Detail, is hereby approved and shall be completed
in accordance with said plan, subject to the following
stipulations:
- That all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
July 10, 2007
24191
permanently maintained in a healthy condition, and any
existing plant material to remain or be relocated that is
dead or dying shall be replaced with new plant material
of the same variety or with a variety of equal quality and
growth characteristics;
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 Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-4
prepared by Melonio & Ugorcak, Limited, dated April 6,
2007, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
4. That any 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;
5. That the dumpster enclosure shall be of masonry
construction and shall have steel gates which, when not in
use, shall be closed at all times;
6. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including
the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage,
marking and configuration, and all regular spaces shall be
10 feel by 20 feet in size as required;
7. That all light poles shall be a maximum of 20 feet high
inducing the base, and all light fixtures shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway;
8. That the traffic lanes serving the drive -up facilities shall
each be at least 12 feet in width;
9. That directional signage shall be installed in accordance
with the recommendation of the Traffic Bureau as stated in
their correspondence dated April 18, 2007;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits from
the Michigan Department of Transportation for drive
approaches and from Wayne County in accordance with
their Storm Water Management Ordinance;
July 10, 2007
24192
11. That the approval of this petition shall be subject to the 20 -
vehicle standing area requirement for a drive-lhru
restaurant being waived or modified by the City Council by
means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the
members of the City Council concur;
12. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
13. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shal be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
14. 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.
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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#9 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Capital
Improvements Program for years 2008-2013.
July 10, 2007
24193
Mr. Taormina: We are submitting for your consideration this evening the
approval of the 2008 - 2013 Capital Improvements Plan. This is
being presented to you under the authority of the Municipal
Planning Commission Act (PA 285 of 1931). Basically, it
provides a list of each of the city department's anticipated
capital expenditures over a six-year period and identifies the
estimate cost as well as potential funding sources for each
project. The current Capital Improvements Program identifies
both smaller recurring capital expenditures, as well as larger
improvements that are permanent in nature. We are requesting
that the Planning Commission approve the Capital
Improvements Program so that it may be transmitted in its final
form to the Mayor and Council to assist in the annual
preparation of the budget. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions or comments? I did take a look at this
in our study meeting with our staff in a more thorough manner.
If there are no questions, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wllshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
resolved that
#07-78-2007 WHEREAS, pursuant to state law, the City Planning
Commission is responsible for the preparation of a Capital
Improvements Program for the ensuing six years; and
WHEREAS, the 2008 — 2013 Capital Improvements Program,
prepared through a joint effort of several City departments, has
been submitted to the City Planning Commission for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, a duly -noticed City Planning Commission public
meeting was held on July 10, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Program presents a
realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete fiscal
planning strategy for the City of Livonia; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission stands ready to do
all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and City
Council in maintaining a functioning program of capital
improvements and capital budgeting for the City of Livonia;
therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission hereby
adopts the 2008-2013 Capital Improvements Program; and
July 10, 2007
24194
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt this Capital Improvements
Program and use it as a guide to funding priority capital projects
with the program.
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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 944`" Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 944"' Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission held on May 15, 2007.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-79-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 944" Regular Meeting held by
the City Planning Commission on May 15, 2007, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, LaPine, Wilshaw, Varloogian, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McDermott
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 947" Public
Hearing and Regular Meeting held on July 10, 2007, was adjourned at 9:49 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman