Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2011-08-23MINUTES OF THE 1,013TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 23, 2011, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,013" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Scott P. Bahr Ashley V. Krueger Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: R. Lee Morrow Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Acting Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, 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 of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETMON 2011-07-01-03 KUCYK, SOAVE AND FERNANDES, P.L. L.C. Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2011-07- 01-03 submitted by Kucyk, Soave and Fernandes, P.L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone property at 14341 Henry Ruff Road, located on the west side of Henry Ruff Road between Schoolcreff Road and Lyndon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, from RUF to R-3. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the staff? August 23, 2011 25763 Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Taormina: This properly is described as being the east half of Lot 11 of B.E. Taylor's Schoolcraft Manor Subdivision. This property is about .30 acres in size with approximately 105 feel of frontage on Henry Ruff and a depth of 126 feel. The properly is presently vacant. Located three properties to the north is a similar sized lot, Lot 8, that was rezoned in 2010. Prior to the rezoning, approval to develop Lot 8 was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals at that time included a condition that the petitioner had to widen a portion of Henry Ruff Road. The variance and road widening condition became moot when the Council approved the change of zoning to R-3, which then made the site conforming. There is a similar road widening condition as it applies with respect to Lot 11, which was granted a variance in 2005. Like Lot 8, the condition imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals would become null and void should the requested rezoning be successful. The subject properly is not currently in compliance with RUF standards with respect to minimum lot size. The RUF district requires a minimum lot of 21,780 square feel, whereas the subject property is approximately 8,712 square feel in area. The rezoning would cause the zoning of the property to more accurately reflect the size of the property and also would be consistent with the zoning across the street. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any correspondence on this item? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated August 17, 2011, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description provided is correct. The address is confirmed to be 14341 Henry Ruff. It should be noted that the Site Plan which was attached was drawn in October of 2004. No house has been built on that lot. By copy of this correspondence, 1 am notifying the developer that no permit install the sanitary service for this property will be issued until proof that the 12 foot wide easement for the sewer has been obtained and recorded. We trust that this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the staff? August 23, 2011 25764 Ms. Smiley: Is this consistent with the Future Land Use, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it is. The Future Land Use shows the area as low density residential, and the R-3 zoning would correspond with that low density category. Mr. Wilshaw: We will open the public hearing. Is the petitioner here this evening? Enrico E. Soave, Esq., Kucyk, Soave & Fernandes, P.L.L.C., 37771 Seven Mile Road, Suite C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening, everyone. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. A few things to add in addition to what Mr. Taormina said. There was a site plan that was provided as part of this petition for illustrative purposes. That is not going to be the house that will be constructed there in the event this Board and City Council approves rezoning. Also, Mr. Taormina mentioned, last March of 2010, the Council did approve the rezoning of three parcels to the north of this. I represented that property owner as well. The house has been built and sold there, and its quite a beautiful addition to the neighborhood if I may say so myself. Also, this present property owner does live right in the neighborhood, so he is immediately affected, whatever happens here. Actually, he owns the property immediately behind this one to the west. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Soave. Does anyone have any questions for the petitioner? Ms. Krueger: Why is this being requested? Mr. Soave: Even though some people may not think so, despite the market there is somewhat of a shortage of buildable lots in Livonia. The property owner thinks that if he does put a house up there, it will sell in the near future. There is a demand for it. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: You said that you're going to pave that street then in front of that house. I know there is already a larger paving there now, but you're not going to do anything more than that. Mr. Soave: The pavement widening is, hopefully, going to be waived by the City Council as they did with the lot to the north. Mr. Taylor: Do you know the road width now by chance? August 23, 2011 25765 Mr. Soave: I think Mark may know it. Mr. Taormina: It is 21 feet where it exists adjacent to this particular lot. There was a project that increased the width of Henry Ruff by about four feet last Spring. Mr. Wilshaw: That lot at 24 feet is wide enough to be considered a standard proper width for a road. Also for fire safety, there are no issues that the Fire Department has with that? Mr. Taormina: I think it's 21 feet. We have not been made aware that it needs to be widened beyond its current cross section for the purpose that it serves currently. Again, this is Henry Ruff. It was originally classified as a collector street if it was to extend further to the south and be continued to SchoolcraR Road, but that is no longer a plan at the present time. It is a limited service street. It is adequate. Standards today are somewhat different but we have other neighborhoods within the community where the streets that serve similar purposes are at this width if not slightly less than this. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Soave? Mr. Soave: I have nothing further. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #08-44-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 23, 2011, on Petition 2011-07-01-03 submitted by Kucyk, Soave and Fernandes, P.L.L.C. pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone property at 14341 Henry Ruff Road, located on the west side of Henry Ruff Road between Schoolcraff Road and Lyndon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, from RUF to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-07-01-03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; August 23, 2011 25766 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; 3. That the property involved in this request would be in full compliance with R-3 District regulations; 4. That the proposed change of zoning would cause the zoning of the properly to more accurately correspond to the use and size of the properly; and 5. That the proposed change of zoning would moot any existing zoning variances granted to this property and render ordinary additions or construction of outbuildings a matter of right, whereas under the current zoning, any such changes would be prohibited and require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2011-07-01-04 DANILO JOSIFOSKI Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 07-01-04 submitted by the Danilo Josifoski pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone properties at 37600 through 37706 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Chase Boulevard in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R-9. NOTE: Item #2 has been removed from the agenda at the request of the petitioner. August 23, 2011 25767 ITEM #3 PETITION 2011-07-02-09 JAMES PARTY STORE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 07-02-08 submitted by Thamer Ajja requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM liquor license (sale of packaged beer and wine) and an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with a party store (James Party Store) at 27821 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Taormina: The description of this properly is Lots 20 through 26 of the Sunningdale Subdivision. The overall site measures approximately 145 feel of frontage on Seven Mile Road and has a depth of 100 feel on Deering, for a land area of about 14,500 square feel or .33 acres. The current zoning of the properly is C-1, Local Business. The proposed party store would occupy the building that would be located on Lots 22 and 23, which is near the middle of the site. The building extends onto Lots 20 and 21, and those constitute separate tenant spaces that are for rent. Lots 24, 25 and 26, which lie to the east, as well as the rear portions of Lots 20 through 23, all contain parking spaces for the entire building which is about 4,180 square feet. The space that is proposed to be occupied by the party store is about half of the total building area. It's about 2,080 square feel, and then the remaining 2,100 square feel consists of these two equally divided tenant spaces. One is 1,000 square feet and the other is roughly 1,100 square feet. Both SDD and SDM liquor licenses are allowed as waiver uses in the C-1 district under Section 10.03(8) of the Zoning Ordinance. James Party Store is currently located at 27847 Seven Mile, which is on the same block as the subject site and is at the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Floral. They will be transferring both the SDD and SDM liquor licenses to the new location. There are a number of special requirements as it pertains to these types of retail licenses. For the SDM liquor license, they cannot be located within 500 feel of an existing SDM licensed establishment and for the SDD liquor license, which is the sale of packaged liquor, they cannot be located within 1,000 feet of a similar licensed business. This proposal is in full compliance with those requirements because they would be transferring the licenses over. So the current one will disappear and it will be relocated to the new site, and there are no SDD or SDM licensed establishments within those specified distances. There August 23, 2011 25768 is also a requirement in the ordinance that these licensed establishments cannot be located within 400 feet of a church or school. Again, the proposal does comply with that requirement. Lastly, there is a provision in the ordinance that says in the case of those stores where the gross receipts derived from the sale of alcoholic beverages does not exceed 35 percent of the total gross receipts of all sales, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, that all SDD licensed products, again these are all the spirits, would have to be displayed behind a counter with no direct public access, and they would have to have a qualified employee distribute those items to the customer. We don't have the information relative to what their total sales are in comparison to their SDD or packaged liquor sales, but that point doesn't matter because on the floor plan they are showing that all those products would be restricted and there would be no direct public access to those items. They would be located behind the sales counter. For the SDM products, there is no such requirement. Those can be located on the display shelving and in the coolers. Thank you. Mr. Wlshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. I believe we have a few items of correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated August 16, 2011, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. It appears that no site work will be associated with this liquor license request. The following legal description describes the property and the subject premises: Lots 22 to 26 inclusive, Sunningdale Park Subdivision, being a subdivision of part of the north half of Section 12, TIS R9E, Liber 61, Page 56 of Wayne County Records, and more specifically, the premises located at the southwest corner of the lot utilizing the address of 27821 Seven Mile Road, with the internal dimensions of 40 feet by 56 feet, and containing approximately 2200 square feet.. The range of addresses associated with this property is 27809 through 27825 Seven Mile Road. The address of the subject premises is 27821 Seven Mile Road. We trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 1, 2011, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the plan submitted in connection with a waiver use approval request to utilize an SDM liquor license and an SDD liquor license in connection with a party store located at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. August 23, 2011 25769 Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 28, 2011, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 8, 2011, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with James Party Store (SDD and SDM licenses) request, located at 27821 Seven Mile Road (South side of Seven Mile Road between Floral and Deering Roads). This is a business that is already in operation at the corner of Seven Mile and Floral. They are attempting to move to Seven Mile and Deering. We have no objection or recommendations to the plans as submitted as long as they comply with: (1) All State Laws, (2) City Ordinances, and (3) Stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department." The letter is signed by Donald E. Borieo, Sergeant, Special Services Bureau. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wlshaw: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner here? Please give us your name and address for the record. Zaid Abro, Architect, Chester Stempien Associates, 5566 Cooley Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan 48327. I'm the designer. This is the owner, Tom Ajja. Basically, just as Mark staled, we're trying to move him from one end of the building to the other. From a floor plan standpoint, the building that's highlighted, basically, the doors and the windows are all there. We don't want to change loo much of the facade of the building, even though the liquor shelves are going behind those windows. We dont want to lose that appearance, so we're proposing to the put the door on the parking lot side and probably, as far as the windows go, we're proposing to put some dark tinted film to hide the backside of the shelving. That's basically R. Just what you see is what you get. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Do we have any questions from the Commission? Mr. Taylor: I know you're not going to do anything to the building, but are you going to re -do the parking lot? The parking lot is in pretty rough shape and it's not striped. Mr. Abro: Definitely. Definitely. The potholes will be filled in with the same material, which I believe is asphalt, and striped with double lines according to the City's ordinance. For him to move over and spend all the money inside and keep the parking lot in August 23, 2011 25770 its current shape wouldn't make any sense. So the construction documents will have more detail as far as the inside, the outside. As far as the outside, there is no change except for the door. It's going to be a brand new door to match the existing materials on Seven Mile. Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark Taormina. Mark, doesn't normally the Inspection Department take a look at that? We have nothing from them. Mr. Taormina: We did not gel the report in time for tonight's meeting, unfortunately. Mr. Taylor: I know they have a wooden fence in back. It's about a six foot high wooden fence. Its not in very good shape either. I just wondered if you're going to try to upgrade a little bit in there. Mr. Abro: Absolutely. Mr. Taylor: I have no problem with you moving from one spot to the other, but I would like to see a bit of an upgrade if we can get it. Mr. Abro: There would be no objections from our side as far as upgrading the properly. Absolutely. Ms. Krueger: Do you plan on moving the sign that you currently have to this new building or do you have plans on having a new sign? Mr. Abro: I didn't pay close attention to that sign. It's up to Tom. Is it a box sign, your sign on the existing building? Are you going to put up a new sign? Thamer Ajja, 4788 Bloomfield, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48310. Yes, we can do a sign. Mr. Abro: We'll go in accordance with the ordinance for signage. It's a brand new store. The old store is not the most attractive building. I didn't pay attention to the sign, but most likely a new sign, channel letters, or something with possibly goose neck lights, something like that. Ms. Krueger: Okay. I know this doesn't directly relate to your request, but I'm just curious. Do you plan on having any L.E.D. lights? Mr. Abro: On the windows? Ms. Krueger: Open signs or liquor sold here. Anything like that? August 23, 2011 25771 Mr. Abro: In accordance with the code, I'm sure he's going to want an open sign. I dont know about liquor. I'm guessing if he puts up a box sign or a channel letter in accordance with the code, it will have all that information on there. I know you don't want those unattractive green signs. No, that's not going to go. He is going to spend enough money. He will have an open sign because you need it for hours, that sort of thing. Those are usually combined. But on those windows in the front, we don't propose, as of right now, to put any kind of signage on there. Like I said, just an open sign, that sort of thing. It would behoove him to put some sort of small channel letters on Seven Mile because everyone driving east won't be able to see the business basically. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: Does your client currently lease the premises where he's located? Mr. Abro: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Will he be the owner of this property? Mr. Abro: Yes. Mr. Taormina: The other buildings, I see one has a tenant and the other one is currently empty. Is there any plans to utilize that space? Mr. Abro: No. Not for the store. If he gets a tenant, then yes. Still, depending on the tenant, obviously, there are issues of parking and that sort of thing. As of right now, that is empty and remains so until someone rents the space. Mr. Taormina: Do you propose public access from the rear of this building? Mr. Abro: For all tenants? Mr. Taormina: No, to this space here. Mr. Abro: To this space? Mr. Taormina: Is that a public access point off the south side of the building? Mr. Abro: That's for egress. Mr. Taormina: That's egress only. August 23, 2011 25772 Mr. Abro: Actually, that's not even required. Mr. Taormina: That won't be for the public, then? Mr. Abro: No. Mr. Taormina: The public will not be able to use R. Mr. Abro: For a liquor store, especially. Mr. Taormina: That was the reason for my question. Lastly, while I agree the building is in better shape than where he's currently located, it's not really as visible as the current location, party because of the landscaping that exists out front. There are actually some nice trees out there, but I can see where they would affect the visibility of the store. Does your client have any plans to modify those trees, because that's something we typically look at as part of the plan review process. Mr. Abro: Sure. We really haven't got into depth with that because I know the trees are there. Do you plan on keeping those trees in the front? There are about three trees in the front. It does obstruct the store from the front. It's kind of overgrown. Would it be a problem if we removed the trees and plant smaller evergreens or something that is not as obstructive as the existing trees? Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend as part of any resolution that would approve this request, a condition be added that would require the submittal of a landscape plan at least for the Department's review prior to any modifications being made to the landscaping, and then compliance with whatever the Inspection Department requires as part of their report, which, unfortunately, we don't have this evening, but issues like the parking lot and those things would be important to include in the resolution . Mr. Wlshaw: Mr. Taormina, this is the only shot we have at this one, right? Its not going to come back. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Mr. Wlshaw: So it's important that we address some of these issues in this resolution tonight then. Very good. Ms. Scheel: In that same vein, Mark, what about the signs that Mrs. Krueger brought up? August 23, 2011 25773 Mr. Taormina: I don't know if those were included in our language or not in terms of L.E.D. signage. Let's see. Ms. Scheel: If they put a new sign on the building, is that something that can go through just the Administration or would it have to come back to us? Mr. Taormina: In this case, it could be approved administratively unless it required a variance, and then it would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Because I'd feel better if at least the Administration looked at the sign request also in the same realm that you're suggesting for the landscaping. Mr. Taormina: We can add a condition that addresses that issue. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: On that same note, the lighting in the front of the building, that would be part of the landscaping signage and lighting would be like a three prong package that they have to bring back. Mr. Taormina: You could do that if you wanted to include that. You're referring to if he adds any sconces or lighting. Yes. Sure. Ms. Smiley: Okay. And that could all be approved by your Department so it doesn't have to go through this again? Mr. Taormina: It could be. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: What are the hours of operation right now? I assume they're going to stay the same. Mr. Ajja: Monday from Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. From Friday to Saturday, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. On Sunday, 12:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. Mr. W lshaw: Are you proposing to put any additional lighting in the parking lot for evening hours? Mr. Ajja: Yes, until about 1:00 a.m. August 23, 2011 25774 Mr. W lshaw: Okay. Are those lights existing already or are you going to add lights to the parking lot? Mr. Abro: Around the building and the parking lot, and wall packs in the back because it's dark back there and we have the fence and everything else. Mr. Wilshaw: Are you going to be able to adjust those in a way that it doesn't shine into the neighbors directly behind there. Mr. Abro: The wall packs have shields and there are no neighbors on the parking lot side, but they will be pointed in a direction where they won't go beyond the sidewalk. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Sir, would you like to come up and give us your name and address? Fred Mufarreh: I live in Livonia. I'm the owner of the subject building. Those people when they came and bought my building, they got a lease to slay in it. All of a sudden, they refuse to stay in it and they just want to move the license somewhere just to gel the license and move over there. They use the license like a toy. That's what they did for me now. The building has been there for 50 years and we have the liquor there. It's a nice looking building. Everything works okay. They came there and signed a lease for a couple years and now leave the building empty. That's not fair for the area. It's not fair for anybody else. I'm against that all the way. That's what I feel about it. This is not right to do. They have an option on the lease and they refuse to renew it. That wasn't right to lake a liquor license and to do with R what you want to. That's not fair. Mr. Wilshaw: You're the owner of the current building that they're in, right? Mr. Mufarreh: Yes. I'm the owner for the current building. I just feel bad that something like that could happen. Mr. Wlshaw: All right. Okay. Is there anything else? I appreciate your comments, sir. Thank you. Does the petitioner have anything else that they would like to add at this point? Are you all right with no more comments? Mr. Aga: I've been five years there. The building is in very bad shape and every time I call him, I tell him, you know, the roof is leaking. He said, okay, okay. And I tell him his back room, water is coming. Come and fix it. He said, okay, okay. When August 23, 2011 25775 rain is coming up, I get flooded inside. Now, lately, I tell him last winter, my wife called him and she told him, the heat is not working. He said, this is not my problem. You go ahead and fix it. When I talked to him the other day, he said the heat isn't new. When I call somebody and he said the heat has been a long time, and every time I say something to him, he said, okay. He never do anything. The roof is leaking and it's in bad shape and he got somebody come and look at it, you know, especially in the rain, you know. The water goes in, and that's the only thing I can say. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. Ms. Scheel: Mr. Taormina, I just wanted to double check. He is leasing where he is now, but where he is moving to, he is buying the building. Correct? Mr. Taormina: He responded affirmatively to that. Ms. Scheel: You are buying the building that you are going to right now? Mr. Ajja: Yes. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Soyou will bethe ownerthen? Mr. Abro: He will be the owner. Correct. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to double check that. Mr. Wilshaw: Does anyone else have any questions? I will close the public hearing. A motion would be in order at this point. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #0845-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 23, 2011, on Petition 2011-07-02-09 submitted by Thamer Ajja requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM liquor license (sale of packaged beer and wine) and an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with a party store (James Party Store) at 27821 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, which property is zoned C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-07-02-09 be approved subject to the following conditions: August 23, 2011 25776 1. That the proposed use of an SDD and SDM liquor license at this location complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That public access to SDD products shall be restricted, as stipulated in Section 10.03(8)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. That the petitioner shall be in compliance with all items as may be specified by the Inspection Department, including exterior lighting, landscaping, signage, parking, and repairs to the fence; 4. That the petitioner shall submit any changes involving the exterior lighting, landscaping, signage, fencing and parking to the Planning and Inspection Departments for approval; 5. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 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; 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 4. That the granting of this petition will not increase the number of SDM and/or SDD liquor licenses in the City of Livonia. 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. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? August 23, 2011 25777 Ms. Smiley: I would also like to add that they will be in compliance with all things as pointed out by the Inspection Department, including but not limited to the parking lot, landscaping and signage, and that they will come back to the Planning Department regarding the landscaping, signage and lighting. Mr. Taylor: Mark, should we put in the no L.E.D. and neon lights? Mr. Taormina: Sure. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Smiley, did you have any additional comments? Ms. Smiley: No, as long as that's coming back about the lighting, signage, landscaping and the parking lot, which I assume is under compliance with the Inspection Department. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. And you're okay with the addition of the no L.E.D. lights? Ms. Smiley: Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Is there any other comments? Mr. Taormina, do you have everything? Mr. Taormina: I think we do, yes. Mr. Bahr: Do we need to include the fence provision in there as well? Mr. Wilshaw: That's probably a good idea. Yes. Mr. Taylor noted that it was in disrepair. Ms. Scheel: Is that something that can go through the Administration also? Mr. Wilshaw I believe so. Mr. Taormina, can you comment on that? Mr. Taormina: If that just involves repairs to the fence, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Is that okay with the maker and supporter? Ms. Smiley: Thalfine. Mr. Taylor: I have no problem with it. I'm just wondering, Mark, that's probably been grandfathered in. It might have went to the Zoning Board originally, but I'm not loo sure of that because that's a long time ago. August 23, 2011 25778 Mr. Taormina: I think the alley still exists behind the store where he's currently located, but it was probably vacated where it abuts his property. I'm guessing that's the fence that was in existence at the time that the alley was vacated. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou Mr. Wilshaw, Acting 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 2011-07-02-10 TIME OUT BAR & GRILL Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 07-02-10 submitted by Lone Pine Corral, Inc. requesting waiver use approve for an outdoor dining patio (seasonal sealing) in connection with a full service restaurant (Time Out Bar & Grill) at 36480 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Taormina: In 1983, Silverman's restaurant, which was previously located here, was expanded to accommodate a total of 78 customer seals. Last year, Time Out Bar & Grill obtain a Class C liquor license with a submitted seating plan that showed a total of 78 customers seats, which was in compliance with that 1983 waiver use. Time Out Bar & Grill is classified as a full service restaurant because it has more than 30 seats. The interior sealing, in connection with this proposal, would remain at 78. What they propose to do is to expand the seating by constructing an outdoor dining patio. That patio would have an additional 36 seals, which would bring the total up to 114 for seasonal purposes. This does affect the parking. The required parking would be 55 spaces. There are 39 spaces required for the interior seats. Twelve additional parking spaces would be required for the 35 additional seasonal seats. With four or five employees, that brings the total up to 55 spaces. On site, they have 39 parking spaces. This would be deficient in terms of parking and would require ultimately the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to moving forward. The patio location is in front of the building that faces Plymouth Road. It's on the west properly line. This is an area that is currently maintained August 23, 2011 25779 with landscaping. The patio would measure about 540 square feet in area. Its overall dimensions are 15 feel in width by 36 feel 9 inches in depth. It would be enclosed by a 36 inch high wrought iron fence. We have some photographs that show what that fence would look like. There would be a covered aluminum awning over a portion of the patio. That would project about 21 feel from the front of the building and would cover that portion of the patio. The proposed patio is rectangular in shape, This would be a concrete patio. An access door would be provided to the patio from the interior of the restaurant located in the southeast comer. There are some additional plantings that would be installed along the eastern edge of the proposed patio. In terms of landscaping, the ordinance requires a minimum of 15 percent of the total site area to be landscaped. This site is presently deficient. It's about 9 percent. With the construction of the patio, that would reduce that by a couple more percentage points to about 7 percent. That is something that would require special approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council to eliminate the additional landscaping. We would note, however, that when the petitioner came before you for the Class C liquor license, it was requested that the Petitioner make some improvements to the landscaping along the frontage. They have done that by installing some of the slreetscape improvements similar to what the Plymouth Road Development Authority has done along Plymouth Road, which includes the brick piers and fencing and other landscaping elements. They have done that at the entrance to the restaurant. As far as the setback is concemed, the ordinance does require that there be a 60 foot front setback. This would apply to the building as well as the patio. Because the building is currently setback right at 60 feet, any projection closer to Plymouth Road would encroach into that required setback and require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are not proposing any other changes to the exterior of the building as it relates to this patio other than the additional awning. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I do believe we have some items of correspondence if you want to read those. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineenng Division, dated August 17, 2011, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The outdoor patio construction will not include any work within right- of-way or easements. The legal description included is correct, and the address is confirmed to be 36480 Plymouth Road. We August 23, 2011 25780 trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 15, 2011, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval for an outdoor dining patio (seasonal seating) in connection with a full service restaurant on property located at the above -referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 9, 2011, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated August 10, 2011, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The proposed 36 additional patio seats would require 12 additional parking spaces. The petitioner has no additional parking available so would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the 12 spaces. (2) The required front yard setback is 60 feet. The petitioner would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for any part of the patio within the 60 foot setback. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Krueger: Mark, did your department have an opportunity to speak with the Fire Marshal specifically about the outdoor barbeque grill? Mr. Taormina: Yes. They indicated to my staff that it would have to be at least 10 feel from the building. There doesn't appear to be any problem with the setback. I think they're going to have some issues and I think they have to address this with the petitioner relative to how the barbeque is covered, what the clearance is, and what the material of the canopy is. So those are issues that they will have to resolve, but in terms of separation from the building, this plan would appear not to present any problems or limitations. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? August 23, 2011 25781 Danilo Josifoski, 37630 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 48150. The reason we want to build a patio outside the bar is because the customers are looking to go outside and dine out. At the same time, I think it's very nice for the Plymouth Corridor. When people are driving by, they want to see people dining outside. And having the barbeque machine outside, I think, is going to create a smoke which is the main purpose of it. It would be great in the summer for graduation parties with dining, renting that spot. It would increase our business. And that canopy is going to be the same material as the existing one, and we're going to try to do the best we can. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you know how you're going to vent the barbeque area? Mr. Josifoski: There is going to be a small hood above it so that way the smoke is going to go in the hood and there's going to be stainless steel ductwork going up like a chimney. In effect, we'll be inside because it's going to be covered, so we don't want that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Are there any questions from the Commission? Ms. Krueger: As you're aware, there is a significant parking deficiency. Have you considered removing a few seats from the patio and reducing the size to reduce the deficiency in parking? Mr. Josifoski: There is going to be an exit door from the building toward the patio, which is going to be on the east side of the building. Right at that location inside we have a six lop table. So that table is going to be removed during the summer months. So that way there's going to be six seals less for inside. By the same token, I can say right now, I want to put five tables out. So I can satisfy you. Five tables, 20, and we're going to pull them out. The thing is, we have 40 parking spaces. Once the parking spaces are full up, that's about it. I don't know where people are going to be parking. Ms. Krueger: But you still have to respect the ordinance. Mr. Josifoski: I understand that. I'm an honest person. I'm not saying that. I'm saying I can remove six tables with six chairs from inside, and if you want me to remove more, I can remove another two tables. I dont have that problem. Ms. Krueger: Okay, but you're not willing to consider reducing the size of the patio? August 23, 2011 25782 Mr. Josdoski: I spoke with Mark, and Mark suggested that we should reduce the patio by seven feel. I agree with that if that's going to satisfy the Planning Commission and the Zoning. Instead of being 21 plus 15.9, its going to be 21 plus 8 feel. Its still going to be 29 feet. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. I have a follow-up question for Mark, then. Is that something that has been done in the past, where they reduce the number of seats during the summer time when the patio is open and then increase it again to satisfy the parking requirement? Mr. Taormina: It hasn't been done that often. I think we just recently had this discussion with another restaurant on a much smaller scale. It was the Biggby restaurant where it was thought they could transfer some of the seating to the outside during the summer months and then move them back in during the colder months. We prepared the resolution in such a way that it would require a 30 fool setback for the patio and limit the seating to 28 outside and not really impact the interior seating. He had indicated that he is going to have to remove at lead one table in order to accommodate the patio. That would have the net effect of reducing it by 6 interior seats and I think it was 8 outside patio seats. He is still going to be over the amount of seating. He still is not going to have adequate parking, but that would lessen the degree of the parking van ance needed. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: My concern is the setback to Plymouth Road and the lack of landscaping. We're already deficient and we're looking at increasing the deficiency. We have a 60 feet setback right now. Mr. Taormina: The building is current setback 60 feel. So the plan you're looking at shows the patio extending out 36 feet 9 inches. We would cul that back by roughly seven feel in order to give him a little bit more landscaping, increase the setback and reduce the encroachment into the setback. Ms. Smiley: So he's still going to need a variance. Mr. Taormina: He still needs a variance, absolutely. Ms. Smiley: More than half of the setback is going to be eaten up with the patio. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. August 23, 2011 25783 Ms. Smiley: As a Commissioner, I think they still have a problem with that. Thankyou, Mr. Chair. Mr. Taylor: I think the petitioner is right. Everyone likes to sit outside in the summer and we dont have that much of it. So they would like to enjoy it when they can. I do agree with setting it back farther, though. I think you can gel more landscaping in and it reduces your parking requirements. I think its going to help you. The setback is still not as large as it should be, but I think if you put more landscaping in there and buffer it off so you don't see the cars going by all the time either. But I think what Mark has proposed is workable and its a good compromise. Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else, Mr. Josifoski? Mr. Josdoski: I just want to add one thing. It's like you're living in a 1,000 square feet house. The next thing, you're living in a 3,000 square feet house. The next thing you know, you say, well, we're only two people. Its loo big, 3,000 square feel. We're going to move into a 1,000 square feel house. Once you move in a 1,000 square feel house, it's less cleaning, less maintenance, less everything. The point I'm trying to make here is we used to run a 300 seat restaurant. I'm not trying to make this place 300 seats. I don't want it. The thing is, the more sealing capacity you have, the more people, the more people you have to employ, the number of problems you have. We're trying to ran a small operation here. Thats all I have to say. We're trying to improve the building and the looks from outside, bring more people in for the patio. I don't think anything is going to change more. That's all I have to say. Ms. Smiley: What will the new seating capacity be in the patio? Mr. Taormina: Twenty-eight. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I don't see anybody else in the audience to address us. I will close the public hearing. A motion would be in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Krueger, and unanimously adopted, it was #0846-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 23, 2011, on Petition 2011-07-02-10 submitted by Lone Pine Corral, Inc. requesting waiver use approve for an outdoor dining patio August 23, 2011 25784 (seasonal seating) in connection with a full service restaurant (Time Out Bar and Grill) at 36480 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-07-02-10 be approved subjectlolhe following conditions: 1. That the Plan received by the Planning Commission on July 28, 2011 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the setback of the patio shall be a minimum of thirty (30') feet from the right-of-way of Plymouth Road; 2. That the landscape materials indicated on the approved Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed a total of one hundred six (106) seats, including seventy-eight (78) interior seals and twenty-eight (28) outdoor patio seats; 4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front yard setback and deficient parking and any conditions related thereto; 5. That no advertising shall be permitted on any of the seating apparatus of the outdoor patio area; and 6. 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; and 2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. August 23, 2011 25785 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. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2011 -08 -LS -10 SALE OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Consideration of Real Property Disposal submitted by David S. Lent, pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, City Properly Disposition, requesting to purchase City -owned property at 36413 Parkdale Avenue, located on the south side of Parkdale Avenue between Levan Road and Raleigh Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Taormina: Before the City can sell any properly that it owns to a private entity, the matter must first be referred to the Planning Commission as to whether or not the City should dispose of the property and for the Planning Commission's advice as to whether there are any other plausible allemative uses of the property. This is a request by David Lent to purchase City - owned property that is located adjacent to the properly where he resides, which is on Parkdale Avenue between Levan and Raleigh Avenue. The property in question constitutes Lot 15 of Shatfmaster's Parkside Estates Subdivision. The zoning of the property is RUF. The size is about a quarter of an acre with 75 feel of frontage on Parkdale and has a depth of about 141 feel. As I indicated, Mr. Lent owns the adjacent properly west of the subject parcel at 36421 Parkdale and he would like to purchase this land and combine it with his property. Mr. Lent's properly is currently about the same size, .22 acres. Combining this would bring the overall size of the property to just under half an acre. So while it would still not conform to RUF standards, it would substantially reduce the degree of nonconformity. One thing to note is this property is essentially bifurcated by a 72 -inch storm sewer that runs right through the center of the properly from the front to the rear where it continues west, and then eventually discharges into the Middle Branch of the Rouge River. The green area shown on this plan is actually part of the middle Rouge Parkway or Hines Parkway and that storm sewer runs right through the center of this City -owned properly and then August 23, 2011 25786 where it outlets a Iit8e bit further to the south and west. For this reason the Engineering Division is taking a close look at this. They will spell out exactly what must be done in order to protect the City's interests with respect to that sewer, including conducting a survey and performing inspections, as well as recording any easements ultimately that would be necessary in order to maintain that storm sewer. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I believe there is no correspondence on this item. Mr. Taormina: No. There is not. Mr. Wilshaw: There is nobody in the audience to speak to this item. Are there any questions from the Commission? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark Taormina. Mark, was the petitioner asked to come to this meeting? Mr. Taormina: I think we sent notice to him advising him of the meeting. I'm not sure if any direct contact was made other than that. Mr. Taylor: I know at our study we were curious as to why he wanted the property, but obviously we're not going to get that answer. Mr. W Ishaw: Is there any further discussion? We'll ask for a motion. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0847-2011 RESOLVED, that in connection with a request submitted by David S. Lent, pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, City Properly Disposition, requesting to purchase City -owned properly at 36413 Parkdale Avenue, located on the south side of Parkdale Avenue between Levan Road and Raleigh Avenue in the Northwest 114 of Section 32, the Planning Commission has no objections to the sale of vacant City -owned property located at 36413 Parkdale Avenue to David S. Lent (owner of the adjacent property at 36421 Parkdale Avenue) for a fair -market value, subject to the recording of the necessary utility easement(s) as prescribed by the Engineering Division, and pursuant to adopted policies and ordinances involving such transactions; further, this recommendation is based on a determination that there is no plausible alternative use for the property, and no compelling reason exists to delay the sale of the properly as requested. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. August 23, 2011 25787 ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,012" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,012'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 19, 2011. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #0848-2011 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,0121" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 19, 2011, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Taylor, Scheel, Bahr, Smiley, Krueger, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Morrow ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,013'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 23, 2011, was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Acting Chairman