HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-12-17MINUTES OF THE 1,048rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,048`h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Gerald Taylor
Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: Scott P. Bahr, Carol Smiley
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow 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 delenninafion 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 wnting, 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 pefifions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2013-08-02-19 LANG AUTO SALES
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-08-
02-19 submitted by Keith Lang requesting waiver use approval
pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a used auto
dealership (Lang Auto Sales) with outdoor display of vehicles at
30805 & 30835 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35.
December 17, 2013
26187
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a used auto dealership with outdoor
display of vehicles on two adjoining parcels, 30805 and 30835
Plymouth Road, which are located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Mernman Road and Milburn Avenue.
The combined size of both properties is roughly one acre with
113 feel of frontage on Plymouth Road and a depth of 382 feel.
Relative to the existing conditions on the properties, the larger
of the two parcels contains a 6,500 square fool commercial
building that is currently occupied by American Steel
Motorcycle. The other parcel contains a 1,000 square foot
commercial building that was most recently occupied by a
cellular store. The zoning of both properties is C-2, General
Business. This petition is very similar to one that was fled in
2012 under Petition 2012-03-02-05, which was submitted by
Julian's Auto Sales. The Planning Commission had
recommended approval on that particular item. However, on
May 9, 2012, the City Council's motion to approve failed for lack
of majority support resulting in the same effect as a denial.
Thus, the petition in 2012 for a used car operation never moved
forward. The current petition seeks approval for essentially the
same use of the property, a used car dealership, but with a
different operator. On this map, you can see the rectangular
shape of the property. To the north are various commercial
uses. Immediately to the east is the Mitsubishi auto dealership,
which was formedy Livonia Chrysler. It is also zoned C-2.
Immediately to the west of the site is the Bone Yard Restaurant,
which is zoned C-2. Lying to the south are various single family
properties that are under the RUF zoning category. Under
Section 11.03(8) of the Zoning Ordinance, there are a couple of
restrictions that apply: (1) that no vehicles shall be parked
within twenty feel (20') from the front lot line or at the side lot
line adjacent to the street; (2) the total number of vehicles
proposed to be displayed or stored is subject to
recommendation of the Planning Commission and approved by
City Council; and, (3) outdoor storage of disabled, damaged or
unlicensed vehicles is strictly prohibited. The interior of the
proposed dealership would be divided into two sections. The
fron12,000 square feel would be used pnmanly for retail sales
and a showroom. The showroom would be able to
accommodate up to 15 vehicles within the building itself and
then the remaining back section, about 4,500 square feet, would
serve primarily for storage and as a light service area. The
plans originally submitted were to include two work bays but I
was informed this evening that there would likely be only one
service bay provided at the back portion of the building. Access
is provided by an overhead door located on the side of the
building. Lang Auto Sales would like to display a total of 31
December 17, 2013
26188
vehicles outside the building. They would be parked in front of
the building and along the west properly line. One of those
spaces is within the 20 fool setback and thus would require a
waiver by the City Council by means of a separate resolution. In
terms of parking overall, that is based on the amount of retail
sales as one component and the storage and service area as
the other. When you add those two together, there is a
requirement for eight customer parking spaces. The other
building on the site would require seven parking spaces based
on the amount of retail sales occurring there. Altogether they
would need 15 customer parking spaces. The plan provides for
a total of 55 parking spaces. So if they utilize 31 of those
spaces for displaying vehicles, that leaves 24 spaces available
for both of the buildings. There is an excess amount of parking
available for customers on the site and that should not present a
problem. Site lighting is usually an issue related to car
dealership operations; however, no additional lighting is
proposed for this facility. There are two existing light poles
along the eastern edge of the front parking lot. Apparently
those are adequate to serve the needs of the petitioner. There
is a trash enclosure behind the building. One of the issues that
was discussed at significant length during the previous petition
was the protection area along the back of the property where it
abuts the residential. There is a five foot high masonry
prolective wall that would have to be erected along the rear
property line between the commercial zoned property and the
land zoned for residential. There is a portion of that residential
property that is actually zoned for commercial use and in that
area they are proposing the continuafion of an existing fence.
There is residential property located nghl in the corner in the
back of this property and that residential property extends along
the rear. They are proposing a masonry wall along the back
section of the property, and then as it turns the comer, this
parcel actually is zoned for commercial purposes. There is a
fence along a portion of the property. They would propose to
extend that same fence. They are not proposing any exterior
modifications to the building. In terms of signage, they are
showing a conforming 52 square fool wall sign. They don't show
the details of the sign but they are showing where it will be
situated on the face of the building in conformance with the area
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Do we have correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, we do. Would you like me to read @?
Mr. Morrow: Please.
December 17, 2013
26189
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 20, 2013, which
reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
planning petition. We have no objections to the proposed site
renovation at this time. The proposed plan indicates that project
will consist of minor improvements to the exterior of the building
and parking lot which will not require Engineering Department
permits. The following legal description should be used in
conjunction with the proposed petition: That part of the
Northwest X of Section 35 more particularly described as
beginning at a point on the north line of said Section distant S
89 5845" E, 1197.00 feet frem the northwest comer of Section
35 and proceeding thence S 89 5845" E along said north line,
112.81 feet, thence S 0 03'15" E, 415.00 feet, thence N 89
58'45" W, 113.19 feet, thence due north 415.00 feet to the Point
of Beginning. Containing 1.08 acres of land more or less. The
addresses of 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road should be used
in conjunction with the parcel. The existing structure is cumently
serviced by public utilities, which are to remain in place. Should
changes to the existing utility leads be needed, the owner will
need to submit plans to the Engineering Department to
determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by
David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 9, 2013,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a used auto
dealership with outdoor display of vehicles on property located
at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Fire lanes shall be
provided for all buildings that are set back more than 150 feet
frem a public mad or exceed 30 feet in height and are set back
over 50 feet frem a public mad. (2) Fire lanes shall be not less
than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads
of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of
vertical clearance. (3) Fire lanes shall be marked with
freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO
PARKING painted in contrasting colors on both sides at a size
and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction.
These issues and other code requirements will be addressed
during the plan review process." The letter is signed by Daniel
Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
dated November 19, 2013, which reads as follows: "I have
reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no
objections to the proposaL" The letter is signed by Joseph
Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
December 17, 2013
26190
Inspection Department, dated December 12, 2013, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Parking
spaces are required to be a minimum of 10' wide and 20' deep
and double striped per City Ordinance. (2) Barrier free parking
spaces are required to be property sized, marked and signed.
(3) The exterior of the building needs to be maintained and
painted. (4) The screen wall shown by the petitioner on the
south and west side of the property is required to be constructed
of either reinforced concrete with a false brick design, cement
shadow block or a brick wall. It must be between 5' and Tin
height. This Department has no further objections to this
Petition. 1 trust this provides the requested information." The
letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of
Inspection. We do have a letter addressed to the Planning
Commission and City Council, received on December 10, 2013,
which reads as follows: "It would be a welcome addition to the
business community. We look forward to their approval." The
letter is signed by the Wine Barrel, 30303 Plymouth Road,
Livonia, Michigan 48150. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. Mark, I know there's not a
lot of frontage on this building because of the cell phone
building. I know they're lacking a lot of landscaping but I don't
know if there is any area to add it. If they have too much
parking, could they gel rid of one parking space and maybe do
some landscaping on Plymouth Road because Plymouth Road
is a little bit lax in landscaping?
Mr. Taormina: If you recall, Mr. Taylor, we did in fact have a very similar
discussion back in 2012. If you look closely at the plan, the
darker shaded areas show where landscaping is going to be
added to the site. They propose to do some additional
landscaping in a couple areas on the site. I'm not sure what is
new here, maybe one space. The one space that is within that
setback, the one that is immediately adjacent to the other retail
building on the property. They did show it as sales. So there is
one space that they could probably give up, and that would
have the same effect as complying with the setback
requirement. The other option is to look at one or more spaces
on the property, but I'd leave that up to the petitioner to see
which ones they could forego in favor of additional landscaping.
They are deficient according to the ordinance. We require 15
December 17, 2013
26191
percent of the site to be landscaped and I believe this is
somewhere around 5 percent.
Mr. Taylor: And I know the parking is 10 feel by 20 feel double striped.
What about the used cars that theyre trying to sell? Do they
have to have that type of parking spot?
Mr. Taormina: I think the resolution that we adopted in 2012 may have required
all of the customer spaces to be 10 feel by 20 feel. But for
display purposes, many dealerships really don't need those
kinds of dimensions. Nine feel is usually more than enough for
a dealership operation. We do want the customer spaces,
however, to be sized at 10 feel by 20 feet, and we prefer those
also to be marked in some way so they remain open for
customers using the facility.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anyone else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We
will need your name and address for the record please.
Keith Lang, Lang Auto Sales, 27777 Ford Road, Garden City, Michigan 48135.
Good evening.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Lang, you've heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina. Is
there anything you'd like to add to it or any additional comments
relative to your waiver request?
Mr. Lang:
No, I just appreciate the opportunity to be back in the City of
Livonia. For 25 years I ren a business right here in Livonia on
Plymouth Road, and I'd like the opportunity to be back in Livonia
doing the same thing we were doing years back.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou.
Mr. Lang:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Do we have any questions of the petitioner?
Mr. Taylor:
Just for clarification for people that are watching tonight, you're
not going to do any mechanical work there to speak of, right?
Mr. Lang:
That is correct. We might change a light bulb. I have another
dealership in another area that we will be doing all our service
work. There will be no vehicles parked out that will be silting
making it look unpresentable to the human eye. Everything will
be done right. We use quality used cars. We don't sell the
December 17, 2013
26192
lower echelon cars. It will be all quality, upper class used
vehicles.
Mr. Taylor
No painting.
Mr. Lang:
No painting, no service. Like I said, maybe a light bulb. The
only use inside is for detailing cars - what we'll be using the bay
for, just washing the vehicles. There will be no paint work done
on the properly and no heavy mechanical at all.
Mr. Taylor
Thankyou.
Ms. Scheel:
Good evening. Can you tell me what the hours of your business
would be?
Mr. Lang:
The hours would be from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Fnday, and from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Ms. Scheel:
And not open on Sunday.
Mr. Lang:
No, not open on Sunday.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Lang, what is your background in car sales?
Mr. Lang:
Twenty-five years I was with Tennyson Chevrolet. I was the
Vice President General Manager. I ran the total operation there.
Currently, since December of Iasi year when we sold the
property, I've opened my own Car Right franchises. I've got one
on Ford Road in Garden City that we've been very successful
with. I've had great success.
Mr. Wilshaw:
This is going to maintain the same brand name as you have
with your otherfacility?
Mr. Lang:
Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And what type of cars do you offer? Is there a specialty
that you have or is itjust general cars?
Mr. Lang:
It will be general cars. We'll be like $10,000 to $60,000 range
and a quality, newer used vehicle, certified cars. We have a few
things we do that no other stores do in the whole country. We
have a lifetime engine warranty so anybody who purchases a
vehicle from us, they get a lifetime engine warranty. If they
have that car for 500,000 miles, I'm backing the car for 500,000
miles. There's a lot of other things that we have, that we offer
December 17, 2013
26193
through our brand that is great for the customers and for our
clients and for the City.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Its safe to assume you have vast experience in the auto
industry and car sales from your background. That's certainly
appealing in the sense that you're not just starting out or trying
this from scratch.
Mr. Lang:
No. Absolutely not.
Mr. Wilshaw:
What aftmcted you to this particular piece of property?
Mr. Lang:
It was there in Livonia. They've already been up and operating
as a dealership. It's an A licensed dealer already so we
wouldn't have to make any big changes or anything to the
properly. It's a small piece of land. We're thinking we'll
probably do 30 to 40 used cars a month out of that location. It's
in a great area there, Plymouth Road. We've had some
problems with some of those dealerships that were closed there
for some time. I believe that was a problem with City Council
last time, some of the vacancy, which has all been filled up now.
Its a great area being butted up next to the Mitsubishi store that
the McDonald's own as well as right down the street from
RighlWay Auto. So its a great little car area there. So people
traveling inside there can come and take a look at all the
different varieties of vehicles in the marketplace and can do so
in a nice area.
Mr. Wilshaw:
How many employees would you have working at any given
time?
Mr. Lang:
Probably five.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Is that total number of employees or just working at any
onetime? Do they work in shifts?
Mr. Lang:
No. They dont work shifts. They work from bell to bell.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
No moloroycles will be sold there?
Mr. Lang:
At the beginning, it's all under the same license. They do have
some motorcycles left there. We will sell the remaining bikes
that they do have there. After that's done, we are not going to
be replenishing the bikes. The motoroycle store has been there
for some time and they're pretty deep in some of their inventory.
December 17, 2013
26194
I think they've got like 20 or 30 bikes left. We will gel rid of
those and there will be no motorcycles sold there from there on
out, and those will be under the A license because theyre all
brand new motorcycles.
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Will they be part of the display outside?
Mr. Lang: No, they will not.
Mr. Morrow: Theywill be within the building?
Mr. Lang: In the building.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, did you have something?
Mr. Taormina: Only that to go back to Mr. Taylor's earlier question. I've
confirmed on this plan that the display spaces are striped at
nine feel. They were made to be a foot narrower than what we
normally require but all the customer spaces are shown at being
10 feet by 20 feet.
Mr. Morrow: And we're still well over the minimum requirement, right?
Mr. Taormina: In terms of customer spaces, yes. That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else? Thank you for your presentation. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? If so, please come forward
to one of the podiums.
George Monahan, 11400 Hubbell, Livonia, Michigan. I live right behind the
motorcycle shop. I've looked over the site plan and I agree with
everything in the site plan. I think it will be a good fit in the
neighborhood and I approve it 100 percent. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Its always nice to hear from the neighbors. Seeing no one
coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a
motion.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-87-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 17, 2013,
on Petition 2013-08-02-19 submitted by Keith Lang requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of the City of
December 17, 2013
26195
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a used
auto dealership (Lang Auto Sales) with outdoor display of
vehicles at 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road, located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and
Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 114 of Section 35, which
properly is zoned G2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-08-02-19 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission
on August 8, 2013, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the recommendations of the Executive Committee of
the Plymouth Road Development Authority (PRDA) shall
be resolved to the satisfaction of the appropriate City
Departments, including: a) providing an oil and grease
separator in the parking lot catch basin if deemed
necessary; b) limiting the waiver approval to this Petitioner
only; and c) installing additional landscaping along
Plymouth Road and the island within the parlang lot;
3. That the number of vehicles to be displayed outdoors shall
be limited to a total of thirty-one (31) vehicles, and that no
vehicle for sale shall be displayed closer than twenty feel
(20') from the front lot line (unless waived by the Council in
a separate resolution);
4. That except for what may be authorized under the Zoning
Ordinance as part of a temporary sales event, any type of
exterior advertising related to the sale of the vehicles
designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, such
as promotional flags or streamers, shall be prohibited;
5. That the display of any vehicles on car lifts is strictly
prohibited;
6. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts,
equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products,
junked, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles, or other similar
items in connection with this operation, and the overhead
doors, when not in use for vehicles entering or exiling the
service facility, shall be closed at all times;
7. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including
the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage,
December 17, 2013
26196
marking and configuration, and all regular customer spaces
shall be 10'x20' in size as required;
8. That the Pefitioner shall be allowed a conforming wall sign
and the ability to either replace the panels on the existing
ground sign or a new conforming ground sign, whichever
he elects. Any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
9. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
10. That no overhead speakers shall be used inside or outside
the building;
11. That the auto service facility shall consist of up to two (2)
bays or work stations, and all service work shall be limited
to vehicles that are on display and being sold at this
location. The service operations shall not be open to the
general public;
12. That only minor repairs and maintenance work on vehicles
be conducted at this site, and that repair work shall not
include collision repair;
13. That all light poles shall be a maximum of twenty feel (20')
high, including the base, and all light fixtures shall be
shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent
properties and roadways;
14. That per the note on the plan, a minimum five feel (5) high
masonry wall shall be built at or near the south property
line adjacent to the residential district, and a fence shall be
allowed along the remaining porton of the west property
line where the site abuts the nonconforming residential
use; and
15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time an occupancy permit is applied for.
FURTHER, the Planning Commission recommends the
approval of a Conditional Agreement limiting this waiver use to
this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use
December 17, 2013
26197
approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by
the City Council.
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. Morrow: Is there any discussion? I noted under Condition 11, it indicated
two bays and I think we heard earlier they were only going to
use one bay. Would you want to limited it to what he plans or
leave it at two?
Ms. Scheel: Could we just say to consist of up to two bays? If it's less, it's
okay, right?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Ms. Scheel: We could say up to two bays, then if it's only one, we're good.
Mr. Taormina: That would be acceptable.
Mr. Morrow: That's fine. I just wanted to point that out that we had new
information.
Mr. Morow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Thank you for coming to Livonia.
December 17, 2013
26198
ITEM #2 PETMON 2013-11-0231 NEWBURGH ROAD
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
11-02-31
01311-02-31 submitted by Newburgh Road Properties, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
operate a physical therapy and athletic training facility at 13245
Newburgh Road, located on the west side of Newburgh Road
between the CSX railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a sports medicine, physical therapy
and athletic training facility within an existing industrial building
that is located on the west side of Newburgh Road just south of
Schoolcraft Road. The property currently contains a 10,900
square fool building and paved parking areas surround that
building. The building has been empty for a couple of years.
The zoning map shows the location of the property in
relationship to the surrounding properties. All of the blue areas
surrounding this site denote the industrial uses that dominate
this area. This is part of the city's industrial corridor. There are
industrial uses to the north, south, east and west. The proposed
physical therapy and sports medicine facility would occupy the
entire building. It would be operated by the Sl. Mary Mercy
Hospital system. There is a floor plan included in your packet
that shows how the interior space would be divided. It would
include a reception and wailing area, as well as offices, a
therapy room, a free weight area and a large athletic area
towards the back of the building. The petitioner is not proposing
any exterior building modifications with this petition. With
respect to parking, the parking is based on the number of
employees plus what the petitioner determines is needed for
patrons and customers. On-site parking is limited. Thus, in
order to provide adequate parking, the plans show additional
spaces along the north side of the building via a shared parking
and access agreement with the adjacent property to the north.
The area immediately adjacent to the building is actually a lawn
area that contains grass and is part of the subject properly.
You'll notice that there is a row of parking along the south
property line and a driveway that comes in off of Newburgh
Road providing access to those parking spaces. It continues to
the north and then to the east. You can see how the parking is
arranged for the property to the north. For the subject property,
you can see this shared access drive. There are six spaces
including barrier free spaces located in the southeast comer of
the property. There is a driveway here. This is an old loading
area as part of the industry building, and then a limited number
December 17, 2013
26199
of spaces along the backside of the building. There are three
here and another nine spaces here. This is a very difficult plan
to read unfortunately, but it shows how the parking would be
rearranged on the site. Just going back to this plan, because
it's probably easier to describe using this plan, the parking
spaces along the south side of the property to the north, those
would be shifted to be along this side of the building. So they
would remove the grassy area, all these parking spaces would
move to the south adjacent to this building, and then the
aisleway itself would be moved to the south where these
parking spaces are and new parking spaces would be provided
along this building. So instead of having an aisle with a single
row of parking, what you would have is an aisle that would be
shifted to the south with a double row of parking, a row along
this building and then a row along the building to the north.
They would effectively add about 19 parking spaces, two rows
of parking on that driveway. It would require the recording of a
cross -access agreement with the property to the north. The
new parking layout for both buildings shows a total of 97 parking
spaces. Forty would be available for the subject site and 57
would be available for the building to the north, which gives its
address as 37453 through 37457 Schoolcraft Road. The
petitioner does feel that the amount of parking would be
adequate to serve both buildings. I will note that shifting the
parking and aisle without moving the approach off Newburgh is
going to create a curved entrance drive for the first 50 feet. The
Engineering Division is recommending that the petitioner
consider moving this driveway in order to provide a straight
alignment with the relocated drive. The shaded area shows the
new paving. It shows how the new drive approach would have
to curve and then the new parking area being provided along
the side of the building. In terms of landscaping, the general
landscaping standard for the M-1 zoning district requires at least
50% of the total area of the established minimum front yard be
landscaped. The exisfing landscaping in the front yard, as
calculated by staff, is about 70% so it does comply with the
ordinance. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the
departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 27, 2013, which
reads as follows: "in accordance with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
planning petition. The address of 13245 Newburgh Road is
correct for the subject parcel, and should be used in conjunction
December 17, 2013
26200
with this petition. The legal description included with the
submitted plan set is acceptable to this office. The submitted
plans indicate that the existing building interior is to be
renovated, and a small area on the north side of the building is
to be paved for additional parking. We have no objections to the
proposed site development at this time, although the developer
will need to provide this office with detailed Engineering plans
for review by this office prior to any construction activities. The
existing building is currently serviced by sanitary sewer and
water main leads, which are to remain unchanged. Should the
owner need to alter the layout of the existing leads, additional
Engineering and/or Building Department permits may be
required. In previous discussions with the owner, it was
indicated that storm water detention would be required for any
new paved areas. The plans do not indicate any proposed storm
water improvements or detention in association with the
proposed paving, so we will not be able to comment on that
aspect until full Engineering plans are submitted to this office.
We would like to suggest that the owner consider relocating the
existing Newburgh Road approach on the North side of the
building to align with the proposed drive aisle servicing the
parking area. The proposed layout would require incoming
drivers to negotiate two curves immediately after exiting
Newburgh Road, which could create traffic issues with drivers
waiting to exit the site." The letter is signed by David W. Lear,
P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire
& Rescue Division, dated December 9, 2013, which reads as
follows: 9 have reviewed the petition for a waiver use approval
to operate a gymnastic training facility on the property at the
above referenced address and have noted the following. (1)
This proposal is a change of use for the address in question.
This requires that the location must conform to current NFPA
101 standards, 2012 edition, for New Ambulatory Health Cart=
Occupancies. (2) Chapter 20, New Ambulatory Health Care
Occupancies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be
conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency
Lighting, Exit Pathways, Occupant Load, and Extinguisher
Requirements. These issues and other code requirements will
be addressed during the plan review process. We advise that no
use of this facility be conducted prior to inspections and
approval of any/all NFPA codes relating to New Ambulatory
Health Care Occupancies. Providing that all details in regards to
New Ambulatory Health Care Occupancies are followed and
inspected prior to tenant use, this department has no objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
December 4, 2013, which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed
December 17, 2013
26201
the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to
the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boilos, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated December 10, 2013, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A cross
parking/access agreement will be required for the petitioner's
property and the property located to the north. (2) Twenty
percent of the parking spaces are required to be barrier free per
the Michigan Building Code for this use. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
we'll go directly to the petitioner.
Tom Crabill, Crabill & Co. Real Estate, 33640 Schoolcraft, Livonia, Michigan
48150. 1 represent the petitioner and Newburgh Road
Properties. I also have with me today my father, who is also a
member of Newburgh Road Properties, and the tenant, Steve
VanBrussel, and Dan Wolocko from Sl. Mary Hospital.
Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation. Is there anything you'd like to
add to it?
Mr. Grabill: Just a couple things. In regards to the cross -access agreement,
we have been in contact with our neighbor to the north, Dave
Plumley, who is an associate and he has agreed to enter into a
cross -access agreement with us as the plan has described.
Regarding the recommendation from the Engineering
Department, Dave is reluctant to grant us permission to move
the approach. The approach is currently on his property and
although I'm sure through easement agreements we could
achieve the same type of permanent access for him. I think he
is just a little uncomfortable granting us the permission to
remove an approach that is currently on his properly onto our
property. Not to say that can't be worked through, but our
feeling is this additional parking on the north side of the building
was really proposed as overflow parking. The primary parking
for the building will be as originally designed on the south side
of the building. We're hoping that the Commission would allow
us to leave the approach where it is and continue with the plan
as proposed.
Mr. Morrow: If I follow you correctly, you have no intention of working out an
agreement to move the driveway.
December 17, 2013
26202
Mr. Grabill:
Not at this time. I checked with Engineering and they made it
clear that this was a request, not necessarily a requirement.
Mr. Morrow:
Perhaps you can work that out between approval and the plan
review to see if the two property owners can come to some sort
of mutual agreement to move it. I assume the way it is now
meets the fire requirements, but I think for traffic flow d would be
nice to see that happening. Does the Commission have any
questions of this gentleman?
Mr. Taylor:
Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, you mentioned about
getting rid of the grass area and putting parking spaces there.
He just said that he thought he had enough on the south side of
the building. I'm getting a little confused here whether we're
going to be alright or not.
Mr. Taormina:
He referred to those spaces as being available for overflow. I
guess that's yet to be determined. From an operational
standpoint, maybe this is a question for the actual operators of
the facility. Maybe there will be limes when the parking available
on the south side will be adequate but when certain other
sessions are being conducted, they'll absolutely need the
overflow parking. They are maximizing the amount of parking
on the south side of the building. They will be adding some
spaces where that old truck well is located and restriping some
of the other areas to get a few more spaces. At the study
session they indicated that they're going to need the additional
parking at times when they are conducting their team sessions.
That being the case, I'm sure they're going to rely on that
parking to the north, probably on a regular basis.
Mr. Taylor:
Mr. Grabill, are you planning on getting rid of the grass and
pulling some parking spaces in there or not?
Mr. Grabill:
Correct, on the north side of the building.
Mr. Taylor:
On the north side.
Mr. Grabill:
Correct.
Mr. Taylor:
What about the abutting parking places that are there now?
Mr. Grabill:
That would become a drive aisle to access the parking on both
sides of that drive aisle.
Mr. Taormina: I just want to point out the solution with respect to the approach
may be one where rather than a relocation, that it might be just
a slight widening on the south side of that approach in order to
address some of the concems of the Engineenng Department.
Its probably something for them to figure out in the final
analysis. I don't know that it's going to be a problem. I think it
should be resolvable with some slight modifications to address
their concerns.
Mr. Morrow: If that satisfies the moving traffic, we have no problem with that.
Anyone else?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just to beat a dead horse, I kind of agree with the Engineering
Department that realigning the driveway would be an
appropriate thing to do. However, it is on another paroel that is
not subject to our approval today. We can certainly ask you to
do things but I don't know that we can mandate that your
December 17, 2013
26203
Mr. Taylor:
I have no problem with the use. It sounds like there's going to
be a lot of cement work being done.
Mr. Grabill:
Correct.
Mr. Taylor:
I think the use is a good use for the building.
Mr. Grabill:
I don't want to throw economics into the equation here, but I
would just like to state for the record that we've struggled with
leasing this building, and my fathers in the business. It seems
like everybody who looks at the building is somebody who
needs a little extra parking. The building kind of lends itself to
this kind of use and some cases more of a retail type of use. So
we've struggled in that endeavor and now we have an
opportunity to add some parking at no small expense. Of
course, as soon as Engineering suggested that we move the
approach, I thought that would be nice if it was straight. I
certainly don't think that it's necessary and certainly the cost is
quite prohibitive, but if the City were to mandate that we do that,
then we'd have to try and work that out. My concern would be
that I would be at a standstill because the owner to the north is
reluctant to grant us that permission.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I would suspect these new parking places would probably be
closer to the entryway too, would they not be?
Mr. Grabill:
Comect.
Mr. Taormina: I just want to point out the solution with respect to the approach
may be one where rather than a relocation, that it might be just
a slight widening on the south side of that approach in order to
address some of the concems of the Engineenng Department.
Its probably something for them to figure out in the final
analysis. I don't know that it's going to be a problem. I think it
should be resolvable with some slight modifications to address
their concerns.
Mr. Morrow: If that satisfies the moving traffic, we have no problem with that.
Anyone else?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just to beat a dead horse, I kind of agree with the Engineering
Department that realigning the driveway would be an
appropriate thing to do. However, it is on another paroel that is
not subject to our approval today. We can certainly ask you to
do things but I don't know that we can mandate that your
December 17, 2013
26204
neighbor construct driveways just to satisfy the waiver use for
this building. However, I do think that Mr. Taormina's
suggestion of softening the driveway by adding a Iitfle extra
width to it would probably, in a not super expensive way,
address some of the concerns that have been presented.
Mr. Grabill: I would agree with that. That's something that we hadn't really
considered. I think you're absolutely right that even if it was just
a slight widening, it would help the condition.
Mr. Wilshaw: We really like these petitions that have been coming before us
using these industrial properfies that have struggled to find
tenants, like your building who have had tenants come to them
and say, hey, I want to use it for athletic or some sort of similar
function. Its really a good re -use for some of these parcels
especially ones like this one that have good visibility on a major
road. The problem with these buildings lends to be the parking
situation. This is probably one of the few that we've seen that
actually has a pretty solid plan as to how you're going to
address the parking in your facility. I appreciate that. Thank
you.
Mr. Morrow: Would the Commission be interested in hearing the use that is
going to be within the building? If there are representatives
from the new tenants, I think the Commission would like to hear
what the use is going to be once it's granted.
Mr. Grabill: Sure. I'll turn it over to St. Mary
Daniel Wolocko, 447 North Franklin, Dearborn, Michigan. I'm the Director of
Sports Performance and Sports Therapy at St. Mary Mercy in
Livonia. I'd like to make a comment just regarding the overflow
lot. Pretty much we're going to be seeing maybe six to eight
patients or clients at the most at one time. That lot will probably
be used during maybe later hours when we're holding education
events or classes. No more than probably 20 people or 20
clients will be using the building. So I dont think it will loo busy
on the north side of that building for the traffic flow, just to lel
you know. That's why I think they refer to it as an overflow lot.
Most of the parking on the south side and the west side will be
sufficient to handle our normal daily case load of patients and
clients. It's just that when we have a team or another group
come in for a class, we need some extra spaces. So just a
comment on that.
Mr. Morrow: If you could lel us know exactly what you'll be doing as far as
the use.
December 17, 2013
26205
Mr. Wolocko:
Its going to be two parts. One is going to be for physical
therapy, specifically, and then we're also going to be doing
some performance training for younger, active adults in the
community that are staying active and want to learn how to
move efficiently and effectively to prevent injuries. It's going to
be served as a consultation building, an educational type facility
that Sl. Mary's is investing in the community for the City of
Livonia to help prevent injuries to keep our youth active and to
draw teens to us to learn how to better develop their athletes
and protect them and prevent injuries.
Mr. Morrow:
Have you any contact with the local high schools?
Mr. Wolocko:
Yes. We have reached out to the local high schools and the
local club teams in the community. We already have different
connections we use with them and they're looking for a facility in
place that they can actually come to and team from. That's why
the hospital wants to invest in something that they can relate to
instead of going to a hospital selling.
Mr. Taylor:
What are the hours of operation and how many days a week are
you going to be open?
Mr. Wolocko: Typically, the clinic hours will be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
That's to handle clients before work and school and after hours
for practices and that. Then on the weekends, not a lot on
Sundays, but we will be holding camps and courses for parents
and the community to come out to. So that will be used as
needed. As most, we would ran our clinic hours Monday
through Fnday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and then Saturday
mornings from like 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Mr. Wilshaw: No better than a hospital to tell you how to stay out of the
hospital. That's a unique mission on your part. The person
that's coming in for physical therapy perhaps has limited range
of mobility. What entrances are they going to use and how are
they going to handle parking in both the front and back of the
building?
Mr. Wolocko: Like I said, most of the parking is going to be on the south side
and there's a direct access right in the main entrance and
everything is on the first floor, the private rooms, the bathrooms.
There no accommodation for stairs or anything like that. Most
of these patients will be pretty active adults. That's the reason
its not connected to the hospital because they want to actively
participate in a setting where there's more athletes moving so
December 17, 2013
26206
it's less depressing. They're already feeling bad about
themselves as failures in sports and we want to encourage a
more positive atmosphere so they'll be readily mobile. Probably
the most difficult movers will be older golfers.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Is the door in the back also going to be accessible so if
someone parks in the back, they can walk right in?
Mr. Wolocko:
Yes. The door in the back, that's our open athletic facility for
people to move around more. If we have groups coming in for
training, they will be directed to the back so they don't intervene
with the more private and we'll save the front doors for those
who need the access to move a little bit easier.
Mr. Wilshaw:
How many employees would work at this facility?
Mr. Wolocko:
Right now, we'll have a front desk and office receptionist. We'll
have an athletic trainer and two physical therapists.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And this will be branded as being part of Sl. Mary Mercy
Hospital?
Mr. Wolocko:
Yes. It will be Sl. Mary Meroy Sports Performance facility.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Excellent. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a
motion
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-88-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 17, 2013,
on Petition 2013-11-02-31 submitted by Newburgh Road
Properties, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to
Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended, to operate a physical therapy and athletic training
facility at 13245 Newburgh Road, located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between the CSX railroad right-of-way and
SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30, which
properly is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-11-0231 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
December 17, 2013
26207
1. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated
December 9, 2013, from the Fire Marshal, including those
relating to the requirement that the proposed location must
conform to current NFPA 101 standards, shall be resolved
to the satisfaction of the Fire Department;
2. That adequate off-street parking shall be provided which
shall be sufficient to comply with the parking requirement
for employees and patrons as set forth in Section
18.38(12) of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. That an appropriate recordable legal instrument, such as a
cross -access agreement, that gives notice and outlines the
terms of how the subject properties would share parking
and access shall be presented to the Inspection
Department at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is
applied for;
4. That adequate lighting be provided in the parking areas
and walkways as determined by the Inspection
Department; and
5. 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 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. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
December 17, 2013
26208
Ms. Scheel: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, the discussion portion of
this resolution shows that the regular parking spaces have to be
striped and 10' by 20' in size. Does that need to be part of our
conditions?
Mr. Taormina: No, that will be reviewed by the Engineering and Inspection
Departments. You can include that in the resolution. That's not
a problem.
Ms. Scheel: But not having it in there is not a problem?
Mr. Taormina: It shouldn't be, no.
Ms. Scheel: My second question is, in the letter from Engineering
Department, it mentions that if they're doing any new paved
areas, about a storm water detention. Does anything regarding
that need to be in our resolution?
Mr. Taormina: Again, they have to get their Engineering permits.
Ms. Scheel: So that would all be addressed at that time.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we're not missing anything
here.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mrs. Scheel. We appreciate that.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Thank you. That concludes our public
hearing part of the agenda. We now move to miscellaneous
items.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2013-11-08-13 McDONALUS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
11-08-13 submitted by Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., on
behalf of McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 11800
Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road
between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
December 17, 2013
26209
Mr. Taormina: This petition involves a request to remodel the exterior of the
McDonald's restaurant on Middlebell Road between Plymouth
Road and the CSX Railroad. The properly in question is about
1.4 acres in size. Its dimensions are 250 feel of frontage on
Middlebell Road by a depth of 250 feel. The parcel is zoned C-
2, General Business. This site received waiver use approval in
October, 1990. Al that time there was a condition that limited
the customer seating to a maximum of 90 seals. This proposed
exterior remodel would not increase the current sealing count.
In fact, the seating count would drop by a couple of seals. It
involves a re-imaging of the building. The architecture still
reflects the old McDonald's. This was the prototype that was
used about 20 or so years ago. The building has a red double
mansard roof with the old yellow lit accent beams. The new
exterior re-imaging is consistent with the other McDonald's
renovations that we've seen over the last couple of years. It
would be made to look much more contemporary. I'm going to
go directly to the elevation plans. They will use a combination
of materials on the building which include concrete blocks,
cement fiber board wall panels, corrugated metal panels, and
aluminum. The mansard roof and accent beams would be
removed and replaced with the face panel wall system and
corrugated metal panels, which make up the upper third of the
facade creating a parapet around the roofline of the building.
The stone sections would frame the main entrance to the
building and the aluminum trellised canopies would be installed
over the windows and entrances. To improve customer service,
McDonald's is proposing a split drive-thru lane containing a
second menu board and order station. This is consistent with
the other renovations that we've seen at the McDonald's
restaurants within the City. To accommodate the second drive-
lhm lane, len parking spaces will have to be removed. They
would still meet the parking requirement. They are required to
have a total of 58 parking spaces and the revised plan, even
with the elimination of the 10 spaces, provides for a total of 58
parking spaces. Landscaping would be enhanced across the
site. They are going to keep the existing monument sign but
they would be changing out their wall signage. The wall signs
do exceed the ordinance. They would be allowed one sign not
to exceed 35 square feet in area. The elevation plan shows a
number of wall and logo signs on the remodeled restaurant. We
don't have the details on the wall signage. Again, going back,
you can gel a sense of the amount of signage they're proposing.
The main McDonald's sign would be located on the lop part of
the building. Looking at an isometric view showing both the
west elevation facing Middlebelt, and then the south side of
December 17, 2013
26210
building, you can see the McDonald's logos above the
entranceway and on the front of the building. Technically those
constitute a second and third wall sign and would have to
receive Zoning Board of Appeals approval. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I can read the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Please.
Mr. Taormina:
There are three items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 8, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced planning petition.
The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of
renovating the exterior of the building and minor parking lot
alterations within the parcel boundaries. We have no objections
to the proposed project at this time, although the following items
should be noted. (1) The address of 11800 Middlebelt Road
should be used in conjunction with the proposed project. (2) The
legal description provided with the petition adequately describes
the parcel and is acceptable to this office." The letter is signed
by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from
the Division of Police, dated November 8, 2013, 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 Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 10,
2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above referenced Petition has been reviewed. This Department
has no objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides the
requested information." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Scott Powlus, McDonald's Corporation, 1021 Karl Greimel Drive, #200, Brighton,
Michigan 48116.
Mr. Morrow:
You've heard the presentation. Is there anything you'd like to
add to it?
Mr. Powlus:
I believe Mr. Taormina did a grealjob describing the project. I'd
be happy to answer any questions. It's a very similar remodel to
what we've done in the area.
December 17, 2013
26211
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Some of the other remodels we've seen have a building that's
generally brown in appearance. One of the photos that you
submitted to us showing some of the building materials shows a
building that appears to be relatively red. What color are we
actually going to gel for the building?
Mr. Powlus:
There is a choice of colors for the franchisee. Typically, we're
using a terra cotta scheme. It's a reddish brown. There is a
chocolate scheme which is a darker brown, and then there's a
medium brown scheme. It will be some variation of brown.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So you don't have, on this particular location, a solid handle on
what color it's going to be.
Mr. Powlus:
Right. I actually have a meeting set up with the franchisee and
they have some selection of about 12 different color schemes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. The rest of the building looks good. Typically when we
approve these things, we know what color we're getting on the
building. That's my only comment at this point.
Mr. Powlus:
I do believe the plans do show a terra cotta scheme. There's
actually a paint color in the elevations.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The terra cotta is more reddish than brown.
Mr. Powlus:
Its probably misrepresented in the copy that you have. Its not
quite that red. If you think of a clay pot, it's more on a brownish
color than red.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Along that line, I would advise you, should this move forward
tonight at this level, that you resolve with your tenant or
franchisee the colors that you're going to choose and bring
some materials so the Council can get a better idea as to colors
being used and the materials.
Mr. Powlus:
We can definitely put a board together.
Mr. Morrow:
A material board, a color board. I think that would argue well at
the Council level.
Mr. Powlus:
Thankyou.
December 17, 2013
26212
Ms. Scheel:
Does the restaurant plan on staying open during renovations?
Mr. Powlus:
We typically do stay open. In a case where we're doing a
kitchen expansion, we close, but we pretty much try and stay
open as much as we can through the whole process. In this
case, I don't believe we're doing any kitchen expansion, so yes,
9 would slay open during the whole process.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. What is the projected time line? How soon do you
expect construction to start?
Mr. Powlus:
I would say we're looking at probably some time in February
probably for the inside, and then the exlenor would be done
probably in March. It's typically a six to eight week process.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Relative to the hours of operation, would you reiterate that? I
guess what I'm trying to determine, is it going to be a 24 hour
operation or limited hours.
Mr. Powlus:
The restaurant is currently a 24 hour operation. It will continue
to be that. It is a drive-lhru only from midnight to 5:00 a.m.
where the dining room is actually closed during those hours. It's
open 24 hours currently.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. That's what I wanted to find out. Anything else? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the
granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-89-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-11-08-13
submitted by Dorchen/Marfin Associates, Inc., on behalf of
McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 11800
Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road
between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad nghl-0f-way in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Cl dated October 29, 2013, as
revised, prepared by Dorchen/Marlin Associates, Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
December 17, 2013
26213
2. That this restaurant's maximum customer seating count
shall not exceed eighty-eight (88) seats;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked C4 dated October 29,
2013, as revised, prepared by M.J. Gac & Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A2.0
and A2.1 dated October 29, 2013, as revised, prepared by
Dorchen/Marfin Associates, Inc., are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
6. That 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;
7. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is
valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval
by the City Council, and unless a building permit is
obtained and construction is commenced, this approval
shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Thank you for coming this evening. Good
luck with your project.
December 17, 2013
26214
ITEM #4 PETMON 2013-11-08-14 MID�JOY PLAZA
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
11-08-14 submitted by Jarjosa Joy Real Estate, L.L.C.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the
exterior of the commercial center (Mid -Joy Plaza) at 29150-
29208 Joy Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between
Middlebell Road and Oxbow Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 36.
Mr. Taormina: This is a site plan petition involving the remodeling of the
exterior of an existing commercial center which is referred to as
Mid -Joy Plaza and is located on the north side of Joy Road just
east of Middlebelt Road. The zoning is C-1, Local Business.
The shopping center building on the property measures about
8,800 square feet in overall size. The front of the building
currently has a metal mansard roof. The petitioner is planning
to completely remodel and upgrade the appearance of the
shopping centers storefront, which is the south elevation. The
most significant change involves removing the metal mansard
roof and adding a series of parapet walls along the top half of
the fagade. The new wall sections would project above the
existing roofline using decorative E.I.F.S. comice and standing
seam metal. The height of the new parapet would vary slightly
at the ends of the center. In two sections above the storefronts,
the E.I.F.S. fagade above the windows would be boxed -out a
fool or two so as to project out from the rest of the building. The
original design of the center includes a modified mansard style
metal roof. All of that would be removed. A liquor store that
occupies the east half of the shopping center would have this
lower element located above the main entrance. Then on the
opposite end, there would be a similar type of feature balancing
out the overall center. The pilasters that are being created
along the front of the building give it some dimension. Those
two would be boxed out. There is also a decorative comice
placed on lop of those pilasters and along the roofline. They
are proposing some new masonry material along the lower part
of the building. They would construct a new fooling in front of
the existing brick and place new brick along the front part of the
building. The brick would vary in height. The masonry material
would go up to the lop of the windows; others would just cover
the bottom portion of the colonnades. The rest of that would be
E.I.F.S. The material on the upper part of the building and
along three of the five or six colonnades would be E.I.F.S. but
everything else would be masonry construction. No other site
December 17, 2013
26215
changes or improvements are proposed as part of this petition.
With that Mr. Chairman, I will read out the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 20, 2013, which
reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced
planning petition. We have no objections to the proposed site
renovation at this time. The proposed plan indicates that project
will consist of renovating the exterior of the building which will
not require Engineering Department permits. The legal
description provided with the petition appears to be connect and
is acceptable to this ofhce. The address of 29150 Joy Road
should be used in conjunction with the parcel, although
addresses of 29150 thru 29190 Joy Road are assigned for the
individual stores within the plaza. The existing structure is
currently serviced by public utilities, which are to remain in
place. Should changes to the existing utility leads be needed,
the owner will need to submit plans to the Engineering
Department to determine if permits will be required." The letter
is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter
is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 6,
2013, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel the
exterior of the commercial center on property located at the
above referenced address and have noted the following. In
regards to NFPA 1, 2009 edition: (1) Fire Department Access
shall be maintained in accordance to 18.2.3.2, (2) Fire lanes
shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words
FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted in contrasting colors on
both sides at a size and spacing approved by the authority
having jurisdiction. We have no other concerns with the remodel
to the exterior of the building." The letter is signed by Daniel
Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
dated November 19, 2013, 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 Joseph
Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated December 17, 2013, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Barrier
free parking spaces are required to be property sized, signed
and striped. (2) The sidewalk along the front of the building will
need to be widened if this project moves forward and will be
required to meet barrier free access including curb cuts, ramps
December 17, 2013
26216
and landings. (3) The dumpster enclosures gates have been
removed. Install gates as required. This Department has no
further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your
name and address for the record please.
Tony Jarjosa, Mid -Joy Plaza, 29150 Joy Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good
evening.
Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina. Is there
anything you'd like to add to it?
Mr. Jarjosa: I believe the gentleman did a good job as far as explaining the
project. We've owned the building for the past six years, and
we try to work with the community and neighborhood. We
concentrated for the past six years on quality service and
cleanness for the building and also inside the store loo. By
doing this project, we're trying to add value to the neighborhood
and also we have a better view for the City of Livonia as well.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Taylor: Do you have any problem making the walkway wider in front of
the building?
Mr. Jarjosa: At the moment, we don't have no problem with that, sir, but I
believe my designer would be able to answer all those
questions as far as wideness or if it is the proper size for the
city. I will tum the microphone over to him.
Mr. Morrow: I'm going to ask you one question relative to your center. What
is the occupancy in your center?
Mr. Jarjosa: Al the moment, we do have the liquor store on the east side. In
the middle, we do have the coin Iaundromal and the far end is
vacant space nghl now.
Mr. Morrow: So you have one vacancy?
Mr. Jarjosa: Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow: Thankyou.
Gli,rjlS��ilTlliRFM@ C1"ar4!T@NT--L'[llll
Mr. Taormina: And the details would have to be worked out. The other
problem we noticed is with the barier-free ramp. Some
adjustments are going to have to be made to the ramp itself to
comply with the barier-free code requirements, but all these
details can be worked out at plan review.
Mr. Morrow: It will all be worked out at plan review
December 17, 2013
26217
Dave Jajjoka, Scope Data, 381 Deer Path Trail, Waterford, Michigan 48327.
Mr. Morrow:
Did you gel that, Ms. Watson? Okay, very good. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jajjoka:
Honestly, we just got a phone call yesterday from Scott on the
sidewalk. It's only like 24 hours to make the decision. There
are a couple of solutions to do that. One of the solutions is to
increase the sidewalk by one foot. If we have to do that, then
we need to gel the variance because of the parking lot limit
there. If you give us one foot variance for the length, then we
can do that. We can achieve this.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, would you respond to that please?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe that a variance is going to be needed in this
instance and this is the reason why. The Director of Inspection
and myself visited the site. We noted that the sidewalk currently
is probably deficient in its width. If they go ahead and remove
another half foot for the installation of the footing and the new
brick material, they're going to lose even more from the
sidewalk. Part of the problem is we actually noticed while we
were on-site, cars would park up against the front of the building
and in some cases have only four inches from the building itself,
some of the larger vehicles. It's a situation where it would
benefit the petitioner to either widen the sidewalk or raise the
grade of the parking lot to match the sidewalk so you dont have
that grade differential that would pose a safely problem. We
measured the depth of the parking spaces plus the aisle width
and we feel that he can make those adjustments,
still comply
with the ordinance in terms of the parking
lot, parking space
depth, the aisle width, as well as providing some bumper blocks
along the front of the building, and as he indicated, widen the
sidewalk by a fool or maybe match the grade. So there are a
few options available to him in order to comply, but we needed
to make him aware of it as soon as possible so that he can do
the final design when we submits for the building permits.
Gli,rjlS��ilTlliRFM@ C1"ar4!T@NT--L'[llll
Mr. Taormina: And the details would have to be worked out. The other
problem we noticed is with the barier-free ramp. Some
adjustments are going to have to be made to the ramp itself to
comply with the barier-free code requirements, but all these
details can be worked out at plan review.
Mr. Morrow: It will all be worked out at plan review
December 17, 2013
26218
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Taylor:
What about the dumpster gales?
Mr. Jajjoka:
We didn't propose anything for that.
Mr. Taylor:
Evidently, there aren't any gales.
Mr. Jajjoka:
Actually, at the moment there is no gale on the box, but we are
in the process to do so at the beginning of spring time. We will
have the two door gates which is the front of the dumpster to
cover that area.
Mr. Morrow:
I would add that it would be good to check with the Planning
Department to make sure the gates you put on comply with our
code unless you know something I dont know, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Again, that's something they can handle at the Inspection
level. As part of the plan review process, we typically will
require maintenance -free gale material to be used.
Mr. Morrow:
I just didn't want him to show up with new gales and not be
acceptable.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a comment that this looks like a very attractive upgrade to
the building, and I do agree that this is at the perimeter of the
city and it makes for a nice entrance point to see an attractive
building in the community. It looks like you've used good
materials, color choices and design elements to make what's a
reasonably plain building look appealing to the eye. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I second that comment. You've done a nice job with the design.
Anyone else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speakfor or againslthe granting ofthis petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-90-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-11-08-14
submitted by Jarjosa Joy Real Estate, L.L.C. requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior
of the commercial center (Mid -Joy Plaza) at 29150-29208 Joy
Road, located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebell
December 17, 2013
26219
Road and Oxbow Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Elevation and Details Plan marked A101 dated
October 17, 2013, prepared by Scope Data, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Petitioner shall work with the Inspection and
Planning Departments to provide safe and conforming
pedestrian access along the walkway adjacent to the
building, including modifications to the barrier -free ramp(s);
3. That the Petitioner shall work with the Inspection and
Planning Departments to provide additional landscaping
along the site's frontage along Joy Road;
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
5. 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;
6. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution. shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
8. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. It's a very nice job of upgrading your
center, and thank you for doing that and thank you for coming.
Good luck.
December 17, 2013
26220
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,047m Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, we have a point of order here. Our next item on
the agenda is approval of the 1,047th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting minutes. Mr. Wilshaw was not present, which
leaves us with three Commissioners. Is it permissible to move
forward and approve this on the basis of three Commissioners?
Mr. Taormina: We're going to have to wail to have a quorum
Mr. Morrow: This will not hold anything up will 0?
Mr. Taormina: No
Mr. Morrow: We want to conform to it, so we might as well be letter perfect.
Nothing is hanging in the balance, so we will remove this from
the agenda. It will be on the next agenda when we have a
quorum. That will conclude our agenda for the evening. I want
to make a comment before I ask for an adjourning motion. As I
indicated eadier at our Iasi meeting, Ms. Scheel has been
elected to the City Council. The next time you see her she will
be sitting with her fellow Council people. We wish her all the
success and the continued fine job she's done with us on the
Commission. I don't know if there's any other Commissioners
who want to speak to that.
Mr. Taylor I think we should just give her a hand.
Ms. Scheel: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: We wish you well.
Ms. Scheel: Thank you very much. I've surely enjoyed my time on the
Planning Commission working with everyone that I've been on
the Planning Commission with. So thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow: The feel is mutual with us working with you. You've not only
been a good Commissioner but a veryfine Secretary.
Ms. Scheel: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: This is our final meeting of the year. We want to wish
everybody a Merry Christmas and a prosperous and happy New
Year.
December 17, 2013
26221
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,048'" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 17, 2013, was adjourned at
8:28 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman