HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-04-08MINUTES OF THE 961'' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 8, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 961st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Ian Wilshaw Ashley Varloogian Carol A. Smiley
John Walsh
Members absent: None
At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Marge Watson, Program
Supervisor; were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the
outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2008-03-01-01 BAKI/KETCHLIM
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-03-
01-01 submitted by Sam Baki and Joan Ketchum requesting to
rezone the property at 20280 Hugh, located on the southeast
comer of Hugh Avenue and Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast''/.
of Section 2, from RUFA to R-1.
Sam Baki, 35410 Rhonswood, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335. Good evening.
As Mr. Nowak mentioned, this petition was submitted before,
approved by this body and denied by the Council for different
reasons. Even though we are submitting the same forms, the
same layout, there are reasons for why we're submitting the
same layout and configuration for these parcels, because the
bank already approved ... the owner of the properly, Joan, she
owns this property, and she has a loan on the property. Due to
the real estate catastrophes we're having nowadays, this
property with one house is less than what she owes to the bank.
Before she had a builder for a good price and everything else,
but now, it's like a survival mode. That's why we came back, to
see if we can go through the Council and, hopefully, we can
succeed with trying to rezone it to R-1 and get her the split so
she can sell the lot and the house separate for whatever she
can get out of it so she can at least pay off what she owes
April B, 2008
24673
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. MIIer:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated April 4, 2008, which reads as follows: "In
accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The written legal
description provided is for a pre4ot split condition (reflects a
single lot with dimensions of 125.25 feet by 130 feet). The
drawing reflects a post4ot split condition (two smaller lots). In
other words, the north X of the west X oflot 9 Elmwood Farms
Subdivision represents a parcel 130 feet by 125.25 feet. Our
records show the original, unaplit parcel having an address of
20280 Hugh Ave. If the developer wishes to build a home to the
north of the existing home (20280 Hugh), the Engineering
Division will assign an address at that time." The letter is signed
by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
Just one. What is the Future Land Use in that area?
Mr. Nowak:
It is designated as low density residential. The R-1
classification would fall within that density range.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, 35410 Rhonswood, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335. Good evening.
As Mr. Nowak mentioned, this petition was submitted before,
approved by this body and denied by the Council for different
reasons. Even though we are submitting the same forms, the
same layout, there are reasons for why we're submitting the
same layout and configuration for these parcels, because the
bank already approved ... the owner of the properly, Joan, she
owns this property, and she has a loan on the property. Due to
the real estate catastrophes we're having nowadays, this
property with one house is less than what she owes to the bank.
Before she had a builder for a good price and everything else,
but now, it's like a survival mode. That's why we came back, to
see if we can go through the Council and, hopefully, we can
succeed with trying to rezone it to R-1 and get her the split so
she can sell the lot and the house separate for whatever she
can get out of it so she can at least pay off what she owes
April 8,, 2008
24674
instead of losing it to the bank. As you noticed, the zoning in
the surrounding area, its a mixed residential zoning. There's R-
1, R-3, R-0, R-2 on the north. So it is a mixed zoning and abuts
all of the mixed zoning. The corner lot, I agree with Allen, I
agree with the commissioners from last time, that it should be
split, revise the size. That's why I didn't submit for the split yet.
I was trying to do the zoning first. I figured if we succeed with
the zoning, when we come back for the split, before I do that, I
will try to negotiate with the bank, because the owner of the
property I don't think she knew what she was doing. I know she
didn't know what she was doing because she tried to negotiate
with the bank, and the bank - that's all they gave her. They said
we'll give you that. That's how i will prove it to separate the
land for her loan. I will do the negotiation at a later date. I just
didn't want to start negotiating with the bank until I see if I can
do it with the rezoning or not.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for Mr. Baki?
Mr. Morrow:
Now, Mr. Baki, if I'm following you correctly, there is no sale or
building on the lot eminent. Its strictly speculative at this time.
Mr. Baki:
Yes. Last time, she did have somebody for the lot. Right now,
we don't have anybody. We're working on rezoning, and then,
like I said, as soon as we do that, once we gel that, then we can
try to solicit to sell it to a builder or someone to build a house on
it. It's still possible. I know there's chances to do it. We don't
want to start doing anything if its not going to go through, or if it
does go through, then we'll do it.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Baki, thank you for the explanation about the bank because
when I read this, the first thing that came to my mind is, when
does the bank tell us where we think the zoning should go? My
problem is, if we approve this this evening, I want the
understanding, I intend to make sure its in the motion that a
house cannot be built, I don't care how you gel the financing,
unless the larger lot is on the corner because I think it's a safety
issue. It's a larger lot, comer lot, people making turns.
Therefore, I want to let you know ahead of time that my vote is
going to be that no matter how you gel the financing, the corner
lot is going to be the larger of the two lots. Okay?
Mr. Baki:
I agree with you 100 percent but like I said, we sfill have to
resubmit for a split after the rezoning.
Mr. LaPine:
That's fine.
April 8,, 2008
24675
Mr. Baki:
That's why I was waiting for negotiation and trying to work with
the bank. I know I can succeed. I know I can make it work, but I
want to do one step at a time.
Mr. LaPine:
Fine
Mr. Baki:
Thanks.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to make one observation. As I look at the zoning
map, or I should say the lots superimposed over the existing
aerial, it doesn't appear that those homes are developed in the
zoning in which they are classified. It looks like there is a lot of
overlapping going on. I'm not sure I've ever seen this before,
like the one lot that is indicated as R-1. There's a house built on
that and it overlaps into the other one. I've just never seen
where the plat or whatever they did, didn't conform to the way
the subdivision was built out or the way the lots were developed.
Although the map shows R-1, R2 and R-3, I don't think the lot
on R-1 is developed in a R-1 fashion.
Mr. Walsh:
It looks like they combined some lots.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I mean. So the zoning map is deceiving as it
relates to the development, and that even appears to be
affected by the R2 to the east and to the north. That's just an
observation I made for the record.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just to follow up on what Mr. Morrow said, I have to say, looking
at the zoning map of this particular block, 8's probably the worst
zoned block I've ever seen in my life. It reminds me of a
Whitman Sampler's box for zoning. There's one of everything
on it. With that being said, I don't have any problem with the
petitioner's request. I think 8 has merll behind it.
Mr. Walsh:
Islhere anything else? Okay, thankyou, Mr. Baki.
Mr. Baki:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 8 was
#04-27-2008
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 8, 2008, on
Petition 2008-03-01-01 submitted by Sam Baki and Joan
April 8,, 2008
24676
Ketchum requesting to rezone the properly at 20280 Hugh,
located on the southeast corner of Hugh Avenue and Norfolk
Avenue in the Northeast'''/ of Section 2, from RUFA to R-1, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2008-03-01-01 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land
uses in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with other existing properties in
the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject properly in a manner that is
consistent with its size and location.
FURTHER, in the event that this rezoning to the R-1
classification is approved and the petitioner again requests that
the properly be split, the Planning Commission continues to
stand by its previously stated suggestion that the proposed lots
be reversed so that the comer lot would be the wider lot in order
to better accommodate a new house on the comer lot since
there are greater side yard requirements for a lot with a side
yard abutting on a street; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
This is a new condition, 5: that the Planning Commission
continues to stand by its previously stated suggestion that the
proposed lots be reversed so that the corner lot would be the
wider lot in order to better accommodate a new house on the
corner lot since there are greater side yard requirements for a
Iolwilh a side yard abutting on a street.
Ms. Smiley:
Is this is just a matter of zoning, or is it in regard to the split?
April 8,, 2008
24677
Mr. Walsh:
Its only a matter of zoning. I would look to the Planning
Department. I don't think there is an objection
to Mr. LaPine's
comments, but is it appropriate to be in this resolution?
Mr. Nowak:
Generally, that wouldn't be in a recommendation as far as
rezoning the property to a different classification, but I think it
could be part of a resolution if you desire.
Mr. Walsh:
If we phrase it as a recommendation that is in the record for the
future, Mr. LaPine, does that sound okay to you?
Mr. LaPine:
I want the Council to know that we haven't changed our position
from the original request. I think @ is appropriate to be in the
resolution to be honest with you.
Mr. Walsh:
So if we understand that and when you get to the final wring, if
you could reflect that, thalwould be great.
Mr. Nowak:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment on what I indicated earlier as to the way this
was developed. I'll support the resolution but I do it reluctantly
because of the zoning. I don't think that bringing a new house
into an older area ever has a negative effect, even though the
lots may be a little tight based on this. Sometimes a new house
never hurts anything, and I guess that's what I'm going on,
although under other circumstances, I might not vote in favor of
this.
Mr. Wilshaw: Again, like Mr. Morrow, and based on the comments I made
earlier, typically I would not support this type of a rezoning as it
is in a sense almost spot zoning of one particular piece of
property, but this entire block is an example of spot zoning.
Therefore, for me to not vole for this one in an effort to try and
hold out and gel the whole zoning of this block back to one
consistent type of zoni ng is not realistic. It will probably never
happen. So I think in this case it's approprlale to vole in favor of
this. I do understand Mr. LaPine's additional item that he put in
this resolution, which is not binding, but it is at least putting us
on record to the Council to lel them know that if this property
gels split, we would like to see it split in a manner than is more
approprlate than is currently proposed.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
recommendation.
April 8,, 2008
24678
ITEM#2 PETlTION2008-02-02-08 POTBELLY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
02-02-08 submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works requesting
waiver use approval for outdoor sealing for an existing full
service restaurant at 29579 Plymouth Road within the Village
Shops of Wonderland, located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebell Road and Henry Ruff Road in the
Northeast'''/ of Section 35.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 6, 2008, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
submitted is correct and no additional right of way is required.
The address for this site is 29579 Plymouth Road." The letter is
signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March
24, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request for approval of
outside seating for the restaurant on property located at the
above-referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
March 3, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in connection with Potbelly Sandwich Works outside
seating located at Plymouth and Mlddlebelt (Wondedand
Village). We have no objections or recommendations to the
plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 27, 2008, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 19, 2008, the
above-referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. Care should be taken to maintain the required fire foot
wide pedestrian walkway between the columns/railings and the
curb. This Department has no further objections to this petition."
The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go
to the petitioner.
April 8,, 2008
24679
Mr. Bill Cote,
Middlebelt Plymouth Venture, L.L.C., 17672 Laurel Park Drive,
Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Would you like to add anything to the presentation or just go on
to questions?
Mr. Cote:
We could go to questions. That would be fine. I have
representatives from Potbelly's if it gets loo technical for me.
Mr. Wilshaw:
A couple questions for you, Mr. Cole. The planter that is
currently on the side of the building, where is that located in
relation to where this outdoor seating area is?
Mr. Cole:
You said the planter?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. There's a planter that's in the sidewalk right alongside the
building. I believe it's north of the side exit door.
Mr. Cole:
I couldn't answer that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I get the feeling it's almost ping to land right square in the
middle of your dining area or at least close to it.
Mr. Cole:
I'm sorry I cant answer there. I wasn't here for that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. It might be something that you'll want to look at because
you probably don't want people tramping through that. The
other question is the piers or pillars that this fence creates every
so many feet to give it support. Currently, it appears to be just
a piece of the fence shaped in the form of a square.
Mr. Cote:
Those are planters with flowers. It's very typical. I didn't know
that tonight until I talked with the representative from Potbelly's.
But typically, they do that. They put in plantings. They're one
fool four by one foot four.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That's what I was going to ask you. They looked a little
plain to me, and I was looking to see if maybe we could make
those brick or something along those lines, but if they're going
to be planters, I think that would be appropriate as well. Thank
you.
Mr. Walsh:
Any additional questions?
Mr. LaPine:
Just two questions. The outdoor seating will be open from what,
May to September or May to when the weather changes?
April B, 2008
24680
Diane Pence, 300 Oxford Court, Belleville, Michigan. Generally through August.
Mr. LaPine: Through August. Okay. But if you gel a month like September,
which is a nice wane month, you would continue to operate, and
then it would close down during the winter months.
Ms.Pence: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Now, during the winter months, the tables and everything, do
they slay outside?
Ms. Pence: No.
Mr. LaPine: No. You take them away.
Ms. Pence: We do take them away.
Ms. Pence: All of the furniture is stored in one location for all of our stores.
So it is picked up. There are no tables or chair or planters that
are left out in the winter months.
Mr. LaPine: I'm glad to hear that. Now, Mr. Cole, I have one question. The
parking of this whole concept here is a little light. Now with the
outdoor seating, is it going to create any additional parking?
Now I would assume that a lot of people would normally eat on
the inside probably rather than the outside. So maybe there's
not that big of a difference in the amount of parking, but are you
satisfied that there is going to be enough parking to
accommodate this?
Mr. Cole: Yes. The other retail tenants ... its a real moving crowd. We
kind of watch it. People don't stay that long in any of those
stores. They're small stores. They're small restaurants, being
that they're fast casual, using the word fast. People don't park
there for loo long a time. We haven't had any problem to date.
Its hard to say, but we don't feel loo bad about it.
Mr. LaPine: You're the one who is going to suffer if you don't have good
parking. People are not going to shoe up. Thank you very
kindly.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? Mrs. McDermott, and then Mr.
Morrow.
Ms. McDermott: I just wanted to ask about outdoor seating and the spacing. Do
you feel, I mean it looks like its going to be a bit light. How
comfortable do you feel with the way that's arranged?
April 8,, 2008
24681
Mr. Cote:
Potbelly's architect used pretty common standards as far as the
spacing of chairs and tables. They're not anything you wouldn't
find anywhere else. There are certain standards that are set
architecturally for people to use. So, we're happy with the
architect's decision to place that many tables.
Mrs. McDermott:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Cote, following up with what Mr. Wilshaw said, is it possible
to build a support column out of brick and have it constructed so
you could drop a planter in there, because I kind of like the idea
of brick to match the brick on the building. I think it would be a
nice feature ifthat could be engineered.
Mr. Cote:
Yes, we would consider doing masonry.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I just think it's going to add a little more expense to d, I
think, but over the long haul, I think it will add to the feature.
Particularly, I like the idea with the plants going in, which I would
normally think, you know, Potbelly being a good tenant.
Mr. Cote:
The size they have there now, they're allocating one foot four by
one foot four. The only thing if we do a brick structure, there
may not be enough room left in the center section to have a
planter. That's my only concern. These are metal, from what I
understand, at the other stores. So I'm not sure there would be
enough space after that. We can look into it. If we can make
work, we will do that.
Mr. Morrow:
I was thinking if there was someway to just drop something in
there, construct it so ...
Mr. Cote:
If we can do it in the space allocated, we would do that. If we
make them too large, then we will start to encroach on the
seating area.
Mr. Morrow:
No. I know this kind of comes at the eleventh hour, but I just
think @ would be a nice architectural feature. It would add a little
bit to it.
Mr. Cote:
We'll look into that, draw it up, and if we can make it work, we
will submit it for the City's approval to look at. If we cant, we'll
let you know, ifspace won't allow us to do that.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, is that satisfactory?
Mr. Walsh:
Absolutely. I think what we can do, if everybody is in agreement
and a resolution does come up, assuming @'s an approving, we
April 8,, 2008
24682
would add in that it would be a brick pillar, but you would have
the opportunity between here and the Council to develop that if
that is acceptable to everybody when we gel to that point. Are
there any additional questions?
Mr. La Pine Just one question, Mr. Cole. Would you have to have 48 inch
footings so it doesn't move?
Mr. Cole: You're exactly right.
Mr. LaPine: And one of the things I worry about with these pillars, I've seen
them in loo many locations. After a few winters with the frost
coming and going, before you know it, lheyre cracking and
busting up. If lheyre nice planters and you pick them up and
take them away and bring them back in the springtime, it might
be better from your standpoint. Although I like the idea of brick,
I'm worried about those pillars in a few years. If theyre not
done right, will they start shiffing and cracking? I've seen it
happen in a number of locations and that worries me. That's
the only thing that really worries me aboutit.
Mr. Cote:
We're going to have to think that out because you're exactly
right. Masonry lends to crack if the slab moves. Fences are
usually anchored to a slab and they move and they float with the
slab. So we're not sure. We'll have to lel the architect lake a
look at that and the size of it. If we have enough space to make
masonry, that's the only consideration. So we'll have our
architect take a look at it and draw something up and Council
will come up with some ideas. If we can't make it work, we'll
show that we can't. Let's put it that way.
Mr. Morrow:
That's the only comment I would make, recognizing what Mr.
LaPine said. Make that part of your study as far as the longevity
of that particular column.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-28-2008
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 8, 2008, on
Petton 2008-02-02-08 submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works
requestng waiver use approval for outdoor seating for an
existing full service restaurant at 29579 Plymouth Road within
the Village Shops of Wonderland, located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebell Road and Henry Ruff Road
April 8,, 2008
24683
in the Northeast''/. of Section 35, which properly is zoned G2,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2008-02-02-08 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the outdoor sealing shall be confined to portions of
the sidewalks to the north and east of the subject store unit
as illustrated on the Seafing & Decor Plan marked Sheet
A1.3 and the Enlarged Exterior Sealing Plan marked Sheet
A4.2, both prepared by GPD Associates and both dated
October 2, 2007, which are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the maximum outdoor seating count shall not exceed
24 seats;
3. That a pedestrian walkway at least 5 feel in width shall be
maintained between the fence railings and the curb to
insure that sufficient clear space for pedestrian circulation
and egress is provided on the sidewalks;
4. That trash receptacles shall be provided for the outdoor
seating area and shall be emptied regularly as needed;
5. That the pefifioner shall report to the City Council regarding
the structural feasibility of installing brick support columns
for the fencing that is to enclose the outdoor seating area;
6. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #322-
07, which granted waiver use approval to operate a full
service restaurant at this locafion under Petition 2007-05-
02-16, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not
in conflict with this approval; and
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for a Zoning Compliance Permit
for the outdoor dining.
Subject to the preceding condifions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
April 8,, 2008
24684
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Mrs. Smiley, do you intend to add a requirement for brick pillars
subject to feasibility and subject to review by the Council?
Ms. Smiley: That would be great.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
It 1=1Ai Ei$=9=k IY I[e] 7 K1111:ErYZrYEQ= 19_1�[Cie
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
02-02-09 submitted by Nicholas and Masoud Shango
requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant with drive -up window facilities at 31281 Schoolcraft
Road within the Nicholas Plaza, located on the south side of
SchoolcmR Road between Merriman Road and Middlebelt Road
in the Northwest''/. of Section 26.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 28, 2008, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
submitted is incorrect and should read as follows: The fourth
line reads - 21 minutes 60 second east 368, 50 feet along the
north line of section ... connected - 21 minutes 00 seconds east
368.50 feet along the north line of section ... The fifth line
reads - south 00 degrees 29 minutes 56 seconds west 278, 00
feet ... connected - south 00 degrees 29 minutes 56 seconds
west 278.00 feet. The address according to our records is
April 8, 2008
24685
31281 Schoo/craft Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G.
Roney, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 24, 2008, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to request to operate a
limited service restaurant with drive-thru and carryout service
on property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road
between Merriman Road and Middlebeft Road in the Northwest
X of Section 26. We have no objections to this proposal with
the following stipulations: (a) Adequate hydrants shall be
provided and located with spacing consistent with the use
group. (b) Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of
thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to
wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches."
The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 3, 2008,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with drive-thru restaurant - Nicholas Plaza located at
31281 Schoo/craft. We have no objections or recommendations
to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W.
Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 27, 2008, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 19, 2008, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This review is based on the property being rezoned
from OS to C2. (2) The existing trash enclosure has parking
spaces marked in front of the enclosure opening. This does not
allow an appropriate amount of space for access of a front-
loading garbage truck. (3) All roof top mechanical equipment
shall be screened from view. (4) Barrier free parking spaces
must be property sized, marked and signed. A minimum of one
van accessible parking space is required (8 foot wide space with
an adjacent 8 foot wide access aisle). (5) There is no bypass
lane for the drive thru. They will require a separate resolution
with a super majority affirmative vote to be approved. (6) This
site with the site to the west is being viewed together as a group
commercial center. Therefore the ground sign meets ordinance.
(7) The site is deficient 14 parking spaces and will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
April 8,, 2008
24686
Mr. Wilshaw: Two questions. The updated site plan that we received in our
packet today, is this the new site plan and rendering for the
property?
Mr. Nowak: I dont believe there are any changes to the site plan. He gave
us a complete set, but the actual change was to tie building
elevation. It previously had shown brick, now it indicates that
the existing split face block will be painted in a color to match
the brick on the westerly building.
Mr. Wilshaw: I see that on the south elevation. On the west elevation, it still
says four inch brick.
Mr. Nowak: I think that's just an oversight.
Mr.Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Nicholas Shango, 5550 Hampshire Drive West, Bloomfield, Michigan 48322
Good evening.
Mr.
Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation
thus far or would you like us to go straight to questions?
Mr.
Shango:
You can go slreightto questioning.
Mr.
Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner this evening?
Mr.
La Pine:
The first question I have in my mind is, this is going to be a
Dunkin' Donuts, correct?
Mr.
Shango:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
La Pine:
Is this going to be a 24-hour operation?
Mr.
Shango:
Yes.
Mr.
La Pine:
During the 24 hour operation, is only the drive-lhru going b be
open or can people come inside and sit down?
Mr.
Shango:
That's a good question. I'm not sure yet. I'm not sure if we're
going to keep them both open. Obviously, the drive-thru will be
24 hours. I'm not sure about the inside.
Mr.
La Pine:
Are there any other operations that are there now open 24
hours?
Mr. Wilshaw:
April 8,, 2008
24687
Mr. Shango:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
This will be the first one?
Mr. Shango:
This will be the first one.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Shango, when I look a look at the site, one of the problems
that became evident to me, and we talked about this at our
study meeting briefly, was the new driveway that's going to
Mr. Shango:
essenfially serve as the primary entrance and exit for the
Dunkin' Donuts is offset slightly to the east of the overpass that
Mr. Wilshaw:
goes over 496. Just knowing how drivers are and people tend
to be impatient, it seems to me likely that a person exiting the
Mr. Shango:
Dunkin' Donuts who wishes to go westbound on Schoolcmft or
Mr. Wilshaw:
1-96, instead of turning right like they're supposed to and going
to the next overpass further down, is going to just cul across
going the wrong way on Schoolcraft to get into that westbound
turnaround. Do you have any problem with posting a right turn
only sign at this exit to at least encourage people to make
proper right hand turns?
Mr. Shango:
Sure. That would be fine with us. Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. The only other question I had is, looking at the site plan,
there are two parking spaces that are sort of off on their own
toward the southwest corner of this new piece and sit right
behind a dumpster enclosure. If someone was to park in those
spaces and then pull out, they would essenfially be
pulling out
right into the drive-thru lane of cars that may be coming
in. Do
you think that's going to pose any sort of a traffic problem on the
site?
Mr. Shango:
I was assuming that those spaces would be for employees in
the building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. How many employees do you expect to have at this
facility at any given lime?
Mr. Shango:
After 12:00, one. From 12:00 until close in the morning, two.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That was one thing that did concern me. It's a small
building but you don't have a lot of parking. You have six
parking spaces in the front basically, along with one accessible
space. If employees were to park in the front, certainly that
would take up most of the customer parking. So certainly if you
April 8,, 2008
24688
encourage the employees to park in the back, that would be a
good thing. Thank you.
Mr.Shango: Sure.
Mr. La Pine: Just one more question. You pt stated that there would be
one employee after midnight. Correct?
Mr. Shango: No, after 12:00 noon.
Mr. La Pine: Atter 12:00 noon?
Mr. Shango: Noon. Yeah
Mr. La Pine: Oh, okay. How many do you have in the evening? I assume
the donuts for the moving rush hour are made during the night.
Am I assuming right?
Mr. Shango: Actually, the donuts gel brought by truck by Dunkin' Donuts, and
it comes like at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning.
Mr. La Pine: Oh, you don't do your own baking there?
Mr. Shango: No.
Mr. La Pine: Okay. That's news.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments?
Mr. Wilshaw: What happened to the guy that makes the donuts?
Mr. La Pine: They wore him out.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Thank you,
sir, for being here tonight. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Varloogian, and adopted, it was
#04-29-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 8, 2008, on
Petition 2008-02-02-09 submitted by Nicholas and Masoud
Shango requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited
service restaurant with drive -up window facilities at 31281
Schoolcraft Road within the Nicholas Plaza, located on the
south side of Schoolcraft Road between Mernman Road and
Middlebell Road in the Northwest % of Section 26, which
April 8,, 2008
24689
property is zoned OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-02-02-09 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 submitted by
Nicholas Plaza Development, dated February 15, 2008, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced Site
Plan is hereby approved and shall be completed in
accordance with said plan, subject to the following
stipulations:
That all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be
provided with an automatic underground irtigation
system;
3. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-2
submitted by Nicholas Plaza Development, dated April 4,
2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view by screening that shall be of a compatible
character, material and color to other exterior materials on
the building;
5. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed 8 seats;
6. That all parking spaces shall be double striped;
7. That banner free parking spaces must be properly sized,
marked and signed. A minimum of one van accessible
parking space is required (8 fool wide space with an
adjacent 8 foot wide access aisle);
8. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a
height of 20 feet above grade and shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway;
April 8,, 2008
24690
9. That a bypass lane may be omitted only if this requirement
is waived by the City Council by means of a separate
resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City
Council concur;
10. That this approval is subject to the petitioner obtaining a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
number of parking spaces;
11. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefifion
(based on the two component parcels being viewed
together as a group commercial center in regard to the
ground sign), and any additional signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
12. That the easterly driveway exit shall be marked with a sign
that says 'right tum only';
13. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
14. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulations listed in
the correspondence dated March 24, 2008, from the Fire
Marshal; and
15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for building permits.
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.
April 8,, 2008
24691
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mrs. McDermott: If we could add a condition to read: That the easterly driveway
exit be marked with a sign that says "right turn only". I would
like to add a comment. I'm quite pleased what Mr. Wilshaw
brought up about the sign. I was out there today at about 3:30
and I was exiling what is the western portion right now. I
wanted to make the right tum, obviously which is the only way
you can go there, to head across the 1-96 overpass, and I can't
tell you how long I wailed there to make it across because of all
the traffic coming through from the expressway. So we really do
want to make sure that gets included. I think there could be a
little bit of a traffic issue there.
Mr. La Pine: I just want to add one thing. I'm going to support the resolution,
but one thing does worry me, it being a 24-hour operation. I
don't know how many employees you're going to have there
from 12:00 on, but if its one employee, that's really a scary
situation, especially if its a female working the counter plus the
drive-thm. It's kind of a scary situation, but I guess that's up to
the owner of the property and whomever he hires, but I don't
think it's the best thing in the world in my opinion. Thank you.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
McDermott, Vartoogian, LaPine, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES:
Morrow, Wilshaw
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2008-02-0240 TIM HORTONS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
02-02-10 submitted by Civil Design Services requesting waiver
use approval to conslmcl and operate a full restaurant with
drive -up window facilities (Tim Hortons) at 16815 Middlebell
Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between
Munger Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast I/ of
Section 14.
Mr. Nowak presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
April 8, 2008
24692
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 19, 2008, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
submitted is correct and no additional right of way is required.
The address for the proposed restaurant should be 16815
Middlebelt Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E.,
City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated March 24, 2008, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to operate a full service restaurant with drive-thru
facilities on property located on the west side of Middlebelt
Road between Munger Avenue and Six Mile Road in the
Northeast X of Section 14. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants
shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the
use group. (2) Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of
thirteen feet six inches, a tuming radius of fifty-three feet wall to
wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches.
(3) Any curves or corner of streets shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall
to wall and an inside tuming radius of twenty-nine feet six
inches. (4) An approved tumaround for fire apparatus shall be
provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of 150
feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning
radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside tuming radius
of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having jurisdiction
shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane."
The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 6, 2008,
which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in
connection with Tim Horton Restaurant, located at 16815
Middlebelt We would request that they be required to install a
stop sign at the sidewalk for exiting traffic onto Middlebelt This
sign must comply with the Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices standards. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 27, 2008,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 3,
2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The outdoor parking lot lights are detailed
at 30 feet in height. The Commission and/or Council may wish
April B, 2008
24693
to review the proposed height. (2) The barrier free parking
spaces are required to be property sized, marked and signed.
One of the barrier free spaces is required to be van accessible.
All barrier free spaces are required to have a marked access
aisle. (3) The petitioner shows two wall signs where only one
wall sign is permitted. A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required to install a second wall sign. (4) The
petitioner shows an additional menu board where only one is
permitted. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would
be required to install the additional menu board. (5) The
directional sign located on the South side of the property (sign
#9) is shown with a setback of 9 feet where 10 feet is required.
A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required
to install at the deficient setback. (6) The screen wall shown by
the petitioner on the 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 Bet and 7 feet in height. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mrs. McDermott:
Mr. Nowak, I just wanted to clarify the signage. Did you or did
you not say the signage is now conforming?
Mr. Nowak:
It is not conforming as it is shown on the plan, but I talked to a
representative of the petitioner today and he asked now that it
be approved with conforming signage only. In the event that
they later want to have more signage, they would have to come
back to the Planning Commission, City Council and the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Ms. MCDemort:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
That was part of my question. The other part is, are we going
with brick as opposed to masonry block?
Mr. Nowak:
You can clarify that with the petitioner, but that is my
understanding.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
When we talk about conforming signage, does that also include
a single menu board or is that a separate item?
April 8,, 2008
24694
Mr. Nowak:
If its conforming signage only, then it would allow them only one
menu board.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thanks.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Tsakoff, MTA, 25036 Ford Road, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127.
I'm the project architect. I think At pretty much touched on most
of the things that have been updated based on the workshop
meeting. Basically, the main things were the five fool
foundation landscaping that was added on the north side and
also on the east side, which faces Middlebell. That pretty much
runs continuous all along the building. The one on the east side
runs from the entrance door to where the drive thm lane is.
Also we adjusted the parking count. We now have four in
excess. We did remove one parking space that was at the very
rear of the site. That was by itself so we did delete that one.
And basically, so at this point, we have four in excess. The
gales on the dumpsler was also another issue. We changed
that note to steel frame steel gate painted that would match the
colors of the building. Also, we have revised the photometrics
so the poles are now 20 feet, and we do have all those revised
drawings in the set. That basically is everything as far as the
changes on the site go.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes, Mr. Tsakoff, you certainly addressed a lot of the concerns
that we had. We appreciate that. You took about five of them
off my list. The only two questions that I have left is the rooftop
screening. We had talked about that during our study meeting.
Is this new building elevation going to properly screen the roof
top mechanical equipment?
Mr. Tsakoff.
Yes, it is.
Mark Kellenberger, Tim Hortons, 565 E. Grand River Avenue, Brighton,
Mlichigan 48116. We will provide bolton rooftop screening. It's
a standing seam metal that goes around, and I will submit a cut
sheet to the Planning Department for ultimate approval.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you. And then the location of the dumpster was
the other thing that we talked about in our study meeting. I see
it has remained in the same location more or less.
Can you explain to me the thought process that you went
through in the past week as to the location of the dumpsler and
April 8, 2008
24895
why its still in the same location and why other locations are not
viable for you?
Mr. Kellenberger:
In looking at it, if we were to take it where we discussed at the
study session and move it behind where the cooler is, or in front
of where the cooler is, there wouldn't be sufficient room for that
truck to back up. We'd have to eliminate more parking up there.
If we move it over to the west of where the cooler is, again, we'll
eliminate more parking and there's still a question if that's going
to be accessible from a turning movement for the garbage
trucks. By reducing with the elevation changing and puffing in
some of the foundation landscaping, we're also able to create
some more area in the back where the loading zone is. So you
can see now we have a clear path for a garbage truck to pull in,
straight into the site, back into the loading area, access the
dumpsters and exit the site in a safe manner, not infringing on
the parking or the pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. I'm still not
entirely convinced that's the best location for a dumpster just
because it's in such a visible area of the site. Also you have
parking on both sides of the dumpster, which is a little bit
unusual, but I understand your explanation, and I will let it stand
as is. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kellenberger:
If I may, to go back to the original reason why we've chosen to
put the dumpster there, that was the thought process in looking
at changing it. But the thought process to its location is to take
the dumpster away from where the order station would be, from
a sights and sounds appearance. From a customer standpoint,
we'd rather not put that on them on a hot summer day in case
there is some odor that comes from that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thank you. I appreciate that. You've made several other very
nice improvements to the site, and I do appreciate you working
with us on those things. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPine:
Number one, I want to congratulate you on the site, the way you
have the traffic pattern going around the building. I think that's
really terrific. I wish all our drive-thrus were like that. I'm going
to ask you the same question I asked Dunkin' Donuts. You're
open 24 hours a day, right?
Mr. Kellenberger
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Is both the drive-lhru and the inside restaurant open 24 hours a
day?
April 8,, 2008
24696
Mr. Kellenberger
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
How many employees will you have here at night?
Mr. Kellenberger:
It depends on once the business is established exactly how it's
manned. Around five typically. That goes down from a peak
time.
Mr. LaPine:
Five in the evening?
Mr. Kellenberger:
Five during the morning, based on this model. Again, it's all in
how our business success goes. Staffing will be something that
our manager's look at on an individual basis, but typically there
are about five on a peak shift for a site this size.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess what I'm trying to get from you, during the night, say
from midnight to 5:00 in the morning when the shift probably
comes in for the big push, will you only have one person in
there?
Mr. Kellenberger.
Oh, absolutely not. There will never be just one person in that
store.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you have yourdonuls shipped in or do you bake them there?
Mr. Kellenberger.
Our process, we bring them in and we bake them on site. We
have coolers and freezers that we hold some excess to meet
demand, but everything is baked on site.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
With this reverting back to the four inch brick versus the block,
I'm going to request that the dumpsler enclosure will also have
brick to match the building.
Mr. Kellenberger.
That's correct. I apologize for the confusion of going back and
forth. In changing that building as we did, Ioolang at the floor
plan with the architects, we noticed it was a one -fool block. We
looked at it. We knew at that point it was going to be a split face
block when we talked and there's where Mike had put that on
the plan. I had a long discussion with our design in Canada,
and it was my opinion or feeling leaving the study session that
brick was a more favored choice. They've allowed us to go
back to brick on this. So if that pleases the Commission and
staff, then we would prefer to do that. And to directly answer
your question, yes, our dumpster will be brick to match the
building.
April 8,, 2008
24697
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate you working with
your general office and securing brick forthis building in Livonia.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Thank you
gentlemen. I appreciate you being here tonight. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Good evening.
Rev. Steve Sheridan, 29475 Six Mile, Livonia. Good evening. I'm the senior
Pastor of Bethel Baptist of Livonia. In a previous hearing, we
had expressed concern about the development because of the
10 years of neglect that the property had gone through. With
help from Councilman Don Knapp, we were able to meet with
the owner expressing our different concerns about it. The
owner at his own expense went and had all the property
cleaned, hauled a lot of trash out, a lot of debris, has blocked off
the panting lot now so nobody can go in there and dump and
the last six months it looks a lot better. So on behalf of Bethel
Baptist, we are very excited about it. Baptists like donuts,
especially freshly made ones. And so we would really
encourage you to vole yes on it, and we are very anxious to
have that property developed, especially with a family-oriented
business like Tim Hortons.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it. I think that
is the extent of our audience. No one else is coming forward. A
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0430-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 8, 2008, on
Petition 2008-02-02-10 submitted by Civil Design Services
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full
restaurant with drive -up window facilities (Tim Horton) at 16815
Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road
between Munger Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast %
of Section 14, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2008-02-02-10 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SD -1 prepared by
Michael A. Tsakoff, Architect, dated April 3, 2008, as
revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS-1 submitted by
Michael A. Tsakoff, Architect, dated April 3, 2008, as
revised, is hereby approved a nd shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That all landscaped areas shall be provided with an
underground irrigation system;
5. That the maximum customer sealing count shall not
exceed 30 seats;
6. That the Exterior Elevations Plans marked Sheet A5 and
A5.1 submitted by Tim Hortons, both dated April 3, 2008,
as revised, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
with the stipulation that the exterior wall material shall be
full face four inch brick;
7. 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;
8. That the trash enclosure shall be constructed of full face
four inch brick to match the building and shall have steel
gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all times;
9. That all parking spaces shall be double striped;
10. That barrier free parking spaces shall be properly sized,
marked and signed. One of the barrier free spaces shall
be van accessible. All barrier free spaces shall have a
marked access aisle;
11. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a
height of 20 feet above grade and shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway;
12. That both the drive-up and bypass traffic lanes for the
drive-up window facility shall be at least twelve (12) feel in
width for a combined total of at least twenty-four (24) feel
in width unless this requirement is waived by the City
Council by means of a separate resolution by which two-
thirds oflhe members of the City Council concur;
April B, 2008
24699
13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
15. That a STOP sign shall be installed at the sidewalk for
exiling traffic onto Middlebelt Road as recommended in the
correspondence dated March 6, 2008, from the Traffic
Bureau;
16. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulations listed in
the correspondence dated March 24, 2008, from the Fire
Marshal; and
17. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time of application for building permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: I just want to make a comment that, to my knowledge, this is the
first drive-thru that we have where we have a separate drive-
lhru designed the way we like to see them designed in that they
do not co -mingle with the people that come in to use the facility
as far as the interior dining. And they certainly raised the bar on
how to put together a drive-lhru, a new benchmark. For that
reason, I am supporting the motion.
Apr# 8, 2008
24700
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Mr. Nowak?
Mr. Nowak:
I'd like to make a suggestion that Condition 6 be amended
slightly. That the Exterior Elevations Plans marked Sheet A5
and A5.1 submitted by Tim Hortons, both dated April 3, 2008, as
revised, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, with the
stipulation that the exterior wall material shall be full face four
inch brick.
Mr. Walsh:
Is that acceptable to the maker?
Mr.Wilshaw:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Walsh:
As well as the second?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, but I would also like to amend Condition 8, where the
enclosure will match the building.
Mr. Walsh:
It is in there.
Mr. Morrow:
He did?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes. So if there is no objection, it would stand as presented. I
would just like to add my own two cents. I think you went above
and beyond what my expectations were and I appreciate it. You
heard all our comments and addressed them and explained the
ones you couldn't make. It was great. I really do appreciate
that.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 960TM Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 960"' Regular Meeting held on March 18, 2008.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, itwas
#0431-2008
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 960" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on March 18, 2008, are hereby
approved.
April 8,, 2008
24701
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow, Varloogian,
Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Smiley
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 961s' Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 8, 2008, was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman