HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-03-04OF THE 9591M1 PUBLIC HEARINGSAND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 4, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 9591" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. William La Pine, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: William La Pine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Ian Wilshaw Ashley Varloogian John Walsh
Members absent: Carol Smiley
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Clerk -Typist II;
and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present.
Vice Chairman La Pine informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's
agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation
to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the
final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the
outcome oflhe proceedings tonight.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2008-01-02-04 CHINA HOUSE
Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda,
Petition 2008-01-02-04 submitted by Mike Chen requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant
(China House Inn Restaurant) at 33018 W. Seven Mile Road
within the Maiomna Shopping Center, located on the north side
of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Merriman
Road in the Southwest % of Section 3.
March 4, 2008
24614
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to
apologize for being a little bit Tale and thank Mr. LaPine for
starting the meeting off this evening. Is there any
correspondence for us to consider before we go to questions?
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 23, 2008, which reads
as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. As regards the legal
description, the left end of the document was cut off, so the
description could not be confirmed. As quickly as the developer
can email another legal description, we will review it. Then= are
two existing doors in this storefront, which are to remain
(according to the floor plan). The easterly door bears the
address of 33018 Seven Mile, and the westerty door is 33024
Seven Mile Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney,
P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated February 14, 2008, which reads as
follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to operate a limited service restaurant
within the Maiorana Shopping Center on property located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Merriman Road in bre Southwest X of Section 3. 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 February 12, 2008, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with China House Inn
restaurant, located in the Maiorana Shopping Center (33000-
33152 Seven Mile). 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 February 20, 2008, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 6, 2008, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department
has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions for the Planning
Department before we go to the petitioner? Seeing none, if the
petitioner is in the audience, please step forward. Ladies and
gentlemen, if you do address the Planning Commission this
evening, please give us your name and address for our record.
March 4, 2008
24615
Bob Richardson, Armada Real Estate, 31870 Northwestern Highway, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48334. I'm the broker representing the Maiorana
Shopping Center.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation
thus far?
Mr. Richardson:
The only thing I would add is that, you know, Joe has reviewed
this, who is the landlord there. He reviewed this pretty closely,
and he thinks that China House Inn would be a good ft with
both his existing store there and with the other tenants that he
has in the shopping center there. Obviously, since he is an
owner/occupant as well as a Landlord there, he is very sensitive
to the type of uses that he would put in the shopping center, and
he's very comfortable with Mike Chen and his proposed use.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
One of the letters of correspondence indicated you're going to
have two different addresses at this particular place. Is that
your intent?
Mr. Richardson:
There are two existing addresses. I think for his purposes of
operation, it will probably be consolidated under one single
address. There may be two existing addresses because at one
point, it was two different storefronts, but for many years it's
been one.
Mr. Morrow:
It would seem you should get with the owner and have just one
address there to avoid confusion.
Mr. Richardson:
I believe it may be 33018. 1 need to double check that. So that
would be the address under which he would operate.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. If you could clear that up.
Mr. Richardson:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any otherquestions?
Mr. La Pine:
What percentage ofyour business is going to be carryout?
Mr. Richardson:
Mike's been in the restaurant business approximately 20 years.
He believes that approximately two-thirds of his business will be
carryout.
Mr. LaPine:
In most cases, people call in. At least that's what I do when I go
to a Chinese restaurant. You call in and you come and pick up
March 4, 2008
24616
it up. Now, I have no problem with the restaurant going in there,
but there is a problem here. Joe Maiorana is a very good friend
of mine. There is a problem with parking here, especially with
people coming for pickup because most people coming for a
carryout want to gel the closest parking space, run in and get
their food and gel out. Unfortunately, most of Joe's parking is in
the rear, and nobody wants to go from the front to the back. I'm
just worried if we're going to cause more problems with the
situation we have now. The building is here and this is a main
driveway coming off of Seven Mile Road. If there were parking
spaces designated strictly for pickup, that's one thing, but I
know how they go there. I go there a lot. If I cant find a parking
space in front, I just sit there and block up the driveway until
somebody pulls out so I can get their space. I'm just worried
that this is going to cause us some problems here. I'm not
opposed to the restaurant going in there. It's the parking.
Unfortunately, if there were back doors to these stores where
people could park in the back and come and make their pickup,
that's one thing. But the way its laid out now, it's just a worry I
have, and I think it might hurl your business in that people just
dont want to be running around waiting. When they get there,
they want to gel their carryout, pay for d and get the heck out of
there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: Along that same vein, have you surveyed the businesses
around there to see how their businesses and when they close
conflict with your peak hours?
Mr. Richardson: We have taken a look at that. In discussions with Mike, they
believe that approximately two-thirds of their business will be
dinner, approximately one-third lunch. Joe is open until 8:00
p.m. Everybody else there at this center, with the exception of
the optical store who closes, he has various hours but generally
speaking he is closing no later than 5:00 p.m., is closing around
7:00 p.m. in the evening. So we believe that at least with regard
to the dinner and evening traffic, which we think should be about
two-thirds of his business, that a good chunk of it should
hopefully not conflict with other traffic coming in and out of the
center. Yes, he wants to do lunch business and plans on some
lunch business and early dinner business, but this is one of the
things that Joe considered as well, is that he feels that the traffic
will balance itself relatively well with the existing traffic that goes
in and out of the center. We're also hopeful that a good
percentage of his business will come from tenants that are
customers that are already shopping at the shopping center,
either at Joe's, Byrd's Meal or conducting business at the credit
union service center.
March 4, 2008
24617
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to pursue that because ...
Mr. Richardson:
I understand.
Mr. Morrow:
As Mr. La Pine indicated, there can be, particularly if his
business is successful as he probably will be, there could be
some traffic pattern problems there.
Mr. Richardson:
Obviously, Joe's been there a long time and most of the balance
of his tenants have been there a long time, and I know the Iasi
thing Joe would want to do is do something that would hurl
either his own store or his existing tenants who have been there
a long time.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Well, I'm glad you looked into that.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just add one thing. You know I wouldn't
have that much of a problem with the parlang if, for instance, the
restaurant was on the end unit. That way people can park
against the wall on the east side of the building as they drive
down the back. But being that its kind of in the center of the
shopping center, in my opinion, it is going to cause some
problems, especially with people coming for carryout, because I
just know the way people are. They don't want to wail, and you
can't park in the driveway and con in and gel our pickup
because you're going to be blocking the driveway. In my
opinion, it's going to cause some problems. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Wilshaw:
One brief question. The grease trap for this restaurant, is it
going to be in the back or is it going to be inside the tenant
space?
Mr. Richardson:
Its going to be inside the tenant space.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. 1, along with the other commissioners,
obviously have concerns about the parking there because it is
such a successful shopping center, which is to your credit But I
do understand the concept. The majority of this tenant's
business is going to be during the dinner hours, which hopefully
will be when some of the other tenants, the credit union service
center and so on, are starting to close freeing up those parking
spaces. I would be okay with that, and I think Joe is a
responsible owner and landlord. I would hope that he would
understand that if this particular tenant has parking issues, that
he would then be willing to take two or three or four spaces in
front of this China House Inn and mark those as carryout
March 4, 2008
24618
spaces. Do you think that would be something that Joe would
do voluntarily if he sees a problem arise?
Mr. Richardson:
Yes, I do. It's not something that we discussed specifically with
Mike with regard to this but if the City has a issue with that and
feels that might alleviate the concerns here at the Commission
or the Council, that's something that Joe would definitely be
open to. We'd be happy to sit down with you folks and discuss
if that is, in fad, the best way to go forward.
Mr.Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
We appreciate you being here tonight. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, then the public hearing is
closed. A motion would be in order.
Mr. La Pine:
Although I have my reservations, Joe has been there a long
time. He's been an extremely good businessman here in
Livonia. He's been good to the city, so therefore I will make the
approving resolution.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-17-2008
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 2008, on
Petition 2008-01-02-04 submitted by Mike Chen requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant
(China House Inn Restaurant) at 33018 W. Seven Mile Road
within the Maiomna Shopping Center, located on the north side
of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Merriman
Road in the Southwest % of Section 3, which property is zoned
C-1, P and R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-01-02-04 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Floor Plan and Existing Elevation Plan marked
Sheet A-1 prepared by LSA, Inc., dated January 28, 2008,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed 30 seats;
3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
March 4, 2008
24619
4. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
5. That steel gates shall be installed on the three dumpsler
enclosures located behind the shopping center building.
These gates shall be properly maintained and, when not in
use, shall be closed at all limes; and
6. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Wasn't there a problem here that the dumpsters in the back do
not have doors on them?
Mr. Nowak: Thafs true. When the Staff did a site inspection, there are
enclosures but the enclosures do not have gates.
Mr. LaPine: Should we include that there has to be doors on the dumpsters,
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: That should not be a problem.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Fine.
March 4, 2008
24620
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2008-01-02-05 BROOKFIELD ACADEMY
Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2008-01-02-05 submitted by Construction Consulting
Service requesting waiver use approval to operate a
preschool/elementary school (Brookfield Academy) at 38945
Ann Arbor Road, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road
between Eckles Road and Hix Road in the Southwest ''/ of
Section 31.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence for the record?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 23, 2008, which reads
as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal at this time. The property legal
description and address (38945 Ann Arbor Road) are connect"
The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated February 11, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a preschooUelementary school on property
located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Eckles
Road and Hix Road in the Southwest''/, of Section 31. We have
no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl
Fester, Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated February 14, 2008, which reads as follows: 'We
have reviewed the plans and performed an onsite inspection in
connection with the petition from Brookfield Academylocated at
38945 Ann Arbor Road. An interview with the petitioner revealed
an anticipated enrollment of 150 pre-school through d' grade
students. Personally owned vehicles will drive all of the
students to this location. There will not be any school bus
transportation. The main drive between Ann Arbor Road and
the circular drop off point in front of the building is approximately
260 feet long. This will allow for the stacking of 21 vehicles
during the drop off or pickup times. The parking lot will handle
70 more cars, giving a total of 91 vehicles on the property at
March 4, 2008
24621
maximum capacity. (Added to this total will be the parking spots
needed for staff.) With the anticipated traffic volume of 150
vehicles, coupled with 250+ pedestrians walking to the parked
cars (parents with their child), the existing parking lot
configuration is inadequate for assured safety, and the vehicle
overflow will affect Ann Arbor Road traffic. It is recommended
that the Planning Commission require the petitioner to work with
the Police Department and Train Improvement Association (the
City's engineering firm) to enhance the parking area so that
maximum safety can be assured for vehicles and pedestrians
on this property and unhampered traffic Flow on Ann Arbor
Road." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated February 20, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of February 6, 2008, the above -referenced petition
has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I would like to update you relative to the Traffic Safely Bureau's
review of the site. They did have an opportunity, following the
study session, to observe the West Bloomfield operation, which
has staggered limes for the dropping off and picking up of
children, similar to what is proposed for the Livonia operation.
Sergeant Studt left a message with the Planning Department
today indicating that he is satisfied with the parking, and that the
driveways are adequate on this site to accommodate the
proposed use.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the Planning
staff before we go to the petitioner? Seeing none, is the
petitioner in the audience? If so, would you please step
forward? Good evening.
David L. Steinberg, Thav Gross Steinway & Bennett, 30150 Telegraph Road,
Suite 444, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025. I'm representing
my client, Bright Horizons, with this petition for a waiver use for
Brookfield Academy. Just a little bit more to add. Just so you
know, Bright Horizons has 600 schools, approximately 500 in
the United Slates and approximately 100 throughout the United
Kingdom. They brought several representatives with them
tonight to answer any questions you have. We have Deborah
Highsmith who is a divisional vice president. Robert Ewald is
project manager and Dan Tessarolo is our architect. So we're
here to answer questions that you have may.
March 4, 2008
24622
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. I'll start by saying I'm glad that the Traffic Bureau is
agreeable to the traffic and parking situation at this facility.
That's very good news. That concerned us greafly. I have a
couple questions about the facility. I was reading your
background information and one of the things that caught my
eye is that it says that the Brookfield Academy will have the
existing outdoor playground area upgraded to serve an outdoor
curriculum for the children. Can you explain that a little bit more
to me?
Deborah Highsmith,
Division Vice President, Bright Horizons Family Solutions,
42262 Saratoga Circle, Canton, Michigan 48187. We just
consider the outdoors an extension of the classroom. So it
would be having water tables, science areas, that sort of thing
outside. So not big changes in equipment, mostly movable
equipment that would come in and out.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That's interesting. Let's see. The other question I had
was in regard to the upgrading of the ... essentially the outside.
As I understand, it will be pretty much the same as it is now, but
you're going to make some significant upgrades to the interior
space. Can you explain those a little bit more to me?
Dan Tessarolo,
Managing Director, Chipman Adams Ltd., 1550 N. Northwest
Highway, Suite 400, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068. Going back to
one of the earlier slides, the configuration of the childcare center
that currently exists will be modified to adapt the program for
more school age children. That's the majority of the children
that will participate at the center here. So we've carved out
some of the child care rooms to accommodate a library, which is
in the front center portion of the building. There will be an art
studio, which is in the center rear of the building. There will be
computer labs and a cafe for dining for the children to eat during
the course of the day. So we're configuring the function of it
because traditional childcare centers have sleeping rooms and
play areas, which are no longer of use for childcare when its
converted to school age classrooms. So that's the majority of it
and then also finishes. Theyll be repainting, finishing the
flooring and reconfiguring some of the interior furniture as well.
Mr. Wilshaw:
As I understand it, you're going to have less students at this
location than the daycare center had previously. Is that correct?
Mr. Tessarolo:
Yes. It was our understanding that it was originally 180
children. I guess they have it on record as 170. So we're
anticipating 170 children forthis center.
March 4, 2008
24623
Mr. Wilshaw:
So it will be similar to what was previously there?
Mr. Tessarolo:
Yes.
Ms. Highsmith:
It's really a change in the ages of children. It used to be much
heavier in infants and toddlers. It has 150 school age children,
preschool and then a very small infantttaddler portion now
where it used to a lot bigger in the numbers of infarts and
toddlers.
Mr. Wilshaw:
How many staff people will be working at any given time?
Ms. Highsmith:
There will be 18 to 20 at a time. Of course, there will be
staggered people throughout the day.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. How about evening activities?
Ms. Highsmith:
On occasion, there will be something like a science fair or a
parent's night, but we would stagger that too, where only a
couple of the grades would have that at any one time. So we
wouldn't have large groups of people there at one time.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Have you had any progress in obtaining any sort of a joint
parking arrangement with the office space to the east of this
property?
Ms. Highsmith:
I have not approached them since we met last week, but when
we oversaw the childcare center, that was something we used
on an occasional weekend, that sort of thing.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Any additional questions? Mr. Morrow and then Mr. LaPine.
Mr. Morrow:
How long has the building been vacant?
Ms. Highsmith:
Since June 29 of'07.
Mr. Morrow:
Of this year?
Ms. Highsmith:
Of'07.
Mr. Morrow:
So it hasn't been vacant that long. I think its good that a
building of that quality doesn't slay vacant loo long because
from what I can see from the pictures, it doesn't look like it's
been affected at all by the vacancy.
March 4, 2008
24624
Robert Ewald, 2607 N. 28" Road, Marseilles, Illinois 61341. We have a property
manager that's assigned to maintain that facility. Right now
we're constantly maintaining the HVAC equipment, checking the
building to make sure we have no plumbing leaks. We shut
down most of the water that's unused. So we're trying to
maintain the building until we gel back in there, if we get
approval, and start construction.
Mr. Morrow:
One other question is, having been there with the prior use, I
happened to be on the Commission when this originally went
through. How have the neighbors and this use coexisted?
Mr. Ewald:
In terms of other surrounding uses?
Mr. Morrow:
No, as far as blending in with the neighborhood, free of
problems, anything of that nature.
Ms. Highsmith:
When we were the provider for the last three or four years, we
didn't have any issues. It was actually a 24-hour operation at
that point in time. So now its much more condensed so there
won't be the coming and going at 5:00 a.m. or midnight as
people were getting picked up.
Mr. Morrow:
It sounds like it will improve with this particular use over the prior
use. Mainly, I just wanted to make sure that the neighborhood
and the use coexisted and they were harmonious.
Ms. Highsmith:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
You answered one of my questions. As I remember, when I
was on the Board when this came up originally, the 24 -hours
was a problem. The neighbors were upset if people came and
pick up their kids during the night. So I'm glad there's no more
24-hour operation. The other question is, as I stated at the last
meeting, that building was built with probably the top notch of
everything. It went first class. My question now is, is the
furniture that was put in there, is that still here? Are you laking
over that furniture?
Ms. Highsmith:
The previous owner, UAW Ford, did some sales and sold all of
that equipment.
Mr. La Pine:
So all the stuff was sold. How about the play stuff outside?
Ms. Highsmith:
That's all the same, original.
March 4, 2008
24625
Mr. LaPine:
Now the follow-up on the question one of the other
commissioners asked, I notice on your thing here when he
talked about the outdoor activities. I see Brookfield Academy
offers a fall and spring soccer program. Is that going to be
there? You've got the room. There's no doubt about that.
Ms. Highsmith:
In the back of that playground, there will be a small area. It
won't be a full size soccer field.
Mr. LaPine:
Just for the kids. Okay. Now, the other question I have, I was
looking at your thing. When you talk about the children's house
classrooms. What are house classrooms?
Ms. Highsmith:
That's a Montessori tens for preschool aged children.
Children's houses is a term.
Mr. LaPine:
I notice there you have one teacher and two training assistants.
But when you get in the elementary classroom, you have two
teachers that co -teach the curriculum. They have math,
science, language, arts and history. Is that two leachers in each
room because you've got one leacher in each of the two rooms
you have for the elementary schools.
Ms. Highsmith:
In elementary, we have two leachers.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Do you have teacher's aides or anything like that like
they do in public schools?
Ms. Highsmith:
Not in the elementary program because there will only be 30
children in that classroom, so it's a one to 15 ratio with two
leachers in there.
Mr. LaPine:
1, for one, am thrilled that you are coming to Livonia. I think
we're in a position in Livonia where we have parents that may
want their children to go to this school, and you have an
outstanding reputation. I think it's good for the city. I really
appreciate you taking over the building and maintaining it the
way it's been maintained over all these years.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I just have one quick question. How long do you anticipate
construction will lake?
Mr. Ewald:
The construction, we're anticipating, we're in the process right
now to DO the set of drawings, which is [the design]
development set. We plan on having by June, 100 percent the
CD [construction documents] set that we would be submitting
for permits. We anticipate Tale '08 to start construction.
Construction will run somewhere around, on this particular job,
March 4, 2008
24626
20 weeks. At this point, I think we're anticipating opening up in
the fall of'09. Isn't that correct.
Ms. Highsmith: Our hope would be that we could have a small group of
children, summer camp age children there during the summer of
'09 because right now is when the registration is actually
happening for the school year. When you're running an
elementary school, its a little different than childcare. You
make the right windows of time for enrollment for preschool.
But definitely in the fall of '09 we would be ready to start the
elementary program.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
Mr. Morrow:
Normally, Mr. LaPine asks this question, but this is a private
enterprise?
Mr. Ewald:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Which means, will you be taxpayers?
Mr. Ewald:
That's correct. We will pay taxes.
Mr. Morrow:
You will be paying taxes?
Mr. Ewald:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
I wanted lhalforlhe record. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
I just have a couple of questions. Are you accredited by the
State? Is your program accredited as an educational program?
Ms. Highsmith:
Yes, it is.
Mr. Walsh:
So you follow state law?
Ms. Highsmith:
We follow the state criteria. All the teachers are certified both in
an elementary degree for the ones that teach elementary, as
well as having a Montessori certificate.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Thank you. Are there any other questions or
comments? Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here.
Now we will open up the public hearing. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? If so,
would you please step forward? Good evening.
Tina O'Donnell,
9486 Patton. Hello. I live on Patton Street which is basically just
to the side of the old day care center. Ijust wanted to express
March 4, 2008
24627
the fact that the day care center was a wonderful neighbor. It's
been there for three years and it's a beautiful properly. All that
time that it was occupied, I never heard anything and my
backyard is right on that tree line along the parking. It's
wonderfully screened. We don't really see what's happening
over there. I'm very excited about the prospect of having
another school come into that property. I'm far more worried
about having that properly set empty over time, and whatever
small concerns we may or may not have about traffic or parking,
I, for one, would say come park in front of my house if there's a
school activity and you need some parking. I'm right around the
corner and you can park by me. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you for coming tonight. Is there anybody else in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this item?
Kim Balhorn, 9339 Patton Street. For one, I just want to know, you said you
were going to open in the Fall of'09? Okay. I want to say that
my child used to attend the Ford UAW daycare, but this is the
one in Dearborn and they are very well. The leachers are very
well educated. Everything went smoothly. So I, as well, am
happy that you are going to come to the facility. Again, as a
parent of young kids, its exciting because Washington
Elementary school closed down, so I would have to take my kid
to Five Mile. So this is a lot closer for us. And since the
teachers are great, the facility is great and everything, I also
endorse this.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you for coming tonight. 6 there anyone else in
the audience wishing to come forward? Seeing no one else
coming forward, then the public hearing is closed. A motion is
in order.
Mr. Wilshaw: Going off the glowing reviews that we received from the
neighbors that are there, it is nice to be able to offer an
additional educational option to our community, and this does
sound like a good development in a good location at a beautful
properly. So I'm going to offer an approving resolution.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, t
was
#03-18-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 2008, on
Petfion 2008-01-02-05 submitted by Construction Consulting
Service requesting waiver use approval to operate a
preschool/elementary school (Brookfield Academy) at 38945
Ann Arbor Road, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road
March 4, 2008
24628
between Eckles Road and Hix Road in the Southwest % of
Section 31, which property is zoned OS, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2008-01-02-05 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That this facility shall not exceed a maximum capacity of
170 children; and
2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #809-
92, which granted waiver use approval to construct and
operate a child day care center on the subject property,
under Petition 92-09-02-28, shall remain in effect to the
extent that they are not in conflict with this approval.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2008-01-02-06 TROPICAL SMOOTH IE
Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2008-01-02-06 submitted by Baymont/Mid-Atlantic
requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant (Tropical Smoothie Cafe) at 30971 Five Mile Road
within the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center, located on the south
side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff
Road in the Northwest %of Section 23.
March 4, 2008
24629
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 25, 2008, which reads
as follows: 7n 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 is
correct. Note that the address shown on the site plan is 30971,
which is correct. It should be noted that the site plan shows two
units directly south with addresses of 30969 and 30971 Five
Mile Road. These two units are currently a single business and
the address above the door is 30969." The letter is signed by
Kevin G. Roney, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 19, 2008,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited
service restaurant within the Livonia Plaza shopping center on
property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the northwest X of
Section 23. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter
is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 12, 2008,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with Tropical Smoothie Cafe, located at 30971 Five
Mile. 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 February 20, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 6, 2008, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. 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 Planning Department? Seeing
none, we will go to the petitioner. Is the petitioner here this
evening? Good evening.
Larry Whetstone, Baymont/Mid-Atlantic, 1119 Reid, Grand Blanc, Michigan
48439. Good evening. The petitioner and the managing
partner of Baymont/Mid-Atlantic. We also have been contracted
for the architectural drawings and the hopeful eventual tenant
build -out. That would be our role. Tropical Smoothie is a
national franchise based out of Deslin, Florida. There is just
March 4, 2008
24630
under 300 franchises throughout the United Stales. Right now,
they are enjoying kind of a cross-promofional with Warner
Brothers and the Fool's Gold film that is currently out. So that's
kind of a national presence as well. I brought with me the
Michigan developer, the franchisee, as well as representatives
from the landlord, Ramco-Gershenson. With that history, we'll
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
Have many franchises do you have in Michigan?
Craig LeMieux,
6081 Byron Lake Drive, Lyndon, Michigan. We have seven
stores open in Michigan. This would be the ninth to open.
There is one to open before this.
Mr. Morrow:
How many in the Detroit metro area?
Mr. LeMieux:
We have one in West Bloomfield and one in Clinton Township,
and this will be the first, other than those.
Mr. Morrow:
Is this anything like a Sonic operation?
Mr. LeMieux:
It is not. Sonic's products are quite a bit different. Ours are real
frail smoothies, all freshly made, versus the slurpee-type of
thing that they served at Sonic.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
What are the hours of your operation?
Mr. LeMieux:
Typically, it is 7:00 a.m. to about 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. That can
varywilh the franchisee.
Mr. LaPine:
Is thalseven days a week?
Mr. LeMieux:
That is seven days a week.
Mr. La Pine
This will be the first one in Wayne County.
Mr. LeMieux:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
I like your menu. It looks very nice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Ms. McDermott?
Mrs. McDermott:
Mr. LaPine just covered my question with the hours of
operation. Thank you.
March 4, 2008
24631
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you,
gentlemen. We will now open the public hearing. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one coming forward, the public hearing is
closed. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#03-19-2008 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 2008, on
Petition 2008-01-02-06 submitted by Baymont/Mid-Atlantic
requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant (Tropical Smoothie Cafe) at 30971 Five Mile Road
within the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center, located on the south
side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff
Road in the Northwest'''/ of Section 23, which properly is zoned
C-2, P and RUF, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-01-02-06 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the customer sealing provided in connection with the
subject use shall be in accordance with the Floor Plan
marked Sheet A-1.2 prepared by Polyarch Inc., dated
September 11, 2007;
2. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed 22 seats;
3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
4. That no LED Iighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
5. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
March 4, 2008
24632
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2008-02-02-07 BUFFALO WILD WINGS
Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2008-02-02-07 submitted by Laurel Pointe L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval to remodel the exterior, add
outdoor sealing, and increase the total seating capacity of the
existing restaurant (proposed to become Buffalo Wild Wings) at
17050 Laurel Park Drive South, located on the east side of
Laurel Park Drive South between Six Mile Road and
Professional Center Drive in the Northeast''/. of Section 18.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 25, 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. As regards the legal
description, the written legal description for Parcel 1 is correct,
although the written description does not agree with the
information on the site plan drawing. For Parcel 2, the written
legal description differs slightly from the site plan drawing. Also,
in the seventh line the words to a point on the east line of South
Laurel Park Drive (118 ft. wide),' need to be eliminated. The
written description for the overall parcel is correct, but also
varies slightly from the site plan drawing. Note that the address
March 4, 2008
24633
shown, 17050 Laurel Park Drive, is correct. However, after
reviewing this, 1 would suggest that the developer may find it
beneficial to have the address for the building changed to a Six
Mile Road address. While it's true the entrance faces the
northwest, it is between two buildings with Six Mile Road
addresses. The building is not directly on Laurel Park Drive."
The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E. City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
February 13, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
remodel the exterior and add customer seating to the existing
restaurant on property located at the above-refemnced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by
Earl Fesler, Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division
of Police, dated February 12, 2008, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in connection with Buffalo Wild
Wings, located at 17050 Laurel Park Drive South. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
February 20, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of February 6, 2008, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner has
shown two wall signs where only one wall sign is permitted. An
approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain an additional wall sign. (2) There are 203 parking
spaces provided on this site where 253 spaces are required. An
approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain a deficiency of 50 parking spaces. 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: Thank you. Are there any questions for the Planning
Department? Seeing none, then we will go the petitioner. If you
could please step forward. Good evening.
Sharon A. Ulmer, Laurel Point L.L.C., 37699 Six Mile Road, Suite 220, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. Good evening. I represent Laurel Point. They
are the owner. Actually, our offices are in the adjacent mixed
use building to the restaurant that we're talking about tonight. I
also have with me Kent Ward and Brian Carmody, who are with
the Buffalo Wild Wings franchise. So you can ask them
questions that you may want in regard to their operations. I'd
like to give you a Iittie big of background and explain to you a
little bit about what we're trying to accomplish here. I think there
are several things that we've submitted plans for, and I'd also
like to clarify a couple things. When we started to market this
March 4, 2008
24634
restaurant about a year ago, we found that this restaurant is
about 20 years old, and restaurants have changed a lot in the
last 20 years. It's roughly 10,000 square feet in size, whereas
today's restaurant is more commonly around 7,000 square feet,
which I'm sure you've seen. You've approved a lot of
restaurants in the area. So we decided to divide the space and
carve off the retail space. It made more sense to put the retail
space on the west end of the building because the way the
parking lays out. The restaurant is the heaviest user of the
parking, and it makes sense for it to face the parking field.
Once we decided to carve out a retail space on the west end of
the building, we faced a couple different challenges. Currently,
that is the back end of the Ground Round restaurant. As such,
its been screened with several mature evergreen trees. It
doesn't have a lot of landscaping, and it's not really a desirable
retail look. So as pu can see from the drawings, what we are
proposing here is that we are going to really upgrade the look of
the retail space. We are going to move the loading zone to the
south side of the building and put the dumpslers back there. So
that will move that away from the Six Mile visibility. And to do
that, we have several things that we want to accomplish. The
relocation of the dumpslers is on the site plan. It's back in the
back corner of the building, and you can see that along the
south side of the building will now be the complete loading zone.
That will take all that truck visibility away from Six Mile Road.
We think that's a very good thing. The first thing I want to point
out on the elevation, as we tried to combine these, we had two
different architects that were worlang, so it was a little bit of a
challenge to combine. But one thing that we missed on this
elevation is the column to the right of the Buffalo Wild Wings is
showing as the current color E.I.F.S. It really is the yellow of the
in between. So it would be a black and while column, a yellow
in between column, and then a yellow column on the end. And I
think, Mark and Al, you did a nice idea, a nice job of adjusting
what we're trying to accomplish as far as the theme and keeping
continuity but having a distinct entrance for the retail. I'd like to
talk a little bit about the landscaping. The building is perceived
as being in the hole. It's two feet lower than the next use
building to the west and is actually a foot and half lower, the
finish floor is a foot and half lower than the sidewalk. So we
wanted to do something to reduce this problem. In 2004, I was
before you, and I talked about a lot of our tenants being
concerned about the visibility of their storefronts from Six Mile.
We actually got approval to cul down several trees, which we
did do. We also had approval to lower the berm in three
different locations about two feel, right around both of the signs
and at the east end of the property. We never proceeded with
that plan, primarily because the Ground Round, a current tenant
March 4, 2008
24635
of the restaurant, was having some financial difficulties and did
not want to proceed. That's a costly expense and he did not
want to proceed at that time. So what we did is, we talked with
your staff and we kind of carved out a flat area for both of the
signs and left the rest of it the same. If we go back further in
history, and we look, and this was before I became involved with
the project, when the Ground Round restaurant was first built,
there was no curb cut on Six Mile. Later when that curb cut was
approved, it was just cut through and there was no tapering like
you see either on the curbside of Laurel Park Drive or even at
the current Walgreens. So what we were proposing, and I think
there must be some confusion here, in that we're not proposing
lowering the bene four feet. At the point of the cross section,
which is at the end of the parking, we are proposing taking off 1
foot 10 inches. Okay? And that's the most the berm is going to
be lowered. As you go to the east, it will be graded to grade to
the sidewalks, slightly above the sidewalk down to the curb and
kind of flat along that whole edge. Now, if you go west, starting
at the point that we're moving 1 foot 10 inches off, it's going to
be graded up and those dotted lines are about 6 inches in
height, so its going to be graded up to the level. So we're not
starting at the sign and taking 2 feet off and going to 4 feet. Its
not even half of that. So I think there's been some
miscommunication. I know this is a hard thing for me to
visualize what we're trying to do by looking at two dimensional
drawings instead of looking at three dimensional. I wanted to
talk a little bit about parking also. The current restaurant was
sized and has been sized to park for 259 seats. When we
changed the restaurant seating, we kept the parking the same.
In fact, we require less parking according to code. The
restaurant, its primary business is in the evening. In the
evening, the retail tenant that we're considering for Retail A and
B, we're looking at one tenant and we've been working very
closely with him. He is a local jeweler that has been in business
for about 20 years. and he's looking for a destination spot on Six
Mile Road. He plans only to be open one evening a week and
closed on Sundays. And the next use building next door, the
office, of course, is closed at typically 5:00 p.m. The bank is
open until 7:30 p.m., but after 5:00 p.m., its just drive-thru
traffic. Jimmy John's is open later; however, their big business
is lunch time, and Cingular/AT&T, of course, is open later. So
the parking requirements, basically, the majority of the parking
is available on site for the evening for the restaurant. I think we
did an analysis of this. I think you might have it in your packets.
We looked at the daytime use because during the daytime, of
course, all the other tenants are there. We took some figures
from Buffalo Wild Wings' experience, and we found that it's still
pertinent. We're the landlord here. With most restaurants, its a
March 4, 2008
24636
long-term lease, and one of things, as a landlord, we try to do,
besides have compatible uses, is to make sure there aren't any
long-term problems. So we look very closely at parking and we
don't feel that's going to be an issue. So in summary, what I'd
like to conclude, I think that the plan we have proposed is going
to bring two excellent tenants to Livonia. I'll let Buffalo Wild
Wings talk about their experience. They're a very experienced
operator and one of the largest franchisees in the county. And
we have a long standing jeweler. I think the thing that is very
important is we're really upgrading the Six Mile appearance of
this building. So I think it will be beneficial. We're very excited
about it and I think it would be very beneficial to the City of
Livonia. So with that ...
Mr. Walsh: Yes, Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow: Based on your presentation, I've been out there a couple of
times and I know the berm has been under consideration and
because I think you said you're a fool and a half below the
sidewalk on Six Mile.
Ms. Ulmer: The finish floor of the restaurant is a fool and a half below the
sidewalk on Six Mile.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. So I'm assuming that's also the depth of the parking lot,
meaning the parking lot would be about the same reduction as
the building.
Ms. Ulmer: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Now, in your shaping the berm ...
Ms. Ulmer: In fact, I think it should be on that one cross-section loo.
Mr. Morrow: The question I wanted to ask, as it relates to the parking that
fronts into the bene, would that be visible from Six Mile?
Ms. Ulmer: No, because where the parking stars, the most that we're
laking off the bene is a foot. Where we're flattening it out is not
where the parking is. It's where the curb is and the landscape
area is going to the curb cul.
Mr. Morrow: Well, as one commissioner, my biggest concern is, as you
know, one of the reasons the bene was put there was to try and
screen the parking in front. It might have been overkill, I guess.
What I'm saying, at least as one commissioner, in shaping the
new bene, we're still hiding the cars parked in front on Six Mile.
March 4, 2008
24637
Ms. Ulmer:
Yes. In fact, that first parking space where we're taking it off,
the bene is higher than a car there.
Mr. Morrow:
The other queston I have is, where you say the curb cul was
just kind of added, have you ever had any traffic problems going
into Six Mile from your site based on the height of that bene? In
other words, the visibility of cars coming east on Six Mile.
Ms. Ulmer:
It is a safely issue. Where the curb cul comes in, not only does
it start out low, but it grows lower and then it comes up. So it's
hard to see cars coming from Six Mile. Its hard to see cars
coming into the shopping center from there.
Mr. Morrow:
That was my perception. It could be a problem. But do you
know of any problems that ever occurred there as far as
accidents?
Ms. Ulmer:
I do not know of any accidents. I have had tenants point out it
being a problem. In fact, the current Ground Round tenant was
very concerned about the safely there.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions?
Mr. La Pine:
I've been out there on a number of occasions, and I really don't
understand why we have to do anything to that berm. To me,
as I go east or west on Six Mile Road, I never have any problem
noticing those buildings in there because the signs are up high.
I guess one of the things that worries me, you talk about
flattening out the bene. The berm is like a little hill. How are
you going to flatten that out? Is it going to be round at one end
and flat somewhere else? How is that going to be
accomplished?
Ms. Ulmer:
If you take a look at where the cross section is as at the bottom,
and if you go to the sidewalk, that's what you see at the lop.
Mr. La Pine:
Where's the sidewalk? Show me where the sidewalk is in
comparison to this.
Ms. Ulmer:
On the lop drawing, the sidewalk ...
Mr. La Pine:
Is that the sidewalk right there?
Ms. Ulmer:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay.
March 4, 2008
24638
Ms. Ulmer:
On the top drawing to the right, the parking lot is to the left.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Ms. Ulmer:
Okay. The lop curve is where the current berm is at that section
at that place which is on the last parking place. What we're
going to do is lake off the 1 fool 10 inches and then from that
middle point, that bottom line, you can see it slightly above the
sidewalk. So it's going to be graded that way, towards the
sidewalk. And then in the middle, it's gang to be graded
towards the parking lot. Also, if you look at the bottom part of
the drawing, it's kind of a three -dimension kind of a curb. I say
flattened out but because all the points are at different levels, it's
going to be graded down lojust above the curb cul.
Mr. LaPine:
It's hard for me to visualize what you're really trying to
accomplish here. It's hard for me to believe lhatjust that little bit
of lowering is going to give you that much more visibility than
you've got now. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my perception
here.
Ms. Ulmer:
I think we're looking at cars coming in and out of the entrance
than we are looking for visibility of the building.
Mr. LaPine:
Then I'm misunderstanding what we're trying to do. If you're
telling me, as Mr. Morrow was trying to get from you, if there's a
problem with cars entering and leaving at that entrance because
of the height of the berm, that's a different story. I can buy that.
Ms. Ulmer:
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
I thought you wanted this thing lower because you wanted
better Nsibilily for the buildings. That's the understanding I
have.
Ms. Ulmer:
That's the reason we want to cul the trees down, okay, is
because of the visibility of the buildings. The trees, especially if
we put new trees in, will block some of the buildings.
Mr. LaPine:
So you're not going to put any more landscaping or any more
trees or any more plantings or anything in that area?
Ms. Ulmer:
No. We're adding three new trees. We're proposing cutting
down five trees and putting up three new trees.
Mr. LaPine:
How many trees were cul down when we originally allowed
them to be cut down?
March 4, 2008
24639
Ms. Ulmer:
I'm not sure. I don't recall. I would have to go back. We did
that onsite. We marked the trees on site with Mark.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Morrow:
Just one of the other perceptions I had for tapering that down,
particularly on the east side, is that, contrary to the last
restaurant, you had just a restaurant wall there. Now you've
introduced some retail space. Will this give you a Iitlle bit better
visibility for your new tenant?
Ms. Ulmer:
Yes, and its one of the first things he asked me about was what
could we do to improve his visibility.
Mr. Morrow:
You certainly have an attractive looking building there, if I can
call it a building. It's really part of another building, but it makes
R stand out from the restaurant.
Ms. Ulmer:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
That was just another perception I had that perhaps that did
come up in your discussions as far as visibility.
Ms. Ulmer:
And he was very concerned about that.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any otherquestions?
Ms. McDermott:
I also have concerns about the berm, but separate from that, I
wonder if you could talk a little bit about the panel brick system
that is going to be used on the retail space?
Ms. Ulmer:
We're working with a . and I understand they're having
problems within the city with panel brick before. We're working
with a local Livonia company that has done the panel brick and,
in fact, resolved some of the problems in the city. They're
proposing that we mount it, not on foam board, which is the
normal procedure, but on steel pallets that gel screwed into the
walls and then grouted. The brick mounted this way, basically
they told us it was hurricane proof, although we dont have any
hurricanes in Michigan. And it comes with a 20 -year warrantee,
the installation, and we're having the local company install it. I
did bring samples of the mounting and I believe there were
some spec sheets in the packet. I also believe it's being used by
another company in Livonia, the Wine Palace. They're going to
use the same technique.
Mrs. McDermott:
Okay. Thank you.
March 4, 2008
24640
Mr. Wilshaw: We haven't talked much about Buffalo Wild Wings or BW3 as a
lot of us know it. I think we're comfortable that's a good
operator for this location. I think we're comfortable they're a
good franchisee and that this is a nice location for it. So I don't
have a lot of questions about the restaurant in particular. My
concerns lend to be similar to what we've heard up here so far,
that's the landscaping and then also the use of the panel brick
system. My concern, at least with the panel brick system, is that
we've only approved it at one location that hasn't been built yet.
It was done in sort of a "let's try it and see how it looks and see
how it works' type of feeling, and we haven't had a chance to
see that in operation yet. So to go and approve another location
with the same system gives me a little bit of reservation. That
being said, I do think that the aesthetics of the design, of the
overall property, are very nice. I think that's a good thing, and
I'm glad to hear that would be a single tenant in the retail space.
My question is, I guess directed toward the Planning
Department, if this single to nant that is proposed to possibly go
in there, of course it's not a sure thing yet, was to not be
successful or not go in there for whatever reason, based on the
C-2 zoning, what other types of tenants could we see in that
space?
Mr.Taormina:
There is quite a wide variety. Anything that is permitted in the
office zoning classification would certainly be permitted, whether
it's a medical or general office use. You could have a dentist, a
chiropractor, a physician, or a use of that nature. Any type of
general retail establishment, apparel shops and businesses
such as that would be permitted. Then under the waiver use
category, certainly restaurants would be allowed. I think this
was discussed at the study session, whether or not there might
be future plans for a restaurant to occupy one or both of those
spaces, but that is something that would have to come back to
this body and City Council for approval. There is a wide range
of uses.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So it's a waiver use?
Mr. Taormina:
That would be a waiver use; that is correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
But if this place were notto be successful and a cell phone store
wanted to go in there, for example ...
Mr. Taormina:
That, loo, would be permitted. A cleaners would be a permitted
use, an ice cream parlor. A wide variety, as I said.
March 4, 2008
24641
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That gives us a little bit of reservation because obviously
a jeweler sounds like a very classy operation and a nice
complement to the restaurant in the sense that they're not going
to use the parking lot in the same general time frame that
Buffalo Wild Wings will have their peak usage. That could be
said about many retail uses, I suppose. As far as the berm is
concerned, I would feel more comfortable letting Buffalo Wild
Wings move forward to start their process of renovating the
building and getting into this facility, and would rather see the
landscaping as a callback item so that we could talk about it a
little bit more in depth, gel a better understanding of what's
going on with the removal or the lowering of this berm, and that
way not hold up the rest of your plans, which is to get the retail
and the restaurant operation moving. Would that be something
that you would be agreeable with?
Ms. Ulmer: If I understand you properly, we could go ahead with the
renovation of the retail space and we could go ahead with
relocating the dumpsters and it would just be the landscape.
Yeah, I'd be agreeable to that.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you very much
Mr. Morrow: I concur with Mr. Wilshaw because I'm sure that you and the
Planning Department and this body can work something out that
will satisfy everybody, gel a chance to look at it a little better.
My next question is to the staff. We opened up the discussion
on the panel brick. Could the existing foundations or building
support a full face four inch brick because my understanding
that this has been put in lieu of the E.I.F.S. in order to separate
the look from the Wild Wings restaurant.
Ms. Ulmer: That is correct, and we would have to tear out the cultured stone
in order to put a full face brick in.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, would you like to comment on that for the commission?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. What Sharon said is accurate. As I recall, when we
looked at the renovation of the Ground Round, the cultured
stone was selected really as an alternative to the E.I.F.S. that
was there previously. The cultured stone allowed them to put
that masonry product along a portion of the building without
having to install any kind of a foundation below it. What does
not exist here is the proper type of brick ledge along the footing
that would enable them to carry full brick all the way up to the
lop. So she is correct. Unless there was something structurally
that was done to be able to support a full brick above that
wainscot, really what it would require is removing the cultured
March 4, 2008
24642
stone, putting in a brick ledge, and then putting the masonry
product above that.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, would you have any idea what the life of an E.I.F.S. is
compared to panel brick?
Mr. Taormina: It is difficult to say. Its one of those things that require
maintenance. We see the E.I.F.S. having to be painted every
five to seven years. It seems to me that at lead some type of
repair work needs to be done on E.I.F.S., especially if it's
something that is carried down to the grade. You know
oftentimes it's damaged or gets banged up a bit, but it also is
just one of those materials that requires regular painting. As I
understand it, the panel brick system brick that we're looking at
here has either a 20 or 25 year warranty. At least that is how it
was described to us by the representative from Williams Panel
Brick in connection with a previous petition.
Mr. Morrow: My only comment is, as one commissioner, I don't think I could
ever approve or at least recommend that we have a full
structure of panel brick, but because of the present construction
and the petitioner trying to make this particular retail space
stand out from the other one, as I look at the plans, it does wrap
around on the east side for maybe 30 feel, and it's more for
decoration than it is for trying to have a brick building. I like the
looks of it very much. So I just wanted to bring those points out.
Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: Number one, I think Mr. Wilshaw's position is probably the right
way to go as far as the berm is concerned. Once the building is
up, it gives us a better idea how it's going to look. I have no
problem with the building. I like the looks of it and everything
else, but I do have a problem with the panel brick, and I will tell
you why. We approved the panel brick for the Wine Palace on
Middlebell Road maybe two or three weeks ago, maybe a
month. Al the time we approved it, we approved it on the
condition that this was a small area. We have never been in
favor of panel brick. We've had problems with it over the years,
but I grant you it's changed. That's one of the reasons that
convinced me to go along with it, because it was a new way, it
was metal and the way it was put up. We did it on the basis to
give us an opportunity, with that being up there for three or four
years, how it looks, how it wears and everything. Then here
comes another one within a month's time, with more panel brick
than we're allowing on the other building. That kind of upsets
me because I voted for it on the basis that this was a trial to see
how it was going to work out. We had a building here in town
one time that they put panel brick on it. We had to basically
March 4, 2008
24643
have them rip it all out and re -brick the whole building. That's
why I didn't want to go with any big building. As Mr. Morrow
pointed out, he wouldn't want to see a building with all panel
brick on it, and neither would 1. It kind of upsets me that a
month later, here I'm being asked to approve another panel
brick, which I'm not loo anxious to do, quite frankly. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Vartoogian: I have a question for the staff. Do we know what kind of
application was used to apply the cultured stone to the building?
Mr. Taormina: Well, it doesn't have a metal backing. I don't believe it did in
this particular case. It was probably adhered directly to the
masonry product behind that, but maybe the applicant or
architect knows precisely how it was applied in this case.
Typically, its a thin material. Its probably only about an inch
and a half thick, and it's applied
using a mastic or cement
product directly to the material
behind it, which was probably
block in this case.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. I guess my point is that I don't see a whole lot of
difference between our allowance of the cultured stone that's
just applied to the building, or I guess from my understanding,
how panel brick is applied.
Mr. Taormina:
The one difference here is that they will be stripping off the
E.I.F.S. that's on the building currently where this panel brick is
proposed for the retail. On the studs, they would install a thin
metal material that has clips or tabs as you may recall from the
discussion on the previous petition. The brick would then be
applied to the metal using a mastic, and then grout would be
applied between the bricks. That's the difference between how
it would be applied here. It can be applied directly to a masonry
product, like a block material, but in this case, they don't have
the block running all the way up the lop of the building. That's
why they would use the metal backing in this instance.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Donn Ulmer:
I believe I have something to add to the construction. We were
not involved with the application of cultured stone, so I think my
knowledge would be exactly what Mark's is. I concur a hundred
percent with what he's saying. My name is Donn Ulmer and I'm
part of the landlord group. The one thing I would point out, loo,
is that on our other building, we used full brick. We're not
proposing this to save money. In fact, the cheapest thing for us
to do would be to simply leave it dryvil, which is what it is right
now, and put some ornamental flashes on it and color it and
March 4, 2008
24644
differentiate it with a different color. We have not used this
particular panel brick before, but as Mark alluded to, its metal
backing, not the foam. I think the city has already checked it
out. We feel pretty comfortable with that. Again, its going to be
more expensive for us than leaving it the way it is. So we're not
doing this to save money in this case. As was alluded to before,
we cannot really go to a full brick without tearing down the
whole wall and starting over. So our only option, really, is to
leave it E.I.F.S. and put some ornamental reveals on it or
convertto the brick, not to save money but to have it look good.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions? Thank you all for coming
here this evening. We appreciate it. I don't think there is
anybody else in the audience, so I will not open a public hearing
only to close it. We will just proceed directly to a motion.
Ms. Ulmer:
Excuse me. Could I darify that we can move ahead. if we get
approved tonight, to City Council without the landscaping and
just break off the landscaping and just do that as a callback item
here?
Mr. Walsh:
If that is the resolution that comes forward, because I'm not sure
what's going to come forward ...
Ms. Ulmer:
Yes, I was saying, if that is what happens ...
Mr. Walsh:
I promise I'll explain it to you when we're done.
Ms. Ulmer:
Okay.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#03-20-2008
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 2008, on
submitted by Laurel Pointe L.L.C. requesting waiver use
approval to remodel the exterior, add outdoor sealing, and
increase the total seating capacity of the existing restaurant
(proposed to become Buffalo Wild Wings) at 17050 Laurel Park
Drive South, located on the east side of Laurel Park Drive South
between Six Mile Road and Professional Center Drive in the
Northeast % of Section 18, which property is zoned 02, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2008-02-02-07 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
March 4, 2008
24645
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1 submitted by
Whitehill, dated January 31, 2008, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That a fully detailed landscape plan for the landscaped
bene adjacent to the Six Mile Road right-of-way line,
including a cross-sectional profile plan for the proposed
lowering of the bene, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council
within sixty (60) days from the dale of approval of the site
plan unless more time is granted by the City Council;
3. That the North and East Elevations Plan prepared by
Anthony Pucci Associates, PC, dated March 3, 2008, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the Northwest and West Elevations Plan prepared by
Intertech Design Services, Inc., dated January 31, 2008, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That the thin brick used in the construction shall be field
applied to a metal panel which is structurally attached to
the wall,
6. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
7. That the Floor Plan prepared by Intertech Design Services,
Inc., dated January 31, 2008, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
8. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed a total of 267 seats, including 235 interior seals
and 32 outdoor patio seals;
9. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
any needed variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for
a deficient number of parking spaces;
10. That the three walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be
constructed of the full brick to match the brick used in the
construction of the building, or in the event a poured wall is
substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match
that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of
steel construction and maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
March 4, 2008
24646
11. That the Sign Package prepared by Federal Heath Sign
Company, dated November 19, 2007, showing a
monument sign and the wall signage for the proposed
restaurant, is hereby approved, subject to the granting of a
variance for an excess number of wall signs by the Zoning
Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining thereto.
Only conforming signage is approved for the proposed
retail units. Any additional signage shall be submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
12. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
13. That sound levels of any outdoor speakers shall be kept to
a reasonable minimum so as to not become objectionable;
and
14. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time of application for the 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 special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time I heard this tonight,
Item #13, that there is going to be outdoor speakers.
March 4, 2008
24647
Mr. Taormina:
I think we should ask the representative from Buffalo Wild
Wings.
Kent Ward:
I'm a franchisee for the Buffalo Wild Wings. Yes, we do
propose to put speakers on the patio, and we do keep them at
very reasonable limits because we don't want any trouble with
the neighborhood.
Mr. LaPine:
Are the speakers for music?
Mr. Ward:
Yes, background music.
Mr. LaPine:
Did we have that at the Ground Round or the other restaurant
that was there?
Mr. Ward:
Well, they might have had a little bit outside of the lobby. I'm
not sure if they had speakers outside. It would have been on
the north side. This is a bigger area on the south side, but I'll
also point out, if you look at the site plan of the area, to the
south of us is a now of office buildings and it doesn't reach the
residential area.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, I understand that. It's just that I didn't think there were any
speakers there before, and this is the first time I heard of it when
the resolution was read. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other comments?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I am going to support the resolution. I certainly share the
concerns with the panel brick system, but I think the argument
brought forth that the cultured stone is essentially a similar type
of building material as the panel brick system, as well as if we
do not approve a panel brick system, that its likely that E.I.F.S.
would be there just modified in some way, is a valid argument to
go with this panel brick system as at lead a cosmetic upgrade
over E.I.F.S. So I do understand that and I do think that if I'm
going to pick my fight, I'm going to pick it on the landscaping.
So I think we're making the right move. I'm excited about
Buffalo Wild Wings coming in here. I think it's going to be a
good location for them, and I look forward to them being able to
move on and not have us hold them up because of landscaping.
Mr. LaPine:
I do not know that much about the new type of panel brick. It
may tum out to be the greatest thing that ever happened to us
and it might be used in a lot of other buildings coming up. My
only argument is that I was under the impression we were
having a lest on this thing and now all of a sudden, as far as I'm
concerned, we've open a Pandora's box, and every time
March 4, 2008
24648
somebody has the possibility of using panel brick we're going to
gel it. If in five years from now or ten years from now, they start
falling down, we're going to wish we hadn't done it. I have no
objection to it going on this building. I will probably vote for this
proposal, but it just upsets me because I was under the
impression it was a lest on the Wine Palace. It turns out now
that we've opened Pandora's box. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: One of the reasons I offered it is because this is the second
one, as Mr. LaPine indicated. However, both applications were
on existing buildings where they were trying to do it for
decorative purposes. As I had said earlier, I'm not a big fan of
panel brick but I can make exceptions when it's a partial to the
building to enhance it or set it apart from the balance of the
building. So I'm certainly not making a commitment that I want
to see buildings built out of panel brick, but in these two cases, I
voted for it. Those are the conditions I voted for. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: I want to explain that this will allow you to move forward and a
callback on your landscaping plans. You can move forward if
this passes with your panel brick. I share the exact concems.
Over the years I've become, along with Mr. LaPine and other
members, very committed to the full brick. You're just falling
into a history. It has nothing to do with your project. I hope that
time passes and this product proves to be very successful. I
can vote on this very comfortably because I share Mr. Morrow's
assessment and will accept civil engineer Vartoogian's
conclusion. All kidding aside, it looks like a fine product. It
helps three Livonia businesses, the landlord, the manufacturer
and now Buffalo Wild Wings. You're going to have my support
on this resolution.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared 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 958TM Regular Meeting
Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Approval of the Minutes of the 958"' Regular Meeting held on
February 19, 2008.
March 4, 2008
24649
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-21-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 958" Regular Meeting held by
the City of Livonia Planning Commission on February 19, 2008,
are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolu0on resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Morrow, Wilshaw, Varloogian, McDermott,
Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Smiley
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolu0on
adopted.
On a moton duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 959" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 4, 2008, was adjourned at 8:50
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Deborah MCDermoil
Ac0ng Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman