Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2010-02-09MINUTES OF THE 991sT REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 9, 2010, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 991 n Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott Lynda Scheel Ashley Varloogian Joe Taylor Ian Wilshaw R. Lee Morrow Members absent: Carol Smiley Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, was also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2009-10-02-15 6 MILE PROPERTIES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2009-10- 02-15 submitted by 6 Mile Properties, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license (sale of packaged beer and wine) and an SDD license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the entire site, including the construction of a new building at 17108 Farmington Road, located on the northeast comer of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10. February9, 2010 25234 Mr. Taormina: This item was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission at its Public Hearing on November 24, 2009. The proposal at that time was to convert an existing gas station building for use as a convenience party store that would specialize in selling SDD and SDM licensed products. The petitioner's request was denied by the Planning Commission and he subsequently fled an appeal to the City Council. The City Council held a hearing on January 20, 2010, at which time the petitioner presented a new plan, the one that the Planning Commission is considering this evening. That plan proposes to demolish the old building and replace it with a new structure, but because the new plan was never reviewed by the Planning Commission, the City Council opted to refer this item back to the Planning Commission for your report and recommendation. So essentially we are reviewing this as a new request. This is property that is located at the northeast corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads. It's in the southwest 1/4 of Section 10, which is the square mile bounded by Seven Mile Road to the north, Farmington Road to the west, Six Mile Road to the south, and Merriman Road to the east. The property is zoned C-2, General Business. It measures 135 feel of frontage along Six Mile Road and 135 feet of frontage along Farmington Road, for a total area of .42 acres. The previous use of this site was a BP gas station. It included three car repair bays and a small convenience store area. That building on the site is about 2,200 square feet in area. It's situated at an angle in the northeasterly portion of the site. It includes fuel dispenser islands that are located between the building and Farmington and Six Mile Roads, as well as a pump island canopy that extends over those fuel dispenser islands. There are four driveways, two off of Farmington and two off of Six Mile. In terms of the revised plan, it shows the removal of the existing building and the construction of a new 3,900 square fool retail building in the northeast corner of the property. This building would be about 1,695 feet larger than the existing structure on the property. That represents a 75% increase in the building area. The building would be set back 72 feet from Farmington Road, 64.7 feet from Six Mile Road and it would have zero setbacks along both the north and the east side lot lines. The underground tanks, the fuel dispensers and the pump island canopy would all be removed as well as two of the existing driveways, one off Six Mile and one off Farmington Road. Those are the two drive approaches that are closest to the intersection. Both of those would be removed and the two others would remain. There would be new lighting provided for the site that would include three new light poles. There is a dumpster enclosure shown February9, 2010 25235 adjacent to the southeast comer of the building that would face Six Mile Road. That enclosure would have masonry block walls as well as a brick veneer that would match the building. Nineteen parking spaces are shown with this plan, which does comply, as does the landscaping. They are required to have a minimum of 15% of the total site area dedicated for landscaping purposes. They show exactly 15%. Currently, there is only 2.5% landscaping on the property. The floor plan submitted with the application shows the interior layout of the building. It shows the customer retail area, the cooler units, the cashier counter, bathroom and storage room. All of the SDD products would be secured behind a counter at this facility. In addition, there is a mezzanine that covers approximately one-third of the building. This would actually be a second level above the main level. That would contain an office as well as a security area. In terms of signage, they would be permitted two wall signs, one at 65 square feet and another at 32.5 square feet. There is no information at this time relative to signage. In addition, they would be permitted one monument sign no larger than 30 square feet in area, 6 feet in height, and with a minimum setback of 10 feet from the rights -0f --way of both Farmington and Six Mile Road. They are showing conceptually where that sign would be located on the site plan and it would comply with those minimum standards, although we don't have any details relative to the actual design of the sign. In terms of the exterior of the building, the elevation plans submitted show that it would be constructed out of the combination of brick, smooth face block and E.I.F.S. or dryvit. The overall height of the structure is shown at 26 feet. It would contain a flat roof as you can see from these plans. The customer entrance would be in the southwest corner of the building. There would not be any openings along either the north or the east sides of the building due to the zero setback. With respect to the proposed liquor license, this would involve the proposed acquisition and transfer of a license that is currently in escrow and previously used by Rite Aid at 37681 Five Mile Road. That was the Rite Aid that was located at the New Five Village Plaza near the intersection of Five Mile and Newburgh Roads. The use of a liquor license at this location would comply with the separation requirements which include a 500 foot minimum separation between existing SDM licensed businesses and a 1,000 foot separation from any existing SDD licensed establishments. The closest active SDM and SDD licensed businesses are located approximately one (1) mile away in the vicinity of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads. Finally, this proposal does comply with the requirement that the business be located at least 400 feet from any church or school building. Thank you. February9, 2010 25236 Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 4, 2010, which reads as follows: 'The Engineering Division has completed its review of the information received January 26, 2010, related to the waiver use petition at the referenced property. The verified address of the site is 17108 Farmington Road. It should be noted that plan sheet A-1 shows two water mains along the easterly right-of-way line of Farmington Road. This is incorrect, as well as the sizes shown. There is also an existing sanitary sewer running in an east -west direction just south of the southerly property line. By copy of this letter, 1 am informing A&M Consultants as well as Detroit Design Images that they need to send a representative to the Engineering Division to obtain comect infrastructure information before preparing any future plans. It is also noted that the demolition drawing on plan sheet A-1 would indicate that the southerly drive approach on Farmington Road is to remain. This is in conflict with the proposed site plan sketch located on the same page. In addition, a permit will have to be obtained before doing any work on our City utilities. 1 trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 28, 2010, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in connection with the demolition of the existing building and the complete redevelopment of the site, including the construction of a new building 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 February 2, 2010, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with 6 Mile Properties, located at the northwest corner of 6 Mile and Farmington. We recommend that a handicap sign be erected for the handicap parking spot." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 4, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 26, 2010, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) All dilapidated and/or abandoned light pole bases should be removed. (2) All rooftop equipment must be screened from view on all skies. (3) There is no mention of an irrigation system for all landscaping, in addition references are made to 'seeding' areas. The Commission and/or Council may wish to clarify February9, 2010 25237 these issues. (4) All parking spaces are required to be 10'x 20' and double striped. (5) The gates on the dumpster enclosure shall be steel or as may be approved. (6) The North wall and East wall shown with zero setback from lot lines must be of fireproof construction without windows or other openings. The proposed building shows the elevations on the North wall with windows and doors. This could be a labeling error and should be corrected for all elevations. (7) This proposed building is within 500 foot of another SDM license and a waiver from Council would be required. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. Mr. Taormina: A point of correction. I'm not sure that #7, wherein the Building Department states that the building is within 500 feet of another SDM license business, is correct. We will double check that. Mr. Morrow: Yes, I was wondering about that. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mark, I have a couple. On the zero setbacks, is there any type of variance required for rear yard and side yard? Mr. Taormina: No. There would be no requirement for variances as long as they provide the proper fire separation walls. No openings can be located along there. We allow for zero setbacks on commercial properties provided that they meet all the building code requirements for those walls. Mr. Morrow: Secondly, I missed it on the plan of the interior. Could you point out the second door? I saw the main entrance but I was looking for the second door. Mr. Taormina: This is the main entrance located here, and the second door would be located here in the northwest corner of the building. Mr. Morrow: There is no requirement for an elevator? Mr. Taormina: Notthat I'm aware of, no. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for Mr. Taormina regarding the correspondence? Now we will go to the petitioner. We will need your name and address. Michael Beydoun, 789 North Wagner, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103. Dennis Jaboro, 6 Mile Properties, L.L.C., 24936 Hadlock Drive, Novi, Michigan 48374. February9, 2010 25238 Mr. Morrow: Thank you. You've heard Mr. Taormina's presentation. Would you like to add something to that or point out certain features of your site plan? Mr. Beydoun: Actually, Mr. Taormina did a good job on that. But for the rest of the comments from the Building Department or Engineering, it might be that we left one of the approaches in there to remain, which it's not. The demolition plan will actually take the two approaches on the corners. We will comply with all the requirements from the Building Department as far as the walls in the back. If they have to be a fire rated wall, we'll do that. More likely, they have to be a two-hour fire rated wall since the building goes up higher than 16 feel. It has to be a two-hour fire rated wall. It has to be a total of 12 inches. Basically, we're going to brick the entire building. You're not going to see blocks anywhere, the back, the side, the front. We're going to use some kind of an architectural block to accent the brick. I do have some samples of that. This is a sample of the architectural block. It would be smooth and they come in varieties of colors. Il depends on what colors your guys like or if we can work something out, even a tan, beige or a limestone color. What we're proposing is a limestone color. And we have two different types of bricks. One of them is the regular size of brick and the other one is like a jumbo brick. Mr. Morrow: Its what? Mr. Beydoun: A jumbo brick. It's a bigger brick, a bigger size. Mr. Morrow: Those are four inch face bricks? Mr. Beydoun: Yes, sir. Like I said, the colors don't matter to us. We can actually work it out based on surrounding areas or your approvals. Mr. Morrow: Did you bring a sample of the smooth face block? Mr. Beydoun: Its architectural smooth face block, yes. Exactly like limestone, but its not limestone. Mr. Morrow: I'm sorry? Mr. Beydoun: It will look almost like limestone, but it is not limestone. Mr. Morrow: Do you understand that, Mark, what that is? February9, 2010 25239 Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Morrow: I was just wondering because we see a lot of block come through, but I wasn't sure what a smooth face block was. Mr. Beydoun: Its smooth architectural face. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else you want to add? Mr. Beydoun: I do have a few pictures here of what we're trying to do with the interior layouts and as far as the shelving and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Morrow: Do you have some pictures there you can pass along? Does the Commission have any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Wilshaw I went out to the Ann Arbor facility that we talked about at the study meeting. I was going to stop by there and take a look at R. Is that more or less the same time of operation that you're proposing here as far as the types of product that you sell and so on? Mr. Jaboro: For the most part, as far as the store, that store specializes basically in alcoholic beverages of all types, wine, specialty beer and liquor and cigars. Its a specially store. As far as the type of merchandise to be carried, yes. It's pretty much the same. We do very little as far as snacks. Maybe a little bit less would be over here and we'd base more of our focus on the specialty wine, beer and liquor, but for the most part, the same. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I noticed there wasn't much in the way of deli product or any of that type of stuff. Are you going to have a humidor located at this facility like you do at the Ann Arbor one? Mr. Jaboro: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: The other thing I noticed while I was there, near the humidor, there was a shelf that had what appeared to be bongs or a hookah -type apparatus on it. Is that something you're going to be selling atthis location? Mr. Jaboro: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That's all the questions I have for now. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: I guess to start off with, I'm a little bit confused as to what we're doing. I know we had this petition before and we were looking February9, 2010 25240 at a waiver use for a liquor license, an SDD and an SDM. This committee turned it down, and we were also looking, I guess, at the same lime at a site plan. For one reason or another, the Council decided to send it back because there was a new site plan, but I don't think its ever changed my mind as to whether we need an SDM license or an SDD license at that location. We were talking about a smaller building, 2,200 square feel, a gas station and renovating that. Now we're talking about 3,900 square feel, which is even bigger on a small piece of property, two stories high, and the building behind is about 20 feel high. It just doesn't make sense what we're going to do and why we're hearing it again. Either this Commission says there's an SDD license there or there isn't. And then normally, you would see the site plan if the Council decided that they would go along with that SDD or SDM license. But for one reason or another, because of the site plan change, they decided to send it back to us. Well, I have to tell you that hasn't changed my mind. It's a much better looking building. I commend these gentlemen for what they want to do with a brick building and make it look nice and it's all landscaped and everything, but I just don't feel that this is where we need an SDM license. Thank you. Ms. Vartoogian: With respect to the two story design, are you opposed to taking R down to one story? Mr. Beydoun: If we have to keep it at 20 feet, we can keep it at 20 feet if we have to, and then we can take the mezzanine out. If that's going to be a problem, we'll take it out. We'll bring it down to 20 feel. That's no problem, and we'll take the mezzanine out. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions of the petitioner? Mr. Taylor: Just an information question for Mark Taormina. Mark, I've been in a couple liquor stores and I've seen whiskey out in the middle of the aisle. I thought that everything had to be locked up behind the counter, or not locked up, but at least behind a counter. Mr. Taormina: That's a requirement that kicks in depending on the percentage of the sales that are derived from alcoholic products. Where it's expected that more than 35% of the gross receipts are in the sale of these products, that requirement does not take place. In this particular case, they would probably not be required to have those items secured from the public as is the requirement for February9, 2010 25241 grocery stores and drugstores, for example, where less than 35% of their sales are from SDD/SDM products. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. I didn't understand that. Mr. Taormina: But I do believe that in this particular case, he's showing all of those products behind a counter. Mr. Morrow: So it gels down to primary use, secondary uses. Mr. Taormina: I'm sorry? Mr. Morrow: It gets down to primary uses and secondary uses. In other words, if liquor, beer and wine is the primary use, they have the flexibility, but in a grocery store, then they are bound by a secondary type use and they have to have it secured. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. That clears it up in my mind loo. Mr. Wilshaw: Just to make a comment on that vein, since I did go to the Ann Arbor location, I dont know if it's a requirement of the Ann Arbor Council or not, but that particular location also has the liquor behind the counter, even the small sample sizes and so on are all locked behind the counter. I noticed that. Its just the wines and so on that are out on the main shelf. Mr. Beydoun: All the liquors will be behind the counter. I mean the way the building is right now, we have big shelves right there. All the liquor will be definitely behind the counter. Mr. Jaboro: In this particular location, I believe we have sufficient room. Obviously, there's always an introduction of new liquor that continues to come out, but as of right now, we have sufficient room, I believe, to put all the liquor behind the counter. In the Ann Arbor store, we have some of the smaller alcoholic content liquor, its still considered liquor but it has a small content of, you know, daiquiri mixes or stuff like that, that come premixed, that we do display on the floor, but the majority of the 80 proof liquor or higher is behind the counter. Mr. Morrow: If there are no further questions from the Commission, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this pefifion? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. February9, 2010 25242 On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, it was #02-11-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-10-02-15 submitted by 6 Mile Properties, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license (sale of packaged beer and wine) and an SDD license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with the demolition ofthe existing building and the redevelopment of the entire site, including the construction of a new building at 17108 Farmington Road, located on the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposal is in compliance with all of the special and general wavier use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That this area of the City is currently well served with existing SDM and SDD licensed establishments; 3. That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDM and SDD licensed establishments in this area of the City; 4. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal would be compatible to and in harmony with surrounding uses in the area; 5. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrated that the property has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 6. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, are intended to insure suitability and appropriateness of uses. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: Just to make the comment that the motion that's before us talks mostly about the waiver use, and that's essentially what came back to us from the Council. In regards to the waiver use, I agree with Mr. Taylor in his comments that he made earlier that I don't believe this is an appropriate use for this particular location. This particular site plan may be fine somewhere else, but I don't think it's appropriate here on this parcel of land. As February9, 2010 25243 for the site plan itself, I have a lot of questions about that as well. If the Council is curious as to what our opinions are, I can certainly say that this site plan has a lot of ambiguity in it in the sense that the color of the building materials are subject to interpretation right now. The second floor may or may not be there. As far as the site plan goes, I don't think this is a set in stone plan that we can either say, yes, we agree with it or no, we don't, because there's a lot of elements that haven't necessarily been hammered out by the petitioner as it was presented to us. So those are my opinions and comments as far as both the waiver use and the site plan if the Council is seeking that information from us by sending it back down to us. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any other discussion or comments? Seeing none, I'll ask for the roll call. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Wilshaw, McDermott, Scheel, Morrow NAYES: Vartoogian ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Smiley Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying recommendation with the fact that the Planning Commission has also looked at the site plan, but they still feel that the denying for that waiver is appropriate. We thank you very much. Mr. Beydoun: Thank you. Mr. Jaboro: Thankyou. ITEM #2 PETITION 2009-02-08-03 VISION QUEST Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2009- 02-08-03 submitted by Vision Quest Consulting, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 8, 2009 (CR #151-09), requesting a one-year extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office building (Coburn-Kleinfeldl Eye Clinic) at 33400 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road February9, 2010 25244 between Farmington Road and Laurel Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 9 Mr. Taormina: This was a plan that was originally approved by the City Council on April 8, 2009. The letter submitted to you this evening indicates the petitioners desire to have the site plan extended for another year. He was unable to gel started with construction due to the economic times right now. As you recall, this is about a 4,500 square foot addition onto the Eye Clinic which is located at the northwest comer of Six Mile and Farmington Roads. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience? I see no one coming forward. On that note, I'll ask for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-12-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-02-08-03 submitted by Vision Quest Consulting, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 8, 2009 (Council Resolution #151-09), requesting a one-year extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office building (Coburn-Kleinfeldl Eye Clinic) at 33400 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Farmington Road and Laurel Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 9, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for an extension of Site Plan Approval by Vision Quest Consulting in a letter dated January 26, 2010, in connection with Petition 2009-02-08-03, which permitted the construction of an addition to the office building (Coburn-Kleinfeldl Eye Clinic) at 33400 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Farmington Road and Laurel Drive in the Southeast''/. of Section 9, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #151-09 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. February9, 2010 25245 ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 990'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 990`' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 26, 2010. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, it was #02-13-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 990" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 26, 2010, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Taylor, Wilshaw, McDermott, Scheel, Vartoogian NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Morrow ABSENT: Smiley Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 991" Regular Meeting held on February 9, 2010, was adjourned at 8:03 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Deborah McDermott Acting Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman