Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2011-03-01MINUTES OF THE 1,006TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 1, 2011, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,006" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Carol A. Smiley Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs 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 petifion 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 determinafion as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a pefifion 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 pefifions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2011-01-01-01 ROBERT SEMAAN Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Peffion 2011-01- 01-01 submitted by Robert Semaan requesting to rezone the property at 34800 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Wayne Road and Stark Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, from C-1 to 62. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. March 1, 2011 255]9 Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Inspection Department, dated February 8, 2011, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner shows an auto dealer as the proposed use of this property. This use would be a waiver in a C-2 district and would require approval from Planning and Council. (2) The protective wall separating the residential property to the North will need to be repaired if this project moves forward. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated December 13, 2010, which reads as follows: "At the 22P Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on December 9, 2010, the following resolution was unanimously adopted. #2010-26 Resolved, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby support the rezoning and proposed conceptual plans as presented by Armada Real Estate Services, on behalf of Robert Semaan, Discovery Auto Sales, requesting to operate a pre -owned auto sales center at 34800 Plymouth Road located on the north side of Plymouth Road just east of Wayne Road, subject to the review of the site details when presented for approval, and subject to compliance with all City codes and ordinances and the Plymouth Road Development streetscape goals and objectives, as such may be modified by the action of the Planning Commission and/or City Council and subject to review of proposed landscape modifications to the site." The letter is signed by Mark Taormina, Economic Development & Planning Director. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Does the Commission have any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, is the petitioner or his representative here tonight? We will need your name and address for the record, please. Brian Devlin, 31736 West Chicago, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm the landscape architect for the pefifioner. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any further comments? Mr. Devlin: We believe this is a good use for this particular parcel. We are going to provide a niche kind of dealership; that is, there are many dealerships along Plymouth Road, but none that really Mr. Semaan: I've been in business for about 17 years. I currently have a place in Dayton, Ohio. I started it in 2001. 1 went from $500,000 a year gross to over $8 million Iasi year. I'm hoping to do the same thing here in Michigan. My family lives in Michigan. My wife's parents are from Michigan, and I'm tired of driving back and forth to Dayton, Ohio. For the kind of cars I buy and sell, this would be a good place. I don't buy here and pay here and cheap end. It's all going to be upscale luxury cars. Any questions? Mr. Morrow: I'm going to go to the Commission now and see if they have any questions of you. March 1, 2011 25580 specialize in upscale models of pre -owned vehicles. Also, this site is very suitable for what we would like to do, in that it's not loo large such that overhead costs would be a factor in the success of the project and business. We just believe that the building itself also lends itself to what we need to do as well. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is Mr. Semaan the owner of the properly? Good evening. We'll need your name and address for the record please. Robert Semaan, 48777 Strawberry Knoll Lane, Macomb Township, Michigan 48044. Good evening, everyone. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Semaan, do you own the building or are you purchasing the building? What is the arrangement? Mr. Semaan: I am purchasing the building and the land. I am going to remodel the building a little bit and the parking lot to be able to have auto sales there. Mr. Morrow: Will the purchase be with an option based on this zoning and waiver going through? Mr. Semaan: Yes. Mr. Morrow: I wanted to make sure that was part of the record. As the Director had indicated, this is a rezoning issue tonight. I am going to ask the Commission to limit the questions relative to the site plan that we just saw, because as this thing works through, if it is going to be approved, we will have a site plan review which goes along with the waiver. So we appreciate you sharing your thoughts and the drawing so we have an idea of what's going in there. Now, do you have anything else you want to add to the presentation? Mr. Semaan: I've been in business for about 17 years. I currently have a place in Dayton, Ohio. I started it in 2001. 1 went from $500,000 a year gross to over $8 million Iasi year. I'm hoping to do the same thing here in Michigan. My family lives in Michigan. My wife's parents are from Michigan, and I'm tired of driving back and forth to Dayton, Ohio. For the kind of cars I buy and sell, this would be a good place. I don't buy here and pay here and cheap end. It's all going to be upscale luxury cars. Any questions? Mr. Morrow: I'm going to go to the Commission now and see if they have any questions of you. March 1, 2811 25581 Ms. Krueger: Good evening. I was just wondering if you had a chance to look at any other sites that are already in the C-2 zoning district? Mr. Semaan: I've been looking for two years now. For what I want to do, this seems to be the best bel right now. Ms. Krueger: What other areas of the City have you looked? Mr. Semaan: I want a place that's small enough, but big and small at the same time, because I want to buy luxury cars and I dont want to have over 50 - 60 cars at my place. From the showroom, you can see the whole place and it's easy to manage. I want to be able to manage it personally. Ms. Krueger: That didn't really answer my question. I asked in what other areas of the City did you look? Mr. Semaan: I looked on Gratiol in Macomb Township. I looked at Southfield. I mean I had someone else helping me, but mainly on Gmtiot and that area did not seem to be good. Ms. Kruger: Okay. Thank you. Bob Richardson, Associate Broker, Armada Real Estate Services, 7001 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 110, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. I'm the broker representing the property. Robert did look at Plymouth Road, other properties on Plymouth Road. The dilemma that came in is that there's some other properties available but theyre quite a bit larger in scale. Based on the scale of the operation they'd like to do, this one is the best fit. That's why he's focusing on this particular property. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions of the petitioners? Mr. Wlshaw: For Mr. Semaan, not to gel into the details of your site plan, because we're not talking about that, but just your business in general, you're saying its going to be upscale luxury cars. Where are you going to gel these cars from? What do you mean by luxury cars? Just give me a feel for how your business is going to operate. Mr. Semaan: A lot of the cars I deal with are Range Rovers, Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac. Where I pick them up from are different Manheim Auctions. Some from Pennsylvania. BMW, they have in every March 1, 2811 25582 stale, a sale every month, BMW Financial or GM Financial. Mainly Manheim Auctions. Every once in a while I get a small Buick or Envoy. The main cars I sell are Range Rovers and BMW, Cadillac and Mercedes. Mr. W Ishaw: Ok. Do you provide any other services to your customers other than selling the car? Is there any confinuous service or oil changes or anything else that goes along with it? Mr. Semaan: A lot of the cars I sell, they would be under factory warranty. I buy them with low miles and a lot of the Range Rovers, Cadillacs, they have up to 50,000 miles, and in some cases up to 100,000 mile warranty. So when I sell the car, it's still under the factory warranty in a lot of cases. Now, if I ever get one past the warranty, I can sell a warranty. There are a lot of after- market warranties available where they can repair their cars wherever they like, but I'm not going to have a repair facility on this spot. Mr. Wlshaw: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Any olherquesfions or comments? Mr. Taylor: I really don't have a big problem with the C-2 zoning, but I do have a problem with putfing in used cars or previously owned cars because we have a couple dealerships now that were selling used cars. We have a waiver use there at New Car Alternatives. We have one at Olson Oldsmobile. I don't know whether you checked on either one of those places where they would fit what you would like to do or not. The C-2 zoning, I don't have a problem with, but I probably will not vole for it because I dont want to mislead you to the fact that I would vote for a waiver use for used cars or previously used cars. I just think that we have a couple other dealerships that have those waiver uses now. So we would be giving you another waiver use, and maybe down the line someone else will come in to New Car Alternatives. Someone else will go into Olson Olds. All of a sudden we have a bunch of used cars on Plymouth Road. I want to be upfront with you. C-2 zoning, like I say, is not a problem with me. It's C-1 now and it's pretty compatible with C-1, 62, but you cant have a waiver use in C-1 zoning. I just have to tell you where 1, as one Commissioner, am coming from. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Semaan, what Mr. Taylor was trying to indicate was that, should the zoning pass here tonight, it's not a guarantee that you gel the waiver of use. March 1, 2811 25583 I think the consensus is that's the Master Plan. There's a good chance it will probably pass here tonight to go on to the City Council, who ultimately decides. We're just a recommending body. They don't always follow what we say much to our chagrin. One other comment I want to make before I give you the final comment, are you aware your sign has lipped over and is partially buried in snow so you can't see it from Plymouth Road? Mr. Semaan: Yes Mr. Morrow: Are you aware of that? Let me suggest that the sign be put up more substantially because this starts the petition moving, and I don't want you to get to City Council only to find out that sign has not been posted between now and when they gel it. Mr. Semaan: Okay. I'll take care of it. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any comments? I have to go to the audience. Do you have any further comments before I go to the audience? Mr. Semaan: Thank you foryourlime. Mr. Morrow: We thank you for your petition. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? If you would please come forward. Mr. Richardson: I just wanted to re -slate that our company has marketed that property for about three and half years. Aaron's left there I'm going to say 2006 or 2007 approximately, and obviously everybody knows the last four years haven't been the best economy in this region. That said, we've had numbers showing some interest in the property but nothing ever really clicked quite right. I mean the Iasi two years, things were really pretty slow. Robert is a good honest businessman. He seems like a good operator. We're hopeful that we can gel something done here. I mean just to address Mr. Taylor's comment, and I understand where he's coming from, I think if we can get a nice good quality operator and have someone to make some improvements to the property there, it can help stimulate interest in other properties that are on the corridor as well. So hopefully, Robert coming here wouldn't just be a matter of putting Robert in. He's done. It will generate some additional retail activity that can generate other interests, whether it be automotive or otherwise on the Plymouth Road corridor. March 1, 2811 25584 Mr. Morrow: I dont want to put words in Mr. Taylor's mouth, but I think what he was alluding to, we're given a picture of Mercedes, BMWs, Cadillacs, those types of cars. A waiver use runs with the land. Should Mr. Semaan get so rich he's going to move to some fashionable place, we may have a string of junkers at that place because it would be under the classification of used car. So I wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Mr. Robertson: Fair enough. Mr. Morrow: I saw no one coming forward, so I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion on the zoning. On a motion by Krueger, seconded by Taylor, and adopted, it was #03-08-2011 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2011, on Petition 2011-01-01-01 submitted by Robert Semaan requesting to rezone the property at 34800 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Wayne Road and Stark Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, from C-1 to 62, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-01-01-01 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That this general area in the vicinity of the Plymouth Road and Wayne Road intersection contains sufficient commercially zoned lands to adequately provide for this type of use; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is not needed to utilize the subject properly; 3. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for more general commercial use of the subject property in an otherwise primarily local commercial area; 4. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need for this type of use in this area; 5. That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in harmony with the residential uses in the area; 6. That the proposed change of zoning would adversely affect the well-being of the nearby residential neighborhood; and March 1, 2811 25585 7. That maintaining the zoning boundaries as they currently exist in this area would serve the best interests of the community at large. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Ms. Krueger: Having said that, I am making a denying resolution based on essentially what Mr. Taylor said, so that we don't mislead you into thinking that the granting of this zoning would essentially also grant the site plan, which it would not. I'm sorry. The next step would be a waiver use, and I wouldn't be agreeable to a waiver use for a used car dealer. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Seeing none, please call the roll. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Krueger, Taylor, Wilshaw, Scheel NAYES: Morrow 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 resolution. As I indicated earlier, they will make the ultimate decision. We appreciate your interest in Livonia and wish you the best. Thank you. ITEM #2 PETITION 2011-02-08-01 LEATHER BOTTLE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011- 02-08-01 submitted by Subu Enterprise requesting approval for an outdoor dining patio (seasonal seating) at the existing full service restaurant (G. Subu's Leather Bottle) at 20300 Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Taormina: This property is in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, a square mile that is bounded by Farmington Road along the westerly boundary, Eight Mile Road to the north, Merriman Road to the east and Seven Mile Road to the south. This is the site of the G. Subu's Leather Bottle restaurant, which is on the east side of March 1, 2011 25586 Farmington Road about 600 feet south of Eight Mile Road. Just to get your bearings straight, there is a Napa Auto Supply Store immediately to the north of this site. There is office zoning both to the south, the Pinebrook Office Complex, as well as to the west across Farmington Road, and then there are single family homes to the east of this property. This site is about 2.18 acres in area. It has 210 feel of frontage along Farmington Road and a depth of about 450 feel. This site is split zoned. It has a combination of zoning districts including C-2, which encompasses the majority of the parcel. Then there is a portion of the rear of the site that is zoned a combination of Parking and R-3, one family residential. The restaurant on the site, as you can see from this aerial photograph, is located up towards the westerly portion of the site. This is a building that is about 7,500 square feet in area. It includes the original building that was constructed in 1976 and measures about 6,100 square feet. Then on the north side of the building is the banquet room, which was built in 1985, and measures about 1,320 square feet. Also shown on the approved plans was an outdoor dining area that was located immediately south of the banquet room. This outdoor dining area, however, was never constructed, and instead there was a separate room built in its place that is used primarily for storage purposes. What you see here is an actual clip of the original approved plan for the banquet room which is located on the north side of the original building. There was an outdoor dining patio that was approved back in 1985 in connection with this proposed addition, but as I indicated, it was never constructed and instead there is a storage room that was built in its place. The proposed patio would be built in the northwest corner of the building in an area that presently contains landscaping as well as a cement walkway that leads from the building's main entrance to a row of parking spaces that exist along the north side of the properly. These are the two driveways leading into the restaurant from Farmington Road. There is a connecting aisle way here. The area where they are proposing to build this patio is located in the northwest corner of the restaurant properly. The sidewalk that I referred to is located here. Here is the main entrance. In the middle of the building, there is a sidewalk that leads across this landscape area to two barrier free parking spaces that are located on the north side of the property. Under the original design that was submitted, there was a smaller patio shown. The problem with that was that they were trying to keep the sidewalk intact. This is the plan we reviewed at the study session. Unfortunately, that presented problems with respect to maintaining unobstructed access across this sidewalk. They have to enclose the patio pursuant to the Michigan Liquor Control March 1, 2811 2558] Commission as well as the Livonia Police Department. So any way that we design this patio to utilize this area and keep the sidewalk was going to cause a problem. So the way it was altered is to encompass this entire area with the patio and get rid of the sidewalks. So we removed the sidewalk under this current plan. We take these barrier free spaces that were located on the north side of the property and relocate those to the front of the building. Actually, they are now closer to the front entrance, which is the way it is supposed to be under today's current code. This is a non -conforming grandfathered situation if you will. So we relocate the banner free spaces, make the patio slightly larger in this current design, we keep the barrier free access ramp that's on this side of the sidewalk, and we push the fence and the piers back away from the curb. That provides additional safety for vehicles that are backing out of these parking spaces. Originally, this fence was located right along the edge of the curb. Now we push those back, we relocate the sidewalk along the perimeter of the patio. That still provides separated pedestrian access from the driveways to the front entrance. Now we have a fully enclosed patio. Access to this patio would be provided by a proposed door that would be located here in the restaurant. This is actually where the restaurant and the banquet room meet. There is space within the existing restaurant where they can add this door. They will have to do some minor interior modifications in order to make that work, but that's something they can do. When we look at parking, they are well within their parking allowance. The ordinance provides for parking computations on the basis of one space for every two interior seats in the restaurant, plus one space for every three outdoor seats in the outdoor patio, and then one space for every employee in the largest working shift. What they have on the site is over 170 parking spaces. If we look at the total seating, including the restaurant, the banquet facility as well as the outdoor dining patio, there is still an estimated 44 parking spaces over what is required by the ordinance. There will not be any problem in terms of parking. I think most of you familiar with the site realize that they have a very large area of parking available at the back of the properly. It is projected that the patio would accommodate 48 persons. The design shows 12 tables with four chairs per table for a total of 48 seals. There would be an emergency exit gale provided on the north side of the patio and that would be located directly adjacent to that existing banner free ramp. We would still have the ability to utilize that area in a banner free manner. The thought right now is that the patio would either be of brick paver design or possibly a stamped concrete. They have provided a cross section detail of the wall that would enclose the patio. March 1, 2011 25588 You can see in this detail in the lower right hand side of the drawing that it would be masonry or brick wall. It would have a stone cap along the pillars. I think they could opt in the end to go with some type of a decorative metal fence or wrought iron fence. That has yet to be determined exactly, but this is the design that was submitted. No additional signage is being proposed in the connection with this request. With that, I'll answer any questions or go straight to the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Just go to the correspondence, Mark, and then we'll go from there. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated February 25, 2011, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description provided closes and describes the overall property but should be appended with the follow statement. ...and more specifically, seasonal seating located at the northwest end of the building, assigned the address of 20300 Farmington Rd, with the dimensions of approximately 26 feet by 38 feet, and containing approximately 988 square feet. The address according to our records is 20300 Farmington Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 23, 2011, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an outdoor dining patio on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 24, 2011, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the placement of the patio area, as the nearest residential property is over 300 feet away and is located west of Farmington. With regard to handicapped parking, it appears that two current handicapped spaces will be eliminated with the construction of the patio. These appear to be easily relocated to the northern edge of the property where there are currently two other handicapped spaces. The new entrance of the front of the restaurant is located near these northern handicapped spaces. 1 recommend the sidewalk entrance from the parking lot be ADA compliant." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 2, 2011, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A means of egress March 1, 2811 25589 will be required to be provided from the patio area in addition to the route back through the restaurant. This will be addressed at the time of our plan review if this project moves forward. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Ms. Krueger? Ms. Krueger: I have a question, Mark. It appears there's a lot of landscape area, but with the removal of the landscaping where the patio is going, does it sfill meet the ordinance for landscaping? Mr. Taormina: I did not do an actual calculation of the percentage of landscaping. I'll go back to the aerial photograph and show you what exists on the site currently. You have the landscaping at the back of the property. There's a buffer that's provided along the rear for the benefit of the adjoining residential. Then we have a strip of landscaping along the south side of the property, and then they do have about 20 feel of landscaping along the front of the properly adjacent to Farmington Road, in addition to what's in the nghl-of-way that exists now on the site. Whether or not that totals 15 percent, I couldn't tell you, but this would remove what would be landscaped area with kind of a hard scaped appearance. We are talking with them about whether or not they need all of this area for the patio. Part of the discussion was possibly leaving some landscaping, foundation plantings, along this area adjacent to the building. We also talked about at one time possibly making the dimensions of the patio slightly smaller, keeping the sidewalk, and maybe going with a strip of landscaping along the perimeter to accent the fence. So that was another option, the details of which we have not developed at this time. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Verygood. Thanks. Mr. Taylor: Mark, that's not the existing sidewalk now, is it? Mr. Taormina: No. I don't think the existing sidewalk shows on this aerial photograph loo well, but if you look carefully here, this is where the existing sidewalk is located. So this portion of the sidewalk would be removed and replaced with one that goes around the perimeter of the proposed patio area here. Mr. Taylor: One of the reasons I'm asking that is it's probably a four fool sidewalk. That's very close to the road. I wonder if it should be a five fool sidewalk so people can walk safely along there. March 1, 2011 25590 Mr. Taormina: That's something that I think we'd work out with the Inspection Department. I think it could be even less than four feel. They chose four feel thinking that was a safe dimension, but in the end if it should be five feel, we can do that. Mr. Taylor: That's what I'm thinking loo, but there's an existing sidewalk now going along the north side of the building. Is that right? Mr. Taormina: Yes, adjacent to the patio area. I think that is four feet. This would just be a continuation of that four fool walk along the curb. Mr. Taylor: I just thought for safety reasons it might be a little better that way. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions of the Director? If not, is the petitioner here tonight? Please come forward, sir. Michael Subu: Hello. Thank you for your time tonight. I'm Michael Subu. I'm the son of George Subu. Unfortunately, he's out of town, so I am attending the meeting instead of him. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Mr. Morrow: Before we get into any questions, do you want to add anything to what the Director has indicated? Mr. Subu: Yes. As far as the north side of our property, we do have landscaping in between the parking lots of Napa and our parking lot, and along the whole north edge leading all the way to the end of the property where he said there was landscaping barrier. I just wanted to add that. Mr. Morrow: That's on the north side? Mr. Subu: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Does the Commission have any questions of the petitioner? Ms. Krueger: Are you planning to have any outdoor speakers in the patio? Mr. Subu: No. Ms. Krueger: Any lighting? March 1, 2011 25591 Mr. Subu: Lighting. Definitely. On the posts with the caps, we're going to be putting lighting, and we will be having lighting as well throughout the patio, maybe candlelight or something like that. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you Mr. Subu: You're welcome. Mr. Taylor: That's on the northwest corner of the building where the sun sets in the evening. Are you going to put umbrellas up or something like that? Mr. Subu: Correct. Yes, that is part of the plan. We are going to have umbrellas to mask the sun. Mr. Taylor: You're not going to put an awning over the whole thing? Mr. Subu: No. That's not part of the plan. It's a little loo costly. Mr. Taylor: And what about maybe some pots of landscaping on the corners? Mr. Subu: As Mr. Taormina suggested, we did loss around the idea of leaving maybe a fool from the fence to the patio to landscape a little bit around, which would also look nice, and we definitely wouldn't be opposed to such an idea. Jack is the one doing all of the landscape design and the landscaping. If you have any questions, feel free. Mr. Taylor: So is Johnny running the business tonight? Mr. Subu: That's correct. Ms. Scheel: Good evening. Will the patio be open for business the same hours that your restaurant is open? Mr. Subu: Yes, it will be. It depends. Some days we might not open for lunch on the patio, obviously weather permitting. Ms. Scheel: How late is the restaurant open now in the evening? Mr. Subu: Its open until 11:00 p.m., and on the weekends, Friday and Saturday, it's open until 100 a.m. Ms. Scheel: But you're not having speakers outside? March 1, 2011 25592 Mr. Subu: No. If any of you have been to the establishment, we have a dance floor. When we have a band, we have it on the dance floor, and whatever speakers they have will be indoors. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: One other question. In order to get to the patio, you have to come through the building and be seated, right? Mr. Subu: Correct. The gale that will be able to open is strictly for emergencies and will be locked at all times, and the rest will be enclosed as MLLC stipulates. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Subu: You're welcome. Mr. Wilshaw: Michael, the main entrance to your restaurant, you have a wide area there between the parking spaces. Is that a ramp right now? Mr. Subu: Yes, it is. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So they wouldn't have to use the ramp that's on the side and go all the way around? Mr. Subu: Absolutely not. They could do it right from the front. Actually, it's going to make more sense having all the handicapped spaces up front as opposed to the side. It will kind of correct a problem as well as help out the business and the city. Mr. Wilshaw: It updates the parking a little bit. Mr. Subu: Yes. And the whole facade of the building will be totally altered with this. It's an old building, so upgrading the whole facade is pretty costly, and this would be a pretty minor cost to do such a thing. Mr. Wilshaw: I do share some of the concern that Mr. Taylor mentioned about the width of the sidewalk. I was just thinking four feel, if I'm in a wheelchair trying to go around that patio, trying to negotiate the corners might be a little difficult, but if you have the ramp right in front of the front door there, someone could probably go through the parking lot and park right in those handicapped spots and pop right in. March 1, 2011 25593 Mr. Subu: Yeah. I think that's the original design plan. That's what they wanted it to be. I don't know why the spaces didn't get up there. Mr. Wilshaw: Il sounds good though. Mr. Subu: As far as widening the sidewalk, we could definitely do that. We have just so much room we can play with. We just kept it so it would be uniform with the side of the building sidewalk on the north side. If we needed to do such a thing, we wouldn't be opposed to it at all. It's just a minor change. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. It sounds good. Thank you. Mr. Subu: You're welcome. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions or comments before I go to the audience? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-09-2011 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-02-08-01 submitted by Subu Enterprise requesting approval for an outdoor dining patio (seasonal seating) at the existing full service restaurant (G. Subu's Leather Bottle) at 20300 Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan dated February 23, 2011, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the maximum number of outside patio seats shall not exceed a total of 48 seals; 3. That if there are umbrellas on the patio, they not contain any advertising or signage; 4. That there shall be an emergency egress gate with ramp from the new dining area as required by the Police Department and Inspection Department; 5. That the handicapped parking spaces in the northerly parking area be relocated as close as possible to the March 1, 2011 25594 building entrance, subject to the review of the Inspection Department; 6. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval; 7. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Krueger: I was wondering, if possible, if we could add into the motion that if there are umbrellas on the patio, that they would contain no advertisement or signage. Mr. Taylor: I have no problem with d. Mr. Subu: I would completely agree with that. I think it looks pretty tacky having beer umbrellas. We wouldn't do it at our establishment. Just a little insight there. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Great. Mr. Morrow: So that's been added to the motion. Any other discussion or comments. Mr. Taormina: If I may add a clarification on Condifion #3. This is our mistake because we should have written it this way to begin with. It should read "that there be an emergency egress gale from the new dining area." Mr. Morrow: Over the ramp, right? Mr. Taormina: Yes, the ramp is existing. That's correct. Mr. Taylor: Mark, emergency, if it's locked all the time and something happens, how do they gel out? Mr. Taormina: It's a gate that can be ... Mr. Taylor: It only goes one way or something? March 1, 2011 25595 Mr. Taormina: Yes. Exactly. It will shut on its own. I think the Inspection Department has specific hardware that they will recommend as part of that locking mechanism. Mr. Morrow: But it will be handicapped accessible? Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,005'" Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,005" Regular Meeting held on February 8, 2011. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-10-2011 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,005° Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 8, 2011, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Wilshaw, Krueger, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Smiley ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,006'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 1, 2011, was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary