Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2017-09-19 MINUTES OF THE 1,111th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 19, 2017, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,111th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Kevin Priddy Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw 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 turn, 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 filing. 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 2017-08-02-10 LIVONIA RETAIL Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2017- 08-02-10 submitted by Livonia Retail Management, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full-service restaurant with drive-up window facilities and outdoor seating on the site of the commercial development known as Livonia Market II at 29659 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. September 19, 2017 28260 Mr. Taormina: This petition requests waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant including drive-up window facilities and outdoor seating at Livonia Market II, which is a new retail development at the site of the former Farmer Jack property on Seven Mile Road just west of Middlebelt Road. It was on April 10 of this year that City Council approved Livonia Market II. This project entails demolishing the existing building and parking areas and constructing a new 37,000 square foot LA Fitness center as well as two out-parcel buildings. The two out-parcels were identified on the approved plans as Outlot A, which would be a future 10,000 square foot commercial building located in the northeast corner of the site, and then Outlot B, which was an 8,060 square foot commercial building located in the northwest corner. The approved plans included detailed building and architectural drawings for Outlot B; however, this was not the case for Outlot A. The intent was that once specific uses were identified for Outlot A, that detailed plans would be provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council for further review and consideration. This petition includes the required documentation for the review of Outlot A including the building elevations, the landscape plans as well as floor plans. The proposed building would total about 5,898 square feet and would consist of two leasable units. It is almost half the size of what was shown on the original approved site plan. It would include a fast food or casual-style restaurant that would occupy the easterly unit and would measure about 2,148 square feet, and then a medical clinic, MedPost Urgent Care, which would occupy the remaining westerly part of the building, which is about 3,750 square feet. Drive-up window service for the restaurant would be provided on the east side of the building. The traffic lane that will serve the drive-up would commence on the south side and then loop around to the east side. Orders would be taken at a point that is roughly equal to the southeast corner of the building, which is ahead of the pick-up window and there would be ample space available for the stacking of vehicles. The ordinance requires at least four vehicles, including the car at the pick-up window. The plan does provide for sufficient stacking. A couple of other requirements as it relates to the drive-up operations. The traffic lane serving that use needs to be a minimum of 10 feet. They are showing 11 feet. In addition, there needs to be bypass lane. You'll notice in the southeast corner of the property there is a curb opening that would allow for the exit of vehicles in a safe manner from the drive-up operation. Parking is adequate to serve the site. We went through a parking analysis as part of the original plans. There is a total of 287 parking spaces that are required per code. This plan shows over 500 parking spaces so there is sufficient surplus of over 200 parking spaces. Detailed landscaping plans September 19, 2017 28261 were included with the petition. In terms of the building exterior, it is the intent to complement the look of the other two buildings on the property. The primary building materials would be block and brick. There would be overhead canopies or awnings. The highest point of the building would roughly be 20'6" above grade. Trash collection would occur behind the building in an area that is adjacent to a stormwater detention system. The dumpster enclosure would be provided on three sides with a masonry structure. The gates would be facing west to screen the containers. In terms of signage, we do not have any details on signage but each tenant would be permitted one wall sign each in a size roughly one square foot to one foot of lineal frontage — 50 feet for the MedPost and about 28 feet for the restaurant. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are six items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 28, 2017, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of 29601 Seven Mile Road. If the proposed project will require additional addresses, the owner will need to contact this Department after Planning Commission approval. The legal description included with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The proposed development has already received Engineering Department approval for utility services to the building. Should the owner need to change or alter the service leads, Engineering drawings will need to be submitted to this Department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 5, 2017, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full- service restaurant (Subway) with drive-up window facilities and outdoor seating on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 6, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 18, 2017, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced September 19, 2017 28262 petition has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition."The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated August 23, 2017, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated August 28, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Taormina, in your dialogue you identified the location of a stormwater detention basin in the southeast corner of the site. As I look at the site plan, it's actually in the northeast corner, unless I'm missing something. Has that changed? Mr. Taormina: We're talking about the location of the stormwater detention system? Mr. Ventura: Yes. Mr. Taormina: No. It's in the southeast quadrant of the site. Mr. Caramagno: Mark, while you've got that screen up, can you blow up the dumpster enclosure area? Mr. Taormina: Sure. Mr. Caramagno: As I'm looking at the dumpster enclosure, just to the west of it, is that a grass island there? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: That certainly doesn't make it convenient for the garbage truck to dump that dumpster. It will be a problem every time. Mr. Taormina: I would not be surprised that when they come for final permits, that they rotate the enclosure 30 or 45 degrees to the north and angle it in a northwesterly direction so that they can service it properly. You're right. It looks like it would be a difficult turning September 19, 2017 28263 radius for the trucks to get in. More than likely, we will have to rotate that slightly to the north to get it to work properly. Mr. Caramagno: That would help. Otherwise, it would be nothing but damage and trouble all the time over there. When we had the study session, we talked about some brick on the back side of that building or something different than block. Did you get an answer on that? Mr. Taormina: Well, I can only defer this to the architect who is here this evening with a material sample board. He indicated at the study session that in lieu of block, they would be using some type of stone or polished brick/block material so I think he has a sample he will show us this evening. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for the Planning staff? If not, the petitioner is here. Please come forward. We will need your name and address for the record please. Beau Wynn, Architect, Detroit Architectural Group, 1644 Ford Avenue, Wyandotte, Michigan 48192. Mr. Wilshaw: What would you like to add to what you've already heard so far? Mr. Wynn Just a brief overview just to give you a little bit of insight on the building. So it's a steel frame structure. We find that the steel frames go up pretty quick, get a roof on it, get that thing up very quickly. We do a masonry veneer on stud so that we can get a good insulation factor. In the corners we do 10 inch studs and then we do a four inch brick veneer over top of that. That's basically the composition of the building. I did take the note that on the stone, I did have another product but I changed that to a brick product with the same color. So I just want to show you a couple samples. On the base of the MedPost building, the bottom banding, six or seven feet, would be a stone product that MedPost really liked. They've used it on a couple of their different buildings. On top of that would be a darker brick. That's really the stacking effect on the tower, on the right element, with the canopy. To the left, is a more tan brick. If you could pan to the left side, we'll go to the restaurant. The block goes away and then there is brick in lieu of the block. We re-utilize the same tan brick on top of that. That's basically the material. So we end up going full brick on the entire building. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Are there any questions for the petitioner? September 19, 2017 28264 Ms. Smiley: What is the red and green? Mr. Wynn: The red is a fabric awning and the green is as well. The green is a little subject to change per whatever brand we get in there. If it's a Subway green or MedPost will probably be red. Ms. Smiley: That's their color? Mr. Wynn: Yes. That's their brand. Ms. Smiley: Okay. There's no writing on the awning? Mr. Wynn: No. Definitely not. Just on their logos on their signage. That's all they have. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: The samples that you provided here, those are the actual products? Mr. Wynn: These are the actual colors. Mr. Wilshaw: It's a little different than what we've seen in the rendering, but that's why we always . . . Mr. Wynn: It always so hard from one screen to another and pdf's and printers. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. That's why seeing the actual material is always good. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: There is a separation between the two tenant spaces that I'm assuming is the main entrance to the restaurant. Above that green awning facing north, on the upper part of the façade, what's the material? Is that the same as the base brick or is that a different type of material? Mr. Wynn: That would be brick, absolutely. Mr. Taormina: So that is the brick that would match the base of the restaurant, the first brick that you showed us? Mr. Wynn: Correct. Mr. Taormina: It's almost reverse when we look at the tower element for the MedPost. You're almost switching the colors. You've got a darker color now. September 19, 2017 28265 Mr. Wynn: They're very similar. Mr. Taormina: Or they're very similar, I should say. You do have a lighter color on the base though than what you're showing. Mr. Wynn: You can see the stone color. It's not as dark as this on the screen. That almost fades away. Mr. Taormina: Just some clarification is all we need. These are all the same materials that wrap around all four sides of the building so there's no change in materials as they get to the south elevation. Mr. Wynn: That's correct. Mr. Taormina: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: We have another representative of the petitioner who would like to speak. You're welcome to. Alan J. Cruz, P.E., Hennessey Engineers, Inc., 13500 Reenck Road, Southgate, MI 48195. I'm the project engineer. I wanted to address your question about the dumpster area. That dumpster area, there's at least 50 feet. I think it looks small on the plan, but that's actually 50 feet in between the landscape island and the front of the dumpster itself. We always run turning templates for fire trucks and dump trucks to make sure that they can make that turn. But we can reorient that if you like, but we know that they can make that turn. That's about 50 feet right there to the face of that gate. I just remeasured it according to the scale of our drawing. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Mr. Caramagno: I just don't think it would hurt if you give it a more straight shot. Mr. Cruz: That's no problem. Mr. Caramagno: The truck is about 35 — 38 feet long and you put the forks down, it gives you another 7 feet in front. You're pretty tight, and what will happen is, that grass will always be tore up there backing up over that curb, a pile of snow there. It will be a problem. Mr. Cruz: So you're talking about angling it which way? Mr. Caramagno: Mark suggested angling it so you're coming in from the north a little bit. September 19, 2017 28266 Mr. Cruz: He's saying from the north. That means they're coming from the north, coming down. Mr. Caramagno: I think Mark suggested clocking that thing about 45 degrees to the right. Mr. Cruz: Clockwise? Mr. Taormina: Actually, it would work either way. Mr. Cruz: I'm just afraid . . . I don't know which way they're coming from though. Let's say they're coming from the south, they do LA Fitness first. And then they come from the south, you'd want it oriented the other way. So, this way it's safe if it comes from both directions. Mr. Caramagno: It's a big enough site that either way, like Mark said, you come in from the south end there, that's another good option. As long as you get a straight shot out of it. Mr. Cruz: Okay. Mr. Caramagno: Is the benefit to not tearing up that grass and island there. Is there a light post on the island? Mr. Cruz: I don't think so. Mr. Wynn: Yes. Mr. Cruz: Oh, there is? Mr. Wynn: Just to the east of that. Mr. Cruz: So we can angle it so that they're coming from the north is what you were saying. Mr. Caramagno: North or south. South is a good way out. Just to get a straight shot. Mr. Cruz: Okay. Just to make it easier for maneuvering. No problem. Mr. Wilshaw: It seems like angling to the south might help screen the view of the dumpster better from Seven Mile. Mr. Cruz: And it's a straighter shot from the south. They're already angled that way. That's the right way, honestly. And LA Fitness is probably going to be in before us, so they'll be functioning. September 19, 2017 28267 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Any other questions? We don't have anybody in our audience wishing to speak for or against. With that, if there are no further questions, a motion would be in order. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-52-2017 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 19, 2017, on Petition 2017-08-02-10 submitted by Livonia Retail Management, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full-service restaurant with drive-up window facilities and outdoor seating on the site of the commercial development known as Livonia Market II at 29659 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2017-08-02-10 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum interior seating count for the restaurant shall not exceed forty (40); 2. That the maximum outdoor seating count for the restaurant shall not exceed twelve (12); 3. That the Site Plan labeled Sheet C-4 dated August 22, 2017, as revised, prepared by Hennessey Engineers, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the Landscape Planting Plan labeled LP-1 dated August 14, 2017, prepared by Nagy Devlin Land Design is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That the Preliminary Floor Plan and Elevations labeled Sheet No. PFP-1 dated July 24, 2017, prepared by Detroit Architectural Group is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; except that the elevations shall be revised to incorporate the brick and stone materials as presented to the Planning Commission, and all rooftop mechanical units shall be shielded from view by the parapet walls of the building; September 19, 2017 28268 6. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #131-17 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions; 7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for building permits; and 8. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: Are the dates accurate on the elevations? Did we change things? Mr. Taormina: I'm not aware that there's a revised date. We can ask the architect whether or not there's been a change to the date of the elevation plans. Mr. Wynn: Not since last week. We'd like to make another submittal. Mr. Taormina: We will keep this date on this resolution, and he will clarify it as it goes to Council. When it gets to Council, we'll put the proper date in. September 19, 2017 28269 Ms. Smiley: Okay. And then the materials have changed, so that will be in there too? Mr. Taormina: Yes. And if you wanted to reference that it's approved based on the changes as discussed at the meeting, we can add that language. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Is that okay with you, Betsy? Ms. McCue: Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The maker and supporter are both okay with that minor change. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Wynn, for coming tonight. ITEM #2 PETITION 2017-08-08-08 BJ'S RESTAURANT Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2017- 08-08-08 submitted by BJ's Restaurant, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct a retail addition to the previously approved restaurant (BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse) located at 19470 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Taormina: This is the site of the former Champps Americana restaurant, which is on Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads. It's part of the Pentagon Entertainment Center, which includes two other free-standing restaurants, J. Alexander and Bahama Breeze, as well as the AMC Livonia 20 theater complex and a Hyatt Place hotel. The property that we're looking at this evening where Champps is located is about 2.4 acres. The zoning of this property, as well as all surrounding properties within the complex, is C-2, General Business. BJ's Restaurant& Brewhouse received waiver use approval to redevelop the site earlier this year. The overall scope of the project includes demolishing the existing restaurant and constructing a new full-service restaurant and outdoor dining area. The size of the restaurant, as it was approved, is about 7,630 square feet, whereas Champps' building is about 10,841 square feet. The building as approved is September 19, 2017 28270 slightly smaller than what exists there today. However, the overall seating capacity would increase to about 295. That's really because of the additional 46 outdoor patio seats that is provided on the BJ's plan. That was not something that was provided at Champps. Parking and access for both of the restaurants is basically the same. Parking would be available on all four sides of the building with access provided via the existing drive approaches from the adjacent entertainment complex. There are no significant changes to any of the parking or circulation as it affects the redevelopment of this site. There would be no direct access to Haggerty Road from the property. The proposed retail addition is shown on the north side of the restaurant. It would be one story in height and about 2,470 square feet in size. Combined with the restaurant, the total size of the building would increase to about 10,100 square feet, still slightly less than what Champps provided. There is a floor plan that was submitted with the petition that shows the retail addition. It does not illustrate the number of tenants or how the space would be utilized. The petitioner has indicated that a tenant for this space has not yet been identified. Required parking is based on both the restaurant and retail use. Combined, both uses would require a total of 188 parking spaces. The site plan for the 2.4 acres shows 147 parking spaces resulting in a deficiency of about 40 parking spaces. However, as we indicated in our previous staff analysis, because the entertainment campus operates under shared parking and access agreements between all of their various businesses, we determined after a review of all those uses, that there is a surplus of approximately 80 spaces. The parking is adequate overall on the site to accommodate the additional seating that BJ's restaurant provides as well as this additional retail space as long as the parking agreements are maintained. In terms of what this addition would look like, elevation plans have been submitted that indicate that the main exterior building material would be dryvit or E.I.F.S. There is a tower part of the building that does show masonry or brick, but in Staff's opinion, these materials really are not suitable or complementary to the plans that were approved for the restaurant, which is predominantly a masonry product. But the petitioner has indicated that these are very preliminary plans and conceptual in nature, and they would have to come back to us for further details should this matter be approved. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to read out correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 28, 2017, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering September 19, 2017 28271 Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. The existing property is assigned an address of 19470 Haggerty Road. If the proposed addition will require a separate address, the owner will need to contact this Department after Planning Commission approval. The legal description included with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The submitted drawings do not include any details for proposed utilities, but the previous restaurant submittals provided service leads to the proposed addition. Should the owner need to change or alter the service leads, Engineering drawings will need to be submitted to this Department to determine if permits will be required."The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 5, 2016, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a retail addition to the previous approved restaurant (BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse) located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, and on-site hydrants shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) We recommend the installation of a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver from Ladder Tech, LLC or an equivalent." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 6, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 18, 2017, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for any additional signage on this site. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated August 28, 2017, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. There is a letter that has been submitted by Joan Leguay representing BJ's restaurant, their director of property development. She is here this evening. I will not read the letter but we will let her describe the details of the letter. September 19, 2017 28272 Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, the petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Is there anything else you'd like to add to what's already been said? Joan Leguay, BJ's Restaurant, Inc., 7755 Center Avenue, Suite 300, Huntingdon Beach, California 92647. Yes. I'm here tonight asking you to conceptually approve an addition to our previously approved restaurant. This addition would be built in the future. It would provide a way to offset the costs of this very expensive project and also provide a future opportunity to expand BJ's for either brewing, food service, catering or take-out, or provide for a complementary use that would be compatible with the entertainment center. I dropped in a letter to the Planning Commission that I believe addresses the concerns that you had expressed last week when we met. Essentially, BJ's is volunteering conditions that would allow the Planning Commission to approve the future use and design, and this would give the Planning Commission broad discretion as it would mean that BJ's would return to the Planning Commission. It would give you the opportunity to consider the use, the tenant, the design, the materials, the parking, the service and anything you have concerns about. We are comfortable volunteering these conditions because we believe, at the very least, we would have some comfort knowing that it's pretty likely at least you would give us the expansion for our own restaurant use. And that's important to us because we've just been given a 30 day additional contingency period from our landlord to get this approval. So it's really important to us to have your support in the next 30 days so that we know at a minimum we would have the opportunity to expand our own operations. With that in mind, I did draft a letter to you, which I think you all have a copy of. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, we do. Ms. Leguay: It basically just says what I just expressed, but specifically, I'll just skip down to the part where it says, we would propose the following conditions of approval. "That the Preliminary Site Plan marked C 1.01, dated August 7, 2017, prepared by WD Partners, is conceptually approved." So just conceptually, an addition up to about 2,470 square feet. In terms of its specific design for the service yard or materials of the building, all of that would come back to the Planning Commission with specific plans. We have no issues upgrading to brick to make it a class A building just like the BJ's Restaurant. Also, "That the Petitioner will submit all required Planning and Zoning applications when a specific use and/or tenant for the addition is proposed." And, "That the September 19, 2017 28273 Petitioner will restrict the use of the expansion to BJ's food service, brewing, catering or take-out or to an entertainment use complementary to the shopping center as determined by Planning Commission." So the intent here is to give you broad discretion, comfort, that we will return and you will have the opportunity to approve the use and the tenant at a future date, and all design associated with that future expansion. So, with that, I'm hoping that satisfied the concerns that I heard last week, and I'm hoping that you can support that tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. By the way, I did send Mark some photographs of some other projects where we have had another retail component right next to the building. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Leguay. We do have a copy of those photos and I believe Mark has them on the screen for our viewing audience to look at. I don't know if you want to make any description of them as we go through them. Ms. Leguay: Sure, I can. This one that's up right now is Anaheim, California. I think there were a few other shots of it. There's one of the front as well, I believe. We didn't have actually, it turned out, final photographs of it, but . . . can you go one more? There it is. So there's the BJ's Restaurant and then to the right of it, if you could go back the other direction one more time, that was the expansion. Verizon actually took that space. It did turn out, just to kind of let you know, Verizon was there for a few years and then Verizon moved out and we ended up expanding into the space. We expanded our restaurant into the space, which is something that could always happen, I suppose, at this restaurant as well. I think that I also sent another one which had a Menchie's Yogurt Shop next to it. Right there. There's the BJ's Restaurant on the right and to the left is Menchie's Yogurt. So we can incorporate a very good looking design, and we can make it look really beautiful and I think it can work quite nicely. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you for sending those photographs and describing those for us. Ms. Leguay: You're welcome. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody with questions for the petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Ms. Leguay, I note in your letter that you refer to this site as a shopping center more than once. It is an entertainment center, not a shopping center. That causes me some disquiet here. The other thing that I have a question about is, can you define what September 19, 2017 28274 an "entertainment food use" or an "entertainment retail use" is? I don't know what that means. Ms. Leguay: I agree. It is an entertainment center and I'd be happy to make that clear. That is why I said entertainment use because it is an entertainment center. Because it's an entertainment center and there's restaurants there. There's food use. There's a theater. That something like a frozen yogurt or something would be a complementary food use. Mr. Ventura: So you don't mean a Verizon? Ms. Leguay: No. Absolutely not. No. No. We would not put a Verizon in there. I would say it would most likely be a complementary food use. It could be coffee. It could be yogurt. Off the top of my head, I don't know what an "entertainment retail use" would be. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Ms. Leguay: I don't know what it would be. We talked about it in my office, but maybe in the future there would be an entertainment retail use. I don't know. If you're uncomfortable with "entertainment retail use," we could restrict it even further. Mr. Ventura: One of the problems with any action that we might take tonight with regards to an approval is that we not only bind ourselves, but we bind people that may be sitting here in the future that aren't here tonight. They could look at this and say, what were they thinking when they did this because nobody knows what it means. Ms. Leguay: Right. That's why I was trying to keep it as broad as possible. I think last week even somebody asked me, would you be comfortable restricting the use. We are comfortable restricting the use. We are comfortable having the Planning Commission approve the use and the tenant. Mr. Ventura: Would you be comfortable if there were an approving resolution offered tonight, if the approving resolution approved the expansion of the BJ's Restaurant and that the Planning Commission would consider an alternative use for the expansion space should you come forward with that request? Ms. Leguay: Yes. Mr. Ventura: In other words, we'd really be approving expansion of the restaurant. September 19, 2017 28275 Ms. Leguay: Yes. Mr. Ventura: And saying that if you came forward with some other plan, that we'd be willing to look at it. Ms. Leguay: Yes. Mr. Ventura: You'd be comfortable with that? Ms. Leguay: Yes, I would. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Anyone else with questions for the petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: Tell us again. You probably told us this before, but what is the typical size of a BJ's Restaurant? This one is 7,000. What is the typical size of other locations? Ms. Leguay: This is a typical size. Mr. Caramagno: This is it. Ms. Leguay: That's correct. Mr. Caramagno: So to potentially expand this to a greater size BJ's, it would be something that you don't have currently in the market? Ms. Leguay: Not at all. Our current prototype is this prototype. This will be the third one that we've built. Prior to that, we were building a little bit larger restaurant, about 8,600 square feet. We have done conversions that are 10,000 square feet. So we have much larger restaurants but right now, the restaurants, if they're ground up and new, they're about 7,600 square feet. But we definitely in our chain have restaurants that are in excess of 10,000 square feet. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Will there be a door between these two buildings, or is that just something that if you ever expand, you'll knock a wall down? How will the access be between the two buildings? Ms. Leguay: I think it's going to depend on what it is. So for example, if it's an expansion of the BJ's Restaurant, I'm sure we will open it up. If it's a different tenant, then there would not be an entrance between the two. Mr. Caramagno: You mentioned the Menchie's as somewhere or you have a picture of it. Where is that Menchie's at?What location is that at? September 19, 2017 28276 Ms. Leguay: Maryland. The Baltimore area. That opened about a year ago. Mr. Caramagno: And the Verizon, you said it lasted what, a year or two? Ms. Leguay: I don't want to say the wrong thing. They could have been there for five years. I'm not exactly sure how long they were there, but at some point, we asked if we could buy them out. I'm not sure if we moved them somewhere else or exactly how that happened, but we ended up asking them to do something else. We negotiated something with them. Maybe they wanted to leave. I don't know the exact deal because I wasn't involved in it, but ultimately, we did expand into that space to expand our restaurant. Mr. Caramagno: One more question. I was thinking about the last time you were before us with the original plan for this restaurant. There were some pictures on the exterior walls. Ms. Leguay: Oh. The murals? Mr. Caramagno: Murals. How does this potential expansion interfere with that or does it? Ms. Leguay: It doesn't impact that. Mr. Caramagno: So the mural was not on this side of the building? Ms. Leguay: I need to look at the elevations to tell you if that's accurate. Let me look quickly. Mr. Taormina: You're not showing the murals. Ms. Leguay: Yeah. I'm not showing the murals on that drawing. It's on a separate drawing. I'm not sure. I may be but we would just remove it. I know for sure there's a mural on the other side of the building, the south side facing building. If there was a mural on that section of the building, we would just move it or maybe we would relocate it to the rear of the building or something. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: As I recall, there was a mural on the side, but it doesn't show on any of the renderings that we have here. My question goes back to the size of the restaurants and a question for the petitioner. You mentioned the standard restaurant is about 7,000 — 8,000 September 19, 2017 28277 square feet in size. Are those locations that do not include the brewery operation? Ms. Leguay: That's correct. But actually, we have restaurants that are 10,000 square feet that don't have a brewery as well. Mr. Taormina: Okay. So those that do have the brewery, how large typically are those breweries that serve maybe a regional market? Ms. Leguay: I'm thinking of the one in Laguna Hills. It's 10,000— 11,000 square feet. We have one in Reno which I think is about the same size, 10,000 or 11,000 square feet. We've also converted restaurants. Sometimes we've taken over quite a large restaurant that is a 10,000 square foot restaurant and we've converted it and we just end up having a lot of seats. We have a larger restaurant. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Priddy: I think earlier we had a discussion about if you received approval, would the building be concurrent with the BJ's Restaurant or would it be built after you have a tenant? Ms. Leguay: It would be built in the future. We would not construct it at this time. Mr. Priddy: So you wouldn't be having a vacant building there. Ms. Leguay: No. We wouldn't construct now. I did want to clarify that. It would be a future expansion. Mr. Priddy: Okay. Ms. Leguay: Yes. Ms. Smiley: That's kind of my thought too. You're going to build it and then somewhere down the line, you're going to expand it. Ms. :Leguay: Correct. We want to make sure we have the opportunity to expand it in the future. Ms. Smiley: Do you need the approval to potentially expand it in the future to start building? Ms. Leguay: Yes. We want to know by the time that we are committed to this lease that we have the opportunity to expand the space. September 19, 2017 28278 Ms. Smiley: I still am having a problem with expanding a concept of what might be for my future Planning Commissioners. It's kind of what Commissioner Ventura said that we're approving something that down the road, you might be able to expand to commercial or maybe the expansion of the restaurant. I think it makes a difference what we do tonight. So I'm still not comfortable with it. Ms. Leguay: I'm comfortable with Commissioner Ventura's suggestion that it would be a conceptual approval of the expansion of the BJ's operation, and if we wanted to do something other than that, that we would need to come back to the Planning Commission for that approval. At least we would know that we had the opportunity to expand our restaurant before we were committed to a 20-year lease. Ms. Smiley: So you don't own the property. You're going to lease it. Ms. Leguay: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: There is no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against. With that, I will ask for a motion. Mr. Ventura: I'd offer an approving resolution; however, the one that's here doesn't really reflect what I'd like to offer as an approving resolution. I'd really like to offer an approving resolution that approves the expansion of the restaurant that says that if they decided to do something other with the expansion space, they'd have to come back here for a ground up approval. And Mark, can we table this tonight and bring this back to our next meeting and have a resolution that reflects that for consideration? Or is there another way to do that tonight? Mr. Taormina: I would maybe invite you to take a look at the language that Ms. Leguay has outlined. That may be satisfactory with some minor editing to capture the discussion that the approval is primarily intended for a restaurant use. I'm comfortable with moving forward this evening and actually using the language that she prepared. In fact, we went over this previously with her. So I'm comfortable with that plus the suggested changes. Mr. Wilshaw: I think if we indicate somewhere in the approving resolution that this expansion is only for the use of the restaurant as Mr. Ventura has proposed, I think that can be clearly defined so that way the City Council, when they look at this, would understand what we're approving. September 19, 2017 28279 Mr. Taormina: And it's still only conceptually approved and would have to come back to us for review no matter what, whether it's a restaurant or some other use. Mr. Ventura: We'll wait for you to get it cleaned up. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-53-2016 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2017-08-08-08 submitted by BJ's Restaurant, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the previously approved restaurant (BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse) located at 19470 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest '/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Preliminary Site Plan labeled C1.01 dated August 7, 2017, as revised, prepared by WD Partners, is hereby conceptually approved; 2. That this approval is for the expansion to BJ's food service, brewing, catering or take-out operations conducted in conjunction with BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse and for no other purpose, unless an alternative use is first submitted for review and approval and is deemed by the Planning Commission and City Council to be complimentary to the other uses in the entertainment complex; 3. That the Petitioner will submit all required Planning and Zoning applications, including a detailed site plan, floor plan, landscape plan and building elevations when a specific use and/or tenant for the addition is proposed; 4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 5. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #187-17 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions; September 19, 2017 28280 6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 7. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Ventura: I guess I would add #8 that would say something to the effect that this approval is for the expansion of the BJ's Restaurant operation and for no other purpose unless an alternative purpose is submitted to the Planning Commission for approval at a future date. Mr. Long: Mr. Chairman, if I might add on to Mr. Ventura's #8, if it's suitable to him, perhaps we could say that the petitioner will restrict the use of the expansion to BJ's food servicing, brewing, catering or take-out, and that any other use would need to return to the Planning Commission for approval at a future date. Would that possibly work? Mr. Ventura: I would accept that. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Long, are you supporting this? Mr. Long: I will support it. Ms. Smiley: And you might even want to start out with, that the request to construct .... is it a retail addition you're approving? Mr. Ventura: It is not a retail use. It is an expansion of the restaurant. Ms. Smiley: That very first sentence is "retail addition." Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chair, if I may? I think we have a good understanding of the intention here. I would recommend that we eliminate from the resolution the reference to the exterior alterations because I don't think anyone wants to incorporate those plans into our approval this evening. So#2 would be eliminated. #4 would be eliminated because we know any additional signage is going to have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, so that's almost a moot point. We could keep#6 to the extent that the site plan is being conceptually September 19, 2017 28281 approved, but I'm not sure that #6 is even needed. So 3, 5, and 7 are applicable with additional language that I think has been provided by the Petitioner with clarification as you've indicated on the types of uses. We'll embody that language into an approving resolution. Mr. Ventura: And the deletion of the phrase "retail addition?" Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: We're just approving the construction of "an addition." Then conditions 1, 3, 5 and 7, with the addition of the additional language that this is for the restaurant only. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Ms. Smiley: Are you going to keep Condition 1? Mr. Taormina: We will modify #1 to apply to the restaurant uses. Mr. Wilshaw: The site plan is #1. That's the footprint basically of the building, and then #2 is the elevations. That's what we're not including. Mr. Taormina: And we will maintain it, again, conceptually only because realizing that this all has to come back for a detailed approval. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the maker and the supporter of the motion clear on this? Mr. Ventura: I am, as amended. Mr. Long: As amended, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any further discussion on this matter? Mr. Caramagno: Mark, #5,where the Council Resolution, this does not conflict with their resolution. The potential to add on to this building, does that conflict with anything on the Council Resolution going forward? Mr. Taormina: It would conflict to the extent that in the resolution, they're referring to specific plans and now we're modifying those plans. I think that's why that language says to the "extent that they are not in conflict." All those other conditions must remain in effect. So seating capacity, landscaping, and all those other conditions that were provided in Council Resolution #187-17 still remain in effect. September 19, 2017 28282 Mr. Caramagno: Isn't it a conflict with the potential expansion of this building to that direction? Not wanting to do parking and landscaping in that area? Mr. Taormina: No. Again, to the extent that they are not in conflict, we keep all those. That's why that language is provided the way it is. Mr. Caramagno: Subtract nothing from the original Council Resolution. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Caramagno: It may change down the road, but it subtracts nothing. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Is there any other questions or discussion on the motion to approve as modified? Ms. Leguay, are you okay with you've heard so far? Ms. Leguay: Yes, I am. Thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion, as amended and presented, is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,110TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,110th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 5, 2017. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue , and unanimously adopted, it was #09-54-2017 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,110th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 5, 2017, are hereby approved. September 19, 2017 28283 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McCue, Long, Ventura, Priddy, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,111 th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 19, 2017, was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION reNCTI!"..r C.A. --..,C+ Sam Caramagno, Seetary ATTEST: c.J./ Ian Wilshaw, Chairman