Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,182 - January 25, 2022 signedMINUTES OF THE 1,182"d PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 25, 2022, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,182nd Public Hearing 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 p.m. Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Jacob Uhazie, Planning &Economic Development Coordinator, and Stephanie Reece, 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 2021-12-01-11 Maple Real Estate Group, LLC Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 12-01-11 submitted by Maple Real Estate Group, L.L.C. pursuant to Sections 13.13 and 13.15 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, requesting to rezone the east fifty-eight feet (58') of 9120 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue in the January 25, 2022 30359 Southwest'/4 of Section 36, from RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to C- 1 (Local Business). Mr, Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict of interest on this agenda item and I would like to recuse myself from these proceedings. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, we will note that Mr. Ventura is going to step away from our dais and stay in the audience for the remainder of this agenda item. With that, we will move on to Mr. Taormina with background information on this petition. Mr. Taormina: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request to rezone property that is located on the east side of Middle Belt Road just south of Grandon Ave. The change would be from RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to C-1 (Local Business). The address of the property is 9120 Middle Belt Road. The rezoning would affect only the east 58 feet of the parcel. The remaining westerly part is currently zoned Local Business, thus, the intent is to bring the entire parcel under the same C-1 zoning classification. 9120 Middle Belt Road is an "L" shaped parcel with 67 feet of road frontage by a depth 373 feet along its north property line. The rear 58 feet of the parcel extends south for a distance of 151 feet. This is the area that is proposed to be rezoned. It measures 58 feet by 151 feet, for a total area of 8,758 square feet. The parcel overall is roughly 29,800 square feet in size, or 0.68 acres. Adjoining 9120 Middle Belt to the south is 9106 Middle Belt Road, which is under the same ownership and is zoned C-1. 9106 Middle Belt adds another 35 feet of road frontage and 33,464 square feet of land area. Together, the two parcels have roughly 100 feet of frontage on Middle Belt Road and contain a total land area of 1.45 acres. Both parcels are vacant and would be combined and developed as a single site. The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate the future development of a Planned Residential Development consisting of a multi -family apartment complex. Section 5.02 of the zoning ordinance provides special standards for Planned Residential Developments, which are treated as a waiver -use in commercial districts, subject to the review of the Planning Commission and City Council. Planned developments are afforded considerable design flexibility, including modification in lot sizes, yard requirements, and allowing uses that are not permitted in the zoning district, within which the planned development is located. The preliminary plan shows a multi- family apartment complex that would be made up of three buildings. Each building contains eight units, for a total of 24 dwelling units. The proposed development would occupy both January 25, 2022 30360 parcels, including the rear portion of 9120 Middle Belt Road. Building 1 is positioned toward the front of the site, whereas Building 2 would occupy the rear, including the area that is proposed to be rezoned. Between these two buildings is Building 3, which is along the southern edge of the property. A two-way private road from Middle Belt would provide access to all three of the buildings. The plan shows 48 parking spaces. Each building would be two -stories in height and would contain eight units, four on each floor. Each unit would have two bedrooms, a living and dining area, kitchen, one and a half baths, as well as a walk-in closet. The buildings would be constructed out of brick. The roofs would be peaked and would consist of asphalt shingles. Fiber cement siding would be used on the gable ends of the apartment buildings. This is a rendering of what the buildings would look like. Bordering the site to the north are four single- family homes that are on lots that measure approximately 62 feet in width by 113 feet in depth. These lots are part the Pearl Wilson subdivision. The zoning is N-1 (One family). To the east and partially to the south are single-family homes along Oxbow Street. These homes are on slightly larger unplatted parcels that are zoned RUF (Rural Urban Farm). To the south is Newport Park, which is multi -family development zoned NM1. This is a 27 unit attached condominium project that was approved in 2001 under the previous R-C (Condominium Residential) regulations. The Future Land Use plan designates the subject property as medium density residential. This corresponds to a density of between 5 to 14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multi- family housing development as shown on the preliminary plans has a density of 16 '/2 dwelling units per acre, which is slightly higher by about four units than what the Master Plan recommends. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 29, 2021, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no issues with the proposed re- zoning at this time. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #9120 Middlebelt Road. The legal description contained within the submittal appears to be correct for the overall parcel, although the owner should provide a legal description for the portion of the property to be rezoned. The existing parcel currently has access to public water main, storm sewer and sanitary sewer, although the sanitary sewer is located on the west side of Middlebelt Road. At this time, there is nothing that would indicate negative impacts January 25, 2022 30361 to any of the existing utilities since the petition is for zoning purposes and shows no development details. Should the site be developed, the owner would need to submit drawings to this Department for a proper plan review and permitting. " The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated January 14, 2022, 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 Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated January 13, 2022, 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. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? If not, Mr. Taormina, can you explain for our benefit and also for our audience, the difference that would occur in developing this as a C-1 zoning with Planned Residential Development versus an NM1 or NM2 Multi -family zoning? There is a reason that these are being done differently. I am curious as to what the criteria is that is different between them. Mr. Taormina: The NM1 and NM2 districts are the city's two neighborhood multi- family districts. NMI is strictly for owner -occupied housing, including condominiums, whereas NM2 would allow for apartment dwellings. The standards are slightly different in terms of setbacks, percentage of lot covered by buildings, and a few other items. I am not sure how it affects this particular development since it has not been reviewed under those standards. What I can tell you is that the petitioner is looking to retain the majority of the existing zoning, in this case, C-1. The change only affects a small portion of the property. The ability to develop the site under the special waiver -use provisions really is very similar if the entire property was rezoned to NM2. The planned development option, however, affords flexibility in the design standards. It does give us the ability to move things around that may not entirely comply with the strict standards of the NM2 district regulations. That is one of the benefits of applying these special waiver -use standards in this case. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, thank you, Mr. Taormina. I think that is beneficial for us to hear ,but also even for anyone is interested in this petition. January 25, 2022 30362 Thank you. Is there any other questions for our planning staff? If not, our petitioner is in the audience. We will need your name and address for the record please. Sam Faklh, 16030 Michigan Ave., Ste. 200, Dearborn, MI. I am one of the owners of Maple Real Estate Group. I don't have anything formal to present. I think Mr. Taormina did a wonderful job in presenting the project. Today's petition is really to rezone this 56 x 100 feet of land. I think it is kind of like an island in the back of the property where the entire property is zoned C-1. This one, I think, they might have forgotten about it or I am not really sure why it was stuck back there and was never rezoned with the remainder of the property. The property was all one parcel or two parcels. It was never separated, but I think that maybe when the zoning map was created, didn't recognize the fact that this was the same owner for the entire parcel. In terms of the project, the future project, I could talk about it if you would like. I talked about it briefly last time I was in front of you at the study session. It is a unique property in terms of shape. So, it is kind of hard to develop this property as a commercial property because it only has 100 feet of frontage. To maximize the use of the property, because it is kind of a triangle, we thought about developing it as a multi- family and these are luxury apartments. As we spoke before and I mentioned before, these are all two -bedroom apartments, 800 square feet, open space, two bedrooms with a walk-in closet, high -end finishes, all the buildings are brick and stone. We have a two-story atrium or lobby for each building and four units on each level. In terms of the building size itself, it is about 29 feet in height, which is similar to the condos right next door, so it's not really an enormous height that doesn't fit in the area. It is an enclosed community, meaning that it is going to be fenced off all the way around. There are a lot of mature trees in the back of the property where the 50 x 106 that is being rezoned. There is going to be a lot of mature trees. This particular site plan doesn't show it, but we have a newer site plan that shows the mature trees that we are going to keep. That will keep a little bit of privacy between both the residences in the back and the building we are going to develop. Same thing on this side of the property where the condos are at. Lots of mature trees that will give a lot of privacy. In terms of the development itself, as you can see, we are not using the entire property. We are keeping a lot of greenery. We have the footprints in terms of square footage compared to the entire property is somewhat low. We did a nice gazebo on the property, and we also did a walkway across the property for the residents to enjoy. A couple detention ponds on the property. I think that is basically summarizes the highlights of the project January 25, 2022 30363 itself. If you have any questions, obviously, I am here. We have the architect here that can answer any of your questions. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Fakih. It is important to note that this is rezoning that you are asking for today. We are going to try and focus our discussion and decision making on that rezoning. The site plan presented to us is certainly conceptual. It gives us an idea of what you want to do to develop it, but that will come back to us in a separate process. The site plan process. If this moves forward, we will get into a lot more details about that site plan and the building materials and so on. I just want to reiterate that. Is there anyone on the Commission with questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: Hello sir. I was over there today looking around a little bit. I looked at the condos to the south of there. I know that I looked at some of the details here aside from the rezoning and it looks like there is a lot more thought put into the layout of this than what the property next door would be looking like. At least in my mind. It appears that this would be a fair application in my mind. I just wanted to tell you that right out of the gate. Mr. Fakih: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions or comments for our petitioner? Mr. Long: Mr. Fakih, I think this makes sense bringing in the zoning inline. Obviously, this is a preliminary site plan. There are some concerns when I look at that, as far as proximity to the property lines and things like that, but obviously we will take care of that if and when you come back for site plan. I think this makes sense. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Long. Any other questions or comments? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Feel free to come forward. I see a gentleman getting up in the back. Good evening, sir. We will just ask for your name and address for our record. Don Schekel, 29161 Crandon, Livonia, MI. The proposed property that you are talking about rezoning abuts my property. Several things on this that I have noticed. About a year ago when they put this property up for sale, I contacted the Planning Department and the Zoning Board. 9120 the L-shaped lot was zoned as single-family residential and 9120 was commercial office. When we seen the notice and got this notice, I looked it up again. It changed to C- 1. When did that happen? January 25, 2022 30364 Mr. Wilshaw: We will see if we can get an answer for you, sir. Mr. Taormina, are you aware of the history of the rezoning's on these parcels? Mr. Taormina: Yes. So, the adoption of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, as you will recall, consolidated several of the districts. One of the major changes was the elimination of the OS district and those districts being rezoned to C-1. That affected all of the OS zoned properties in the city, including several properties along Middle Belt Road, including this site. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. So, sir, when we went through a process last year to update all of our zoning classifications, the office zoning was eliminated. They were all incorporated into commercial or C-1 zoning, so that is when that happened. That was 9120. 9106, excuse me. That was 9106 that was changed. 9120 was single-family. It wasn't office. It was single-family residential and then you have it behind my property as Rural Urban Farm. It wasn't classified as that before. That was single- family, so I don't understand how these changes got made and we were never notified, but now someone wants to build on it and we have to have a hearing that says we are going to rezone this, and we are going to notify you. Why was there never any notifications given out before? Mr. Wilshaw: When the zoning map was updated for the entire city, it was notified to the entire community as a large project of all zonings being updated. That would have changed the office zoning to the commercial. That wouldn't have changed any commercial to... or residential to commercial. That would not have happened. So, what is 9120 zoned now? Mr. Wilshaw: 9120 is currently zoned C-1 commercial. Mr. Schekel: That is what I am saying. It was single family and now it is C-1. When...also the urban family. When did that get changed? Mr. Wilshaw: Let me see if Mr. Taormina has some information for us. Mr. Taormina: Yes, so I think maybe part of the confusion is what was the zoning of 9120 prior to the adoption of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance. This is the parcel right here, although it may be difficult to see the outline, but the westerly portion of the site was zoned OS (Office Services) prior to the adoption of Livonia Vision 21. This area to the east that we are reviewing this evening, that was always zoned RUF (Rural Urban Farm), so the change only affected this portion of 9120 Middle Belt and it went from OS to January 25, 2022 30365 C-1. It was not previously zoned single-family residential as Mr. Schekel has indicated. Mr. Wilshaw: Perhaps it is a bit of a misunderstanding in the sense that the rear portion of the lot, which is what we are discussing tonight, has been zoned RUF and that has been zoned RUF for a long long time. Mr. Schekel: Like I said, I went through your Planning Commission just about a year ago. The site maps for the City of Livonia show that L- shaped lot, the entire thing as single-family residential. Now it is C-1 and Rural Urban. At some point that property got split and like I said, I am curious as to when that... how that happened? Mr. Wilshaw: I think we are at a bit of an impasse. We don't have that information for you right here as you understand it. Let's see if we can find out your feelings on it at this point with what we are dealing with right now. Mr. Schekel: Also, with the rezoning of that, and listening to a number of times people are talking about all the different waivers. Looking at the site maps and the plans all ... they look great and all that stuff, but you are talking about an apartment complex right behind my property. Is there a waiver on the footage from my property line to where they are actually going to establish a building? Mr. Wilshaw: There are standards as to how close they can be to property lines. Mr. Taormina can give us those details if you would like, but we are at the point right now where we are looking at the zoning of this one parcel. When we get into the site plan process, is when we will look to see what they propose in terms of where they want the building located and where they fit within those setbacks and those limitations and if there is anything that violates those, then they would have to go through an additional process of getting zoning and waivers from the Council and zoning boards and so on. We are not at that point yet. Mr. Schekel: I am just trying to figure it out before we get to that point and if there are gong to be waivers and all that put in, are we going to be notified or do I have to read it in the Livonia Observer. Mr. Wilshaw: You will definitely be notified. You are within the radius of the property. Mr. Schekel: Thank you. Or. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Next, Mr. Wilshaw. January 25, 2022 30366 Jeff Wilshaw, 29137 Westfield, Livonia, MI. I am a few hundred feet north of the property. A little nervous about the entire parcel going C-1. As C-1 can be restaurants is my understanding and other more commercial. I don't think we have very many properties in the city where it is a narrow band that jets in deep like this piece of property. I have no problem at all with an apartment or a condominium complex. I think this proposed development is a little too dense in nature personally, but I would welcome something in that property, just not as dense, but certainly not in C-1 classification because from my understanding and please correct me if I am wrong, is that if the developer at the end after having the C-1 says you know what, I want to throw a restaurant there or something different that he would have the green light to go ahead and do that more or less. It is a real long piece of property jetting right into the middle of the residential area. That is my only concern about it. Thank you for your time. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you. Good evening, sir. Brandon Grysko, 41700 West Six Mile Road, Northville, MI 48168. I represent Ventura Real Estate. I am here representing Ventura Real Estate as I said. They are currently the property owner. I commend you Mr. Chair for keeping us on track today with respect to what the issue actually is that is before the Commission at this time. Which, in my view, is simply whether or not it makes sense to leave sort of this little island in the back of this parcel that is zoned for Urban Farm, whereas the rest of the parcel is zoned C-1 for commercial. I think that is really the appropriate focus of the Commission and I again, I commend the Commission for keeping us focused kind of on that issue there. I think it is pretty clear that planning standards and public policy sort of all favor the idea that a parcel probably shouldn't be split zoned. Particularly not in this manner where you have sort of these wild different standards for one part of the parcel, in fact for a vast majority of the parcel and a totally separate set of standards for another more narrow piece of the parcel, so I really urge the commission to recommend that this entire parcel be zoned cohesively for all the reasons you would expect, including cohesive administration of the zoning ordinance and the ability for developers to come in and do something with the property without having to go back through this sort of process again, so I think that is really important to keep in mind here. I don't want to stray too far off track from what the purpose of this hearing is, but I will say that being someone that is out in the community and involved in the community, being involved in the local Chamber of Commerce, I do hear a lot from local businesses that there is an urgent need for housing and this January 25, 2022 30367 is certainly a project that I commend Mr. Fakih for putting forth a nice looking project and understand that this is going to be back before probably the Commission and City Council for waiver -use approval and things of that nature in the future, but overall this is a nice looking project and I think it fills a need in the city's Master Plan for this type of housing, so Ventura Real Estate and myself would encourage the Commission to recommend approval of this rezoning for just this one piece of a parcel to C-1. Mr. Wilshaw: Great. Thank you, Mr. Grysko. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this project? If not, I don't see anyone else in our audience. Mr. Taormina, there was a question asked in regard to other uses that could occur on this property if it is rezoned to C-1. Of course, we are just looking at the back portion, but what controls are in place to follow-up on that question? What controls are in place that would exclude or prevent this project from becoming a commercial development, like say a McDonalds or something along those lines through this process? Mr. Taormina: There are a couple of answers to that question. So, the current zoning of most of the property is C-1. There is nothing that would prevent a petition being submitted, at this point, for a commercial development. As long as it included uses that were treated as permitted under the C-1 district regulations and it complied with all the other regulations, height, bulk, and area standards, there is very little the city could do. Now, with the development of a planned residential project, like the one we are discussing, we have the ability through this process to include a development agreement. Through that development agreement we could look to have certain terms and conditions included that would restrict the future use of this property to only the apartments or other specific uses that the city deemed would be appropriate for that land, should the apartment complex not be developed. There is a couple options we could look at, but a general planned residential development agreement is something that we could consider along with the waiver application to address some of those concerns. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, Mr. Taormina. I appreciate that answer to that question. Also, the process by which the city goes through the rezoning and site plan process and correct me if I am wrong, we look at the zoning and we send this on to City Council and City Council will hold the rezoning of a parcel until the site plan catches up to it and then they approve both he rezoning and the site plan at the same meting typically, and that provides some protection as to January 25, 2022 30368 making sure that this rezoning is used for the intended purpose that the petitioner indicated. Mr. Taormina: Yes, it offers some protection, but it is no guarantee. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure, Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in our audience wishing to speak on this item? If not, is there anyone on the Commission wishing to speak on this item? Mr. Bongero: Mark, just so I understand, a planned residential agreement, is that something that we would do tonight? Mr. Taormina: No. That is something that we would do along with the waiver petition. Mr. Bongero: Okay. So, it would be down the road? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it would. Mr. Bongero: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions from any of our commissioners? Mr. Fakih, is there anything else you would like to say I regard to this petition before we make our decision? We always like to give you the last word. Mr. Fakih: Nothing further. I just want to thank you for your time and hope that you guys approve the rezoning of this little parcel. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. If there is no other business or questions from any of the commissioners, I can close the public hearing at this time and a motion would be in order. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Caramagno, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-04-2022 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2022, on Petition 2021-12-01-11 submitted by Maple Real Estate Group, L.L.C. pursuant to Sections 13.13 and 13.15 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, requesting to rezone the east fifty-eight feet (58') of 9120 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West Chicago Avenue in the Southwest 'Y4 of Section 36, from RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to C-1 (Local Business), the Planning Commission does hereby January 25, 2022 30369 recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-12-01-11 be approved for the following reasons: That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area. 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. 3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a reasonable and logical zoning plan for the subject property which adheres to the principles of sound land use planning. 4. That the proposed change of zoning affects only a small portion of the property and will bring the subject parcel under a single zoning classification, and 5. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Livonia Vision 21 Future Land Use Map. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 and 13.15 of Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2021-12-02-25 Portillo's Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 12-02-25 submitted by HD Group, Inc., on behalf of Portillo'sI requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.51 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, to construct and operate a freestanding full -service restaurant with drive -up window facilities at 13000 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Wilshaw: For the record, Mr. Ventura has returned to our meeting, and we will go to Mr. Taormina for background. Mr. Taormina: This request is for the construction of afull-service restaurant with drive -up window facilities. The location is the east side of Middle January 25, 2022 30370 Belt Road between the CSX Railroad and Schoolcraft Road. The zoning is C-2 (General Business). The site area is just over 2 acres with 273 feet of frontage along Middle Belt Road. The site would be proposed as an outlot at the site of the Meijer store. Meijer is part of Millennium Park, which is a retail complex of several major retailers, including Home Depot, Pet Smart, Bob's Discount Furniture, Famous Footwear, Marshall's, and others. The original approved plans for Millennium Park included three outlots that were located at the north end of the Meijer parking lot. These were identified on the plans as outlots C, D, and E. All three have been developed with full -service restaurants that include drive-thru window facilities. They include Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen which is on outlot C, Culver's on outlot D, and Outback Steakhouse on outlot E. The proposed new restaurant would be positioned near the middle of the proposed outlot. This is adjacent to Middle Belt Road. It was originally shown as part of outlot E. The proposed new restaurant would be one-story in height and contain a gross floor area of 7,900 square feet. The main customer entrance would be on the east side of the building facing the Meijer parking lot. Portillo's would have 184 interior seats, as well as 4 outdoor patio seats. The outdoor dining patio is shown on the east side, adjacent to the main entrance. I will show some renderings and more details of the building in just a moment. Drive -up window and vehicle pick-up service is planned on the west side of the building facing Middle Belt Road. There will be two traffic lanes serving this purpose. Both would commence on north side of the building and then loop around to the west side. The lanes used for drive -up services are required to be at least 10 feet in width. In this case, both lanes measure 11 feet in width. Primary access to the development would be from Millennium Park's main entrance road, which is north of the proposed restaurant and is where most of the incoming and outgoing traffic occurs. This is a divided access road. It is signalized with two major connecting points to the Meijer site. One is between the Outback Steakhouse and the Culver's. The other is between the Culver's and Popeye's chicken. This is the Meijer store located here on the bottom of the map. The proposed outlot that we are discussing, and the location of the restaurant is here, along the west side of that parking area and adjacent to Middle Belt Road. This is the main entrance drive that I just mentioned coming into Millennium Park. Here is the Outback Steakhouse, the Culver's, and the Popeye's Louisiana Chicken. These are the two access points into Meijer located here between the Outback and Culver's and then the second one between Culver's and Popeye's. There is secondary access provided to Meijer located just south of the proposed restaurant. This road runs in an east/west direction along the front of the January 25, 2022 30371 Meijer store. Where this road connects to Middle Belt, it is not signalized and is located roughly 600 feet north of the CSX Rail overpass. The drive approach here allows for full left and full right-hand vehicle turn movements both to and from Middle Belt Road. From within Millennium Park there are additional connecting points to the Meijer parking lot. These are available along the east through an internal road, as well as to the south. The additional points are located here. This major north/south drive extends north all the way to eastbound Schoolcraft Road. In terms of parking, the Meijer store requires 974 parking spaces, whereas Portillo's requires 134 spaces. Combined, they require 1,108 spaces altogether. Currently there are 1,505 parking spaces available at Meijer. Construction of the restaurant would consume roughly 143 spaces. This would leave a total of 1,362 for both uses. The site plan indicates that Portillo's would have 112 parking spaces provided on the restaurant site and an additional 24 spaces would be available through a shared parking arrangement with Meijer. The site does provide for an adequate number of parking spaces. This is the landscape plan that was submitted with the application. It provides for plantings throughout the development, along the street frontage, as well as within the parking lot islands, and along the foundation of the building. Between the building and Middle Belt Road there is a greenbelt. This greenbelt is roughly 45 feet in width with 273 feet of frontage. The site requires at least seven full-size deciduous or evergreen trees, as well as three ornamental trees, and 56 shrubs. The landscape plan, from what we have reviewed, does comply with the city's minimum planting requirements. Looking at the building itself, the proposed materials include split -faced block, face brick, and ribbed metal panels. There is also some smooth faced block and metal louvre sections. Structural canopy sections are installed over the windows and doors. The outdoor patio would be screened overhead with a structural metal canopy. Thirty feet is shown as the highest point of the building. In this case, the C-2 district allows for a maximum height restriction of 35 feet. The height of the building is in compliance. All of the rooftop mechanical units would be screened with the extended parapet. There is a dumpster shown on the site plan. It would be on the north side of the building and would be fully screened. The walls surrounding the dumpster would be eight -feet in height constructed out of masonry, including four -inch face brick and eight -inch CMU walls. Site lighting details show the location and type of poles and fixtures in the parking lot. Although the city's outdoor lighting policy recommends all pole mounted light fixtures be limited to a height of 20 feet above grade, the photometric diagram submitted with the plans show a mounting height of 30 feet. The lights in this case are shown to be 10 feet taller than January 25, 2022 30372 what the city's outdoor lighting policy recommends. In terms of storm water management, the runoff would be managed using an underground detention system that would be located in the parking lot on the east side of the building. The proposed number and area of signs is in excess of the city's sign regulations. The restaurant is allowed one wall sign, but the plans show four wall signs. One on each side of the building. As a separate parcel, the outlot is allowed one ground sign not to exceed 30 square feet in area, six feet in height, and a setback of at least 10 feet from any right-of-way line. The site plan shows a monument sign in the northwest corner of the outlot, but no details are provided. I will go through these renderings quickly. This top view would be the west side of the building. This is the side facing Middle Belt Road and is where the drive -up operation and pick-up window would be located. You can see these canopies extending over that drive -up operation. The various materials here ... the lighter color being the split -faced block as well as along the foundation of the building with a combination of brick and metal panels. You can see the feature on the top part of this parapet. These are some perspective and isometric views. This shows the east side of the building. This would be the side facing the parking lot at Meijer. This would be the main entrance into the restaurant. The outdoor dining patio is shown here just to the left of that facing the parking lot. Here is a view of the north side of the building. Another view showing the east side ... the outdoor dining patio. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 20, 2021, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The subject parcel is assigned the address of #13000 Middlebelt Road, although a new address will be assigned to the proposed parcel during the lot split process should the petitions be approved. The legal description provided by the petitioner appears to be correct and should be used for the petition purposes. The existing parcel currently has access to public water main and sanitary sewer owned by the City of Livonia, although the utilities are contained within the Middlebelt Road right -of --way. Ayn connections to these utilities will require permits form both the City, and Wayne County. Privately -owned storm sewer is available within the existing parcel. The petitioner does indicate that they will be installing storm water detention in compliance with the Wayne County Stormwater Ordinance, but no calculations have been provided at this time. Full review of the January 25, 2022 30373 utilities will be completed when drawings are submitted for permitting. "The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 14, 2021, which reads as follows: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a restaurant on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: Per NFPA 13, 2014 6.4.5.4 Fire Department Connection Proximity to Hydrant Fire department connections shall be located not more than 100ft (30.5m) from the nearest hydrant connected to an approved water source." The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of Police, dated December 13, 2021, which reads as follows: "Objections are that the driveway to Meijer from Middlebelt is already a known problem area. There is extremely high traffic at that driveway throughout the day and it is a high crash area. This area is one of the highest crash locations within the entire city. It is already difficult for people to turn in and out of the Meijer driveway at this location. It is not a good idea unless the traffic flow is addressed at the driveway to Middlebelt possibly with additional traffic control devices andlor traffic signals." The letter is signed by Scott Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 18, 2022, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. 1. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for the excess number of signs. 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 December 13, 2021, 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 Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated December 14, 2021, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this time taxes are due, but not delinquent, therefore I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? I am going to try stumping you again, Mr. Taormina. I am doing that a lot tonight. You mentioned that the light poles are 30 feet in height and normally we require 20 feet. Do you happen to know if there January 25, 2022 30374 was any waivers or variances granted for either the Meijer or the other outlots to have 30-foot poles, or .... so we can try and keep everything at the same height? Mr. Taormina: Our outdoor lighting policy was adopted after the construction of the Meijer store. Prior to that there was no position or policy with respect to the height of light poles. It was usually included as a condition of approval. With the policy, we wanted to encourage commercial lighting to be limited to a height of 20 feet. We have made exceptions mostly in the case of larger retail complexes like Wonderland, Livonia Marketplace, and others that have taller light poles by virtue of the much larger parking areas. This is something that we could waive as part of the site plan review process. It is not something that would require a variance. It is a recommendation. We keep it to that 20 foot height limit for a majority of our local business establishments. For this we are looking to have a bit more flexibility to be more consistent with the other lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Wilshaw: Exactly. That is why I asked the question. I was just curious if ... especially the outlots in particular. I can see Meijer having the potentially higher light poles, but maybe the outlots... Mr. Taormina: I will check to see what those are and if we granted any exceptions to the outlots, because we would want to keep those consistent. Mr. Wilshaw: That would be great. That would be something helpful. Obviously not necessarily at this moment, because you have to look it up, but at a future meeting or even if it moves to City Council. Thank you. If there are no more questions of our planning staff, we will go to our petitioner who is in our audience. Good evening. We will ask for your name and business address for the record please. Amanda Schwerin, 805 Via Altos, Mesquite, TX 75150. Good evening. I will start by introducing our team that came tonight. We have Randall Guse, Vice President of Real Estate for Portillo's, Preston Funkhauser, Vice President of Construction Facilities, and Taylor Eschbach, Kimley-Horn Civil Engineer. They are here to facilitate answering any questions you guys may have. I know we gave a little bit of background last week, but I will give a quick rundown for anybody that didn't hear it. Portillo's has been in business for over 40 years. They have been successfully running drive-thru restaurants for almost 40 years. Currently there are 69 corporate owned restaurants and counting. The restaurant that we are proposing here in Livonia will also be corporate owned. We January 25, 2022 30375 are ... do you have the slides that we sent? We brought with us some building materials. Do you have the samples to pass? Mr. Taormina: Why don't you hold them there so the camera can pick them up? You can set them there. S. Schwerin: These are here in case anyone wants to touch them later, because I know somebody was asking that. Mr. Wilshaw: Your best bet is to set them right here in front of this front chair and then one of our cameras that is over my head will be able to zoom in and get pictures of it for our vast audience. Ms. Schwerin: One of the questions that arose last week in our study session was with regard to the split -faced block veracity and maintenance of it. Facilities has a yearly assessment of their buildings. Every year they will go out and they will assess the building. If it needs maintaining or if it needs cleaned, they will schedule that, as well as the general managers on a daily basis are checking the facilities and if there are issues, they take care of them as it arises and this split -faced block. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Ms. Schwerin: The other question was if they would be sealed. This particular brand is Arriscraft. It is manufactured and recommended to not be sealed. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Ms. Schwerin: Do you want to move to the photos? We have some photos of a restaurant that was recently constructed in Ft. Wayne, Indiana that uses the split -faced block. Mr. Taormina: Tell when to stop. Ms. Schwerin: Go back a little bit. Mr. Taormina: This is the restaurant, correct? Ms. Schwerin: Yes. Mr, Wilshaw: Ms. Schwerin, you indicated at our study meeting that many of your buildings have unique architectural elements. You really don't have two buildings that are alike. January 25, 2022 30376 Ms. Schwerin: Right. So, the restaurant that we are proposing here might not look like Ft. Wayne, but it just happened to be one that has split - faced block. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Taormina: This is the photo? S. Schwerin: Yeah, you can look at the other two as well. Yeah. Mr. Taormina: Just so the Commission understands what we are looking at, the split... and correct me if I am wrong, but the block would appear along the base of the structure here. I believe this material is a composite material. This too would be masonry. I am guessing this is smooth -faced block. Is that correct? Ms. Schwerin: Do you have our elevations on these slides? We can go back and... Mr. Taormina: I do. You tell me when to stop. Preston Funkhouser, Vice President of Construction Facilities. You are exactly right. The split -faced block would the white components that you see here and the darker color you see would be the brick. There is also the white bands you see that Mr. Taormina is highlighting with his mouse. That is also a split -faced Arriscraft product. Like Ms. Schwerin said, this is a highly durable product. It is more durable than the brick product. It is a little bit thicker. It is a very high quality product. You see a lot around this community. There is some E.I.F.S product. This is a lot more durable than that. It is virtually maintenance free product, but I know that a concern was brought up by the commission at the last session that ... what if it get dingy or dirty and that is why Ms. Schwerin mentioned our maintenance program. We have a lot of recurring services, preventative programs, and then there are also reactive programs where we catch it at a minimum on an annual basis. If we required an exterior clean we would certainly take care of it. We suspect that we would find out that it was needing cleaning before anybody else would. We are very proud of our buildings as you can see. Or. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thank you. Anything else you would like to present, Ms. Schwerin? Ms. Schwerin: Just about the drive-thru. So, it was discussed that we have a two lane drive-thru. So, Portillo's does have a two lane drive-thru, but the way their drive-thru works is their employees are out there January 25, 2022 30377 taking orders and once the cars finish through that ordering process, the outside lane is coned off and the outside lane will merge into the inside lane and the second lane becomes a true bypass lane from that point on. Once somebody has their order, they can go ahead and leave. They don't have to wait through the entire line. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Alright, excellent. Is there any questions for our petitioner at this stage? A lot of information that we just received. Mr. Long? Or. Long: At the study meeting we talked about a traffic study. Where are we in that process? Ms. Schwerin: All of the data has been collected and they are working on the final study. They should be done in the next three weeks, maybe? Mr. Long: Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: As part of your traffic study, I noticed today that the Outback driveway that comes in on a curve off of the entrance to Costco there that is a thru-pass right to your property. Would your traffic study intend to study how many people drive through the parking lot to get to Portillo's? Ms. Schwerin: Taylor will come up for that. Taylor Eschbach, Kimley-Horn. We did have an initial scoping meeting with the city and the police sergeant. That kind of cut through at the Outback parking lot did not come up as a potential short-cut or challenge. We had at least seven different cameras set up to collect data from different locations around the site, but the Outback cut through was not mentioned previously. Mr. Caramagno: It seems like a natural, doesn't it? Mr. Eschbach: Well, there is a main drive aisle maybe 30 feet beyond that right in only entrance, so rather than cutting in that right only and kind of circumnavigating that parking lot, you can go an extra 30 feet and just have a straight shot to the Meijer parking lot. Mr. Caramagno: Yeah, I see that. It looks like you have a couple options. I don't know how it would take to it, but if or when I visit Portillo;s I will January 25, 2022 30378 probably cut through Outback because it is a short-cut. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: The Caramagno by-pass, alright. Mr. Long: We aren't condoning that. Mr. Wilshaw: We are not condoning that. Any other questions from any of our commissioners? We got all of our questions out for now, okay. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward. So, Ms. Schwerin, is there anything else that you would like to present before we make our decision? Ms. Schwerin: Not at this time. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, very much. With that, if there are no other questions for our petitioner, I will close the public hearing and a motion would be in order. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Bongero, and adopted, it was #01-05-2022 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2022, on Petition 2021-12-02-25 submitted by HD Group, Inc., on behalf of Portillo's, requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.51 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, to construct and operate a freestanding full -service restaurant with drive -up window facilities at 13000 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-12-02-25 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan identified as Sheet Number C0.0 prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., dated December 8, 2021, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross access agreement, that gives notice and outlines the terms of how the subject property would share parking and access with abutting property(s), be supplied to the Inspection Department at the time a building permit is applied for. January 25, 2022 30379 3. That the Landscape Plan identified as Sheet Number L1.0 and the Landscape Notes and Detail Plan identified as Sheet Number L1.1, prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., both dated December 8, 2021, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydro -seeding. 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 6. That the maximum customer seating count shall not exceed a total of 184 interior seats and forty-four (44) outdoor patio seats. 7. That the Building Elevation Plans, prepared by Jensen & Jenson, dated January 19, 2022, are hereby approved, and shall be adhered to. 8. 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. 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times. 10. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a height of twenty feet (20') above grade and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway. 11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. January 25, 2022 30380 12. That no LED light band or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows. 13. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, shall be prohibited. 14. That the issue concerning Fire Department Connection proximity to hydrant, as outlined in the correspondence dated December 14, 2021, from Livonia Fire & Rescue, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Inspection Department. 15. That the petitioner shall submit a traffic study to the City prior to review by the City Council 16. 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 17. Pursuant to Section 13.13 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, 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. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Ms. McCue: The only question would be on the light poles, I think, right? Is that we had discussion that Mr. Taormina was going to see about the consistency of the height of the light poles in the area. If we could note that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Or. Taormina: Or. I did have a chance to have a look at one of the items at Culver's. We had a similar restriction of 20 feet in that case. Wilshaw: Okay. So, you think 20 feet would be appropriate. Or. Taormina: To be consistent. January 25, 2022 30381 Or, Wilshaw: Yes, to be consistent. You are okay with that Ms. McCue? Ms. McCue: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, we will leave it as it is. Ms. Smiley? S. Smiley: We don't have the traffic study and it is a little concerning forme. Will it be done before it goes to Council? Mr. Taormina: I don't know the answer to that. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Smiley, let's have Ms. Schwerin come forward or I believe the Civil Engineer, either one. I believe that they are targeting two or three weeks, was it for completion of that? Ms. Schwerin: Three weeks. We had a tentative date of 2/16 for a study session and 2/28 for a City Council Meeting. We should have enough time to have the traffic study completed if we are on that 2/28 Council Meeting. Mr. Wilshaw: Right, because that is giving you four weeks or a month to complete that. Okay. Ms. Smiley, does that answer your question? Ms. Smiley: Yes, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any other questions or concerns about the motion? Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: The only comment... item #3 adressing the by-pass lane. I think it was adequately described this evening so there is no need to provide any additional lane in this particular case. It will all remain as was indicated and the outer lane would serve as the function of the by-pass, so I think we can eliminate condition #3 altogether. Mr. Wilshaw: Alright. Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Ms. McCue, are you alright with that? Ms. McCue: Agreed. Or, Wilshaw: Supporter, Mr. Bongero, you are alright with that? Or. Bongero: Yes. Or. Wilshaw: Okay, we will eliminate #3. January 25, 2022 30382 Ms, McCue: Mr. Chair, I am going to go back to the traffic study again. Mr. Wilshaw: Of course. Ms. McCue: Should that...I mean, should we have more detail of that in this? I am just feeling like I just...I think it is worth... it is going to be an issue there. Mr. Wilshaw: Definitely. Ms. McCue: Sometimes I can say that I am not going to worry about that, but that is going to be an issue. Them turning left out of that onto Middle Belt is not going to ... it is going to be a problem. Mr. Wilshaw: Since you are offering an approving resolution, it may be appropriate to have a condition that a traffic study be prepared and available for our City Council to review. Ms. McCue: I think I would feel more comfortable with that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, and Mr. Bongero is okay with that? Mr. Bongero: Totally agree. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, you understand what we are asking? Mr. Taormina: I do. Mr. Wilshaw: Of course. Any other questions or comments? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Bongero, McCue, Smiley, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: Long, Ventura ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adoptedI It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2021-12-02-26 Portillo's (Tavern License) Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2021- 12-02-26 submitted by HD Group, Inc., on behalf of Portillo's, requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.22 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, to utilize a Tavern license January 25, 2022 30383 (sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises) in connection with the operation of a freestanding full -service restaurant at 13000 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to utilize a Tavern license, which would be for the sale of beer and wine for the consumption on the premises. This is in connection with the operation of Portillo's, the full - service restaurant that we just reviewed. The zoning, as you know, is C-2 (General Business), which treats Tavern licenses and other on -premises licenses, such as Class C, as a wavier - use under the provisions of Section 6.22 of the zoning ordinance. There is a special requirement that applies. In the case of new establishments with on -premises liquor licenses, the facility must be at least 1,000 feet from any other such licensed businesses. For establishments which are utilized primarily as restaurants, this 1,000-foot separation requirement can be waived. In the case of Portillo's, there are three other restaurants within 1,000- feet that operate on -premises licenses. The closest is the Outback Steakhouse, which is at 13010 Middle Belt Road. Outback operates a Class C license and is roughly 200 feet from the proposed Portillo's. The other two are located on the west side of Middle Belt Road. The first is MOD Pizza at 13229 Middle Belt Road. They operate with a Tavern license and is about 280 feet from the site. The other is Applebee's at 13301 Middle Belt Road. They have a Class C license and is 325 feet away from the proposed restaurant. As such, the 1000-foot separation provision will have to be waived by City Council. In terms of correspondence, I won't read all of the correspondence that I previously read regarding this item, but we do have one new item and that comes from the Division of Police, dated December 16, 2021, and it reads: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with HD Group, Inc., on behalf of Portillo's requesting waiver use approval, pursuant to Sections 6.51 & 6.22 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, to construct and operate a freestanding full -service restaurant with drive up window facilities and to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) at 13000 Middlebelt Road located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest quarter of Section 25. The review of the plans determined that the request does not comply with prior separation requirement guidelines. The proposed establishment would be inside the separation requirement distance of at least one thousand (1,000) feet from any Class C licensed establishment. Outback Steakhouse at 13010 Middlebelt currently has a Class C license and is 200 feet January 25, 2022 30384 from the proposed Portillo's site. Mod Pizza at 13229 Middlebelt currently has a Class C license and is 280 feet from the proposed site. Applebee's at 13301 Middlebelt has a Class C license and is 325 feet from the proposed site. We would recommend that the Planning Department and City Council maintain separation requirement guidelines. It is ouropinion that this guideline is good for local established businesses and maintains Livonia's family atmosphere." That letter is signed by Jeffery Ronayne, Special Service Bureau. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Caramagno: Mark, when I look at this letter from the Police, from Jeff Ronayne, this talks about Class C license, yet this request is for only a beer and wine consumption, not spirits. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Caramagno: Are these two different things we are talking about here? Mr. Taormina: So, initially we were under the... it was our understanding that the request was for a Class C license, but we were advised by the petitioner a couple of weeks ago that it was in fact a Tavern license and not a full Class C. I think the request that we sent to the police did indicate Class C. That was our mistake by notifying them as such. Mr. Caramagno: The petitioner is just asking for something less than that? Mr. Taormina: They are. As you recall, from the study session, it was indicated that roughly 1 % of their gross receipts are in the form of beer and wine sales. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: A Tavern license restricts them to just beer and wine. Mr. Taormina: Just beer and wine, no spirits. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr, Ventura? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Caramagno, that was my question. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Any other questions for our planning staff? Ms. Smiley? January 25, 2022 30385 Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mark, a Tavern license doesn't allow beer and wine to go, do they? This is primarily a drive thru. They have 184 seats, but beer and wine doesn't go... Mr. Taormina: Some establishments are allowed to serve cocktails to go. This does not include an SDM license, so it does not involve the sale of any packaged beer and wine products. I believe the answer to your question is no. They would not be allowed to sell beer and wine products to go. Unless I am mistaken, I believe this is not part of their business model. We can get better clarification from the petitioner. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Any other questions for our planning staff? If not, we will go back to our petitioner. Welcome back, Ms. Schwerin. Ms. Schwerin: Do you need me to state my name and address again? Mr. Wilshaw: We have you on our record already. Thank you. Ms. Schwerin: In regard to on premises versus off premises, Portillo's will not be selling alcohol to go. We don't sell it through the drive thru. You already kind of covered all the comments I was going to make, so given the very limited amount of alcohol service and that it is a Tavern license versus a Class C license, we just ask that you would give us a favorable recommendation to City Council. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Let's see if there are any questions from any of our commissioners for our petitioner? No questions in regard to this petition? I don't see any questions. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, and if there is nothing else, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-06-2022 RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2022, on Petition 2021-12-02-26 submitted by HD Group, Inc., on behalf of Portillo's, requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 6.22 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, to utilize a Tavern license (sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises) in connection with the operation of a freestanding full -service January 25, 2022 30386 restaurant at 13000 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 114 of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2021-12-01-26 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the use of a Tavern license at this location is subject to City Council waiving the 1,000-foot separation restriction required between other such licensed businesses per Section 6.22 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, and 2. Pursuant to Section 13.13 of the Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance, 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. FURTHER, The Planning Commission recommends the approval of a Conditional Agreement limiting this Tavern license to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council. FURTHER RESOLVED, That notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.13 of Livonia Vision 21 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will goon to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,180t" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,180t" Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on December 14, 2021. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-07-2022 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,180t" Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 145 2021, are hereby approved. January 25, 2022 30387 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Bongero, McCue, Smiley, Ventura, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Long Mr, Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,181stPublic Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,181st Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on January 11, 2022. On a motion by Long, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-08-2022 RESOLVED, That the Minutes of 1,1815� Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 11, 2022, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Long, Ventura, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Bongero, McCue, Smiley Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and. the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,182"d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 25, 2022% was adjourned at 8:21 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilsha , Chairman