HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-05-29MINUTES OF THE 945° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 29, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 945r Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley
Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh
Members absent: William La Pine
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra
Walter, Clerk -Typist II; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also
present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a 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 len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-04-08-08 TISEO ARCHITECTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-04-
08-08 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc., on behalf of Eight
Mile Place, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a multi -tenant building and obtain preliminary approval
for a drug store and bank branch with drive-thm operations on
properties located at 33215, 33239 and 33375 Eight Mile Road
and 20413 Shadyside Road, located on the south side of Eight
May 29, 2007
24041
Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in
the Northwest''/. of Section 3.
Mr. Taormina: This site is located in the Northwest'''/ of Section 3 which is the
square mile that is bordered by Eight Mile Road to the north,
Farmington Road to the west, Seven Mile Road to the south and
Merriman Road to the east. This petition involves the
redevelopment of several configuous parcels that are located at
the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads. This
site includes the parcel occupied by the existing Valero Gas
Station right at the southeast corner of Farmington and Eight
Mile Roads, as well as the Village Green Florist and two
abutting parcels that are located to the east and south and are
under the same ownership. Both the gas station and the florist
buildings would be removed as part of this pefifion. The legal
description includes part of Lots 10 and 11, and Lots 12 through
16 and Lot 18 of Folker's Farmington Road Acres Subdivision.
The zoning of all of the properties is G2, General Business.
The combined land area is approximately 4 acres and includes
150 feel of frontage on Farmington and approximately 590 feet
of frontage along Eight Mile. In addition, there is 130 feet of
frontage on the west side of Shadyside Road. The proposed
Eight Mile Place shopping center would include a total of three
new buildings. The westerly most building is identified on this
plan as a drug store. It would contain a gross floor area of
14,500 square feel. The next building, which is the center
building, is idenfified on the plan as a branch bank. It would
total 4,000 square feet, and then the easterly building, identified
as Retail C, totals 7,000 square feet. This would be a multi -
tenant retail building located on the easterly edge of the
property. Both the proposed drug store and the bank show
drive-thru operations which will require waiver use approvals
and are the subject of related petitions on tonight's agenda. All
three buildings would have relatively equal setbacks from 8 Mile
Road, approximately 80 feel. The drug store is setback
approximately 195 feel east of Farmington Road, and Retail 'C'
has a zero setback from the adjoining vacant parcel to the east,
which is 87 feel wide. There would be three driveways - two off
Eight Mile. The first one is located approximately 170 feel east
of the intersection just west of the drug store. The second
driveway off Eight Mile would be located between the branch
bank building and the retail building, and then the third driveway
would be located off Farmington Road about 115 feet south of
the intersection. This is in the same approximate location as the
exisfing driveway at the gas station. Parking for all three
buildings was considered on the basis that all the spaces would
be common and shared. As you can see, most of the parking
would be provided along a single drive aisle that extends from
May 29, 2007
24042
east to vest across the entire front of the development. The
required overall number of parking spaces is 143, and this site
plan provides a total of 144 spaces. So it is conforming with the
ordinance. In terms of sight lighting, a detail was provided that
shows all the parking lot lights would not exceed 20 feet in
height. In addition, there are enclosed dumpsters shown along
the rear of the multi -tenant building, as well as on the east side
of the proposed drug store. No dumpster is needed for the bank
building. Another significant aspect of this proposal is the
stormwater management plan. This would be located at the
southerly portion of the site and includes a detention basin as
well as a min garden. The detention pond is located at the
easterly end adjacent to Shadyside, while the rain garden is the
larger area of the two areas, and that's about 6,700 square feet.
It's located just west of the proposed detention basin. The rain
garden is basically a bio -retention area. It's a shallow area that
operates by collecting runoff and storing it, and permits it to be
filtered and slowly absorbed into the soil. So it's not as deep as
the detention basin, and it's heavily landscaped. It receives
most of its water through sheet flow across the parking lot
whereas a detention area would receive the majority of the
parking lot runoff via underground piping. A landscape plan was
submitted with this petition. It provides considerable detail
relative to the types of plant materials. There is a wide variety of
trees, shrubs and flowers that are proposed not only within the
detention area and the proposed bio -retention or rain garden
area, but also throughout this site. A significant feature along
Eight Mile Road is a 10 foot wide planting strip. This area would
be planted with a variety of trees, as well as shrubs and flowers.
They are also showing circular modular garden walls that would
range from 16 inches in height to 28 inches in height. In
addition, there is a corner feature right at the intersection of
Eight Mile and Farmington Roads. There would be a planting
bed provided as well as a berm and a decorative concrete
plaza. That plaza would also include some pedestal seating
that would be provided around it and additional modular circular
garden walls. I do have a photograph of those garden walls to
give you a better idea of what they will look like. This is another
detail of the landscaping plan along Eight Mile Road. It provides
a variety of shrubs and trees between the area of the sidewalk
and the parking lot. In terms of the architecture, this is a
rendering of the proposed drug store. You'll note that all three
buildings contain very similar features. They are all flat -roof
designs and generally the same height, about 21 to 22 feet.
The exterior building materials consist primarily of brick on the
lower two-thirds of the structure, as well as precast concrete
panels that would make up the upper portion of the facade. It
terms of the details, you'll see that this also includes louvered
May 29, 2007
24043
metal canopies above each of the windows and entrance doors.
In addition there are metal panel screens on the rooftops that
would be used to shield the mechanical equipment from view.
These are the other two sides of the proposed drug store. This
would be the front and rear elevation of the proposed multi -
tenant retail building. That's the back side and the east
elevation of the retail building. This would be the proposed
bank. You can see it contains many of the same features as the
other two buildings, types ofmalerials, canopies. This also has
a canopy above the drive-lhm lanes. These are the other two
elevations for the bank. We also have floor plans provided for
each of the buildings. This is a photograph of a similar type of
louvered canopy that they would use above the doors and
windows. This is the taller version of the garden wall that
they're proposing, somewhere around 28 inches in height. The
lower ones would be about 16 inches in height. They still have
yet to determine the color for these walls, but this gives you an
idea of what they would look like. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 3, 2007, which reads as
folows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention facilities
have been shown and will be required in accordance with
Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. This
section of Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Road
Commission for Oakland County and the drive approaches will
require approval from them. The legal description as shown on
the plans at this time for the entire site is correct and no
additional right-of-way is required. A lot combination and split
may be required for this development. Our records indicate that
the current addresses for the development are 33215, 33239
and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside, but may be
changed if the property is split." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2007, which reads
as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a drug store, branch
bank, and multi -tenant retail building on property located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations (1) If
subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, an onaite hydrant shall be located between 50
feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2)
May 29, 2007
24044
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing
consistent with the use group. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be
consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Access around
building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius
of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6
inches. (5) Any curves or comers shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall
and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (6) Please
provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for review."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 23, 2007,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with a proposal by Useo Architects, Inc. for Eight
Mile Place, located at the southeast comer of 8 Mile and
Farmington Roads. We would request that they be required to
post STOP signs at the three points of egress onto the main
roads. These signs must conform to the requirements of size
and reFlectivity as stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices." The letter is signed by David W. Studl,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated May 15, 2007, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 1, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This review was completed as though A, B 8 C are on
separate properties with acceptable cross access and parking
agreements. (2) We would recommend that the Commission
and/or Council consider the effects of leaving lot 17 (87.12 x
221.37) out of this plan. It would seem to make sense to
address this issue now as additional driveways onto Eight Mile
Road or Shadyside Avenue could be problematical. (3) This
has been reviewed as though the right-of-way sidewalks are
new. (4) Any existing trash or debris in the rear garden area
needs to be removed. (5) This plan does not reference the
existing buildings on site. They will need building and plumbing
permits in order to be demolished. (6) Retail C as an altemate
is a waiver use. The traffic lane for the drive up window does
not appear to be the required 12 feet wide. (7) Although Retail
C building plans would be reviewed at time of plan review by
this Department, should the project move forward, the following
items are mentioned to assist in preplanning: (a) Tenant spaces
that have an occupant load of employees and customers
greater than 15 require separate facilities for men and women.
As drawn, mercantile uses would not be in compliance. (b)
Facilities must be accessible to the public. Depending on the
interior finish, the location as drawn may not be acceptable. It is
unacceptable to locate restrooms in a storage area or other
area not generally available to the public. This Department has
May 29, 2007
24045
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is
from Adkison, Need & Allen, PLLC, dated May 22, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Our office represents ALAR, LLC, the owner
of property immediately south of the proposed new development
on the SE corner of 8 Mile Road and Farmington Road in
Livonia. Thanks for speaking with me this morning. In advance
of your study session with the Planning Commission this
evening, 1 wanted to confirm my client's position on the items we
discussed and mention a couple of more that we did not discuss
this morning. (1) My client is concerned that the required
landscape plantings in connection with this project not have the
effect of obscuring the ALAR building from traffic on Farmington
Road. (2) My client is concerned that delivery truck and other
traffic will use the ALAR property as a cut through to the
proposed new development. For this reason we are requesting
that the Planning Commission require a 2 foot high brick wall be
constructed to prevent cutthrough traffic. (3) My client is
concerned that increased sheet -flow storm water will come from
the development parcel and enter the ALAR property. The low
brick wall we have suggested above will prevent this from
occurring. (4) My client is concemed that delivery trucks will
damage the transformer on the ALAR property line. (5) My
client is concemed about use of the existing storm sewer and
the possibility that Flow from the proposed development may
adversely affect the ability of the system to adequately drain the
ALAR property. 1 have also mentioned that survey stakes on
the property line between the ALAR property and the subject
property appear to my client to inaccurately place the boundary
line between the two properties. A surveyor has been retained
to review this matter and 1 will advise you of his findings. 1
expect to attend the Planning Commission meeting where this
plan will be considered. 1 appreciate your assistance in
addressing the concerns raised. 171 give you a call tomorrow to
see how the study session went." The letter is signed by Phillip
G. Adkison. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Wilshaw: One question to Mr. Taormina. The retention basin on the plan
does not appear to have any barrier around it or anything of that
nature. Is there any need to have protection around that water
area?
Mr. Taormina: There will not be a requirement to fence it as long as the side
slopes are 1 on 6 or more gradual. Anything steeper than that
requires fencing per Wayne County requirements. (looked at
that today and its pretty close. There's a note on the plan
May 29, 2007
24046
relative to the treatment of the slopes greater than 1 on 4.
While I don't think its their intent, it would be my
recommendation that those side slopes be kept to at lead 1 on
6.
Mr.Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. 1 think we've covered everything here tonight.
I believe that we've addressed most of the comments that were
addressed at the study session. I'm here to answer any kind of
administrative questions that you have. Kimberly Lapinski from
my office will answer any design questions. We did bring a
color board if you'd like to see it, and some of the other boards
are also mounted.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
Al the study session, one of our commissioners who is not here
tonight requested brick pavers in lieu of concrete on the plaza at
the corner of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads.
Mr. Tiseo:
If that's the pleasure of the Commission, we could go that route.
We prefer the concrete because we think it has a longer lasting
appearance than the pavers. They have a tendency to not stay
level.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I guess I'm going to champion my thought. We put them
in a lot of different spots. I don't argue with what you're saying,
but I would like to see pavers there.
Mr. Tiseo:
Again, if that's the pleasure of the commission, we'll gladly
comply with that.
Mr. Morrow:
And secondly, has there been a change to the elevations since
we last mel? Is it illustrated up here?
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes, it has, and Kimberly can address that.
Kimberly Lapinski,
Project Manager, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington
Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. What we did with the
elevations, we look into consideration all the comments that
were given at the study session. What we did, as you can see
from the drug store elevations, it's also representative on the
other three buildings, is we picked a few spots along the
prominent elevations facing Eight Mile Road and Farmington
May 29, 2007
24047
Road, what we did to give them some relief was to extend it out
another four inches. What this did was it gave more depth and
relief to the building elevations, a little bit more visual interest
while still maintaining the original concept of emphasizing the
horizontal to keep the mass scale down.
Mr. Morrow: Those are the perpendicular ones. Could you point that out?
Ms. Lapinski: Right here, this comes out, this area. You can see by the
shadow lines here. This part would come out here and then this
part here as well as the entrance.
Mr. Morrow: So there's some relief in there?
Ms.
Lapinski:
Yes.
Mr.
Morrow:
And those vertical lines going up, are they brick?
Ms.
Lapinski:
Yes. That's actually the relief. This section of brick - what we're
doing is laking the building and moving it out.
Mr.
Morrow:
Its not brick or anything.
Ms.
Lapinski:
No, that's just the shadow effect.
Mr. Morrow: That's the only change?
Ms. Lapinski: On the drugstore, yes. And then we made similar changes to
the bank and the retail space as well.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley: I have a question on Retail C. Is that the west elevation, Mark,
or east? I think we went through this at the study session but
maybe for the audience, the reason there's not a window or a
thing on there is that for the future you may build onto that?
Mr. Tiseo: Its actually a code requirement. Its at the lot line. You can't
have an opening in a fire wall. It's required to be a fire wall.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: I do appreciate the improvements to the building. That is what
we talked about, addressing some relief. I do like that. I do
have a question. Is the brick a panel brick system or is that
regular single bricks?
May 29, 2007
24048
Ms. Lapinski:
It's modular bricks. It's a full four -inch brick. As you can see,
there are two different colors. The one on the bottom would be
the darker color represented in the renderings. On the top, the
same four inch modular would be the lighter color represented.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And the piece in the middle represents the top?
Ms. Lapinski:
That will represent the precast cell that splits the darker and
lighter brick as well as the precast panels at the top of the
buildings.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I do appreciate bringing those sample boards here so we can
see that. I do have a question. There was an issue raised by
the neighbor to the south, the ALAR property, regarding access
between your site and theirs, and there was discussion about
possibly having a banner or small wall to separate that. Has that
been addressed?
Ms. Lapinski:
Yes. We show a metal guardrail there. We didn't think a wall
was necessary and we thought it would take a lot more abuse.
So we proposed a metal guardrail to keep any cross access
traffic of out there. If you look down to the south, there's an
existing metal guardrail, and we would be proposing to match
that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I see. It looks good. I spoke to Mr. Taormina about the need for
the retention basin to have guardrail around it. As Mr. Taormina
indicated, as long as we keep a slope of 6 to 1 or greater, we
can avoid that. Can that be done?
Ms. Lapinski:
Yes. That is our inlenfion.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. And the other question is about the site
lighting. I know the plan does address some site lighting. I
assume those are going to be shielded lights that will not stray
into any neighboring properties?
Ms. Lapinski:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. That's all I have for now. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Its not really a question, but if you could just comment on the
wall to the south that borders the residential. I think that's a
concrete wall there. Can you explain that a little bit?
Ms. Lapinski:
That's existing.
Mr. Morrow:
That is existing?
May 29, 2007
24049
Ms. Lapinski:
Yes. We're just keeping it.
Mr. Morrow:
Does it need repair?
Ms. Lapinski:
I believe it's in excellent shape.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. So if it's in excellent shape, it will remain that way. If it
needs some care, you'll lake care of it.
Ms. Lapinski:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Adrlana Liberatore, 7030 Commerce Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48324.
I'm the neighbor to the south. I have some pictures over here.
For some reason, they tell a whole lot of story, which is hard to
visualize without being aware. I have some plans that are color
coded that address the issues that I'd like to pass out so you
can better understand what is taking place over there.
Mr. Walsh:
Sure. If you'll just hand them to Marge, she'll pass them along
to us.
Ms. Liberatore:
The ones in the folder are duplicate sets so that more than one
person can look at them.
Mr. Walsh:
We can share if that's necessary. I'm going to allow you to walk
us through this, but this is an awful lot of material. If you can
describe what you're trying to do, that would be good.
Ms. Liberatore:
If you look at the plan that I gave you, which is a copy from Mr.
Tiseo, I color coded it. First of all, I want to thank you for the
opportunity and I'm looking for some help here. If you look at
the pictures that have green next to them, they address what is
existing there now as far as the obstruction in relation to the
building. If we can maintain that, that would be absolutely totally
super. I have some green marked next to the building. And the
issue over there, I'm concerned about the root structure of the
trees that might be planted there since I don't know. I would
hate to have the root system undermine the foundations that
have been there since 1980. It's fairly simple. So I don't know
what recommendation you would have with that. If anything can
be suggested that would be deeply appreciated. The one that's
color coded yellow and if you go in the back of the building,
May 29, 2007
24050
there's some yellow lines over there. The elevations appear to
be slightly higher than mine, and so I don't see where the water
is going to go other than downhill. So if something could be
addressed there, that would be great. The drive thru, if you look
at the color coded orange, that would designate what would
happen to the drive from Farmington Road and how they would
access their property. The blue line that shows on the print
would be the traffic flow that their customers and semi -trucks
would follow. I'm not sure what the requirements are and I'm a
little confused. On the one side it's 35 feet and then its reduced
to 25 feel. Where its 25 feel, it also has a canopy where
customers pick up their supplies, so I'm not sure how good that
is. I have a purple in the back of the building. If you look on the
picture, that shows in relation to my building the safely issue
that I have. People that come in and out of that building are five
feet away from cars. Okay? I'm not sure that a guardrail is
quite appropriate over there. There is a small pink dot that
shows the transformer that I'm so concerned about because this
being Michigan, and you're making that comer, I would hate to
have somebody slip and run right into that. So that really is ...
the rest of them, you know, if I can gel some relief, that would
be great. But the really two major issues is the purple line, the
safety over there, and protecting the transformer pad. There is
also one more issue that came up today in relation to the
survey. I had hoped to bring you a copy of d. They said I
needed to file a form for a Freedom of Information Act and that
would take 10 days, but I have a copy here of the notes. What
happened was, back in '96, the Green Grocery was complaining
that my water was causing problems in their basement. So the
city made me redo the sidewalk that had been there for 20
years. So what we're faced with now is a foot of it is going to be
on their properly. Okay. First of all, the surveys are off a little
bit but I'm not concerned with inches. But how is that going to
be addressed? Am I going to have to replace the sidewalk one
more time because of other people's action or can I get some
relief here? You know, maybe cul it with a saw cut or
something so that I dont have to replace the sidewalk one more
time. It was Inspection Department #9616151 dated 9-6-96,
and it said, "redirect roof discharge water so it does not enter
adjoining properties and so it reaches approved drain BOCA
P.M. 1993 303.2 Zoning 543 Section 18.04. Further letter dated
10-256 from John J. Fegan, Director. Violation of the
requirements of Livonia Code of Ordinance 12.12.040A and
12.12.050 of the compiled ordinance of the City of Livonia, 1993
BOCA P.M. 304.2 and ... "
Mr. Walsh: We won't need the whole letter. If you could just share that with
Marge. I think we can address a few of these things. In terms
May 29, 2007
24051
of your drainage runoff, that will, as we indicated at the study
session, be handled by the Engineering Division in accordance
with Wayne County code. Wayne County requires that any
development retain all the water on their properly.
Ms. Liberatore:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
In terms of the drive-thru traffic, as I look at the plan, with the
addifion of the new barrier and the existing banner, there is not
the ability for traffic to drive through the parking lot that services
the existing building and the proposed buildings so that cars will
be able to gel through there. The transformer protection - we've
had a review and request from our Inspection Department and
our Police Department and they've not made any note. They
would normally make a notation if there was some safelyissue,
and they've not made that. We've relied on their opinions for
other clients.
Ms. Liberatore:
Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt, but as you can see on the pictures,
its rather evident that there is going to be a problem there.
Mr. Walsh:
I'll leave it to my colleagues to accept your pictures in their vole
and/or the Police Department and Inspection Department's
review. They'll have to reach their own decision on that.
Ms. Liberatore:
Okay, then what about the purple pedestrian safety in the back
ofthe building? What's going to be done over there?
Mr. Walsh:
Again, that will be up to individual voting as to whether or not
that's a safety issue as you indicated or to place our trust in the
Police Department and Inspection Department review of the
same.
Ms. Liberatore:
So it would be the Police Department that would address that?
Mr. Walsh:
They've given us recommendations that we will incorporate into
our resolutions. They did not raise that as a concern, nor did
the Inspection Department. Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I just want to point out that the guardrail as identified on this
plan is going to extend along the area that she's referring to.
Currently, the Village Florist building comes right to this properly
line. Its very dose to the property line, both along the west and
along the south. Then there's a sidewalk which separates the
Village Florist building from her building. So this is about a five
fool wide walkway that I think she's referring to in terms of her
concern relative to safety. I think another issue involving
drainage. But as you can see from this diagram, this guardrail
May 29, 2007
24052
would be installed to separate the driveway from the sidewalk
and the building, as well as along the south property line to
additionally protect the existing transformer. Maybe Mr. Tiseo
could provide additional information regarding that and the type
of safely structure that is proposed.
Ms. Liberatore:
I hale to interrupt one more time ...
Mr. Walsh:
Just a moment. I'll let you make your point and then we'll go to
Mr. Tiseo.
Ms. Liberatore:
Okay. I'm concerned because in the past things have happened
that shouldn't have happen. The building that exists there now,
which is the Green Grocery, is actually sitting on a Michigan Bell
easement. When I found out and I wasn't aware before when it
happened, when I saw the foundations going in, I was told it
was too late to do anything about it. So I want to make sure
things are properly addressed and they're not made light of
because once it's done, it's done.
Mr. Walsh:
We understand that and we try to lake into account your
comments, previously and tonight.
Ms. Liberatore:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Tiseo, is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Tiseo:
We believe that the guardrail would be sufficient to protect
pedestrians and cars and transformers. Again, its going to be
very similar to the one that's already existing now on the
property. It's worked fine for there. I dont see why it wouldn't
work fine for this location.
Mr. Morrow:
Could I ask one question. Where the transformer is, you've got
a vertical line and a horizontal line. Does that denote anything?
Mr. Walsh:
Right in front of the transformer?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. The line that goes above the transformer.
Mr. Walsh:
One goes north and one goes east.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The little dashes.
Mr. Morrow:
Does that denote anything?
May 29, 2007
24053
Mr. Tiseo:
I don't believe so. You're looking at a landscaping plan. I'm
sorry. If you had the architectural, it would be easier. What
lines are you referring lo?
Mr. Morrow:
Rightthere.
Mr. Tiseo
Oh. Those are arrow lines. Those are arrowheads.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Well, I couldn't see the arrowhead.
Mr. Tiseo:
Those are the arrowheads. I'm sorry. Its new technology.
That's what they show.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I can see that other line now, but it looked like some kind
of a wall or something. Okay. Thank you. That cleared that up.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Good evening/
Michael Pe@eys, 20411 Shadyside. I'm the property that is directly south of the
wall. I mel with the architect and I look a look at his plans. He's
addressed all my concerns, and I'm quite pleased and happy
with what he's showed me so far. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, may I point out one additional item?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
In response to the concerns that Ms. Liberatore indicated about
obstruction, I believe she shows it on the plan as the landscape
obstruction and root system. The architect did remove one tree
that was located dose to her building to hopefully improve
visibility to her site. That's not something that was mentioned
previously, but it does reflect on the latest plans that were
submitted. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Tiseo?
Mr.Tiseo:
To add to that remark, thank you, Mark, I forgot to mention that
we contacted our landscape
architect. What he did to address
the concerns about visibility
is that he selected plant materials
that were lower in height than we had before so that it would not
obstruct it. Again, the obstruction is going to be cleared away
when you look at the fact that the gas station building will be
gone and the pump stations will be gone. But to address the
landscaping, we did use smaller materials in height.
May 29, 2007
24054
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Again, to my fellow commissioners, in the absence
of any additional questions or comments, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#05-48-2007 RESOLVED, that the City panning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-08-08
submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc., on behalf of Eight Mile
Place, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a multi -tenant building and obtain preliminary approval
for a drug store and bank branch with drive-thm operations on
properties located at 33215, 33239 and 33375 Eight Mile Road
and 20413 Shadyside Road, located on the south side of Eight
Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in
the Northwest ''/ of Section 3, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. Pl dated
May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. C-02 dated April
27, 2007, as revised, prepared by Engineering Services,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines
the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share
parking, be supplied to the City;
4. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2
both dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J.
Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except that brick pavers shall be used in lieu of
decorative concrete in the construction of the plaza;
5. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
6. With the exception of the rain garden and detention area,
all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding. 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;
May 29, 2007
24055
7. In regards to Retail 'C' only, the Exterior Building Elevation
Plan labeled "Branch Bank 'B' and Retail 'C' Elevations'
dated May 21, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
9. 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;
10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be of steel
construction and maintained and when not in use closed at
all times;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
12. That the Developer shall submit for approval an ongoing
mosquito control program, as approved by the Department
of Public Works describing maintenance operations and
larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection
Department prior to the construction of the slormwater
retention facility;
13. That the owner shall provide annual reports to the
Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide
treatments completed on the stornwater detention pond;
14. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
May 7, 2007;
May 29, 2007
24056
16. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
May 23, 2007
17. As shown on the approved plans, sidewalks shall be
installed along the right-of-way of this development;
18. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
19. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
20. 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
21. 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 peril is obtained this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley: Was there another landscape plan or changes to that one,
Mark, that he just referred lo?
Mr. Taormina: There may be an update. I don't think that's the correct date.
We're going to have to correct that based on the latest plan, and
that's going to apply also to the Site Plan and the Exterior
Building Elevations plans.
Ms. Smiley: Yes, because we saw all those at the study session.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. You're right. The dates are going to have to be updated.
Mr. Walsh: So for purposes of this, we'll use the updated plans that we saw
on the screens tonight.
Mr. Taormina : Correct.
Mr. Walsh: Is there support for the motion?
ITEM #2 PETITION 2007-04-0244 TISEO - DRUGSTORE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
04-02-14 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate a drugstore with a drive -
up window facility at 33375 Eight Mile Road, located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3.
Mr. Walsh: Since this is related to Item 1, 1 think we can go straight to the
issue at hand.
May 29, 2007
24057
Mr. Morrow:
I will support that if the maker of the motion will add brick pavers
to the plaza area at the corner of Farmington and Eight Mile
Roads.
Ms. Smiley:
I'll be glad to do that. Is that a separate number?
Mr. Morrow:
We'll just make it a separate number.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, is that okay?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, that's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
There is a motion on the table, supported by Mr. Morrow. Is
there any additional discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just want to make the comment that I think that this is a vast
improvement over what is currently there. The Village Green
Florist is not the most attractive facility that we have in the city at
the moment. To remove a gas station and offer this
consolidated package of three buildings that are consistent in
appearance with each other and also add the pedestrian plaza
at the corner, which certainly improves the aesthetics of the
area, is a nice change. I would have liked to have seen Lot 17,
the property directly to the east, incorporated into this
development in some way, but as I understand it, the way that
the property is being developed hopefully something can come
of Lot 17 in the future that could tie into the Retail C building,
which is right on the property line. With that, I certainly do agree
that this should be supported.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2007-04-0244 TISEO - DRUGSTORE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
04-02-14 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate a drugstore with a drive -
up window facility at 33375 Eight Mile Road, located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3.
Mr. Walsh: Since this is related to Item 1, 1 think we can go straight to the
issue at hand.
May 29, 2007
24058
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 3, 2007, which reads as
follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention facilities
have been shown and will be required in accordance with
Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. This
section of Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Road
Commission for Oakland County and the drive approaches will
require approval from them. The legal description as shown on
the plans at this time for the entire site is coned and no
additional right -0f -way is required. A lot combination and split
may be required for this development. Our records indicate that
the current addresses for the development are 33215, 33239
and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside, but may be
changed if the property is split." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2007, which reads
as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a drug store, branch
bank, and mufti -tenant retail building on property located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) If
subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, an onaite hydrant shall be located between 50
feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2)
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing
consistent with the use group. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be
consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Access around
building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius
of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6
inches. (5) Any curves or comers shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall
and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (6) Please
provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for review."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15,
2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May
1, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) No signage has been reviewed. (2) The
traffic lane at the drive -up window must be 12 feet wide. This
May 29, 2007
24059
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The
fourth letter is from Adkison, Need & Allen, PLLC, dated May
22, 2007, which reads as follows: "Our office represents ALAR,
LLC; the owner of property immediately south of the proposed
new development on the SE comer of 8 Mile Road and
Farmington Road in Livonia. Thanks for speaking with me this
morning. In advance of your study session with the planning
commission this evening, 1 wanted to confirm my client's
position on the items we discussed and mention a couple of
more that we did not discuss this morning. (1) My client is
concerned that the required landscape plantings in connection
with this project not have the effect of obscuring the ALAR
building from traffic on Farmington Road. (2) My client is
concerned that delivery truck and other traffic will use the ALAR
property as a cut through to the proposed new development.
For this reason we are requesting that the Planning Commission
require a 2 foot high brick wall be constructed to prevent cut -
through traffic. (3) My client is concerned that increased sheet -
flow storm water will come from the development parcel and
enter the ALAR property. The low brick wall we have suggested
above will prevent this from occurring. (4) My client is
concerned that delivery trucks will damage the transformer on
the ALAR property line. (5) My client is concerned about use of
the existing storm sewer and the possibility that flow from the
proposed dvelopment may adversely affect the ability of the
system to adequately drain the ALAR property. 1 have also
mentioned that survey stakes on the property line between the
ALAR property and the subject property appear to my client to
inaccurately place the boundary line between the two
properties. A surveyor has been retained to review this matter
and 1 will advise you of his findings. 1 expect to attend the
Planning Commission meeting where this plan will be
considered. 1 appreciate your assistance in addressing the
concems raised. I'll give you a call tomorrow to see how the
study session went." The letter is signed by Phillip G. Adkison.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will
return to Mr. Tiseo. Is there anything you'd like to add, or
should we go straight to questions?
Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. That covers it all. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
May 29, 2007
24050
Mr. Wilshaw: I assume signage for this drive-thru will be incorporated into the
total signage package when it is delivered to us.
Mr. Tiseo: That is correct.
Mr.Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close
the public hearing and a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#05-49-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petition 2007-04-02-14 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a
drugstore with a drive -up window facility at 33375 Eight Mile
Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest % of
Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-14 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. P1 dated
May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. C-02 dated April
27, 2007, as revised, prepared by Engineering Services,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines
the terms of how the subject property(s) would share
parking, be supplied to the City;
4. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2
both dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J.
Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except that brick pavers shall be used in lieu of
decorative concrete in the construction of the plaza;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan labeled
"Drugstore Retail 'A' Elevations' dated May 21, 2007, as
revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
May 29, 2007
24061
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
7. 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;
8. That the walls of the dumpsler and transformer unit
enclosures shall be constructed out of the same brick used
in the construction of the building or in the event a poured
wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall
match that of the building and the enclosure gales shall be
of steel construction and maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
9. That the traffic lane serving the drive -up service facility
shall be at least twelve (12) feel in width, unless this
requirement is modified by the City Council by means of a
separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of
the City Council concur;
10. That all conditions imposed under the Council resolution
approving Petition 2007-04-08-08, granfing site plan
approval for the eight Mile Place development, shall remain
in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this
approval;
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;
12. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
13. 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
14. 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.
May 29, 2007
24062
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2007-04-0245 TISEO-BANK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
04-02-15 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate a bank with drive -up
service facilities at 33215-33239 Eight Mile Road, located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3
Mr. Walsh: Again, this is related to Item 1. We've had a thorough
description. Mr. Taormina, if you could go straight to the
particular issue on this item.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 3, 2007, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention facilities
have been shown and will be required in accordance with
Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. This
section of Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the Road
Commission for Oakland County and the drive approaches will
require approval from them. The legal description as shown on
the plans at this time for the entire site is craned and no
additional right of way is required. A lot combination and split
may be required for this development. Our records indicate that
the current addresses for the development are 33215, 33239
and 33375 Eight Mile Road and 20413 Shadyside, but may be
changed if the property is split." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 7, 2007, which reads
as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
May 29, 2007
24063
connection with a request to construct a drug store, branch
bank, and multi -tenant retail building on property located on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest X of Section 3. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations (1) If
subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, an on-site hydrant shall be located between 50
feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2)
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing
consistent with the use group. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be
consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Access around
building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius
of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6
inches. (5) Any curves or corners shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall
and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (6) Please
provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for review."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15,
2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May
1, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) All traffic lanes serving a drive -up window
must be 12 feet wide. (2) No signage has been reviewed. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The
next letter is from Adkison, Need & Allen, PLLC, dated May 22,
2007, which reads as follows: "Our office represents ALAR,
LLC, the owner of property immediately south of the proposed
new development on the SE corner of 8 Mile Road and
Farmington Road in Livonia. Thanks for speaking with me this
morning. In advance of your study session with the planning
commission this evening, 1 wanted to confirm my client's
position on the items we discussed and mention a couple of
more that we did not discuss this morning. (1) My client is
concerned that the required landscape plantings in connection
with this project not have the effect of obscuring the ALAR
building from traffic on Farmington Road. (2) My client is
concerned that delivery truck and other traffic will use the ALAR
property as a cut through to the proposed new development.
For this reason we are requesting that the Planning Commission
require a 2 foot high brick wall be constructed to prevent cut -
through traffic. (3) My client is concerned that increased sheet -
flow storm water will come from the development parcel and
enter the ALAR property. The low brick wall we have suggested
above will prevent this from occurring. (4) My client is
concerned that delivery trucks will damage the transformer on
the ALAR property line. (5) My client is concerned about use of
May 29, 2007
24064
the existing storm sewer and the possibility that flow from the
proposed development may adversely affect the ability of the
system to adequately drain the ALAR property. 1 have also
mentioned that survey stakes on the property line between the
ALAR property and the subject property appear to my client to
inaccurately place the boundary line between the two
properties. A surveyor has been retained to review this matter
and 1 will advise you of his findings. 1 expect to attend the
Planning Commission meeting where this plan will be
considered. 1 appreciate your assistance in addressing the
concems mised. I'll give you a call tomorrow to see how the
study session went The letter is signed by Phillip G. Adkison.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will
invite Mr. Tiseo back to the podium. Any comments or straight
to questions again?
Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 9815 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. Again, Mark said it all.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
The ATM is right next to the bank, right?
Mr. Tiseo:
Its in the bank. You don't have an actual window used any
more by tellers. That lane closest to the bank itself, that is just a
night deposit as well as an ATM. It's a drive -up.
Mr. Walsh:
There is no window for the tellers to look through?
Mr. Tiseo:
I should correct myself. There is a window but not a drawer.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Very good. I understand.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close
the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make an approving resolution on one
condition that all prior conditions from the previous one be read
into the record with the exception that it pertains to the branch
bank and not the drug store.
Mr. Walsh:
Are they similar in nature?
Mr. Taormina:
They are. We would make one change and that involves
Condition 8.
May 29, 2007
24065
Mr. Morrow: Conditions 5 and 8.
Mr. Taormina: Actually, I think Condition 5 is still okay. We would append to
the end of Condition 8, that unless this requirement is modified
by a super majority vole of the City Council. What we are
referring to is the requirement that all the lanes be 12 feet in
width. In order for him to reduce that because that is a special
requirement of the waiver use, it would require a separate
resolution and approval by the Council that would modify that
condition.
Mr. Morrow:
So if I read in Condition 8, that would take care of it?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. That's correct, and what you would include is: Unless this
requirement is modified by a super majority vole of the City
Council.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Then that's what I'll do.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0530-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 9, 2007, on
Petition 2007-04-02-15 submitted by Tiseo Architects, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a bank
with drive -up service facilities at 33215-33239 Eight Mile Road,
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington Road and Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of
Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-15 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Schematic Site Plan marked Sheet No. Pl dated
May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. C-02 dated April
27, 2007, as revised, prepared by Engineering Services,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines
the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share
parking, be supplied to the City;
4. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L-1 and L-2
both dated May 25, 2007, as revised, prepared by E.J.
May 29, 2007
24066
Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except that brick pavers shall be used in lieu of
decorative concrete in the construction of the plaza;
5. In regards to Branch Bank 'B' only, the Exterior Building
Elevation Plan labeled "Branch Bank 'B' and Retail 'C'
Elevations" dated May 21, 2007, as revised, prepared by
Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
7. 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;
8. That the traffic lanes serving the cinve-up service facilities
shall each be at least twelve (12) feet in width, unless this
requirement is modified by the City Council by means of a
separate resolution by which two-thirds of the members of
the City Council concur;
9. That all conditions imposed under the Council resolution
approving Petition 2007-04-08-08, granting site plan
approval for the Eight Mile Place development, shall
remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict
with this approval;
10. 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;
11. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
12. 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,
13. 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.
May 29, 2007
24067
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: So what we have is a resolution that is substantially similar.
Just so the audience and the petitioner understands, Mr.
Morrow, in an effort to avoid re -reading a lengthy resolution a
second time, is accepting the language from the prior resolution
and modifying it to this particular use and changing Condition 8
for the purposes of lane width.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2007-03-01-02 MASOUD SHANGO
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-01-02 submitted by Masoud Shango requesting to rezone
property at 13820-13840 Merriman Road and 31281 Schoolcraft
Road, located on the south side of Schoolcraft east of Merriman
Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 26 from OS to C-2.
Mr. Walsh: We need to remove this item from the table.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0531-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2007-03-01-02 submitted by Masoud
Shango requesting to rezone properly at 13820-13840
Merriman Road and 31281 Schoolcraft Road, located on the
south side of Schoolcraft east of Merriman Road in the
Northwest'''/ of Section 26 from OS to G2, be removed from
the table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
May 29, 2007
24068
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 2, 2007, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. No additional right-of-
way is required. The legal description does not mathematically
close. We believe the last dimension should be 95.80 feet
instead of 94.62." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the petitioner,
Masoud Shango, dated May 29, 2007, which reads as follows:
"This letter is written to further explain my reasoning for
requesting this proposed change in zoning than what is set forth
in the above -referenced petition. The building is vacant and it
has been vacant for nearly six months. We advertised the
building as available to lease as soon as we became aware that
our tenant was leaving. To date there has been no interest in
leasing the building for office purposes. The only interest has
been for this proposed purpose of a drive thru donut shop. We
believe we have made a good faith effort to again lease the
property for office services. There seems to be an abundant
amount of vacant office space and office buildings available in
the City of Livonia and the adjoining communities. In pursuing
the matter of leasing my building to this prospective tenant, we
met with the City of Livonia Building and Zoning Department.
There we were advised of the need to rezone the property to C-
Z General Commercial. It was also explained that the City
Planning Commission's Master Land Use Plan has designated
the property as Commercial. In submitting this rezoning
petition, it was our thought that we were doing what the
Planning Commission wanted since the Planning Commission's
Master Land Use Plan designates the subject property as
CommerciaL Also, the prior use of the property was by an
insurance agency and their use, in our opinion, may be
considered quasi -commercial due to the sale of insurance
policies. Another factor to be considered is the small size of the
subject property. Being so small in lot area in comparison to the
surrounding properties in the area, this expansion in commercial
zoning should have little, if any, impact on the surrounding and
neighboring properties. Also, all of these related properties are
zoned Commercial or Industrial. Another point regarding the
small area of the subject property is that from a practical
standpoint, there is little application for industrial use. The front
yard and rear yard setback requirements would leave very little
buildable lot area for the an industrial building. As with offices,
there seems to be an overabundant amount of vacant industrial
space and buildings available in the Livonia market. In closing 1
thank you for taking the time to read this letter as I feel
somewhat restricted and uncomfortable speaking in public.
May 29, 2007
24069
Again, thank you for your support of my request." The letter is
signed Masoud Shango, Owner. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
On the Future Land Use, is that consistent with what he's
requesting?
Mr. Nowak:
The Future Land Use Plan designates an area in the southeast
corner that's commercial, but its difficult to determine the extent
of how much land area they're actually recommending for
commercial use.
Mr. Walsh:
So the Plan doesn't specify by acreage, but it indicates that
corner to be commercial.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct. The Plan, as you know, is a general guide for
development purposes. Its not necessarily site specific or
necessarily coincides with any property bounderies.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for staff? I understand from
the petitioner who is in the audience that he does not wish to
speak this evening. We can respect that and rely on his letter
and any input we may receive from the public.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess we're going into discussion?
Mr. Walsh:
I have to go to the audience first. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, I would prefer to have a motion
on the floor before we begin discussion.
Mr. Morrow:
The reason I say this is because this is strictly a zoning issue.
Where I may find fault with the actual site plan and waiver as
presented here tonight, this could change between now and
when we consider the site plan. He's giving us an idea of what
he wants to do. So I know as one commissioner I'd like to just
confine it to whether or not we think G2 is appropriate at that
location.
Mr. Walsh:
An excellent comment made at the right time. Is there any
further discussion or is there a motion? Calling for a motion
again.
May 29, 2007
24070
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0532-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petition 2007-03-01-02 submitted by Masoud Shango
requesting to rezone property at 13820-13840 Merriman Road
and 31281 SchoolcraR Road, located on the south side of
SchoolcraR east of Merriman Road in the Northwest % of
Section 26 from OS to C-2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-03-01-
02 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
existing zoning on other similarly situated properties in the
vicinity of the SchoolcraR Road and Merriman Road
intersection;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will not be detrimental
to the surrounding land uses in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
orderly and efficient development and use of the subject
property in a manner that will be complementary to the
existing development on the adjacent property to the west;
and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide
opportunities for a greater variety of uses to serve the area
as well as the City as a whole.
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. Walsh: Is there any discussion? I will add my comments to those of Mr.
Morrow. I do agree that this is for zoning purposes. I think its
the right choice, but I will withhold judgment until we see an
actual site plan in terms of whether or not it's the appropriate
building and design.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
May 29, 2007
24071
ITEM #5 PETITION 2007-03-02-07 NEW CAR ALTERNATIVES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
03-02-07 submitted by Stacy Services, Inc. d/b/a New Car
Alternatives requesting waiver use approval to expand the
operations of an existing automobile dealership to include the
outdoor display, sales and service of recreational vehicles at
34715 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the
Northwest %of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 25, 2007, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
for the waiver petition follows. An additional 27 feet of right-of-
way is required adjacent to Lot 6 and should be dedicated to the
Michigan Department of Transportation. The address of the
three parcels is 34715, 34733 and 34803 Plymouth Road." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
March 26, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
expand the operations of an existing automobile dealership to
include outdoor display, sales and service of recreational
vehicles on property located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the
Northwest X of Section 33. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fester, Fire Inspector.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 8, 2007,
which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in
connection with New Car Alternative/Stacy Services, Inc.
located at 34803 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 9, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 23,
2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The site plan submitted for the RV
parking area shows a gate to be installed on the north side of
the Petitioner's property that will allow access to an adjoining
May 29, 2007
24072
property. There appears to be no cross agreement or shared
easement between the Petitioner and the adjoining property
owner (34801 Plymouth). The Commission and/or Council may
wish to consider requiring the appropriate agreement be
executed between the properties stated above and provided to
the City or the removal of the gate. (2) The parking lot of this
property does not appear to be property double striped per our
ordinance. Barrier free spaces must also be provided and
property signed, sized and marked. (3) The Commission and/or
Council may wish to reiterate that previous Council resolutions
prohibited parking or standing of delivery trucks and car haulers
on Laurel Avenue and that all loading and unloading of vehicles
shall be accomplished on premises only and not within right -0f -
ways. (4) The area used for open air display must be provided
with lighting during the hours that the display is closed for
business. Lighting provided must beat least one watt per each
square yard of display area and a maximum of one and a half
watts per each square yard of display area. Lighting shall be
hooded or shielded so as to be deflected frem adjacent
residential property. (5) A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals is required for electronic signs. (6) The total area and
height of monument sign presented appears to be in compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance. Any increase in height or area
would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (7)
The proposed ground sign must be located at least 10 feet frem
any right -0f -way line. Existing ground sign must be removed.
(8) Planning and/or Council may wish to consider what the
hours of operation will be for the proposed site so as not to have
any negative affects on the adjoining residential neighborhood.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Building Inspector. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go
to the petitioner. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Alan D. Tansk, Stacy Services, Inc. d/b/a New Car Alternatives, 34715 Plymouth
Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. My wife is with
me. She is my business partner, and we're trying to expand our
business for the changing times that we're experiencing after 12
years of a lot of fun in Livonia. If there are any questions I can
answer, I would be more than happy to do so.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
May 29, 2007
24073
Ms. Vartoogian:
One of the things you want to include in the storage area is
RVs. What type of RVs? The school bus type of RVs or are
theysmaller?
Mr. Tanski:
RVs would consist of anything 33 feel and less. They do make
them bigger than that, but our service facility wouldn't be able to
service anything bigger. So we were going to be targeting the
33 fool or less in length RVs.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Are people going to be able to come to your store and test drive
these?
Mr. Tanski:
There is test driving. Most people want to test drive a vehicle in
the car business. I would think that at some time and point I
was buying something expensive, I would want to drive it. Yes,
I would encourage that. We do that with the cars that we sell
now. All people want to take it for a ride before they buy.
Ms. Vartoogian:
My next question is, where would they exit the parking lot?
Mr. Tanski:
He had mentioned that there is no agreement. There is an
easement, which would be produced on the north entrance
between going through the donut shop. If you notice the
property lines, I gave up part of my parking and my lot line to the
donut shop when we had that rezoned in 2003. We made some
concessions. They made some concessions to solidity that
easement that goes between Plymouth Road, his parking lot
and my property line. There is an agreement, which I will
provide, for using that exit. That would be one of the exits. As
you notice, there is also going to be an exit between the building
and the property line to the north, and also one on Laurel Drive.
We have a no lett turn sign. We police that heavily. We had a
problem in the past with people going up and down the street,
people worried about the kids playing and stuff. Its not a perfect
world. We try awful hard but we have had zero complaints in
the Iasi three solid years because its been a big priority not to
go down the side street.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Do you believe that there is enough width to those lanes for
perhaps a new driver to an RV to be able to drive through
there?
Mr. Tanski:
Well, we would use discretion. If someone hasn't driven one,
one of the sales associates who has experience, as myself,
would take it to a place where we dont want to cause damage
to the unit either. We don't want to put it at risk or the person
driving it at risk. You know, there's people who come in who
have never driven a stick shift car. We dont say here's the keys
May 29, 2007
24074
and take off. We lake them to a secure area - usually the
Burrows parking lot in Plymouth - and then we let them
familiarize themselves with it. Right. It's a good point. You
can't say, here you go. You have to use some discretion.
Ms. Vartoogian:
And my last question, how tall are the RVs typically?
Mr. Tanski:
RVs are around 9 feet, 11 feet would be the tallest. That's not
the actual size of the cab, but sometimes they have rooftop air
conditioners which would take them to the maximum. Our
facility has 14 foot doors to service those. The ones over 33
feet and taller we couldn't accommodate. And of course, what
we sell we're going to want to service. So we're definitely going
to stay in the realm of what we can do. It makes people happier
if you can sell everything you can sell, but deliver everything
you've sold.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
You mentioned service. Do you do any type of service work
outside the facility?
Mr. Tanski:
Absolutely not. None. I guess if we change a light bulb outside,
I guess that would be a non -truthful statement.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I think you know what I'm saying.
Mr. Tanski:
Yeah, nothing like an oil change.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything mechanical?
Mr. Tanski:
Absolutely not. There's OSHA. There's a lot more people
watching than just you guys. So you have to accommodate.
You have to have it in the proper place. It has to be properly lit.
The hoist has to look the proper size. It's not a floor jack. We
don't take any chances. That's not saying that we have, but
when I find out about it, it's curtailed right there.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you have any kind of a PA system set up there?
Mr. Tanski:
We have had a PA system but that has been removed. It was a
real touchy thing. There is no PA system outside at all.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. McDermott:
Could you describe the sign that you're proposing that currently
doesn't fit with our requirements?
May 29, 2007
24075
Mr. Tanski:
I did a lot of research on this and I've taken a lot of pictures,
which I haven't brought to this meeting because I didn't want to
be forceful. I have a sign now on the property that uses plastic
letters. It's quite antiquated. Back in the late 90's it was
something we got by with. I could change the message on the
sign. The problem with the sign is that the kids in the
neighborhood come and put swear words and all kinds of
different things. It's just aggravating as heck. So what I'm
proposing is the same type of sign but that sign would be
electronically controlled inside the building. I will not buy the
program that would make the sign move. The sign would be
changed once a day at midnight if I was that efficient. I wish I
could say I was. I dont even change my phone message on my
machine each day. But that would be the purpose - to eliminate
and to update ourselves into the 20"' Century. The electronic
sign letters would match the same size letters that I'm using
now that are not digital. They are plastic shielded letters. The
signage square footage is exactly the same size as the sign that
I have now. We are proposing to move it on to the western side
of the properly instead of right in front of the dealership for more
exposure because that's where the cars are displayed. Did I
answer your question good enough? I have a picture which is
better than they have if you'd like to see it but it's not in color
either but it gives the dimensions. But more importantly, the gas
stations around town who display their gasoline prices on a
digital display sign, I'm fully aware that moving parts of the sign
are not legal. I am not proposing to that in any way, fashion or
shape or form. What I'm just trying to do is be more efficient
and have a more modem sign than what I have now. I do have
a clock in my sign now, which we were going to propose
keeping a digital display of time if that would be okay. A lot of
people notice the sign because of the clock. I know when I was
kid I would always see that clock sign at the bank, and I knew I
was late under curfew. But I knew what place that bank was,
the Michigan National Bank on the comer of Sheldon and Ann
Arbor Roads. So that's why I wanted that effect so people could
make that sign part of the community not just for my business.
But hey, what time is it? Am I Tale for work? That type of thing.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The diagram that we have of the sign currently shows a picture
of a car on it. Is that something you're going to do or just have
lettering? Is there going to be graphics?
Mr. Tanski:
That's a good question. I think that's a stationary,
interchangeable piece that could be a car, it could be a motor
home, it could be a person. It's not digital. It's not a lighted
May 29, 2007
24076
refraction of a car. It's a solid piece that's interchangeable. So
the answer to your question is, yes, but no, because it couldn't
be moved unless it was physically removed. The part off to the
side where it says "quality", those are the digital display parts
that could change or would change. Like I had said, I would not
buy, which would save quite a bit of money, not buying the
computer program, and the other type of sign that would show
something moving. Its quite a bit more money, and it doesn't fit
in the City of Livonia, and I understand that. That's why I
propose not to use it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Currently on your site you have a handful of boats that
are silting there on trailers, which is not permitted currently.
Why are those there?
Mr. Tanski:
I didn't know they weren't permitted because they weren't for
sale, but there's only one lett.
Mr.Wilshaw:
They're just there for storage?
Mr. Tanski:
One was for buying. One was the service manager's. I guess
the answer to your question was yes. Now that the weather's
broke, they have been moved.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So those were not for sale?
Mr. Tanski:
They were for sale. Absolutely, and we did sell one.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Tanski:
We sold a little jet boat that was up there. In my other zoning,
I'm not allowed a dump truck or any other type of thing on the
front line. That's why I'm here today so I can display instead of
keeping it out back.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I see. Okay. Now, you talked about servicing RVs. Are you
also going to service boats and these other recreational
vehicles?
Mr. Tanski:
My plans are to service boats and snowmobiles. I'm not going
to be in the motorcycle business because of the liability to sell.
It's really quite funny when somebody buys a snowmobile, they
don't drive it. It's incredible. My research has showed me that
the recreational vehicles - I know it's hard to believe with the
cost of gasoline - last year it was up 13 percent. This year its
already up 19 percent. So people are spending their money. I
have a beautiful location. I cant fill it up with cars because that
industry has changed, so I'm trying to keep my business in lad
May 29, 2007
24077
by offering a different service to the community, and there isn't
one around.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. This fence that we see that is going around your properly
appears to be, from the diagram at least, something along the
lines of a wrought iron type fence that's not solid. You'd be able
to see through it. Is that the case?
Mr. Tanski:
That's correct. I was at the Ralph Thayer meetings and it's
going to mirror his fence that faces the north side of Plymouth
Road, a decorated brick imposed with a capping of limestone.
Yes, nicely decorated, not a lattice-type ugly fence.
Mr. Wilshaw:
It looks attractive. The last question I have is, currently when
you were parking vehicles in the back part of your area, you can
use basic parking spaces to do that. With RVs, boats and other
types of vehicles, they're all different sizes and shapes. How
are you going to manage parking those so they don't look
hodgepodge in the back?
Mr. Tanski:
I would only ask you to look at my previous track records why
that would be a concem. We're going to have a numbering
system and the car is going to be followed by a number. Each
parking space will be designated to the size of that number. Of
course, the smaller things would start - Mark, can you pull up
the other part of the - now if you could run that cursor along the
south wall, from the fence, Tel's go from east to the west. That
part there is going to be our 100 row, which would be the
smaller vehicles, the boats, the snowmobile-type trailers
shielding them behind the building also. They could also be
backed into the building side, which would still leave us 28 feet
of driving ability between a 14 fool boat and a 14 foot
motorcycle trailer because that's the maximum length they can
be. Of course, there would be smaller ones. If they were a
single place, there would be nothing larger than that. And then
the motor homes would go around the border, which we would
use kind of like a security thing too because when you put
something around the border, nothing can drive out. It's a little
bit more difficult. The lot has a camera. It has a complete video
surveillance on it, which can be controlled at my house. It isn't
in the best working condition because I've had some major
setbacks with my software. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. So you're going to have a striped parking lot with
designated spaces for the different types of vehicles.
May 29, 2007
24078
Mr. Tanski:
Thats correct. In the planning stages, I would ask for 90 days
or 120 days to figure out the proper configurations so that if t
needed to be changed, it could be changed.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I would like to see that at some point as opposed to just
having t in limbo. I think even the residents that live behind
there would also be curious which types of vehicles are going to
be parked closest to their property.
Mr. Tanski:
I have spoken with the people behind, three deep each side.
When I started this 12 years ago, I had some severe opposition.
I don't see anybody here so I believe my track record as a
responsible business owner on that street and a neighbor,
because I consider myself their neighbor. I dont know if you've
been by my place. My grass is green, I plant my flowers, I take
pride in my building. is clean because I want it to last. So I
hope I would further continue that responsibility to the city, to
the neighborhood and to myself.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
You haven had to a chance to discuss any of that with the
PRDA?
Mr. Tanski:
Who would be the PRDA?
Ms. Smiley:
The Plymouth Road Development Authority.
Mr. Tanski:
Briefly, no. I have not shared my plan with them. They are
wonderful to work with by the way.
Ms. Smiley:
I just wondered what they thought of your plan.
Mr. Tanski:
I thought I would gel past you guys first.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
I would like to know the days that you'll be selling those vehicles
and the hours.
Mr. Tanski:
I wish you hadn't asked that because right now we are open six
days a week. On June 1 through September 15, we close on
Saturdays but if I'm going to be in the recreational business, I
believe a Saturday would be the appropriate time to view those.
That's not etched in stone but I would request or I would state
that I would plan on being open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on
a Saturday. During the summer hours, which I'm not open now,
May 29, 2007
24079
but I am open during the spring, fall and winter. That would be
my plan.
Mr. Morrow:
Whatwould be the hours otherthan Saturday?
Mr. Tanski:
My hours are 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday and Thursday
and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.
We're closed on Sunday, and we would remain closed on
Sunday. A lot of RV places are not closed on Sunday but we
would be.
Mr. Morrow:
What activity would be going on? Obviously we've got some
concerns with the residential to the south. Mat would you
actually be doing in that Iotthat might cause a disturbance?
Mr. Tanski:
That was one of the reasons why we decided we would not
represent motorcycles because they lend to be loud, especially
the two cycle versions of them. I didn't want to gel involved in
that because of that reason and insurance purposes. I'd like to
tell you that we do everything right and perfect but its not a
perfect word. Like I said earlier, I don't know exactly what
would happen. Some motor homes have generators. I would
feel that I would be able to lest those generators away from my
neighbors directly behind us. I believe I've met every
requirement or every disagreement that he has had to his favor,
not to mine. So to answer your question, I would hope that I
would be able to continue in that light. I can't see anything
being different. I'm not going to run snowmobiles up and down
the street because we're not going to do that.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, my concern prmarly was, Tel's say you mentioned testing
a generator. Well, generally you can do that during the daytime
hours. I'm more concerned about maybe 6:00 p.m. to 9:00
p.m., what type of activity would be going on there? Would it
just be inspecting your RV's as opposed to taking them out?
Mr. Tanski:
I think the property is big enough, especially in the front. On the
west side of the building, there is a little square. Mark, can you
pull up that square right behind the donut shop. That square
right there would be my planned, get ready, show vehicle. You
know, if we were going to show a vehicle in stock, that's where
we would bring it to open up the doors and pull the canopy
down because if you're going to park next to each other, you
can't do that. So our plan was to use that area as the selling
floor basically. So we have the shield of the building to the
south that I believe would knock off any type of noise. Yet,
would someone run one up the back? Yep, I think I can control
that by saying, "Hey, look, after 6:00 p.m. we need to be all up
May 29, 2007
24080
front." Service is closed at 5:00 p.m. so there would be no need
for any type of repair after that hour for that reason. And we're
really good at that, and we do not have a full day Saturday
service hours. That only is in the winter.
Mr. Morrow:
So you are aware of your neighbors to the south?
Mr. Tanski:
Absolutely, and I think I can say, Mark, you've been involved a
lot with my neighbor. I think we've come to a great working
relationship. I owned the southwest comer before Thayer's did,
and that was just silting there vacant for years and years and
years. So I'd like to think that I made a contribution to my street.
Yes, I am aware of that and very much in play with what they
feel.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I have another question about the sign. What types of
messages do you plan on displaying on the sign?
Mr. Tanski:
We've used that sign for many different opportunities and
situations. I don't know if you've ever gone by there, but we
have signs praying for people. Several times we do advertise
specials. So your question is, I put up "fresh Florida cars"
before. I try to be sparkly with my expressions, and that's what I
would try to maintain. But we also use it for community events.
If someone would need to post something, we're willing to do
that. We have a kitchen inside the dealership. I'd invite you all
to lunch because it's going full time where people come and we
have meetings and we allow people to use our facility after they
buy a car. Its part of the community, not just, hey, you buy a
car and you're done. I would like to keep the sizzle type things
going. If there is something you would not want to see, if you
would tell me, I would entertain the fad if it was not right not to
put it up. You know, like when school starts, we always put out
.watch for the yellow school bus" We try to use the sign as a
community board because I want people to look at the sign to
see what's next. What is he pulling up there next? Its so
important to business to be part of that, and people have come
to know that sign for some sort of message. Because they call
and say can you put that on the sign? Well, I can't put that on
the sign but you know what I mean?
Ms. Vartoogian:
I have one other quick question. As far as the color scheme, I
notice you have apple green and then you plan on having red
letters. Have you ever considered another color for the letters?
May 29, 2007
24081
Mr. Tanski:
My wife hasn't gotten involved in that yet. That was my brother
and I. Yeah, we were kind of bright there, but you're right. It
needs to be a little bit more like maybe silver. If you saw the
colored picture of it, you would go wow.
Ms. Varloogian:
That's it. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
This electronic sign — how would you control the brightness of
the letters? Some of these can gel rather bright.
Mr. Tanski:
It has a dial control. There's a one through five scale, a six
through seven scale, and then off the charts. That's part of your
programming. I notice the gas stations are a little bright, but I
notice when theyre so bright they not legible. The Madonna
sign I think is very tastefully done. That's easy to read.
Although theirs is moving, mine would not be moving. But that
color of red and green that they're using, I think is acceptable
because I've noticed the brighter you gel, the more blurred it
seems to get no matter how big it is. So, yes, that would be a
concern.
Mr. Wilshaw:
As far as the display of these recreational vehicles in the front of
your building, what do you expect to see there? You're looking
to expand the display of recreational vehicles. What am I going
to see in the front of your building?
Mr. Tanski:
Mark, if you could please point to the north side of the building
where the greenbelts are, that would still be all cars. My display
area is going to be to the west behind the donut shop and then
down that area right there will all be display. I will not display in
the front of the building because of the logistics. It's light that
way and it would not work.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So I'm not going to see a boat on a trailer out in the front
of your building?
Mr. Tanski:
You will see it on the west side behind the donut shop property.
You also might see one in our staging area. Mark, south, the
lower south, the gate at the very back of the building. That area
there where we would be delivering things to people, setting up
the display.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Tanski:
You're welcome.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Tanski, I just want to make certain of something. Is the
Madonna sign similar to what you're proposing?
May 29, 2007
24082
Mr. Tanski:
No. Their block and type of sign is able to write sentences.
Mine won't be able to do that because I'm not buying that
program. Mine will be four block or four sentences.
Mr. Walsh:
When I looked at this, I had the vision of some kind of a flat
screen Las Vega style.
Mr. Tanski:
No. Its going to be the same concept as their sign.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. That's all I wanted to know. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Tanski:
That is cool, though.
Mr. Walsh:
That's what I had in my mind's eye and I appreciate the
clarification.
Mr. Tared
Ididn't think you guys would go for that.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward then, a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was
#0533-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petition 2007-03-02-07 submitted by Stacy Services, Inc. d/b/a
New Car Alternatives requesting waiver use approval to expand
the operations of an existing automobile dealership to include
the outdoor display, sales and service of recreational vehicles at
34715 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the
Northwest % of Section 33, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-03-02-
07 be approved subjectlolhe following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 submitted by INC
Alternatives/Stacy Services, dated January 25, 2007, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the proposed new additional plant materials shown on
the above -referenced Site Plan shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
3. That all landscaped areas shall be fully irrigated by means
of an automatic underground sprinkler system;
May 29, 2007
24083
4. That the Fence Elevation Plan marked Sheet C-2
submitted by INC Alternatives/Stacy Services, dated
January 25, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
That adequate offstreet parking shall be provided which
shall be sufficient to comply with the parking requirement
for customers and employees as set forth in Section 18.38
of the Zoning Ordinance, comprising no fewer than 37
parking spaces located in the parking areas east and south
of the building, and which shall be double -striped, including
the provision of barrier free spaces with proper signage,
marking and configuration, and all regular spaces shall be
10 feel by 20 feel in size as required;
6. That the outdoor display of recreational equipment shall be
limited to the westerly parking area as identified and
designated on the above -referenced Site Plan, which is
further defined as the west 174 feel of the dealership site,
and shall be continually maintained in an orderly manner;
7. That there shall be no outdoor storage of dismantled,
damaged or inoperable vehicles or equipment, and no
outdoor storage of vehicles parts, scrap material and
debris in connection with this use;
8. That adequate lighting, not exceeding 16 feel in height and
properly shielded so as to be deflected away from adjacent
residential property, shall be provided during the hours that
the display is closed for business;
9. For safety purposes, the parking or standing of delivery
trucks and car haulers on Laurel Avenue is strictly
prohibited. All vehicle loading and unloading at this
dealership shall be accomplished on the premises only,
and not within any public rlghl-0f way;
10. That documentation of an appropriate cross access or
easement agreement between the petitioner and the owner
of the adjoining property to the north shall be provided to
the City; otherwise, the gate leading to the property to the
north shall be eliminated;
11. That the Ground Monument Sign Plan prepared by Huron
Sign Co., dated March 25, 2006, with a total sign area of
30 square feet, is hereby approved, provided that the sign
is placed at least 10 feet from the Plymouth Road rlghtof-
May 29, 2007
24084
way, subject to a variance for the electronic message
component being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
and any condifions pertaining thereto;
12. That the electronic sign message shall not contain any
scrolling or moving messages or graphics, shall not flash,
blink, contain animated graphics, or intermittenfly change,
and the sign message shall not change more than one time
every 24 hours;
13. That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour
after this business closes;
14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
15. That all conditions imposed under Council Resolution
#182-03, which previously granted waiver use approval to
expand the subject dealership facility, shall remain in effect
to the extent that they are not in conflict with the condifions
of this approval; and
16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for the Zoning Compliance
Permit.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
May 29, 2007
24085
Mr. Taormina:
I just wanted to point out that Condition 6 of the resolution as
read would limit the display area to the westerly 174 feel of the
dealership site.
Ms. Smiley:
Not the south?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not the south. Let me explain the reason for that. The
previously approved site plan designates the parking area on
the east side of the bulding, as well as the area on the south
side of the building. Those are the 37 spaces that are required
under the ordinance for employees and for customers. Mr.
Tanski indicated this evening some desire to utilize this area for
snowmobiles. So I just want it clearly understood that the
resolution as prepared would limit the display area to the
westerly 174 feel, which generally coincides with this area that
I'm identifying on the map, and not this area.
Mr. Morrow:
Perhaps it's in here. Condition 12 leads, "The electronic sign
message shall not flash, blink, contain animated graphics, or
intermittently change." Now, does that include moving?
Mr. Walsh:
I think we could add scrolling or moving if there's no objection
just to be certain.
Ms. Smiley:
There's no objection.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you think it would be appropriate because the petitioner has
indicated his hours of operation and service. Would that be
productive to make that part of this resolution because it does
back up to the residential?
Ms. Smiley:
Do we do that normally?
Mr. Walsh:
We don't normally include that, do we Mark? I'm trying to think
of a time when we found something of that sort.
Mr. Taormina:
We could do that if you consider it to be a condition that would
meet the ordinance with respect to compatibility with
surrounding land uses. So I guess that's up to the Commission.
As I understood it, he's open from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday and Thursday, and
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. I don't
know if that would limit his flexibility in the future if he wanted to
adjust those hours slightly. It's something you might want to ask
the petitioner.
Mr. Morrow:
And also the hours of service, when the service would close.
May 29, 2007
24086
Mr. Taormina:
I think this is the showroom, but the service closes at 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Morrow:
Would the petitioner be comfortable with including those?
Mr. Walsh:
A commissioner wants to add your hours to the resolution.
Mr. Tanski:
I have no objection.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. I do want to point oul, I think that we would say that he
would not operate more than that, but we want to give him the
opportunity to not open on Saturday if he chooses to do so.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, there's some flexibility but he might have to come back.
Mr. Taormina:
If we're gang to add that, I need to verify that the hours of
service from Monday through Friday. Is that 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
P.M.?
Mr. Tanski:
That's correct.
Mr. Taormina:
And then 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday?
Mr. Tanski:
Well, its really 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
on Saturday. They're there. We dont take customers until 9:00
a.m., but there is somebody there at 8:30 a.m.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the maker comfortable with that?
Ms. Smiley:
That's fine.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I don't necessarily agree with the hours. I see it as a restriction
and why not if he's willing to be open . I guess I don't
understand your concern about the hours of operation. They
seem reasonable. They haven't had any problems in the past.
Mr. Walsh:
For purposes of moving this along, Mr. Morrow, what you would
need to do then is make a formal motion to amend the
resolution.
Mr. Morrow:
Like I said, I was kind of looking for direction. The only reason I
brought it up is because of trying to being sympathetic to the
neighbors so it's not carte blanche as far as the hours of
service. If it's something that's out of the ordinary, I will not add
that.
Mr. Walsh:
Then the motion would stand.
May 29, 2007
24087
Mr. Wilshaw:
A couple of questions. Speaking of the sign and the hours, it's
not unusual for us to have a condition that the sign be turned off
one hour after closing. Is that something that would be
appropriate in this case as we talked about hours of operation?
Just a generic to say that any signs that are illuminated shall be
turned off one hour after closing. It seems to be fairly typical for
our resolutions to have that.
Mr. Tanski:
Can I say something? Al nighttime your sign is more important
than the daytime because it won't be seen if you shut it off at
night. I guess I could shut it off at midnight. I would like to
comply but I would like to be able to, when people are driving,
for them to read my sign.
Mr. Walsh:
It's a typical point. And again, Mr. Wilshaw, I've given a lot of
latitude but we have other agenda items and I'm really going to
need to lighten up on our rules. So Mr. Tanski, I'm going to ask
if you could please be seated. I appreciate your viewpoint, but
from this point forward, if people do wish to offer an amendment
I'd like them to do so that we can move forward.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'll offer that amendment.
Mr. Walsh:
You're offering an amendment that the sign be illuminated and
then turned off one hour after closing?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there support?
Mr. Morrow:
I'll support it.
Mr. Walsh:
We have support from Mr. Morrow. Is there any discussion on
the amending motion? Seeing none, will the Secretary please
call the roll?
Ms. Smiley:
So this is for the amending motion?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes, this is to amend your motion so that it would require the
sign to be shut off after one hour after closing. So it's Mr.
Wilshaw and Mr. Morrow.
A roll call vole
on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Wilshaw, Morrow, McDermott, Vartoogian, Walsh
NAYES: Smiley
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: LaPine
May 29, 2007
24088
Mr. Walsh: The motion passes, so it stands as amended. Is there any further
discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Does that include the movement that I mentioned? That will be part
of the motion?
Mr. Walsh: You had agreement from the maker and the support.
Mr. Morrow: I kind of golyou off track there, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.
Mr. Walsh: We're good. Are there any additional comments? I'd like to make
just a few comments. I want to thank Mr. Tanta for coming here. I
think you have a pretty well thought out plan. I've observed this
first as a Planning Commissioner, then as a Council Member and
now again as a Planning Commission. I've sal through some
meetings that sometimes were uncomfortable. And I think what's a
telling testament is there are no neighbors here objecting. You
have sometimes to your commercial detriment made agreements
that we've appreciated as a city. I think you have a good plan here
pretty well thought out. I know the sign point that Mr. Wilshaw just
made is a tough one, but its fairly consistent with what we've done
with other businesses. Should this pass it, you'll have a chance to
talk to the Council about that point. If there are no additional
comments, will the Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Vartoogian, McDermott, Morrow, Wilshaw,
Walsh
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: LaPine
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#6 PETITION 2007-04-0241 T.G.I. FRIDAY'S
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
04-02-11 submitted by Great Lakes Dining, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to operate a Class C Liquor License in
connection with a full service restaurant (T.G.I. Friday's) at
20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the
Northwest % of Section 6.
May 29, 2007
24089
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 1, 2007, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
submitted is correct and no additional right -0f -way is required.
The address according to our records is 20120 Haggerty Road."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 8,
2007, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in
connection with T.G.1. Fridays Restaurant, located at 20450
Haggerty. We have no objections or recommendations to the
plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludt,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated May 9, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of April 27, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
There is a Class C License within 1000 feet (Uno's in Northville)
and thus this Petitioner will require a waiver from Council. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Building Inspector. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
I just have one and that is, it doesn't make any difference if its
in another city, the liquor license, or what?
Mr. Taormina:
We're not sure precisely how that rule applies but it is our
recommendation to the Council that they waive that requirement
anyway. A similar action was undertaken for an SDD license a
couple years ago, so we're recommending that it be done in this
case.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Greg Riley:
Good evening. I represent T.G.I. Friday or Great Lakes Dining.
We also have a senior GM of Operations here, Scott Franz, with
me and hopefully we can answer any questions you may have.
May 29, 2007
24090
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Its pretty
straight up. Seeing no questions, then I'll go to the audience?
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by Varloogian, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#0534-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petition 2007-04-02-11 submitted by Great Lakes Dining, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C Liquor
License in connection with a full service restaurant (T.G.I.
Friday's) at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road
in the Northwest % of Section 6, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-
11 be approved, provided that the City Council waives the 1,000
foot separation requirement between Class C licensed
establishment as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning
Ordinance, 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 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
May 29, 2007
24091
ITEM#7 PETITION 2007-04-0242 BEEF O'BRADY
RESTAURANT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
04-02-12 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Beef
O'Brady's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight Mile Road, located
on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road
and Gill Road in the Northeast % of Section 4.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 5, 2007, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. No additional right of
way is required. The legal description for the occupied area
follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated May 2, 2007, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a full service restaurant on property located
on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and
Gill Roads in the northeast X of Section 4. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W.
Fester, Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated May 8, 2007, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with Beef O'Brady's Family
Sports Pub, located at 33523 8 Mile. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 9, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 27,
2007, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) Although not part of the review process,
the following items are noted to give the Petitioner advance
notice of items needing attention prior to our Department's
actual plan review. (a) This entire space, as a change in use
group, including entry doors must meet the current barrier free
code. (b) The bathrooms as drawn do not meet the barrier free
code. (c) The main egress aisle does not appear to maintain
the required minimum 444nch width. (d) The egress door from
the men's restroom appears in conflict with the women's
May 29, 2007
24092
restroom egress door. (2) The rear doors of this mall should
identify the tenant and/or addresses/space numbers. (3) No
provision is noted for a dumpster and/or grease receptacle and
appropriate enclosure. This site cumentiy has three dumpster
enclosures and also another three dumpsters and two grease
containers (one with much grease spilled around it) not in
dumpster enclosures. The Commission and/or Council may
wish to clarify what will be required. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the
petitioner please come forward?
Patrick Howe, Carlin, Edwards, Brown & Howe, PLLC, 2855 Coolidge Highway,
Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. 1 have with me Daryl
Lombard, owner and operator of the local franchise. I'm here to
answer any questions tonight. We had extensive conversation
Iasi week about the operations of Beef O'Bmdy's Family Sports
Pub. Ironically, this concept and the franchise is on the cover of
Nations Restaurant News today. They're getting a lot of press
about their marketing program, the franchise program and their
efforts to involve themselves in the community as we discussed
Iasi week. I'm here to answer any of your questions. I know
there are a few changes discussed this week with staff
regarding amusements and other things. But I'd like to Lm it
over to Daryl to just briefly talk about the operations and answer
any questions you have.
Daryl L. Lombard, Lombard Enterprises, Inc., 23290 Halstead, #101, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48335. Good evening. I dropped off one revised
floor plan and also an option for the grease receptacle in light of
the Inspection Departments request and concerns about the
existing grease receptacles at that location. As far as the
amusement games, we have specified, formalized a request per
our last meeting, for a total of 13 games. Six would be arcade
games in the aroade-type room, a seventh arcade game would
be in the general bar area, and then there would be six boollr
type mounted games located within the restaurant area. Not
every booth would contain a game, obviously. Outside of that,
I'd just like to reiterate my excitement about the opportunity. As
you can see from the article and that, we are involved in the
community and looking forward to working with the schools,
various little leagues, and WMCA events within the community.
Thank you, again, and any questions you have I'd be happy to
answer them.
May 29, 2007
24093
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
If you'd like to speak real briefly, not that you have to be real
brief, but about your restaurant and the concept of a family
sports bar. It seems a little bit like an oxymoron.
Mr. Lombard:
Yes, absolutely. The tag line "a family sports pub" is actually
being considered by the franchise for some kind of rendition to it
because it does give that mixed sense of direction. I'd like to
highlight a couple things, that the typical hours of business are
11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Although it will require a Class C
liquor license, it is beer and wine only. There is no hard liquor.
It's a non-smoking facility. It does, as I mentioned, cater very
directly to family and children, thus the interest in the
amusement games and that sort of thing. They do a lot of
partnering with schools and with, as I mentioned, little leagues
and YMCAs doing student/athlete/teacher recognition, things of
that nature as wel as hosting spirit nights where a percentage
of that evening's sales go back to that local school or club or
whatever that event might participate in. The menu, very value
oriented, as I mentioned and the environment itself is very kid
friendly. In addition to the video games, there would be a
number of TV's, approximately 25 TV's throughout as it is a
sports theme. It probably lends itself more to a truly sports
family restaurant as opposed to a family sports pub that draws
that negative connotation. I hope that addresses that.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
As it relates to your landlord, have you had any movement as it
relates to your sign on Eight Mile?
Mr. Lombard:
Actually, Pal's office is currently reviewing the lease right now.
As it's outlined in the lease, it's still a full slot until which point
potentially a neighboring office or business went in next door.
As right now, it would state that we would gel 50 percent. We
are going to push to leave that at 100 percent. Under a worse
case scenario, possible keep a 100 percent slot and move
further down the pole sign.
Mr. Morrow:
You're satisfied with that?
Mr. Lombard:
Not entirely. I would love 100 percent period, quite frankly
That's what we're pushing for. I think, as we mentioned in the
meeting, because we are here and now, that hopefully we can
maintain it.
Mr. Morrow:
Because of your setback, you know, its a viable concern.
May 29, 2007
24094
Mr. Lombard: Absolutely. I'd love to have him here this evening so he could
here that as well. I appreciate the support.
Mr. Wilshaw: I was just comparing the previous plan that was submitted to us
to the current one. I see that you have an arcade game that's
sifting out in the bar area right behind one of the booths. Is
there a banner or divider between that arcade game and the
booth that's directly behind it?
Mr. Lombard: Yes, there is. There's is a partition wall all the way across there.
Those three tables that you see on the plan are actually higher
tables. It would be basically at a bar height. So yes, we do
have a higher partition wall there simply for the privacy of those
folks that would be in that seating area just adjacent to that as
well as from the game area. It kind of separates the restaurant
from the bar area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Charles Wobelstal, 427 Paragon, Troy, Michigan. I attend church at the old
Apostolic Lutheran Church, which is across the street from this
area where they are proposing this sports pub. I feel that a
sports pubis not a Christian environment. I dont think it fits well
in this area. I don't feel it is a good thing for our congregation,
and I would hope that God would give you the wisdom and the
foresight to decline to grant this waiver both with respect to the
fact that it is called a sports pub and the following petition that
comes after it for a Class C liquor license. I thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0535-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petition 2007-04-02-12 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant (Beef O'Bmdy's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight
Mile Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast''/. of
Section 4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2007-04-02-12 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
May 29, 2007
24095
1. That the maximum number of customer seals shall not
exceed 135;
2. That the issues as listed in the correspondence dated May
9, 2007, from the Inspection Department in regard to
barrier free code requirements, including entry doors and
bathrooms, along with other issues relating to minimum
main egress aisle width and bathroom egress door
conflicts, shall be resolved to that department's
satisfaction;
3. That the rear door of this unit shall identify the tenant
and/or address/space number;
4. That a dumpster and/or grease receptacle shall be
provided for the subject restaurant within an appropriate
masonry enclosure with metal gates;
5. That only signage is compliance with Section 18.50A and
18.50K(b) is approved with this petition, and any additional
signage shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council; and
6. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
May 29, 2007
24096
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a quick comment. This sounds like a nice concept. This is
something new to our community. We have similar types of
sports bars, but this one certainly sounds more family oriented
in the fad that its a non-smoking facility and only serves beer
and wine with the Class C liquor license that they're going to
request in the next item. So I appreciate that.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#8 PETITION 2007-04-0243 BEEF O'BRADY
CLASS C LICENSE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
04-02-13 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to operate a Class C liquor license in
connection with a proposed full service restaurant (Beef
O'Brady's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight Mile Road, located
on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmi ngton Road
and Gill Road in the Northeast % of Section 4.
Mr. Walsh: I think this one is pretty self explanatory, Mr. Taormina. Mr.
Nowak, is there any correspondence for us to consider?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated May 9, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of April 27, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. With regards to the
liquor license petition only, this Department has no objections."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent ofthe correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any comments to add from the petitioner's
perspective?
Daryl L. Lombard, Lombard Enterprises, Inc., 23290 Halstead, #101, Farmington
Hills, MI 48335. 1 just want to add for the record this is a
license that is currently in escrow in Inkster that would transfer
into Livonia. The applicant would only be serving beer and
wine, and it's estimated hours of operation are until about 11:00
p.m., except for a football game or something. He's not really
catering to a late night crowd. That's all regarding the liquor
license.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
May 29, 2007
24097
Mr. Wilshaw:
Regarding the gaming devices, are there going to be any Keno
gaming devices or are these strictly entertainment?
Mr. Lombard:
No. No Keno. Strictly arcade -type style. Again, very kid
friendly much in line with the theme of the entire restaurant.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Excellent. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0536-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petifion 2007-04-02-13 submitted by Lombard Enterprises, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C liquor
license in connection with a proposed full service restaurant
(Beef O'Brady's Family Sports Pub) at 33523 Eight Mile Road,
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 4,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2007-04-02-13 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That this waiver use is granted for the sale of beer and
wine only, for consumption on the premises, and shall not
include mixed spirit drink or spirits as defined under the
Michigan Liquor Control Code; and
2. That mechanical amusement devices in excess of the
number permitted under Section 18.59(a)(3), which allows
such devices as an accessory use to a Class C license
establishment, shall require a variance from the Zoring
Board of Appeals.
Subject to the preceding conditions, the 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
May 29, 2007
24098
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#9 PETITION 2007-05-0246 POTBELLY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
05-02-16 submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works requesting
waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 29579
Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 2, 2007, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. Kle have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description to
be used for the waiver use follows. No additional right-of-way is
required. The address for this space will follow shortly." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
May 7, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a
full service restaurant on property located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebe/t Road and Milburn Avenue
in the northeast X of Section 35. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
May 17, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in connection with Potbelly Sandwich Works, located at
29579 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
May 29, 2007
24099
signed by David W. Sludt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 9, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 1,
2007, the above- eferenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The entire signage allowed for all tenants
in Building J is about 151 square feet. Therefore, if 5 equal
frontage tenants were in place, each would be allowed about 30
square feet. This Petitioner for one space is proposing 405
square feet of wall signage or 254 square feet over the
maximum allowed for all tenants. A variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals would be required for this amount of signage
in a regional center. Consideration should be given for the
future tenants' needs also. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
If there are no questions for the staff, we will go to the petitioner
who has wailed patiently in the audience. Good evening.
Diane Huntr, 300 Oxford Court, Belleville, Michigan. Hello.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the petition?
Ms. Huntr:
I am here to answer any questions, and also to say we are
revising the signage and it will be submitted separately.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Very good. Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
Just a point of information. Are you affiliated with the one on
Haggerty Road?
Ms. Huntr:
I am.
Mr. Morrow:
I assume you are successful over there.
Ms. Huntr:
Yes. We're very happy to be over there. I actually manage 10
stores in Michigan and that store does very well for us.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Along the lines of Mr. Morrow's question, is the store here on
Plymouth Road similar in nature to the one on Haggerty Road
that we're used to seeing?
Ms. Huntr:
It is. It actually is very similar looking to the outside design
shown there. I believe there's three seats less than our location
on Haggerty Road.
May 29, 2007
24100
Mr. Wilshaw:
Some of the locations that I've been in have a loft, I guess you
would call it, with a person playing music on it. Is that going to
be in that location?
Ms. Huntz:
I'm unaware of a loft. Most of our stores do not allow for that.
There is a loft at the Haggerty location; however, the musician
does not actually play on lop of that loft. We have a separate
stage for that. We comply with any ordinances or any
requirements for that.
Mr.Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#0537-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petition 2007-05-02-16 submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works
requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant at 29579 Plymouth Road, located on the south side
of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn
Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 35, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2007-05-02-16 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 58;
2. That the outdoor storage of refuse shall be limited to the
dumpster enclosure provided at the westerly end of the
rear wall of Building "J" as shown on the approved site plan
for Village Shops of Wonderland, and there shall be no
additional outdoor refuse storage area anywhere else on
the site in connection with this use;
3. That no wall signage is approved with this petition. All
such signage shall be separately submitted for review and
approval by tie Planning Commission and City Council;
and
May 29, 2007
24101
4. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#10 PETITION 2007-04-06-01 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
CUSTOM STREET SIGNS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
04-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #142-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether
or not to amend Section 18.50E of Article XVIII to allow custom
street signs to be utilized in residential districts.
Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution #142-07 refers to and requests that the
Planning Commission conduct a public hearing regarding a
proposed amendment to Section 18.50E of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow custom street signs to be utilized in
residential districts. The Law Department has prepared the
proposed language that would allow for custom street signs at
the request of a Homeowner's Association. This would be
subject to four specified conditions that would set forth
requirements, standards and guidelines that would apply to
May 29, 2007
24102
future requests for such signage. After further review and
deliberation, the Law Department now believes that the
approval process for custom street signs should be handled in
Article 10 of the Code of Ordinances rather than as an
amendment to the residential sign regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance. That being the case, there would be no reason for
the Planning Commission to continue on with respect to this
petition, and therefore we are requesting that this item be
withdrawn.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. So we need to take a formal action.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, that would be filling.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0538-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, on
Petition 2007-04-06-01 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #142-07, and
Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50E of Article
XVIII to allow custom street signs to be utilized in residential
districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that this petition be withdrawn from further consideration on the
basis of the Law Department's determination that the approval
process for custom street signs should be handled in Article 10
of the Code of Ordinances rather than as an amendment to the
residential sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 943rd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 943rd" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on April 24, 2007.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0539-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 943d Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 24,
2007, are hereby approved.
May 29, 2007
24103
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Wilshaw, Smiley, Alanskas, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
LaPine
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 945" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 29, 2007, was adjourned at 10:04
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman