HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-07-09MINUTES OF THE 1,041 ST PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 1,041" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Scott P. Bahr R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel
Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2013-06-01-03 TIM HORTONS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-06-
01-03 submitted by Tim Horton Cafe and Bake Shop pursuant
to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at
37685 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile
Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, from C-1 (Local Business) to C-2
(General Business).
July 9, 2013
25849
Mr. Taormina: This involves a rezoning request over a portion of the New Five
Village shopping center which is located on the south side of
Five Mile between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue.
The property altogether is roughly 8.7 acres in area and
includes 600 feel of frontage along Five Mile Road by a depth of
225 feel along Newburgh Road. The requested rezoning is in
anticipation of redeveloping the site into a full-service
restaurant, Tim Horton. This is an aerial photograph showing
the specific location of the rectangular area that is requested to
be rezoned. The dimensions are 224 feel in length in an east -
west direction along Five Mile Road by a depth of 126 feel in the
north -south direction. The total land area of the rectangular area
proposed to be rezoned is about .65 acres. This is an area that
is part of the parking lot of the New Five Village shopping
center. Immediately to the east is a Shell gas station at the
southwest corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Roads.
Immediately adjacent to that lying to the west is Independent
Bank. To the south of the shopping center complex is Sl. Edith
Church as well as the Villa Marie senior housing complex. To
the west are City -owned tennis courts and then further to the
west of that are single family homes that are part of the Castle
Gardens Subdivision No. 2. Lying to the north across Five Mile
Road are single family homes that are part of the Newburg
Heights and Greenwood Farms Subdivisions. The New Five
Village shopping center is made up of two adjoining paroels that
are under separate ownership. It functions more or less as a
single community shopping center. Together, both of the
buildings combined provide about 95,000 square feet of retail
space. Past anchor tenants at the west end of the center were
a Farmer Jacks grocery store as well as a Rite Aid pharmacy.
Both of those units are currently vacant. The area to be
rezoned is the portion of the shopping center that is currently
used for off-street parking. It occupies an estimated 71 total
spaces. The center currently has about 516 spaces. When we
apply the 1:150 ratio based on the small percentage of
restaurants that are located at this shopping center, they are
required to have 508 parking spaces. So currently they're just a
little above what they are required to have in terms of parking.
We have not evaluated any particular site plan at this time to be
able to advise you as to what the overall impact would be on the
amount of parking, but generally speaking, the parking as it
exists today is in compliance with the total amount of retail
space available at the shopping center. In terms of the Future
Land Use Plan, it shows the entire site as General Commercial,
which would include either the C-1 or the C-2 zoning categories.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental
correspondence.
July 9, 2013
25850
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 27, 2013, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced rezoning request.
The written legal description is correct. The address for this site
is confirmed to be 37685 Five Mile Road. Please note, upon
City Council approval, a formal request for an additional address
at this location will be needed. In regards storm water
management, the City of Livonia requires storm water detention
which falls under the jurisdiction of the City Engineering
Department to review calculations and storage capacity for the
proposed site improvements. We will follow Wayne County
storm ordinance requirements. There is an existing connection
to the southeast of the proposed site. Pertaining to utilities, the
City of Livonia has an existing 124nch water main that runs east
and west along the south side of Five Mile Road. There is also
an existing 84nch public water main to the south that could be
utilized. There is a 104nch sanitary sewer to the west, 12 -inch
to the south and 18 -inch to the east that is in the area to be
utilized for connection. Five Mile Road is under the jurisdiction
of Wayne County. Any proposed work within the Wayne County
right-of-way would require a permit. We are providing the owner,
for informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City
Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and
Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary
sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, unless
written approval is obtained to exceed this amount. This
Ordinance also provides information on grease trap(nterceptor
requirements, and is available on the City of Livonia website at
wwwci.livonia.mi.us, go to the right hand side of the web page
under Quick Shortcuts, click on Online Ordinances. A soil
erosion and sedimentation control (SESC) permit will be
required and involve separate plans to be submitted if the
proposed site is one acre or more. This permit and associated
fees will be handled by the Engineering Department before any
work commences." The letter is signed by Todd Zilincik, P.E.,
City Engineer. The next letter is from Gerald F. Burke, dated
July 2, 2013, which reads as follows: "My name is Gerald F.
Burke. I live at 15329 Richfield Street, Livonia Michigan 48154 -
1511 on the north side of Five Mile Road - directly opposite the
property 1 know as The Village shopping center - which contains
the plot with the rezoning request. 1 am opposed to the property
rezoning requested in the above petition. The existing store
fronts of The Village shopping center are set back from Five
Mile Road, providing a buffer from the shopping center for the
residential area north of Five Mile Road. This buffer enhances
July 9, 2013
25851
the residential appearance of the area and minimizes the impact
of the traffic, noise, trash and signage glare generated by the
shopping center businesses and their customers. 1 invite you to
visit the area along Five Mile Road west of Newburgh and
notice the residential nature of the area and the store front
setback in The Village shopping center. The proposed rezoning
would allow construction of a business that has no setback
buffer, and will give the area a less attractive appearance and
bring drive-thru traffic, noise, trash and signage glare closer to
the residents on the north side of Five Mile Road. Please reject
the rezoning request. Thank you." The letter is signed by
Gerald F. Burke, 15329 Richfield Street, Livonia, Michigan
48154. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark Taormina. Mark, is this basically the
same area that Blockbusters wanted to come into?
Mr. Taormina: I would say yes, although I did not gel a chance to evaluate that
plan prior to tonight's meeting. As I recall, this is the same
general location where an out lot was proposed that would have
housed a Blockbuster video store as well as maybe one or two
other tenants within that building. That was a pefition that I think
was filed in the early 2000's and was approved but never
developed.
Mr. Taylor: So the zoning never went through on that?
Mr. Taormina: That did not require a zoning change at the time.
Mr. Taylor: Oh, that was a waiver use.
Mr. Taormina: That was a site plan as I recall. It did not involve any special
approvals other than the site plan and maybe a zoning variance
for parking, as I recall.
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Wilshaw: The reason for this rezoning request is really because the
potential intended use of it involves a drive lhru?
Mr. Taormina: And a full service restaurant, together with the drive-thm, are
two waiver use requirements under the C-2 District regulations.
So that's correct. If the zoning moves forward, then the next
step in the process would be the fling of a waiver use petition
for both the full service restaurant and the drive-lhru.
July 9, 2013
25852
Mr. Wilshaw: So if the developer proposed to put in a business that conforms
to the G7 zoning, such as a video store, they wouldn't need a
zoning change. They could just come forward with a site plan.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The other question is about parking. There is about 71
or 72 spaces that are going to be eliminated to some degree as
a result of some development going in this parcel which would
reduce the number of parking spaces for the rest of shopping
center. At this time, being that the shopping center is almost
half vacant, it's not really an issue, but if this shopping center
was to be fully utilized, would there be adequate parking
remaining at the site for a fully utilized shopping center?
Mr. Taormina:
Again, that's a question that is difficult to answer at this time
without knowing precisely what type of tenants would occupy
the space that is presently vacant within the shopping center.
But assuming that it is a use or uses that would generate traffic
similar to the previous uses, which was the Rile Aid and the
grocery store, then there could be some issues with respect to
parking. If its something less than that, I don't know that
parking will be a problem. More likely what there would be is a
redistribution of how the parking is utilized on the site. As you
know, a use like a Tim Hortons is going to generale a lot of
drive -up traffic as opposed to sit down traffic. You're probably
going to see a greater percentage of their sales in the form of
the drive -up window as opposed to sit down customers. So the
parking spaces that they create around that area would be
available for the patrons of the center as well. Again, there are
large spaces that remain vacant in the center. They typically
don't park at the same demand that the smaller retail centers
do. I would anticipate that it would probably have sufficient
parking when they finally find a tenant for that space unless it's
a real high traffic generator, which is not likely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
On the other side of where Fanner Jacks was, there's a tennis
court and what else is there, just land?
Mr. Taormina:
You can see this on the aerial photograph. The tennis courts are
set back on the southern part of the property and there's a
grassy park area between that and Five Mile Road.
Ms. Smiley: Is that owned by the shopping center?
Mr. Taormina: No, that is all owned by the City of Livonia
July 9, 2013
25853
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will
need your name and address for the record please.
Patrick T. Bell,
Construction Project Planner, Tim Donut U.S. Limited Inc., 565 E.
Grand River Avenue, Suite 101, Brighton, Michigan 48116.
Thank you, Chairman Morrow and Commission members.
Again, a pleasure to be before you once again. Tim Horton
has done very well in the City of Livonia and continues our
efforts to expand in the community. This project before you is
much similar to the project we recently brought before you
where we're looking to do infill redevelopment. Again, we're
very familiar with the taste of the community so we will be
providing a site that is somewhat similar to the last site but
obviously organized in a different manner. It will be a brick
building as we're providing on the other site. We're looking
forward to getting this project going as quickly as possible. I'd
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Let's see if there are any questions from the Commission.
Mr. Taylor:
This would be the fourth site that you have, Tim Hortons?
Mr. Bell :
I believe, sir, that this would be the fifth site.
Mr. Taylor:
I was trying to remember where I saw them in the City and I've
counted three.
Mr. Bell :
Including the new one at Merriman that is looking to be
constructed here soon.
Mr. Taylor:
I forgot about that one. Tim Horlons is mainly breakfast and
lunch, isn't it?
Mr. Bell :
That is correct. As any business, we're looking to expand our
menu but I would say the majority of our business now is done
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and trickling into
the lunch hours.
Mr. Taylor:
That's why I was thinking about any kind of parking problem.
Normal stores that go into the shopping centers are busy all
day, but in the morning they're not as busy as at night. So I'm
just thinking that whatever goes in there in the other portion of
the vacancies will probably work out without the parking.
July 9, 2013
25854
Mr. Bell:
I would agree with that, and as Mr. Taormina pointed out, a
good majority
of our business is drive-by, drive-lhru traffic.
We're not
a regional draw. We don't really bring to this area.
Its the folks that are going to the hospital or going to their
jobs
or leaving their place of residence that stop by our place on
their
commute to other places.
Mr. Taylor:
Evidently, the hospital heard about it because I heard that they
were very excited that Tim Hortons was going in there.
Mr. Bell
That's great and we look forward to being able to provide
service.
Ms. Scheel:
This is just for rezoning and they will come back with a site plan,
correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. What I expect to happen, following the action tonight, it will
move forward to the City Council. Should the City Council give
First Reading to this, then they would put a hold on completing
the rezoning until a site plan is submitted, reviewed by this body
and then in turn moves forward for the Council to review.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay, so I'll hold off on other questions until then. Thanks.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? We'll need your name and
address for the record.
James Crowley:
I represent 15108 Blue Skies. Actually, I'll give you a little
history on that plot over the years. My mother has been a
resident of Blue Skies for 50 years. So several years ago,
MacDonald's tried to come in, kind of in that plot that we talked
about adjacent to the ... in the green space that is owned by
the City. It was widely opposed and rejected. What I'm
opposed to, number one, is we're talking about a zone change
to general. So whether its Tim Hortons or anybody, now we're
talking about a change in the zoning which I think opens
you up
to a lot of different issues, whether we complete this
and move
on, whether it's Tim Hortons or a MacDonald's, whomever. So I
think we're opening ourselves up to those issues that were
described by the resident on Richfield Avenue. That was a
concern with MacDonald's back then. It's a concern today.
Also, I'll give you a little history of what we've endured over in
the general area. That shopping center has been vacant for a
number of years. Number one, my concern is when we start
laking away parking spots and now obstruct the visual signage
or whatever it might be, is that going to hinder, and again, none
of you could really answer that question because we don't know
July 9, 2013
25855
what's going to go in there. And unfortunately, what I'm afraid
that's going to do is also further prolong the vacancy in that
building. What has happened over the years, as obviously I
think . I'm assuming there's been a struggle with that
shopping center. It's deteriorated overtime. I believe it was two
years ago it was leased and it was a violation to the group that
runs the Livonia Spree. It was set up as a camp site. We
banned together to gel them moved out. There are trucks
parked there overnight several limes. We call and call and call.
They posted a lowing sign. The City does not enforce that. So
we've endured a lot. So we're really concerned about what's
going to happen here. We just noticed it Sunday, haven't had a
chance to talk to the other neighbors, but I would imagine they
will be extremely opposed when they Team that they want to
change the zoning again. Now, my other concern is the traffic
pattern. I would strongly suggest that we do a traffic study so
we at least adjourn this so we can gel a traffic study and talk
about the traffic study, especially being that it's Tim Honors,
talking about the drive thm that is going to create a huge traffic
situation. It's difficult to tum in off of Five Mile onto Blue Skies.
Blue Skies is the main artery going through Castle Gardens
Subdivision. So I think you have people cutting you off Teff and
right trying to gel in and out of the subdivision, along with the
other side of Blue Skies, which is the main artery as well as into
I believe the other subdivision north. People are cutting you off
Teff and right. In fad, Five and Newburgh has also been a huge
traffic issue with accidents and so on. So I'm not sure what the
impact that will have, but I would strongly suggest that we do
some type of study and really be cautious about what we do
with this. This is a very residential area. What we're concerned
about, again, is neighbors. I noticed that the gentleman
mentioned trash. Ironically, this morning, and I look a picture
with my camera phone which I'll be happy to send. There was
MacDonald's trash on our lawn today, ironically. And that was
before I knew it was Tim Hortons because I just called the City
this morning to find out what the zone change actually was. So
again, we've endured a lot with that strip mall. There are a lot of
restaurants in there now. I like Tim Horlons as well. I just don't
think that's the place for it. I'm really, really concerned about
the drive thru. I'm concern about, again, just opening up
ourselves to a zoning change. That is kind of forever, and I've
seen zoning changes. We've had zoning changes in the City
before off of Six Mile. I was a resident there for a while in the
Laurel Park 11 Subdivision. They built a large, large building sort
of behind us with a zoning change because they were restricted
at the height. There's a lot going on in that little square. If
you've taken a drive through it with the Villa Marie, I mean
they've done a great job with it. It is verytight in there. I mean
July 9, 2013
25856
very tight. You have to enter and exit through ... they really
don't have a proper egress. It's part of the church parking lot.
Its high impact, a lot of traffic. I think if you look a drive back
there you'd really see how dense that is. I think even back then,
I know that my mother had an issue with the number of
buildings there were going in. They kind of slipped an extra one
in at the time, which brings it really tight, close to the residential
homes. Again, they've been a great neighbor, but it is a very
tight plot, and I think that now you keep making it more dense,
now you're opening yourselves up to more zoning, more traffic.
This is a residential area. If you drive through it, the homes are
over 50 years old and most of them are really, really well kept
and there is a pride of ownership in that neighborhood. And I
think most neighbors would be surprised. I didn't have a chance
to talk with them. I think they'd be very surprised again. I don't
think they noticed that there's a zoning change. I just noticed it
Sunday evening. Again, I would really suggest that when we
talk about a traffic study and then really think twice about again
impacting that area. I think we're just going to open ourselves
up again to just more traffic, and again leaving the buildings.
I'm really concerned that those buildings will sit vacant a lot
longer now that you're taking parking away. We don't know
who's going to come in. I mean it could be a situation like
across the street with CVS where they actually look the building
down and put a standalone. I don't know. You don't know how
they want to plan, but this is going to hinder that. Even with the
CVS, a lot of times it seems like we gel a little cheated. We
really worked on the landscape there. Although it's a beautiful
building, you know they kind of sold us a bill of goods with their
pond. If you drive by, it's a mud hole with a lot of weeds.
You're shaking your head. Its really kind of a sold bill of goods,
and I'm afraid that's what we're going to gel again. So again, I'll
leave you with that and hopefully we can consider rejecting this
proposal. Anyquestionsforme?
Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions? The Commission
appreciates your input for tonight's meeting. Is there anyone
else in the audience wishing to come forward?
Mark Canvasser, Representative, New -Five Plaza Associates L.P., 28580
Orchard Lake Road, Suite 101, Farmington Hills, Michigan
48334. I'm one of the owners of New Five Plaza shopping
center. We've owned the shopping center since 1993. We are
desperately trying to lease that center, and we think this is a
great opportunity to start to be able to bring some more traffic to
the center. Commissioner Wilshaw, you mentioned 50 percent
occupied. Actually, we're closer to 30 percent occupied, and we
have desperately tried to lease the Fanner Jack. We think this
July 9, 2013
25857
is a great opportunity. I've spoken to many of you before in the
past when we initially thought about bringing this to the
community. The MacDonald's was long before 1993. It was not
on the grassy parcel. It was on another parcel where the newer
shopping center has been built. I'm not aware ever of any
tenant or issues with our shopping center, tenants being
removed from our shopping center. I just don't understand that
at all. We think we're a good corporate citizen in the
community. We contribute to Livonia in various ways. We have
a tenant, the Arts Council, that was in one of the community
buildings and that space got rented and we gave them space.
So we work very hard to try and be a good corporate resident,
commercial tenant in the center. I'm available for any
questions. We're working hard to lease that center. We're
working hard to bring traffic to that center. I have a number of
tenants there that are holding on, and I'm trying to do what we
need to do to bring more traffic. Thank you for your time and I
look forward to moving forward to site plan approval for this site.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Canvasser, I have a question for you. Mr. Crowley made a
comment prior to you coming up which sort of was a little
sensitive to me. I think it rings somewhat true that if you put a
building in front of the shopping center, it could obstruct the
sight lines to your spaces and make those spaces potentially
less desirous or make it harder to see the signage on those.
Since you're here, which is really nice to have you here and you
own the building and you're the one trying to lease it, can you
explore that a little bit more with me just to let me know what
your thought is as far as the leasability of your spaces with
having that out lot there in front of your building. Is it going to
bring more traffic in and make those spaces more desirable to
lease or make them harder to lease because of the obstruction?
Mr. Canvasser: We don't think it's going to be an obstruction at all. In addition
to part of our agreement with Tim Hortons, there's an area to
the west where we're agreeing that nothing is going to be put in
that area. Even if it's ultimately allowed, we're not going to. But
this is not a giant building. I know Mr. Bell can further address
the distance from the building to the center as well as the height
of the Tim Horton. We looked at that. There's a bank which is
probably every bit as tall, if not taller, and that has never
detracted from the center. We own and manage over 1.5 million
square feet of commercial, industrial and office space. We're
pretty active in the retail business. We have well over 300
tenants. We think this is a good opportunity for the center. We
don't think it's going to detract from the center at all, and we
don't think the sight lines are going to be impaired at all. If we
did, we wouldn't. Our sign band is about 14 feet from the
July 9, 2013
25858
sidewalk. That building is pretty impressive from Five Mile. So
we don't think that's an issue at all. We wouldn't risk a 75,000
square fool shopping center with a 3,000 square foot tenant.
Theyre not paying that much rent. We have a bigger fish to fry
with a 40,000 square foot Fanner Jack.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I appreciate you giving me additional detail because I kind of
agreed with Mr. Crowley as he made that comment that maybe
this is not a good move in the sense that it's going to block your
building, but the fad that you're here and you're able to tell us
what impact you think its going to have on your building based
on your experience is helpful. I think that helps me in making
my decision. I do appreciate that.
Mr. Canvasser:
I hope I answered your question. I hope you understand. But
again, I think the bigger point, and I really want to drill that home
without getting into the economics of our deal. It's a 2,500
square foot tenant, a 3,000 square fool Tim Hortons. We have
75,000 square feet that is the real goal here, and I'm not going
to risk that with a small Tim Horlons.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Do you think that having a Tim Hortons or any sort of out lot,
really, because we're just talking about the lot as opposed to a
specific tenant, I guess, at this point, but do you think that
makes it more desirable for future tenants to locale there?
Mr. Canvasser:
A tenant wants traffic anyway they can gel it, and as I started to
allude to just today, I got a letter from a tenant saying, hey, I
can't pay the rent any more. I've already discounted the rent.
The tenants there need more traffic. They're mom and pop
tenants. They're holding on. Its traffic. If a tenant comes in
there and they pay attention to the soccer store, or they pay
attention to the triathlon store or people see the Art Council
that's there, I have a new hair salon that's just opening up. The
loner and ink store, they have a lot of competition with the big
box office stores. They're looking for someone to say, hey, I'm
here. I'm buying something from Tim Horlons. It's easier for
me to drop my product off. I know you asked a little bit about
the parking. When Fanner Jacks was operating at the height of
their business and with Rite Aid operating at the height of their
business, we never had a parking issue. I mean that parking lot
has sat vacant. I have plowed it year after year after year.
Empty, I plow it every year. We try and make that center look
good no matter whether its 100 percent occupied or 30 percent
occupied.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I wish you the best of luck in filling your spaces there. The
axiom has always been in shopping centers that when you lose
July 9, 2013
25859
your grocery, it kind of hurls the rest of the development
because they're really the anchor.
Mr. Canvasser: We've had three near misses on the Fanner Jack. We've
worked on appealing our taxes without much success, and as I
said, I think we're a pretty good corporate citizen. We're still
standing up to the line and we want to, with your help, we can
lease it, but our next altemative is to take down the Farmer
Jack. Its cheaper for us to remove that building than to pay the
electric, to heal it, to keep the fire suppression going, and we do
that 365 days a year. Fanner Jack vacated I believe in '08 or
'09. We appreciate your help. Thank you very much for your
time.
Mr. Crowley:
Again, I would just like to correct for the record, the
MacDonald's was actually proposed on Newburgh, on that site,
and when that was rejected, they did move it over to the other
side and tried that as well. Again, I'm going to strongly oppose
his statement that he takes care of the shopping center. Please
lake a drive by. Over the years, we've complained about the
signs falling down and being a danger. Called the City a
number of times. He would not have rented it to basically the
Spree carnival grounds to go set up camp site. He does not
care aboullhe residents.
Mr. Morrow:
Let's not gel loo personal.
Mr. Crowley:
No, I'm not. I want this for the record. I'm not being personal.
I'm just staling a fact that it was strongly opposed by the
neighbors. I would agree that the shopping center is in need of
repair. It has been in need of repair even when Fanner Jack
was there. It was in need of a painljob. We would like to see at
least ultimately, but if laking it down is an option, maybe it
doesn't call for that type of center there. The parking may not
have been an issue back then because Farmer Jack and Kroger
had opened up. There was a Hiller's, a Fanner Jacks, a
number of grocery stores at the time, and that's why that Fanner
Jacks left that site was because they didn't have the customers.
So if you brought someone in that could actually fill the store
and actually make it successful, you might see a lot more cars
there. Again, I strongly oppose it and I'd like to have a chance
to have the neighbors be informed.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing
to speak for or against the granting of this petition? I see
another gentleman coming forward.
July 9, 2013
25860
Eric Ladwig, 37637 Five Mile, The UPS Store. I'm one of the center tenants.
What this does for my business, to be honest with you, if a Tim
Horton comes in, as a drive-thru is going to be kind of in the
back, people are going to be sitting in their cars looking this
way. Now they're going to see the visibility of my store. I've
been with Mark for 17 year now. He's been a great landlord for
me and if I have any questions or any concerns, they've been
answered. But owning a business in a center that lost its two
major anchors, the Farmer Jack and the Rile Aid, is lough. I'm
spending a lot more money on advertising just to bring the
awareness to the center that I'm actually there. The visibility.
Mark mentioned traffic. That is key to me. I need people to see
where I'm at and if I can cul down a little bit on advertising,
maybe I can hire some people and maybe I can gel some more
machinery. Then I can start upgrading and just improving my
business. I think Tim Horlons is the gateway to start renting
these other places out. Now it's desirable because think of the
traffic that's coming through this plaza now. I don't know what
the average traffic is, what 1,000 - 2,000 people or whatever it
is, but for someone like me, I'm struggling. I need some help. I
definitely think this is going to be a very positive thing for us to
get the awareness for us.
Mr. Morrow:
I missed what your business is.
Mr. Ladwig:
A UPS store.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Mr. Ladwig:
Well, that was just it. I just passionately believe that this is what
we need, because if this doesn't go through, are we going to
wait until another big box store comes in? What big box store
might come in or might not come in? But this is a solution right
now that we can start improving our traffic for all of us.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience? I
see no one else coming forward. I'm going to close the public
hearing and ask for a motion.
Mr. Taylor:
I've lived in that area for about 45 years on Sunnydale, about a
mile away, and I watched Fanner Jacks go in there and I
watched other stores go in. There's traffic and that's what
Livonia is all about as far as the mile roads go - Five Mile, Six
Mile, Seven Mile. I just feel that if we can bring more traffic into
that area, those stores will flourish better. There's no doubt
about it, and it's happened throughout Livonia and I've seen it
happen many times. When I moved out there, there weren't a
lot of houses out there, and everybody else moved in and that's
July 9, 2013
25861
when all the traffic came in. I've put up with traffic and we have
a lot of traffic in that area, but we have a lot of traffic throughout
Livonia. I'm going to offer an approving resolution.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0738-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on 2013-
06-01-03 submitted by Tim Horton Cafe and Bake Shop
pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of
the properly at 37685 Five Mile Road, located on the south side
of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies
Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, from C-1 to C-2, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2013-06-01-03 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That C-2 zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area;
2. That C-2 zoning would allow for the future development of
a full service restaurant; and
3. That C-2 zoning is consistent with the developing character
of the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Bahr: I'll echo a lot of what Commissioner Taylor said. I want to
particularly address the last point here, the C-2 zoning is
consistent with the developing character of the area. I can
imagine some people hearing that and wondering about that,
but retail is different today than it was when this center was
built, and there isn't a Farmer Jack coming back. There's not
going to be a full scale grocery store coming back. This center
is very, very underutilized for what it was built for and what I
remember it being when I was growing up in the city. The
traffic, when its good for business, it's good for the
neighborhoods. I really believe that. I live near a struggling
center similar in size and scope to this, and I'll tell you the
residents in our neighborhood would love to see something like
coming in just because there's nothing worse over time than a
struggling shopping center for the residents around it. I can
July 9, 2013
25862
appreciate the neighbors concerns and certainly would urge, as
I'm sure he has, the property owner to continue to be sensitive
to those, but I do see this as consistent with the developing
character of the area. I might also mention too that this is Tim
Hortons fifth location and the other locations that they have, I
drive by one every day. They're a pretty calm neighbor.
Certainly not to the level that a MacDonald's is. That's the
reason for my support.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Bahr
Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate Mr. Bahrs comments. He always gives us a good
perspective on things. As I looked at this petition and I listened
to what the residents said, both in letter and in person here, I'm
sensitive to their concerns and their needs as they're the people
that live closest to this and have to deal with it. I thought that
Mr. Crowley made a good point that perhaps putting something
in front of the center could make it harder to see the center and
harder for people to see the businesses located in the center.
And then of course we had Mr. Canvasser, the owner of the
center, come up and tell us based on his professional
experience and years of dealing with retail, what his thought is
as far as the desirability of the center with this out lot here. I
think a valid point is being made that Tim Hortons is traditionally
a good neighbor, a good business. Its not the same thing as a
MacDonald's or a fast food restaurant that may have intense
use during all hours of the day and night. It is focused more on
the morning and possibly even lunch time frame. Will it
generate traffic in the area? Yes, it will and as the business
owners in the area indicate, it's going to generate positive traffic
in the sense that it's going get eyeballs on their businesses and
make their businesses more visible to the people who are sitting
in the drive-thru. Drive-thru traffic is something that is always a
concern to the Commission and to the City, but in this particular
location, looking at the way the site is laid out, assuming there
are no curb cuts that are going to be made for this business,
there is more than adequate space to support a drive thru
operation, much like the bank that's already on this site that has
drive-thm activity, and there's room for adequate stacking of
those cars because there are times when Tim Hortons will get
quite busy, We see up on Eight Mile at that location where
there's times when it actually backs out into Eight Mile because
it's doing so well. That's not going to happen at this site
because the placement of the driveways is far enough away
from the site itself that there's no way you're going to have
enough cars at that site to cause that sort of a problem. Even
though I was not really on board with this zoning, I kind of
wanted to keep an open mind. The comments of the various
July 9, 2013
25863
folks that have come up and spoke today, the comments of the
other Commissioners, has led me to the point where I believe
it's appropriate to support this rezoning.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Just as a Chairman's comment, I think
what we're seeing here tonight, petitions come before us and
they're not always cut and dried. There's certainly good points
on each side and that's why we're here, to make a
determination. As I said in my opening remarks, what we do
here tonight will be a recommendation to City Council, and they
will have their own public hearing to determine the final outcome
of this thing. Not all decisions are easy, but we do have to
make one here tonight. If there is no other discussion or
comment, I'm going to ask for a roll call.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. The City Council will ultimately make the
final determination as to whether the petition is approved or
denied. Thank you for coming tonight.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2013-05-03-01 FARMINGTON PROPERTY
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
05-03-01 submitted by Farmington Property L.L.C. pursuant to
Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate part
of an existing utility easement at 12445 and 12319 Levan Road,
located on the west side of Levan Road between Amrhein Road
and Commerce Street in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to vacate part of an existing utility easement
that is located on the west side of Levan Road between
Amrhein Road and Commerce Street. The address and zoning
map displayed on the overhead shows a lot of blue, which
indicates that this property as well as all of the surrounding
properties, are developed industrial properties. This particular
easement crosses over two industrial properties, both of which
are owned by entities of Roush Industries. The subject
easement requested to be vacated is somewhal'T' shaped with
part of it running parallel to Levan Road, approximately 150 feet
west of the road, crossing Lots 1 thru 6 of the Broadmoor Acres
Subdivision. Then there's another part that actually runs in an
east to west fashion about 150 feet south of Amrhein and that
crosses the upper and lower parts of Lots 5 and 6. This is an
actual survey of one of the two properties that is affected by this
July 9, 2013
25864
utility easement There is a building that occupies a substantial
portion of the easement that is requested to be vacated. There is a
little bit of a history to this. In 1968, part of the same easement
running thru Lots 8 thru 12 of the Broadmoor Acres Subdivision
was requested to be vacated under a petition that was filed back
then, and it requested that Lots 1 thru 6, as well as 7 thru 19 be
vacated. For some reason the City approved the vacation of the
easements on Lots 8 through 12, but did not choose to vacation
Lots 1 thru 6. For that reason, the petitioner is here this evening
to request your approval to vacate said easement. If approved,
this would move to the City Council for final action. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Any correspondence on that?
Mr. Taormina:
There is no correspondence on this. We did notify the public
utilities on this matter. We're not aware that there are any
utilities currently occupying the subject easement.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou. Are there any questions ofthe Planning Director?
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, this must be just a maintenance job then?
Mr. Taormina:
From what I could tell, and we dug through the files, this is a plat
that dales way back to the '40's at a time when this land was all
zoned residential. Subsequently, it was rezoned for industrial
purposes and developed with industries, Otherwise, you would
have never seen these easements bifurcate these lots in the
fashion that they do because it simply wouldn't allow for the
industrial development. That's part of the history behind this,
that these were all easements that were designed originally to
accommodate homes that would have been developed on these
individual lots.
Mr. Taylor:
So its kind of housekeeping, really. Isn't it?
Mr. Taormina:
It is a housekeeping matter at this point. Yes. It really helps
Roush in their efforts to finance the properties, because anytime
you have an encroachment like this, it presents a cloud on the
title.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. If 9 thru 12 are vacated,
and we're looking at 1 thru 6, is that leaving little pieces of 7 and
8?
Mr. Taormina:
It may very well unless that was done under a separate petition.
We'd have to investigate that. We responded to the request by
Roush to vacate these. It could be that we can come back and,
on our own initiation, vacate Lots 7 and 8, but we can't do it at
July 9, 2013
25865
this time without going through the proper notification
procedures.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right. We'll deal with what's before us now, but it just seems
like we're leaving little bits and pieces of easement to nowhere.
We might as well clean it up at some point.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and I'll double check the record. There may have been a
subsequent petition involving Lots 7 and 8 but right now, the
way I understand it, this would lake care of everything in that
subdivision with the possible exception of 7 and 8.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. Looking at this copy of the plat that we have, it's
dated 1941. It's in pretty good looking shape actually
considering how old the document is. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Paul Huba, Farmington
Properly, L.L.C., 11916 Market Street, Livonia, Michigan
48150.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anything you want to add to what you've heard so far?
Mr. Huba:
Mark has pretty much covered it. We appreciate your attention
and appreciate your effort to clear the easement.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions for the petitioner? It seems to be fairly
cut and dried, so we will keep this brief. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this
petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the
public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, @ was
#0739-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on
Petition 2013-05-03-01 submitted by Farmington Property L.L.C.
pursuant to Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to
vacate part of an existing utility easement at 12445 and 12319
Levan Road, located on the west side of Levan Road between
Amrhein Road and Commerce Street in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 29, which property is zoned M-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2013-05-03-01 be approved for the following reasons:
July 9, 2013
25866
1. That the easement is not utilized and is not intended to be
used in the future;
2. That the obsolete and unused easement runs directly
through the middle of the buildings and for all practicable
proposes is unserviceable;
3. That alternate utility easements that actually service the
existing buildings were subsequently recorded in different
locations;and
4. That no reporting City department or public utility has
objected to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of
the Livonia Code of Ordinance, as amended.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2013-06-02-14 APPLEBEE'S
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
06-02-14
01306-02-14 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and
operate a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301
Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road
between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, when you present the site plan, will you be doing it for
Items #3 and #4 and then come back and take each one
individually as they come down the agenda?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. The presentation I'll provide will be for Items #3 and #5
primarily, and then I'll make comments relative to Item #4 on the
liquor license. But yes, I'd like to combine them.
Mr. Morrow: Then we'll go back and handle each one individually after the
presentation.
July 9, 2013
25867
Mr. Taormina: This petition, as well as the following two items, involves
development of the same parcel of land which is located on the
west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad and
Schoolcraft Road and the 1-96 Expressway. The request is to
construct a full service restaurant, an Applebee's, as well as a
multi-tenant commercial building that would also include a full
service restaurant, a Del Taco, that would contain drive-up
window facilities. This site is about 2.95 acres in area, so it's
just under 3 acres in size. It includes 360 feel of frontage along
Middlebelt Road and 375 feel of frontage along Industrial Road.
This site is adjacent to and north of the Menard's home
improvement store that is currently under construction and
scheduled to open later this summer. A little bit of history about
the property. It was on May 14 that the Planning Commission
forwarded an approving recommendation to the City Council for
a request to rezone the subject property from its current
classification of M-1, Light Manufacturing, to the C-2 General
Commercial classification which would support the restaurants
and retail uses that are proposed this evening. The City Council
held its public hearing on June 24 and gave First Reading on
the rezoning at its Regular Meeting on July 1. They are holding
the Second Reading until the site plans are reviewed.
Applebee's would be a one story building. It would total about
5,430 square feel in gross floor area. This plan shows the two
buildings that are proposed on the parcel. Ultimately this
property would be subdivided into two separate parcels with the
north half of the property containing the Applebee's restaurant
and the south half of the property containing the multi-tenant
retail building and the Del Taco restaurant with the drive-up
facilities. So on the right hand side of this drawing is Middlebelt
Road and on the left hand side is a service drive that extends
south from Industrial Road and feeds into the Menard's home
improvement store. So the Applebee's, as I indicated, would be
one story, about 5,400 square feet in area. It's on the north end
of the property. The development includes a second multi-
tenant building that would be about 35 feel south of the
proposed Applebee's restaurant. The second building is a little
bit larger. It's about 6,150 square feel in gross floor area and
would be divided into three tenant spaces. The Del Taco would
occupy the south end cap unit and measures about 2,000
square feet. The plans show how the building would be
demised into three spaces with the Del Taco being located at
the south end. This driveway would service the drive up window
facilities that would be utilized by the Del Taco restaurant. The
drive-up is located on the south side of the building, but the
traffic lane serving the drive-up window would commence on the
north side of the building between the two buildings and then
loop around to the south side of the building. This is where cars
July 9, 2013
25868
would enter the drive -up, come around and place their orders in
the back of the building, and then the pickup window would be
located on the south side of the building. There is a bypass
lane provided for vehicles that want to avoid going through the
drive -up lane. There are no additional curb cuts proposed onto
Middlebelt Road. Access would be provided from three new
approaches that would utilize the two existing drives that border
the properly. One of the driveways leads from Industrial Road
and extends along the west side of the property. This driveway
is located on the subject parcel. The other access point would
come from what is referred to as the east drive on the Menards
site. This driveway is located on the Menards property, and
borders the parcel to the south. There is an entrance there.
The driveways in the northwest and southwest comers of the
parking lot would allow for two-way directional traffic. Both
ingress and egress would be allowed from these two driveways,
whereas the one connecting to the Menards driveway would be
for ingress purposes only. That would be accomplished by
allowing for right Tums into the site for vehicles that turn in from
Middlebelt Road. Heading westbound on this driveway would
have the option of either continuing straight and going to
Menards, turning north and entering the site from either of these
two driveways, or alternatively, turning right into this access
point here, which would be an ingress point only. The site plan
shows a total of 160 parking spaces. The required parking for
the project is equal to the sum total of all of the various uses.
This would include the overall number of restaurant customer
seats, the number of employees within the restaurants as well
as the amount of retail floor space. A total of 171 parking
spaces are required for all three uses. For the Applebee's,
there are 216 customer seats. Del Taco has 44 seats.
Combined, the seating would require 260 seats. Applebee's will
have roughly 15 employees and Del Taco five employees. So
that's 20 additional parking spaces needed for the employees.
The retail area would require roughly 21 parking spaces. There
are 160 parking spaces shown on the site plan while 171 are
required per code, leaving a deficiency of 11 spaces that would
have to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
landscaped areas on the site constitute roughly 17 percent of
the overall property, which exceeds the minimum requirement of
15 percent. The plan shows mostly trees at the back of the
property, as well as some shrubs along Middlebelt Road. Staff
believes that the amount of landscape materials, especially
trees, is not adequate, and for this reason we would recommend
that this aspect of the plan come back to us for further review. I
think its easier to look at the rendered site plan when describing
the project, but as you look at the details here, you'll notice the
size of the parking spaces, the specific location of where the
July 9, 2013
25869
trash enclosures are going to be located, the exterior lighting
and those types of elements are provided on this particular plan.
I'm going to go to the rendered plans that were provided by the
applicant showing what the building would look like. The first
one is Applebee's. Both these buildings would actually be
similar to each other in terms of architecture and building
materials. For the Applebee's, there are three primary exterior
buildings materials. There is a cultured or manufactured stone,
which is the beige and brown color. The tower element above
the main entrance into the restaurant is surrounded in the
cultured stone material as well as along the base of the building.
They are also showing a cement fiberboard siding. That is the
darker brown. The east elevation would face Middlebelt Road.
The fiberboard is shown here, which is a material we've seen
before. In fact, Tim Horton being built at Merriman and Five
Mile is going to use the same type of material on that building.
The reddish color portion of the building which makes up the
area around the windows is an E.I.F.S. or a dryvit material.
Some of the details include metal awnings that would display
Applebee's trademark graphics. Decorative light fixtures are
also shown on the plan, a metal canopy over the entrance to the
restaurant, as well as a prefnished metal coping. The coping is
the area that runs along the top of the building. The light
fixtures are a little difficult to see on this particular plan, but
there are a number of sconces identified, and then the canopy
over the entrance is located here. This shows you what the
other sides of the Applebee's restaurant would look like. One
other material that they are showing is this scored or decorative
masonry unit that would be used to screen the trash enclosure
area behind Applebee's. Actually, there are two trash
enclosures. There is one for the retail building and Del Taco as
well as the restaurant, all located behind the Applebee's
restaurant. So they are going to consolidate all of the trash
behind the Applebee's restaurant. The middle rendering is the
building as it would appear from the north elevation. This is the
side of the building that would face Industrial Road. The south
elevation is the side of the building that would be adjacent to the
other retail building. Next we have the multi -tenant building that
includes the Del Taco restaurant. They provided detail
specifically on the restaurant portion of this building, whereas
the other two tenants have yet to be identified, but they would
carry the same theme in terms of the architecture. They are
using the cultured or manufactured stone over a significant
portion of the Del Tam restaurant on the portion of the building
that faces Middlebelt Road. They also use it to identify or
subdivide the tenant spaces. The E.I.F.S. is shown in a lighter
beige or brown coloring and then the awnings are a different
color. So they are using the same types of materials, the
July 9, 2013
25870
E.I.F.S., the cultured stone with a little bit different colors for
both the awnings and the E.I.F.S. This may include some of the
same material along the other sides of the building. This darker
brown is either a brick or the same. This is a brick material that
they're proposing for the north side of the building as well as
portions of the south elevation. In terms of signage, Applebee's
would be allowed one sign not to exceed 71 square feet. They
are showing four overall wall signs totaling 120 square feet. Del
Tam also is permitted one wall sign not to exceed 30 square
feel. The elevation plans show they're proposing two wall signs
that would equal 108 square feel. Clearly, the signage is
something that would have to go before the Zoning Board of
Appeals. For Applebee's, the sign on the east elevation on the
lower facing Middlebelt Road, then you have another sign on
the north elevation that would face Industrial Road. I think the
third sign is probably on that same elevation. Primarily, two
sides of the building would have signage on it. The same thing
exists for the Del Taco, one on the east elevation facing
Middlebelt Road and then another sign on the lower on the
opposite side facing south, so that would be visible for
northbound traffic on Middlebelt Road. Lastly, in terms of
monument signage, because these sites are being divided,
they're each going to be entitled to their own ground sign. The
limitations on the ground sign are six feel in height, 30 square
feel in area with a minimum setback of 10 feel from any right-of-
way line. The plans do show two ground signs but we don't
have any details in terms of what those signs would look like at
this time. With that, I'll answer any questions or I'll go straight to
the correspondence at this time, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Morrow: Please go to the correspondence and then I think we'll have a
couple questions for you.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 27, 2013, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use
approval request. The written legal description is correct. The
address for this site is confirmed to be 13301 Middlebelt.
Industrial Drive is under the City of Livonia jurisdiction while
Middlebelt Road is under Wayne County's jurisdiction. Any
work within Middlebelt Road will require a Wayne County
Permit. The Engineering Department is concerned with
additional traffic to the proposed restaurants that would result in
traffic congestion entering onto Industrial Road, especially
mixing with truck traffic leaving from Kroger Dairy and UPS.
Consideration may be needed to examine any traffic warrants
for the existing traffic signal that may require improvements at
July 9, 2013
25871
the intersection at Middlebelt/Industrial under Wayne County's
jurisdiction. Consideration should be given to prohibit left turns
entering onto Industrial Drive or provide specified times not
allowing left turns during peak hours. A haffic report should be
provided to determine the proposed impacts to the site and
surrounding area along with recommendation to provide internal
pavement markings and necessary traffic control devices to
assist patrons. In regards storm water management, the City of
Livonia requires storm water detention. The plans depicts storm
water detention that ties into Livonia Drain #19 and falls under
the jurisdiction of the City Engineering Department to review
calculations and storage capacity for the proposed site
improvements. Pertaining to utilities, the City of Livonia has an
existing 16 -inch water main on the south side of Industrial Drive.
There is an existing 18 -inch sanitary sewer that runs north and
south along the west side of Middlebelt Road for use. Separate
sanitary sewer leads will be required. Separate sanitary
connections to the existing 18 -inch sanitary sewer along
Middlebe/t Road will be required. In addition, separate domestic
water service lines would be required, resulting in a private
easement from the north parcel to service the south parcel. We
are providing the owner, for informational purposes, a copy of
Section 13.42 of the City Ordinances. This Ordinance limits the
amount of Fats, Oils and Grease (F.O.G.) which can be
discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to 100 milligrams
per liter by weight, unless written approval is obtained to exceed
this amount. This Ordinance also provides information on
grease trap/nterceptor requirements, and is available on the
City of Livonia website at wwwci.livonia.mi.us, go to the right
hand side of the web page under Quick Shortcuts, click on
Online Ordinances. A soil erosion and sedimentation control
(SESC) permit will be required and involve separate plans to be
submitted since the site is over one (1) acre. This permit and
associated fees will be handled by the Engineering Department
before any work commences". The letter is signed by Todd
Zilincik, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 2, 2013, which reads
as follows: 9 have reviewed the petition for waiver use approval
on the property at the above referenced address to construct
and operate a full service restaurant and have noted the
following. (1) NFPA 1, Chapter 20 shall be followed for
Assembly Occupancies, (2) NFPA 101, Chapter 12, shall be
followed for New Assemblies, (3) Fire Department Access shall
be maintained in accordance to NFPA 1, 18.2.2.1, 18.2.3.1.2,
18.2.3.4.1 and 18.2.3.4.3.; (4) Fire Hydrants and water supply
are required according to NFPA 1, 18.3. These issues and
other code requirements will be addressed during the plan
review process. Providing that all details in regards to New
July 9, 2013
25872
Assembly Occupancy are followed and inspected prior to tenant
use, this department has no objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated June 14, 2013, which reads as
follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the
captioned petitions. There is currently a driveway that leads
from the complex (Menards, Applebee's, Del Tac) to
Middlebeft Road. This is one of two driveways that the complex
willuse. The other driveway is off of Industrial Roadjust west of
Middlebeft Road. The driveway that leads from the complex is
not a new driveway and was previously used by a distribution
warehouse. The previous volume of traffic was far less than
what it will be when the establishments open. It is anticipated
that traffic exiting from this driveway will have several points of
conflict with other haffic. Most notable is southbound Middlebelt
traffic staged in the center lane waiting to tum left into Meijer.
Motorists will have to cross three southbound lanes, and then
navigate through or around vehicles staged in the center lane
while entering into a gap in northbound traffic. An additional
point of confilct with this driveway is for motorists intending to
enter the complex from northbound Middlebelt. They will have
to contend with the same southbound vehicles staged in the
center lane and those turning left from the complex onto
Middlebeft. It is our recommendation that turns be restricted
into and from this driveway. Signs should be posted at the exit
indicating NO LEFT TURN. Additionally, northbound traffic
should be restricted from turning left into the complex. Signs
should be posted on northbound Middlebeft indicating NO LEFT
TURN into the complex. Rights turns should be permitted for
ingress (southbound traffic) and egress (exiting traffic) only.
Traffic intending to go northbound on Middlebelt can use the exit
at Industrial and enter northbound Middlebelt at the current
traffic signal. All northbound Middlebeft haffic can enter the
complex via Industrial. Wayne County Roads was previously
contacted regarding this matter along with our
recommendations. We were advised they would have restricted
the turning movements but there was not a curb cut (driveway)
permit requested by the petitioner because there was already a
driveway to the complex. Wayne County did advise they would
install turning restriction signs on the right of way if crashes
increased. We anticipate that crashes will increase. There are
too many dynamics occurring at these driveways for crashes not
to occur. This same strategy (turning movement restrictions) is
currently in use on Plymouth Road west of Middlebelt for the
driveways leading to Wonderland (Target and Walmart
complex). It has proven successful." The letter is signed by
John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from
the Inspection Department, dated July 9, 2013, which reads as
July 9, 2013
25873
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain the excess number and size of the proposed signage.
(2) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be
required to maintain the deficient number of parking spaces
proposed. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Ms. Scheel: To Mr. Taormina through the Chair. The fimt question comes
from the letter that was written by Sgt. John Gibbs of the Traffic
Division. Are we allowed or not allowed to restrict the traffic
signs? Does that have to come from Wayne County or can that
come from us?
Mr. Taormina: No, that would have to come from Wayne County if it is within
the Middlebelt Road right-of-way. Just to elaborate or clarify
what Sgt. Gibbs is suggesting, his concern is primarily with
vehicles exiling from the driveway on the Menards property.
Again, this is a driveway that is controlled by Menards. This
was an item that was discussed at the time the Menards petition
came before us. They did provide a traffic analysis. It was their
opinion that there was sufficient sight lines and gaps in traffic to
allow for a left hand tum to take place from this driveway onto
northbound Middlebelt Road. However, they recognized the
concems with those turning movements and so there will be
signs posted along this road encouraging traffic exiting
Menards, that all northbound traffic turn left here and then use
the signalized intersection at Industrial and Middlebelt.
Similady, this plan provides similar signage for people exiting
the site at these two locations. There will be signs posted that
northbound traffic tum nghl and use Industrial Dnve, the
signalized intersection, in order to turn left there as opposed to
using this drive for those turn movements. The other concem,
as I understand the letter, is for northbound traffic on Middlebelt
Road, the left hand turn movements into the site from
northbound traffic on Middlebelt Road conflicting with left hand
Tums occuring into the Mei&s from southbound traffic on
Middlebelt Road. So you've got the entrance going into the
Mep&s on the opposite side of the road and you've got persons
that are southbound on Middlebelt Road wanting to tum left into
Mep&s, and then you've got people northbound on Middlebelt
wanting to turn left into this site, and there's the potential for
conflict between the two. His suggestion is that there be a sign
posted that would restrict or prohibit left hand turns from
July 9, 2013
25874
Middlebelt Road into this driveway, but that's something that
would have to be done by the County. He's indicated in his
letter that he's had that discussion with the County. In fad,
they're considering putting those signs in there if they see an
increase in crash incidents.
Ms. Scheel:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
The driveways pretty well line up though.
Mr. Taormina:
I'll go the aerial photograph and show you the difference. I don't
believe they line up at all. The Meijer driveway is about 200 feet
further to the south.
Ms. Scheel:
My next question, I didn't see where there was an outside
dumpster for the retail building, but then you said that they're
going to share that?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. The retail building would use one of the enclosures behind
the Applebee's. I believe this identifies the enclosure for
Applebee's because this other box identified on the site plan
would be one of the cooler or freezer units. There is masonry
surrounding these. There are gales that are provided here for
the dumpsler for access to the trash enclosure; gales provided
here but the other areas would be surrounded by masonry.
Ms. Scheel:
And how would the folks from the retail building gel to that
dumpsler?
Mr. Taormina:
They would walk along here. Access would be from the parking
lot to the south to gel access there. That's my understanding,
yes.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening? We have three things before
us, but right now we're going to confine ourselves to Agenda
Item #3, which is the Applebee's restaurant. We will need your
name and address for the record please.
Ryan Jones, TSFR
Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite
200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We're here to propose an
Applebee's and a retail building with a Del Taco end cap.
Livonia is also our hometown. Our corporate office is right at
Laurel Park Mall. We're very excited to bring a Del Taco to
Livonia as well as an Applebee's. We have three other
Applebee's throughout the State of Michigan, and we also have
65 Applebee's throughout the State of Michigan. We're very
July 9, 2013
25875
happy to try to bring one here locally. Just a quick clarification
on that trash enclosure. The retail and the Del Taco trash
enclosure is located next to the Applebee's trash enclosure, but
behind the retail building, and the Del Taco is actually all
sidewalk, and that sidewalk connects directly to the side of the
trash enclosure there. Right there there's an opening into that
trash enclosure. So they definitely won't be going out into the
parking lot. They'll have a straight shot behind the building to
that trash enclosure all through a sidewalk. So that was the first
clarification. Also, we've heard the concerns of the traffic, and
we have proposed, just like Menards has proposed, to put
directional signs up on our site to direct all customers leaving
our site to use Industrial Road and use the intersection. We feel
most people will learn that pattern anyways instead of trying to
tum out of the Menards drive because there is no intersection.
So we anticipate most people will use Industrial Road with the
light. I'm open to any questions you guys have. I've got a lot of
information. I know we discussed hardy board at the study
meeting. I actually have a sample here if you guys wanted to
see that. I've got a little more information on that. That material
actually has a 30 year warranty. It actually comes prefnished
now so there are many different color options. It can come
prefinished so there's no painting involved. It should outlast the
building life.
Mr. Morrow: While we're discussing that, Mark, could you bring up the
buildings?
Mr. Taormina: Sure. I think this is the material he's referring to. It's a cement
fiber panel, sometimes referred to as hardy plank.
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: On the Livonia store, that material is identified here on the
building. Did you want to show the sample?
Mr. Jones: Yes. Its actually made out of cement. It's very durable. It
doesn't rot. Moisture cant affect it. And if it's not painted, they
use a seven coal process to pre -finish the material. In the
rendering, it's a brown color. I couldn't gel the actual color
sample from them. This is the unfinished product that you
would have to paint, but it's going to look exactly like this but in
the color you see on the rendering. It's used quite a bit in
construction these days. It's very durable, and like I said, has a
30 year warranty which is great. I think it will probably outlast
the brick. So that's all I have to say on the hardy board.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions?
July 9, 2013
25876
Mr. Wilshaw: Since we're talking about the materials, did you want to hold up
the material sample board and just sort of point out the different
colors and materials that you're using since the vast television
audience we have hasn't had a chance to see the actual colors?
Mr. Jones: The stone you see on the entry lower and the bottom three to
four feet around the building is the cultured stone. There's a
little different color variation. It's mostly this whitish or beige and
there's a little bit of yellow in it depending on how the
manufacturer makes it. This is an actual sample of the hardy
board that is in the actual brown color. The canopies you see
above the entrance door are this standing seam metal. Its a
silver gray. And the E.I.F.S., the red you see, is typical E.I.F.S.
We use heavy mesh to make it much stronger so it lasts much
longer and low maintenance. The metal coping around the top
of the building would be this black metal, and this black you see
here is the black that's around the back that screens the trash
enclosure and the walk-in box. It's an outside cooler. Those
are the finishes on the Applebee's and you also see the
awnings there. It's a metal so we don't use the fabric. Fabric
has very bad maintenance qualities. So the metal panels, they'll
Iasi for a very long time and they have an LED light strip that
lights them. So any questions on the Applebee's material?
Mr. Wilshaw: Thanks for the showing the materials. I have a question on the
awning though. I looked at the Applebee's at Six Mile and
Haggerty, which recently was upgraded with new awnings that
are similar to this in the sense of being the bright yellow
corporate color for Applebee's, and are actually quite attractive
looking, but they don't have apples on them. Is that graphic on
the awning something that's a necessity or is that something
that could be done away with?
Mr. Jones: That is one of the main corporate images that we would love to
keep. They also have a car -side awning there where they carry
the food out. You can see it on the middle rendering there, the
north. That is also the same metal canopy that says "car -side to
go" so customers know where to come up. But yes, the apples
are definitely something we would pursue.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, because I don't see that on the Applebee's at Six Mile
and Haggerty, and I don't see it on any other Applebee's I've
gone by that have these types of awnings. I'm fine with the
"car -side to go" sign because essentially that's a directional
sign. Its letting people know, like you said, what entrance to go
in. I don't have a problem with that, but to me, the apples are
essenfially advertising, especially if they are backlit with LED
July 9, 2013
25877
lighlbands and so on, which is, again, something that we
typically dont lend to like in the City. That's my only comment
on the awnings. I think that maybe we need to think about that
a little bit, but the rest of the materials, which I was not entirely
enamored with at our study meeting. We talked about the lack
of brick and so on. I do feel a lot better about these materials
now that I've had a chance to Team a little bit more about them,
see the materials that you've brought in. I think that the cultured
stone and the cement fiberboard are nice durable materials
which sort of complement the areas of drive-in, which are
maybe a little less durable but not in an exposed area where
they're going to get damaged. So thanks for reviewing those
materials with us. I do appreciate that. I do have some concern
over the traffic issues as our Police Department and
Engineering Department have pointed out. I think the
Schoolcratt and Middlebelt intersection is the busiest
intersection in the city by traffic volume, which is why you're
wanting to locate in that area I'm sure to capitalize on that.
Menards is going to generate a tremendous amount of traffic.
This is going to generate traffic. There's going to be a lot more
out lots coming which will generale traffic. I think putting the
traffic toward Industrial Road, I think is a wise move. I think the
directional signs that you've proposed are probably helpful,
although at some point we may find that we're even overloading
that intersection, which I think is the point of the Traffic Sergeant
when he indicates that they may need to even, or actually I think
it was the City Engineer, that we may need to even look at the
warrants on the signalized intersection itself and determine if
there's any changes necessary at some point, but that's not
necessarily your cross to bear. That's not you're light. You're
just laking advantage of it. So that's my comments up to this
point. I think the building looks good. I'm just not too keen on
the graphics on the awnings. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, referencing these graphics, will Inspection construe those
as signs or how will they construe them?
Mr. Taormina: You know, I had that conversation today with the Director of
Inspection and all I can tell you is that the jury is still out. I think
he wants to review the details before making a determination.
Either way, it's really up to the Planning Commission and the
City Council to advise whether or not the graphics are desired.
If they're ultimately considered to be part of the sign package,
then theyll have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. If
not, then they're just an element of the site plan.
Mr. Morrow: Theyre looking for a little direction from either this body or the
City Council to make that determination?
July 9, 2013
25878
Mr. Taormina:
The Director of Inspection will make the decision ultimately.
Mr. Morrow:
But he wants the input?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, he was hesitant to make a determination at this point with
the information. He said he'd have to review the plans in
greater detail and also compare it with what we've done with
other projects in the past. There is a fine line between what
constitutes signage and what is just an architectural element.
Mr. Morrow:
Got it. Any other questions?
Ms. Smiley:
What did we decide on the fish on Mitchell's? Is that art or is
that signage?
Mr. Taormina:
You're testing my memory now, Commissioner Smiley. I would
have to go back and take a look to see. I think that the Planning
Commission and the City Council had significant input on the
final appearance of those graphics. If you remember, originally
they were going to be painted on the side of the building and we
changed them to more of a sculpture type of element on the
building. I'm not sure that they ever went to the Zoning Board of
Appeals. I think it was handled mostly as a site plan element
more than anything else.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr:
A question for Mark. Are you comfortable with the E.I.F.S.
sections on this building? I know you expressed concern with
some other projects with that. Is this high enough that it's not a
concern?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't think it's a concern. I was looking at that earlier and
thinking that if the desire was to see a greater amount of stone
or brick on the elevations, what would make sense. And looking
at the east elevation, maybe it if went up a little bit higher along
the base, but then it doesn't match the sill line for the windows.
So that might be a little awkward. So really, I don't know what
this dimension is. Probably 2.5 - 3 feet above grade, which I
think is standard for a lot of the buildings that we have. I'm not
overly concerned about the amount of E.I.F.S. shown on the
building. It's similar on the north elevation as well as the south
elevation. The south elevation really won't be that visible. This
is the back portion of the south elevation. It really won't be that
visible for most traffic.
July 9, 2013
25879
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thanks. I do have a question for the petitioner. Do you
feel that the parking here is adequate for you? I know that
officially you're 11 spaces deficient, but what do you feel your
needs are for this site?
Mr. Jones:
We feel we're proposing a few too many spaces based on
ordinance. We're proposing 127 spaces for the Applebee's, and
our typical high volume restaurants throughout our system
typically only have 10010 110 parking spaces. So we feel we're
providing a few more for the Applebee's than what is truly
needed. On the retail and the Del Taco, I think those numbers
are okay. So I would say we're probably around 15 to 20
spaces more than we really feel we need.
Mr. Bahr:
There had been some comment made at the study meeting
about land banking some of those spaces along the west side.
Do I remember that correctly? I guess I don't know if that's for
the petitioner or for Mark.
Mr. Taormina:
Scott indicated that there was some discussion about possibly
land banking the west row of parking, but I'm not sure if that was
something the pefifioner had agreed to or not.
Mr. Bahr:
And I don't have a strong opinion on the land banking part so
much, but if the pefifioner says based on what he said with his
experience with the other Applebee's, I don't have an issue with
the parking at all either. That's it.
Ms. Smiley:
On that subject, I have one more question. Is a lot of that drive-
lhm for Del Taco?
Mr. Jones:
Its at least 60 percent drive-thm. Probably in this case, this one
may even be a little more with the draw of the Menards. We
feel this may be a little more than 60 percent drive-thm at this
location, but it's typically what we see in our three other
locations, 60 percent.
Ms. Smiley:
My main concern probably then is, I'm not a big fan of doing a
survey to see how many crashes we had. I prefer we do
everything preventative so that we don't make a statistic,
because I could easily be one. So anything you can do to guide
that traffic to the safest exit and entrance would be greatly
appreciated.
Mr. Jones:
We originally had proposed a full movement access point onto
Menards drive, but now we have reduced it to just a one way in
so we dont have any vehicles coming out of that drive creafing
more traffic. So we have looked at that already and tried to
July 9, 2013
25880
ease some of the traffic situations that we can control, but we
have absolutely no control over the existing Menards drive now.
We can t do anything about that drive as it is now.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel:
I just have a very simple general question. What are the hours
that you're proposing for Applebee's?
Mr. Jones:
Applebee's is 11:00 a.m. to midnight, and then I believe on
Friday and Saturday, they are open until 1:00 or 2:00 a.m.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. And you're not asking for any outdoor seating or
anything?
Mr. Jones:
No. The prototype actually had an outside patio. We decided
that we did not want to do the outside patio just because of
Michigan climate. We didn't feel it was worth the expense for
those couple months that it gets used. So no, we won't be
proposing any outdoor seating.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Mr. Chairman, through the chair. Mark, a landscape plan is
coming back to us right?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm recommending that, yes.
Mr. Taylor:
And the signage that we see on these buildings, they're non-
conforming so they have to go to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Taylor: So whatever signs we approve tonight, which we're not
approving really, its just the conforming signs.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. The way the prepared resolution reads is, only conforming
signs are approved and any additional signage would have to
go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval.
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Bahr: One more brief comment. I just wanted to voice my
concurrence. Should this go through, we'll ask for a landscape
plan to come back, but I would like to see more trees when that
happens. That area can definitely benefit from more green and
less pavement. And then one last question. Mrs. Scheel asked
Mr. Taormina: No. They still comply. They're showing 17 percent according to
Scott's calculations, which is in compliance. So this would not
be factored into necessarily a permanent part of the
landscaping. When we approve parking spaces being land
banked, we also stipulate that if there's ever a need to construct
those parking spaces that they be installed. That's why we
don't count it towards the first 15 percent of the required
landscaping.
Mr. Wilshaw: That makes sense. If they come back with a landscape plan
and they are going to land bank those spaces, they can still
indicate some sort of shrubbery.
Mr. Taormina: Absolutely.
July 9, 2013
25881
a very important question about the hours, but she forgot the
most important part, and that is, what night do kids eat free?
Mr. Jones:
That's a good question. I don't know that answer, but I do know
every Monday I believe is Veterans Day where they gel 30
percent off every Monday.
Mr. Bahr:
I'm all set. Thank you.
Mr. Jones:
I'll lel you know on that one.
Ms. Scheel:
I have one more question. Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina.
The monument sign that you spoke of for each building, will that
come back to us?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know that the prepared resolution includes that. Again, it
stipulates that they have to be conforming and if they're not,
they require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Still, if
this body wants to make any recommendations relative to
signage, now is the time because that would be passed on to
the Council and whatever the Council approves, the Zoning
Board of Appeals cannot consider any signage in excess of that.
So I think your recommendation at this point is valuable on any
of the site plan elements, obviously including signage.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a question to Mr. Taormina. If we make as part of the
approving resolution a recommendation that those western most
parking spaces be land banked, does that then go toward
increasing the percentage of landscaping on the site when you
calculate that number, because I know they were a little low on
that.
Mr. Taormina: No. They still comply. They're showing 17 percent according to
Scott's calculations, which is in compliance. So this would not
be factored into necessarily a permanent part of the
landscaping. When we approve parking spaces being land
banked, we also stipulate that if there's ever a need to construct
those parking spaces that they be installed. That's why we
don't count it towards the first 15 percent of the required
landscaping.
Mr. Wilshaw: That makes sense. If they come back with a landscape plan
and they are going to land bank those spaces, they can still
indicate some sort of shrubbery.
Mr. Taormina: Absolutely.
July 9, 2013
25882
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you
Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, I'll close the public hearing and request a motion.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-40-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on
Petition 2013-06-02-14 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant
(Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west
side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way
and Schoolcreft Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26, which
properly is currently in the process of being rezoned from M-1 to
G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2013-06-02-14 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Dimension and Paving Plan marked Sheet C4
prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, dated
June 26, 2013, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for
approval to the Planning Department within sixty (60) days
following approval of this petition by the City Council;
3. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed two hundred sixteen (216) seals;
4. That the Building Elevation Plan marked A4.2 prepared by
Wah Yee Associates, dated June 7, 2013, as revised, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. 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;
6. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of building materials that shall complement
that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of
solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid
July 9, 2013
25883
panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
7. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a
height of 20 feet above grade and shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway;
8. That the proposed wall signs as shown on the referenced
elevation plan are approved with this petition, subject to
approval by Zoning Board of Appeals, and that provided
the parcel is split such that Applebee's and the multi -tenant
retail building are located on separate parcels, the
Applebee's shall be allowed one (1) conforming
ground/monument sign in the approximate location as
shown on the approved site plan, and that any additional
signage shall be separately submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council;
9. That except for the accent lighting on the awnings, there
shall be no LED lighlband or exposed neon permitted on
this site including, but not limited to, the building or around
the windows; and
10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for building permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
July 9, 2013
25884
Mr. Taormina:
We don't have the information on the monument signs. We
don't know if they're going to propose 6 feet or 10 feet high
signs, but to the extent that you may want to restrict that
somewhat, you may want to include a condition that those
strictly be conforming in terms of their size and dimensions. You
may want to have a separate resolution dealing with the
monument signs. And then the other question was with respect
to the LED. I think the petitioner indicated earlier that some type
of LED was going to be used around the window frames or the
awnings. Can you describe that a little bit further, if that's okay
through the Chair to the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
I think its a concern that I'm glad you're bringing out.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Jones, is the lighting that you're referring to the lighting that
appears underneath the awnings?
Mr. Jones:
It is what you're showing there. It's actually an LED strip
lighlband that sits in front of the awning. You can see the black
lines kind of running. There are two of them running horizontal
there, and that projects light onto the front face of the awning. It
does not illuminate the back side of the awning.
Ms. Scheel:
So is it on the black and it goes al the awning? It shoots in.
Mr. Jones:
Yes. It shoots towards the building, towards the awning.
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So the awnings will be illuminated yellow essentially at night
lime?
Mr. Jones:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm just afraid that condition #9 conflicts with what they're
showing on their plan because it would be LED Iighlbands even
though its casting the light on the face of the awning. We may
want to clarify that.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, I see where you're coming from. I know in the past we've
approved some lighting for the awning and it went through some
sort of an architectural light fixture to reflect and light the thing.
So I guess this is their way of doing it to light the awnings. How
does the Commission feel about where we say no LED
lighlband or exposed neon light shall be permitted?
Ms. Scheel:
Should we say if we didn't mind it being on the awning the way
it's showing, could we add "except for as shown on the
awnings?"
July 9, 2013
25885
Mr. Morrow:
Howdoyou feel aboutthat, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
We could add that language to condition #9.
Mr. Taylor:
LED lighting as shown on the photograph is approved.
Mr. Morrow:
Just confine it to the awnings and any other shall not be
permitted.
Mr. Taormina:
Is there any other?
Mr. Jones:
The word "LED" in that resolution kind of scares me because we
like to use LED lights, not old fashion ones. I mean some of the
wall scones are actually LED because they're low maintenance.
I mean they last forever.
Mr. Morrow:
We don't want a Iighlband going all around the building, up or
down the building.
Mr. Jones:
Right. We have no proposal for Iightbands as a solid band you
can visually see, but some of the light bulb fixtures ...
Mr. Taormina:
That would not be a problem.
Ms. Scheel:
Itjusl says LED Iightband.
Mr. Bahr:
Even the ones around the awnings aren't the exposed type of
lights. I don't have a problem adding the language, but I don't
have a concern with it.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess its semantics now.
Mr. Bahr:
I don't see any exposed LED or neon on here and I don't think
that's their intent.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I agree with Scott's comment. In this case, the LED lights on
the awnings are being used as a lighting accent. It would be no
different than putting spotlights in the ground and pointing them
up towards at the awnings or anything else. Frankly, if there's
anything I want to compromise on, I would gel rid of the
graphics on the awnings but leave them illuminated. That's fine
with me but that's up to the maker of the motion if they want to
do that or not.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, I think we've reached the consensus here that the LED
Iighlband is not part of the awning. In other words, its just a
way of illuminating, but not a band.
July 9, 2013
25886
Mr. Taormina: We'll make sure that the resolution properly addresses that.
Mr. Jones: Can I address one more thing? This is John Thompson. He's
with PEA. I was going to have him just briefly discuss the
landscaping concern you guys had.
John B. Thompson, P.E. Senior Project Manager, Professional Engineering
Associates, Inc., 2430 Rochester Court, Suite 100, Troy,
Michigan 48083. My question with respect to the landscaping
amendment is, if we could do that administratively through
Mark's office rather than come back to another Planning
Commission meeting. Would that be acceptable?
Mr. Morrow: Are you talking aboutthe Iandbanking?
Ms. Scheel: The landscape plan, #2.
Mr. Thompson:
I know Mark was looking for some additional trees and some of
the Commissioners as well. I was just wondering if it would be
acceptable to do that administratively through Mark.
Mr. Morrow:
Let's see how the Commission feels about that. Mrs. Smiley?
Ms. Smiley:
I have no problem with that. Mark knows what he wants and
what we need.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Wilshaw?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I don't have a stake in the motion.
Mr. Taylor:
I don't have any problem.
Ms. Scheel:
I don't have any problem with leaving it up to the administration.
Mr. Bahr:
I certainly trust Mark, and if its a valid procedure, then I'm fine
with that.
Mr. Morrow:
It would appear that we're placing the burden on Mark, and if
we're dissatisfied, we know where to go.
Mr. Jones:
Thank you. I have one more request. I'm not sure if this is the
time to make it but I also need to request a seven day waiver so
we could get on the City Council agenda for July 15.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll take that up at the conclusion of the first motion. What we
were talking about is the landscape plan.
July 9, 2013
25887
Ms. Scheel:
The landscape plan, #2, is going to be adjusted.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I wanted to verify.
Ms. Scheel:
And I have an additional question for Mark.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, as far as it relates to that, Mark, adjust #2 where he does
not have to bring it back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. We'll lake care of that.
Ms. Scheel:
Mark, what you had mentioned earlier regarding the monument
sign. If the monument sign that they propose is conforming,
then it doesn't need to come back? As long as it's conforming,
it goes along with what's before us now, right?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct. If you want to stipulate that it be conforming, I
think now is the time to do that.
Mr. Taylor:
Could we make it easier, Mark, to put in Item #8 that any
additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of
Appeals?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, we dont know what the ground signs look like.
Mr. Taylor:
That's what I mean.
Mr. Taormina:
We know what all the other signs look like so we know that they
have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. As I understand it,
you're comfortable with the sign package as it exists today,
including the monument signs, as long as they're conforming.
Mr. Taylor:
We've done that in the past.
Mr. Taormina:
We can stipulate in the resolution that the ground signs be
conforming.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
And that you accept the fact that the wall signs will have to go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
Yet you're comfortable, as I understand it, with the sign package
as presented provided that those monument signs fully conform
to the ordinance. Is that cored? Then we can specify that.
July 9, 2013
25888
Mr. Taylor:
The only problem we have with that is we dont know the square
footage or any of that.
Mr. Taormina:
That's what I'm saying. We'll make them conforming. You'll
stipulate that theyre conforming, and if they're not, then they
have to come back for your review.
Mr. Taylor:
Fine.
Mr. Taormina:
Since we're allowing the exception on the wall signs, maybe it's
appropriate to make sure that the monument signs conform. Is
that an issue?
Mr. Jones:
The only issue I see with the monument signs, which is one
reason we haven't proposed anything, is the pending parcel
split. We feel a parcel split will occur, and we will get two
monument signs, but at this point in time, we truly are only
allowed one monument sign per ordinance because the parcel
split has not occurred. So it's very difficult to propose a
monument sign now, al this lime.
Mr. Taormina:
If I could respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Morrow:
Sure.
Mr. Taormina:
The split is something that they are entitled to, and once that
occurs, they will be allowed two monument signs, one on each
parcel. Those monument signs will be limited to, as I indicated
earlier, 30 square feet in area, 6 feet in height and a setback of
10 feel from the right-of-way. So as long as they're willing to
accept that, then we'll fashion the language in that direction.
Mr. Morrow:
They can always go the Zoning Board of Appeals anyway.
Mr. Taormina:
I would suggest that if they decide later on that they want to
have larger signs, then they submit those to this body for your
review first before going to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That
serves as an incentive for them to comply with the ordinance as
it relates to the ground signage.
Mr. Morrow:
I think we've got it now. I think we're all on the same page. If
you want two monument signs, I think you'll move forward with
getting the lot split and then you're entitled to it without further
ado as long as theyre conforming.
Ms. Scheel:
So they submit plans for two conforming signs. Who looks at
them?
July 9, 2013
25889
Mr. Taormina:
The Inspection Department.
Ms. Scheel:
The Inspection Departmentwill look atthem. Do you see them?
Mr. Taormina:
Typically, yes.
Ms. Scheel:
I'm good as long as you're looking at them also to make sure.
Okay. Do we have everything?
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, have you got it pretty well cleared up now as far as the
final motion?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Then without further ado, I'm going to ask for a roll call.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. I think you requested a seven day waiver.
Will anyone offer that motion?
Ms. Smiley:
I will. I would propose that we grant them a seven day waiver.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-41-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2013-06-02-14 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant
(Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west
side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way
and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
July 9, 2013
25890
ITEM #4 PETITION 2013-06-02-15 APPLEBEE'S CLASS C
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
06-02-15
01306-02-15 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(h) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a Class
C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption
on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant
(Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west
side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way
and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: The proposed Applebee's would carry a Class C liquor license
which would allow for the sale of beer, wine and spirits for
consumption on the premises. The license at this location
would comply with all of the special requirements of Section
11.03(h) which specifies that no other Class C licensed
businesses can be located within 1,000 feel of the proposed
license. The closest licensed establishment is Logan's
restaurant which is about 1,500 feel from the subject properly.
With that, I'll answer any questions that you may have. There is
no correspondence with respect to this item.
Mr. Morrow: Any questions regarding the Class C liquor license? Seeing
none, does the petitioner have any input that he would like to
add to the proceedings?
Ryan Jones, TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite
200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. It's a Class C liquor license
which we received from a restaurant called Tina's Place. It was
in Wayne County so it's just being transferred in Wayne County
to Wayne County, which I believe is what you have to do by law.
We have applied for it and we expect to receive it from Tina's
Place, Incorporated. They were located out in Allen Park.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. We assume that all necessary things will follow. Are
there any questions or comments before I go to the audience?
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-42-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on
Petition 2013-06-02-15 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections
July 9, 2013
25891
11.03(h) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine
and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with
a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road,
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX
Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 26, which property is currently in the process of being
rezoned from M-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-06-02-
15 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use of an Class C license 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 Class C license;
3. That the proposed use of a Class C license is compatible
to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area;
and
4. That the proposed Class C licensed establishment would
be utilized primarily as a restaurant.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Chairman, do they need a seven day waiver on that?
Mr. Morrow:
Theyve requested a seven day waiver.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#97-43-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2013-06-02-15 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections
11.03(h) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine
July 9, 2013
25892
and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with
a full service restaurant (Applebee's) at 13301 Middlebelt Road,
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between the CSX
Railroad right -0f --way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 114
of Section 26.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2013-06-02-16 DEL TACO
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
06-02-16 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a
multi -tenant commercial building with a full service restaurant
including drive -up window facilities (Del Taco) at 13301
Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in
the Northeast 114 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: I'll let my presentation from Item #3 apply to Item #5. Also, with
respect to the correspondence, I believe three of the four items
are the same as what was read out for the Applebee's in Item
#3. That would include the letter dated July 9 from the
Inspection Department, the letter dated June 27 from the
Engineering Division and the letter dated June 14 from the
Department of Public Safety, Division of Police. There is also a
letter from the Livonia Fire and Rescue dated July 2 that I'll read
now that is specific to this Del Taco.
Mr. Morrow: Please.
Mr. Taormina: The letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July
2, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the petition
for waiver use approval on the property at the above referenced
address to construct a multi -tenant commercial building with
retail spaces and a full service restaurant, which includes drive -
up window facilitfes, and have noted the following: Retail
Spaces: (1) NFPA 1, Chapter 20, shall be followed for
Mercanfi/e Occupancies as specified in 20.12. (2) NFPA 101,
Chapter 36, shall be followed for New Mercantile Occupancies.
Del Taco: (1) NFPA 1, Chapter 20 shall be followed for
Assembly Occupancies. (2) NFPA 101, Chapter 12, shall be
July 9, 2013
25893
followed for New Assemblies. (3) Fire Department Access shall
be maintained in accordance to NFPA 1, 18.2.2.1, 18.2.3.1.2,
18.2.3.4.1 and 18.2.3.4.3. (4) NFPA 1, 18.2.3.4.1.1, Fire
Department Access Roads, states that access to the property
must be unobstructed with a width of no less than 20 feet. This
is in regards to the drive -up window lane. These issues and
other code requirements will be addressed during the plan
review process. Providing that all details in regards to
Mercantile and New Assembly Occupancies are followed and
inspected prior to tenant use, this department has no objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire
Marshal. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I think we've got one from the Inspection Department also, Mr.
Taormina, where they make reference to the drive -up window.
Mr. Taormina:
Thank you. Yes. The letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated July 9, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required to maintain the excess number and
size of signage. (2) A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required to maintain the deficient number of
parking spaces. (3) Parking spaces shall be designated for the
use of drive -up window patrons. These parking spaces shall be
in addition to the required number parking spaces. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Do you have
questions of the petitioner?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I think for the sake of consistency maybe Mr. Jones would like
to show the material sample board for the Del Taco building as
its slightly different than the other building.
Ryan Jones, TSFR Apple Venture, L.L.C., 17800 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite
200C, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'll start with the cultured stone
which is on the entry tower above the main entry feature there
and it accents the retail building at the columns. We kind of
shied away from a prototype for the Del Taco, which they used
E.I.F.S. for most of their building, but we have decided to
upgrade to the cultured stone to match the Applebee's. So it's
going to be the same stone so we gel a uniform look throughout
July 9, 2013
25894
that center. Also, the block or back that's along the north
elevation at the bottom and along the columns, and it also
wraps the rear of the building, is identical to the Applebee's
brick or stone that wraps the trash enclosure as well for a
uniform look. Some of the colors are a little different for the Del
Tam. The metal coping that goes around the top of the building
is actually the same black color that we are using for the
Applebee's. The awning is a greenish color, which is their
prototype color. We have the yellow for the Applebee's and
then the green for Del Taco. We showed two options on this
plan: one being fabric, one being the metal. We're definitely
leaning towards the metal because of maintenance concerns.
Some of the E.I.F.S. that's shown on the drive-lhm side of the
building and also on the front, the major color is this goldish
color that you see there with some green and red accent
towards the rear of the building. On the retail building, you have
two separate colors, kind of a gray and a whitish color that is the
E.I.F.S. color that you see on the face of the building there and
R's also on the side and rear of the building.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I think that's a very attractive combination of
materials you're using there. The colors I think seem very nice.
I do think the metal awning is probably a smart idea since you're
doing that on the Applebee's to keep that consistent and, as you
said, it's probably a little more durable. I'm glad to see there's
no graphics or tacos on these awnings. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any illumination ofthe awnings?
Mr. Jones: It would be identical to the Applebee's with that strip of LED
lighlband that would shine on the face of it.
Mr. Morrow: Is that represented by that one horizontal line there?
Mr. Jones: Yes. Exactly.
Mr. Morrow: We'll clearthat up right off the bat here.
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Anything else as it relates to the building materials and the
building?
Ms. Scheel: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina, in the
resolution that's prepared for this, there's an Item #7 which
refers to the trash dumpsler. Would that apply here since this
particular building is not going to have its own trash dumpster?
July 9, 2013
25895
Mr. Taormina:
Technically, no, it would not. You're right.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Whoever makes the motion, they can not mention that.
Thankyou.
Mr. Taylor:
We have one dumpster, right, if I remember the way you
explained it?
Ms. Scheel:
I think there's two behind Applebee's.
Mr. Taormina:
There's actually two. It looks like there's ...
Mr. Bahr:
Three.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and I'm not sure how they're being used. I'm guessing that
these two are for the retail and the Del Taco and this one is for
the Applebee's. Is that correct?
Mr. Jones:
Correct.
Mr. Taormina:
So we have two enclosures technically; theyre side by side.
Mr. Taylor:
But theyre behind the Applebee's.
Mr. Taormina:
They are behind the Applebee's.
Mr. Taylor:
That brings the question up, what kind of businesses do you
think you're going to get into the two 20 foot spaces that you
have?
Mr. Jones:
We were looking at a possible dental use, but that has fallen
apart. So as of right now, I don't have ...
Mr. Taylor:
I was just wondering if there's enough dumpster space. That's
what I'm thinking about.
Mr. Jones:
That's one issue I discussed with my leasing department. We
had a discussion on that and they felt that there was plenty of
dumpster capacity for the retail because Applebee's would have
the one to the north, Del Taco would have the one to the south,
and the center dumpster would be for the two retail spaces.
Mr. Taylor:
If you split that property off, are you still leasing both buildings?
Is that Schostak leasing those buildings?
Mr. Jones:
Actually, we'd be the owners of the Applebee's and the owners
of the Del Taco space but we would be leasing out the two retail
spaces to a separate tenant or tenants.
July 9, 2013
25896
Mr. Taylor:
I'm just thinking ahead of what if something happens between
those two lot splits and all of a sudden you don't have a
dumpsler for the properly to the south.
Mr. Jones:
We would have an access agreement written between the two
parcels. It would go with the land, if I'm saying that correctly,
and not with the building. So that agreement would go between
the two parcels forever unfit it was amended, which d never
would be.
Mr. Taylor:
As a rule, restaurants have, as you know, quite a bit of waste.
I'm just a little worried about the dumpslers. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against the gmnting of this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing and
request a motion.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0744-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 2013, on
Petition 2013-06-02-16 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to construct a multi -tenant commercial building with a
full service restaurant including drive -up window facilities (Del
Tam) at 13301 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and
Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, which
properly is currently in the process of being rezoned from M-1 to
C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2013-06-02-16 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Dimension and Paving Plan marked Sheet C4
prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, dated
June 26, 2013, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the two spaces designated for drive -up window
customers may be omitted only if this requirement is
waived by the City Council by means of a separate
resolution by which two-thirds of the members of the City
Council concur;
July 9, 2013
25897
3. That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for
approval to the Planning Department within sixty (60) days
following approval of this petition by the City Council;
4. That the maximum customer seafing count shall not
exceed forty four (44) seats;
5. That the Building Elevation Plan marked A4.1 prepared by
Wah Yee Associates, dated June 7, 2013, as revised, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. 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;
7. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a
height of 20 feel above grade and shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway;
8. That the proposed wall signs as shown on the referenced
elevation plan are approved with this petition, subject to
approval by Zoning Board of Appeals, and that provided
the parcel is split such that the multi -tenant retail building
and Applebee's Restaurant are located on separate
parcels, the multi -tenant retail building shall be allowed one
(1) conforming ground/monument sign in the approximate
location as shown on the approved site plan, and that any
additional signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
9. That except for the accent lighting on the awnings, there
shall be no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be
permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the
building or around the windows; and
10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the lime of application for building permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
July 9, 2013
25898
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. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
Does Scott want to change the verbiage on the LED lightband to
go with Mark's verbiage on the other one, because he said if he
goes with the green metal, he might ...
Mr. Bahr:
We might as well change it to be consistent. I dont know if ft's
necessary, but we did do it on the other one, so that's fine.
Mr. Taormina:
Do we want to add on #5 an exception that the metal awnings
should be used in lieu of the fabric awnings?
Mr. Wilshaw:
It was vague whether it was metal or fabric.
Mr. Morrow: I think if we want to stipulate it, we can stipulate it
Mr. Bahr: Its fine by me.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Wilshaw: I'd like to offer a seven day waiver for this item.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-45-2013 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2013-06-02-16 submitted by TSFR Apple Venture,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
11.03(c) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to construct a multi -tenant commercial building with a
full service restaurant including drive -up window facilities (Del
Taco) at 13301 Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of
Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and
Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 26.
July 9, 2013
25899
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Morrow: So we've gotten through all three petitions. They've been
approved. Good luck as you move forward.
Mr. Jones: Thankyou.
ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,040" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,041" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on June 11, 2013.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-46-2013 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,040th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 11,
2013, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES:
Scheel, Smiley, Bahr, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,041" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 9, 2013, was adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary