HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-10-29MINUTES OF THE 1,046rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,046`h 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 wnting, 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 2013-09-02-23 TIM HORTONS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-09-
02-23 submitted by Tim Donut U.S. Limited, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(4) of the City
of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct
and operate a limited service restaurant with drive -up window
facilities (Tim Horton) at 37685 Five Mile Road, located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue
Skies Avenue (New Five Village shopping center) in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 19.
October 29, 2013
2
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct a new restaurant. It will be located
at the New Five Village shopping center which is near the
southwest comer of Five Mile and Newburgh Roads. The land
area proposed for development measures about 0.65 acres and
has dimensions of 225 feet in length in an east to west direction
and 126 feel in a north to south direction. As can be seen from
the aerial photograph, the rectangular area is centrally located
along the shopping centers frontage on Five Mile and currently
consists entirely of off-street parking. It was on September 23 of
this year that City Council gave First Reading for a change of
zoning for this area from G7, Local Business, to C-2, General
Business. The proposed restaurant would be one story in height
and would measure 1,953 square feet in total area. The
building would be positioned towards the southeast corner of
the lease area. The setback of the building would be roughly 75
feel from the right-of-way line of Five Mile. An outdoor patio
would be located near the northeast comer of the building. The
patio area measures about 23 feel by 19 feel and would be
enclosed by a decorative railing. There are no additional curb
cuts proposed along Five Mile. Access to the restaurant would
be via connections with the shopping center's existing drive
aisles. The proposed restaurant would have a total of 26
interior seats and 12 exterior patio seals. It would be classified
as a limited service restaurant. Drive up window service is
planned along the south side of the building. The traffic lane
serving the drive -up window would commence along the west
side of the property and then continue around the south side of
the property where the pickup window would be located at the
back side of the building or the south side. There will be a curb
to define the outer boundary of the lane serving the drive up
window. To allow cars to bypass the drive thru once they are in
line, the plan shows an opening in the curb to the south of the
shopping centers adjacent drive aisle. In terms of parking,
restaurants require one space for every two interior seats, one
space for every three outdoor patio seats, one space for every
employee, and two spaces beyond the drive -up window. In this
case, Tim Honors would require a total of 24 parking spaces.
This plan provides for a total of 33 parking spaces, but because
the proposed development will eliminate parking spaces
required for the shopping center, it was necessary for us to re-
evaluate the overall parking for the shopping center. Based on
the usable square footage of New Five Village shopping center,
plus the bank that also operates on this site, they are required to
have a total of 482 parking spaces. Currently, the shopping
center provides for a total of about 555 parking spaces. With
Tim Horlons, the total number of spaces would decrease to 501,
October 29, 2013
3
which is just 5less than the total required of 506. We believe
these spaces can be added at the rear of the properly to avoid
the need for any variances. You will also note on the site plan
that the dumpsler enclosure has been repositioned on the site.
Previously, it was a little further north on the property. It has
been moved further south and is at an angle, still allowing for
some landscaping around the perimeter of the dumpster. In
terms of landscaping, approximately 19 peroenl of the overall
site would be landscaped, which exceeds the Cilys minimum
requirement of 15 peroent. There are three primary landscape
areas shown. Area 1 is on the north side running adjacent to
the sidewalk along Five Mile Road. Thais a 12 fool wide
greenbelt. Area 2 is the area surrounding the dumpsler and
separating the adjacent parking from the drive lhru lane. Area 3
is a small area on the east side of the building. In terms of the
exterior of the building, it is predominantly brick along the front
of the building. There is also fiber cement board. The dark
brown colors on the building and along the base is a ledge
stone material that is also a cement fiber material. There is an
exterior freezer/cooler unit that would be completely bricked in
the same material that would match the building. The dumpsler
enclosure would also contain the same brick material. Lastly,
with respect to signage, the restaurant would be allowed one
wall sign totaling 60 square feet on the front of the building.
There is a second wall sign located on the side of the building.
Ifs still yet to be determined whether or not the sign would be
placed there or on the opposite side. There was a ground sign
presented on some of the earlier plans but that has been
eliminated from the proposal. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can
read out the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of corespondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 2, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In acccrdance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition.
The legal description provided does not close within current
standards and will need to be revised prior to receiving
Engineering permit approval. The address of 37685 Five Mile
Road is comect for the existing shopping plaza property. Should
the proposed Tim Horton's be built, and the property be split, an
address of 37755 Five Mile Road should be used in conjunction
with the proposed restaurant. While we have no objections to
the proposed project, the following items should be noted. (1)
Public storm sewer is available within the existing plaza
property. Storm sewer detention meeting the current Wayne
October 29, 2013
4
County standards will be required for the proposed restaurant
property prior to connecting to the existing storm sewer.
Easements may need to be granted by the parent parcel in
order to reach the proposed restaurant property as well. (2) 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 traplmterceptor requirements, and is available on the
City of Livonia website at www.ci.livonia.mi.us. (3) A 12" water
main is available on the south side of Five Mile Road, and a 12"
sanitary sewer is available on the north side. Five Mile Road is
under the junsdiction of Wayne County and any work within the
right-of-way will require a permit by them. (4) A soil erosion and
sedimentation control (SESC) permit will not be required and
since the site is over under one acre in size. Although a SESC
permit will not be required, the owner is expected to use best
management practices to prevent soil erosion on the site." The
letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
October 15, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the
petition for waiver use approval on the property at the above
referenced address to construct and operate a limited service
restaurant including drive -up window facilities and have noted
the following. (1) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of
unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire
apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical
clearance. (2) NFPA 101, Chapter 12, shall be followed for New
Assemblies. These issues and other code requirements will be
addressed during the plan review process. Providing that all
details in regards to New Assemblies 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
October 2, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the
plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the
petition." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated October 22, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) A lot split is required. (2) We do not
see the required bypass lane for the drive thru window nor do
we see the required drive thru dedicated parking spaces. (3) As
proposed this plan would require a variance for excessive wall
signage and possibly square footage. This site would be
October 29, 2013
5
allowed one wall sign at 6 square feet maximum. (4) Once the
property is split this site would be allowed a monument sign of
30 square feet, maximum 7 feet tall by 10 feet, set back 10 feet.
(5) Should this project move forward, any further construction
issues will be resolved at our plan review. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, CBO, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the corespondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Mr. Bahr: Mark, in regard to the second item in that last letter about the
required bypass lane, maybe you already addressed that. Is
that an issue? Do we do anything with short curbs or anything
like that?
Mr. Taormina: That's an option that has been used on other similar
developments, but I believe that the opening that they're
providing actually satisfies that requirement. It provides good
relief for dnvers wanting to exit the drive -up before placing an
order. I like the idea of having something define that drive -up
lane a little bit more substantive that just pavement markings.
Whether its a rollover curb or a more traditional curb, I think it
would be appropriate. I'm satisfied with this, and I think Tim
Horlons' representative will tell you that this would be adequate
for their needs since in many of their restaurants they don't
provide any type of bypass. It's someone unique to our city
ordinance.
Mr. Bahr: Thanks.
Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening?
We will need your name and address for the record please.
Patrick T. Bell, Conslmction Project Planner, Tim Donut U.S. Limited Inc., 565 E.
Grand River Avenue, Suite 101, Brighton, Michigan 48116.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here tonight. This is another fantastic location
that we bring before you. We're really excited about this site. A
couple things I wanted to address. First of all, since we have
made the adjustments to the site plan, the landscaping is
actually about 16.5 percent. What happened there is when we
pulled out the ground sign, we added two parking spots. So I
think our deficiency in total on this site is about four parking
spaces because we were able to add those two parks back in
there. So we're actually providing 36 parking spaces on the
October 29, 2013
6
lease area itself. With that, any questions you may have for me,
I'd be happy to answer at this time.
Mr. Morrow:
Any questions of the petitioner from the Commission?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Bell, the dumpster, thank you for reorienting that a little bit,
but because it is still in a fairly visible location, I see you have
some plantings around it. What is the expected height that you
would have for the plantings around the dumpster?
Mr. Bell
Our minimum planting when it is constructed will be six fool for
the arborvitae that are around that dumpster.
Mr. Willshaw:
So there will be six foot arborvitae around the dumpster. That
will screen it fairy well.
Mr. Bell
Oh, absolutely. The height of the dumpster walls themselves
are six fool, so it will be right up to par with them.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. What sort of lighting are you proposing for the parking lot
and around the building?
Mr. Bell
The lighting will comply with City ordinance. As far as the
parking lot, they will be fully shielded so they will not extend off
the site. The same with the building itself. All of our wall packs
will be fully shielded. And then the decorative down lights you
see on our canopies and whatnot, they are also full cut-off, fully
shielded lights.
Mr. Wilshaw:
My concern was that I don't want light obviously straying across
the street into the residential area. On that same note, you
have an order board that is facing south on the site.
Mr. Bell
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
What controls do you put in place to insure that the sounds
coming from the order board are not heard by the residents in
the area?
Mr. Bell
We will have some landscaping there in addition to out on the
road and whatnot. But today's menu boards and order stations
are not like they were in the past. It's no longer Charlie Brown's
mom squawking back at you. They're very technological, and
they are automated. They adjust to ambient sound. As it gets
quieter outside, those voices come down loo, and we can adjust
those any way we need to. So if there's ever an issue that the
October 29, 2013
7
City finds with the volume of the speaker board, we can actually
go in there and adjust that volume.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. In the past in some of our approving resolutions for
facilities that have drive-up windows that potentially could
conflict with neighboring residential areas, we put a condition
that the sound levels be low enough that they're not heard by
the residents. Would that be a condition you would object to in
any way if we were to add that to our approving resolution?
Mr. Bell :
I have no problem with that. Again, I think our system is
fantastic. Al 10 feet it's conversational speech. Any residents
across the street or down the road, I have no problem. They're
not going to hear it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right. And the type of things that people are ordering through
those menus boards at your facility are faidy simple. Its a donut
and cup of coffee or maybe a sandwich. Right?
Mr. Bell :
Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Its not like someone is there for five or len minutes trying to
order some complex combo meal.
Mr. Bell :
Right.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The other question I had was the excess signage that you have
on the wall. You're allowed one sign typically and you're asking
for two. What is the reasoning behind that?
Mr. Bell
One of the reasons for that is we don't have a ground sign
because it's part of the center. They already have existing
signs. So what we want to do is try to gel some visibility on one
of those sides so we can gel the traffic onto the site in a safe
manner instead of someone noticing the sign as they come up
on the building. They can see it from a little further out and gel
onto the site.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So you will not be able to have a ground sign in the front of the
building due to the fact that the center has consumed all the
available signage for that frontage. Right?
Mr. Bell :
Yes. At this time it's our intent to do a ground lease here and
not split the parcel from the rest of the properly. Because of
that, we will not have a ground sign. If it does become the case
that we have to split the lot, then we would probably look at
pulling a ground sign in and seeking approvals for that.
October 29, 2013
8
Mr. Wilshaw:
You did submit to us a parking lot study that detailed the
available parking spaces on the parcel, what the reduction
would be as a result of having this facility there and how that
would impact the overall site. That's not something that we ask
of every petitioner and it's not something that most petitioners
provide, but you did lake the effort to do that and I appreciate
that. It is useful. It is something that we did express some
concern over during the rezoning process. So I'm glad that you
recognized that and had that study done. I appreciate that.
Thankyou.
Mr. Bell
Thank you. It was our pleasure.
Ms. Smiley:
Maybe this should go to Mark first. He said they don't intend to
split the lot, but the number one thing from Alex Bishop was a
lot split is required. Is that required?
Mr. Taormina:
That will probably depend on who will be paying the real estate
taxes. If Tim Horton pays the real property taxes, it is my
understanding that a split will be required. However, if the taxes
are paid through the landlord, then maybe it doesn't require a
separate parcel to be created.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. I just didn't want to hold him up if he doesn't want to split
it.
Mr. Taormina:
It wouldn't hold it up.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your renderings, the change
of the dumpster and the landscaping. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, isn't our light pole requirement 20 feet high?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Taylor:
And they've agreed to 16 feet.
Mr. Taormina:
The prepared resolution includes 16 feet as being an even
stricter standard that would prevent the kind of light spillage that
Mr. Wilshaw was referring to.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I see no one else. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes
to speak for or against the granting of this petition?
October 29, 2013
9
Dave Crawford, Cebella's Pizza, 37625 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154.
1 recently purchased Cebella's Pizza in that New Five Plaza that
the parking lot is in front of. I'm very much in favor of having
this Tim Horlons move in. I think it would help to revitalize the
plaza. It has some vacancies. I think it would increase traffic to
the area and make it more attractive to other businesses to
move into the plaza. I think it would really spur development
there and build it back up to what it used to be.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you for your comments and thank you for coming to
Livonia with your new pizza shop. What was the name of it
again?
Mr. Crawford:
Its Cebella's Pizza. I purchased it existing. It's been there
roughly eight years.
Mr. Morrow:
So it's under new management.
Mr. Crawford:
It is. Just this summer. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Hopefully it will keep going. Is there anyone else in the
audience wishing to speak on this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask
for a motion.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-66-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Pelton 2013-09-02-23 submitted by Tim Donut U.S. Limited,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
11.03(c)(4) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to construct and operate a limited service restaurant
with drive -up window facilites (Tim Horton) at 37685 Five Mile
Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue (New Five Village
shopping center) in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, which
properly is currently zoned G7 and is proposed to be rezoned
to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2013-09-02-23 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet TH 4.0 prepared by
CESO, Inc., dated October 17, 2013, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except as provided below;
October 29, 2013
10
2. A full curb shall be used to define the dnve thm tmffc lane
along the east and south sides of the property, and shall
include a bypass opening as depicted on the
aforementioned Site Plan that will include the installation of
a directional "Do Not Enter' sign located on the adjacent
shopping center drive aisle;
3. This approval shall be subject to the petitioner being
granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for
deficient parking and any conditions related thereto, if
deemed necessary upon final review of the submitted
parking analysis, revised stuping plan, cross access and
parking agreements, and any previous parking variance(s);
4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet TH 5.0 prepared
by CESO, Inc., dated October 17, 2013, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except as provided
below;
5. That the maximum customer sealing for the restaurant
shall not exceed twenty six (26) interior seats and sixteen
(16) outdoor patio seats;
6. That the Exterior Elevations Plans submitted by Tim
Horton, as received by the Planning Commission on
October 25, 2013, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
malenals on the building;
8. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used on the building, and
the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel
construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass
and maintained, and when not in use closed at all times;
9. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a
height of sixteen (16) feet above grade, and shall be full -
cutoff fixtures aimed and shielded so as to minimize glare
trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway;
10. All signage shall be conforming; however, the Petitioner
shall be allowed a second wall sign equal to no more than
one-half the total area of the main sign on either the west
October 29, 2013
11
or east side of the building, but not both, as depicted on the
exterior elevation plans, subject to Zoning Board of
Appeals approval and only under a circumstance in which
a separate ground sign or identification on any of the
existing shopping center monument signs is not allowed;
11. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
12. That sound levels of the order board speakers shall not be
audible to any adjacent residential properties; and
13. 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 #543, as amended.
Mr.
Morrow:
Is there any discussion?
Ms.
Smiley:
We might want to change the dates from October 17 to October
25 when we got the new plan.
Mr.
Morrow:
Showing the sign being removed and the parking spots?
Ms.
Smiley:
Yes, and then the dumpsler was changed and the landscaping.
Is that okay?
Mr.
Morrow:
As long as the maker and supporter agree to it.
Ms.
Scheel:
I'm good with it.
October 29, 2013
12
Mr. Morrow:
Does thalfall in linewilh yours?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I think it does. We'll double check.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I was going to throw that out there.
Mr. Morrow:
Aboullhe decibels?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. Maybe we can add something to say that the order board
should not be audible to the neighboring residential properly.
Mr. Morrow:
That sounds good.
Ms. Scheel:
I'm good with that.
Mr. Morrow,
Chainnan, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Thank you for coming tonight. Good luck
with your new facility.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2013-09-02-24 WRIGHT'S HARDWARE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
09-02-24 submitted by Wright's Hardware requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(k) and 11.03(1) of the City
of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to conduct
open-air sales of merohandise including the sale and rental of
utility trailers at 29150 Five Mile Road (Wright's Hardware),
located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebell
Road and Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Taormina: This is a waiver use request for open-air sales of merchandise,
including utility trailers, at Wright's Hardware, which is located
on the north side of Five Mile just east of Middlebell Road. The
property is roughly 0.50 acres in size. It has 100 feet of
frontage along Five Mile and a depth of 220 feet along the side
street, Cavour Avenue. The zoning of the property is C-2,
General Business. The front part of the property contains the
hardware store which is about 4,000 square feet in area. With
the exception of a fenced -in area containing a propane tank refill
station, most of the back part of the lot is unimproved. The
surrounding land uses to the east and west include commeroial
uses, and then to the north are the Franklin Square Apartments.
Open-air sales, display and/or rental of utility trailers and
recreational equipment does require a waiver use under Section
October 29, 2013
13
11.03(k) of the Zoning Ordinance. There are a number of
special requirements that apply to this type of use. First, the
entire area shall be hard surfaced where the outdoor sales and
display occurs. There shall be adequate lighting provided, and
the display area shall be enclosed with either a 6 fool cyclone
fence or a fence of a type that is approved by the Planning
Commission. Lastly, no utility trailers or recreational equipment
shall be parked or displayed within 20 feet of any public right-of-
way. Certain additional open-air business uses, such as the
sale and/or display of lawn furniture, playground equipment and
other home garden supplies also requires a waiver use under
Section 11.03 of the ordinance. The requirements include that
the area be enclosed with a fence, and a special requirement
applies to these types of items that are treated as seasonal and
can only be conducted during the months of April through
October. Wnghts wishes to establish open-air sales in two
phases on the properly. Phase 1 would occupy an existing
1,360 square feel fenced -in area which is along the north side of
the building. Its an "L" shaped area located adjacent to the
northwest corner of the building. Within this area they would
like to stock four to six utility trailers, pallets of bag sand, gravel,
firewood, mulch, dirt, patio furniture, as well as flowers and plant
stands. The area is enclosed by a six foot high chain -linked
fence and the ground surface is currently cement. This area
would be utilized immediately if approval is granted. Phase 2
covers most of the rear portion of the property, an area
measuring about 6,660 square feel. We don't have much
information to go on with respect to this area. There are no
details on the fencing or where it would be situated. They would
like to store sheds, brick pavers, paving blocks, seasonal items
such a Chnstmas trees and pumpkins. This area is currently
grass and there is no plan to improve that area. Al the study
session, the Planning Commission discussed approval of Phase
I only at this time, and that is how we prepared the resolution.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Let's gel the correspondence.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 2, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition.
The legal description provided appears to be correct and is
acceptable to this office. The address of 29150 Five Mile Road
is connect for the parcel and should be used in conjunction with
the proposed project. We have no objections to the proposed
October 29, 2013
14
site usage. The existing structure is cumently serviced by public
utilities, but the proposed plan indicates that no construction will
be occurring within the City right-of-way, so no Engineering
permits will be required. It is assumed that the outdoor storage
planned for phase 11 will remain on an unimproved portion of the
property. Should the owner wish to pave or otherwise improve
the grass area, plans will need to be submitted to the
Engineering Department to determine if permits or storm water
detention will be required." The letter is signed by David W.
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 21, 2013, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the plans for
approving this petition to conduct open-air sales of merchandise
including the sale and rental of utility trailers at the above
referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The
letter is signed by Keith Bo, Senior Fire Inspector. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 2, 2013,
which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in
connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the petition."
The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
October 22, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. The plans are not detailed enough to
complete a proper review" The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
CBO, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Jeri Dorr, 29495 Gilchresl, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334.
Joe Dom, 29495 Gilchresl, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334.
Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation by the Planning Director. Is there
anything you'd like to add to it at this time?
Mr. Dom No, other than that Phase II area we did discuss, agreeing with
Scott Miller and yourselves, about possibly instead of covering it
with hard surface concrete, we would agree to put in gravel so
it's solid and not dirt or grass out there. So we could grow into
that area. We don't plan any building of any construction but
just to put to some inventory out there that we could possibly
sell. The fence line is direct on that map right there. We could
just add onto more inventory is our goal.
October 29, 2013
15
Mr. Morrow: As you heard in the opening remarks, tonight we just want to
consider Phase I.
Ms. Dorr: Yes.
Mr. Dorr Thats okay.
Mr. Morrow: Its a known quantity of whats going to go in there and what's
going to be displayed. Anything else you'd like to comment on?
Mr. Dorr: I don't think so. I think we're pretty happy with everything.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. We'll see if the Commission has any questions or
comments.
Mr. Wilshaw: We talked about this at the study meeting, but for the sake of
any viewing audience that wasn't able to be there, I'm going to
ask a similar question. You mention that you want to store
rental equipment outside. Can you explain to us what sort of
rental equipment and what sort of things we can expect to see
in this storage area?
Mr. Dort :
Absolutely. Outside there will be no rental equipment. It's all
small hand tools that would be in the building, inside the existing
store. We're not going to put anything outside that we can
actually rent.
Mr. Wilshaw:
You do have some trailers, though?
Mr. Dort :
Correct. They are for sale only. We're not going to rent
anything like that. We're not going to fill the yard with anything
rental, just products that can be sold.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. You're essentially going to make space inside your store
to fit some of this rental equipment, which is going to be tools
and other things that people can borrow if they need to do a
small job around the house, and move some of the things that
you may have inside now to the outside.
Mr. Dort :
Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And those are mostly going to be seasonal items?
Mr. Dort :
Correct. Summer -type products. Now with respect to renting
things, that was in regards to Phase II. If things go well,
perhaps we could build a building longer, with our building, or at
October 29, 2013
16
the very back of the property, and that would become some type
of rental facility because we already have a small engine repair
shop. I'd like to move it all out of the building into a new building
at the back of the property or just continue our building farther
down the property line, but at this time, we're not doing that at
all. We just want to gel something going.
Mr. Wilshaw: A future project.
Mr. Dorr: That's in the future, yes, and we'd come and see you about that.
Mr. Wilshaw: And the reason you're asking for this outdoor storage, you
explained to us at the study meeting, in an effort to try to
compete with some of the big box hardware stores, you're trying
to find a niche that you can satisfy for the community to stay in
business and be a successful operation.
Ms. Dorr: Absolutely.
Mr. Dorr: Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? I guess you've satisfied the Commission. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition?
Chnslopher Martin, 12275 Inkster Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm fascinated
by learning something this evening. I have an open-air display.
My business has been there 60 years. I got a four fool cyclone.
People jump over that four fool at night. I'm in court constantly.
I put up a little over a six fool black wrought iron. Haven't had
anything stolen since I put that up. I'm silting here tonight and
I'm understanding now that on an open-air display, its required
to have a six fool cyclone or something equivalent. Am I correct
on what we just staled earlier on the requirement for open-air
display?
Mr. Morrow: I believe that's correct. Mr. Director? Six fool?
Mr. Taormina: Or a fence of a type and size that is approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council. So it can be varied depending
on the ciroumslances.
Mr. Morrow: Oh, it can?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
October 29, 2013
17
Mr. Martin:
Okay. Well, geez, I might have to come back in front of you
guys because I can't get approval from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for that. So I learned something new this evening. I
attempt to support businesses in Livonia. It seems though that
we're taking this from a hardware store and turning it into a
landscaping endeavor at the same time. As far as the rental of
trailers, how many trailers are going to be stored there? I just
learned now that this evening 20 feel from the right-of-way.
Well, they were much closer to the sidewalk within the last week
than 20 feet. So what is that? How many and where are they
going to be located?
Mr. Morrow:
I believe I heard this correctly that these trailers will not be
rented. They will be for sale.
Mr. Dort:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm not sure I know what size they are, but they would be in the
fenced in area.
Mr. Martin:
The back portion.
Mr. Morrow:
Not the back portion. They will be within Phase I which is the
fenced in area.
Mr. Martin:
Outlined in red here, where they're going to be enclosed with a
six fool fence.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Martin:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anyone else? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-67-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Petition 2013-09-02-24 submitted by Wright's Hardware
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(k)
and 11.03(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to conduct open-air sales of merchandise including
the sale and rental of utility trailers at 29150 Five Mile Road
(Wright's Hardware), located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Middlebell Road and Harrison Avenue in the
October 29, 2013
f3
Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, which property is zoned 62, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2013-09-02-24 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan submitted by Wrights Hardware as
received by the Planning Commission on September 25,
2013, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except
that permission at this time is granted only for outdoor
storage and display of merchandise for the area identified
on the plan as Phase I;
2. That the outdoor storage of merchandise, including any
utility trailers, shall be limited to the existing 1,360 square
foot fenced -in area along the north side of the building
identified as Phase I, and this area shall be maintained in
an orderly manner at all times;
3. That this approval does not authorize any type of outdoor
storage or display of merchandise, including utility trailers,
within the rear or side yard portions of the site, including
the area identified on the site plan as Phase II;
4. That prior to initiating Phase II or the use of any portion of
the rear or side yard areas for the storage or display of
merchandise, the Petitioner shall be required to submit
detailed plans showing the type and height of fencing
proposed, a description of the type and quantities of
merchandise proposed to be stored and/or displayed,
lighting details, and any changes to the ground surface, for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
5. That for any outdoor retail sales and/or display of plant
materials, lawn furniture, playground equipment, or other
home garden supplies between the period of October 16
through March 31, this approval is subject to the City
Council granting a separate waiver pursuant to Section
19.06(1) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543,
as amended;
6. That adequate and properly directed lighting facilities, not
exceeding 20 feet in height, shall be provided for the
illumination of the storage area; and
October 29, 2013
19
7. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the Certificate of Occupancy.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate
the proposed use; and,
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. 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 2013-09-02-25 OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
09-02-25
01309-02-25 submitted by OSI Restaurant Partners, 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 (Outback
Steakhouse) within an outiot on the site of Meijer, 13000
Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell Road
between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcmft Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct a new full service restaurant, an
Outback Steakhouse, within an outlol on the site of Meijer,
located on the east side of Middlebell between the CSX
Railroad and Schoolcmft Road and the 1-96 Expressway. The
restaurant will be located on the westedy most out -parcel that
was created when Meijer was developed on this site in 2000.
The land area is roughly two acres. The out -parcel immediately
to the east is where the Culvers restaurant will be developed.
October 29, 2013
20
We just recently approved Culvers at our last Planning
Commission meeting. Menard's is located directly across the
street, and Costco is located on the north side of Millennium
Drive. The Outback Steakhouse would be a one-story building
totaling about 5,633 square feet in total area. It would have 202
interior seats and 32 patio seats, for a combined total of 234
seals. The restaurant would be positioned near the center of
the property with parking surrounding the building on all four
sides. There is no direct access to Middlebelt Road. Access to
the site would be provided via two new drive approaches.
There is a one way directional drive that would be from the north
off the existing main driveway, Millennium Dnve, that extends
from Middlebelt Road into the Millennium Park development.
The landscape plan does not reflect the change to the site plan
with the one-way drive. The site plan is shown here and you
can see the difference in the configuration of the drive. The
intention is to allow for ingress only. This goes back to an
earlier plan where they were proposing two-way directional
traffic. The second access would be from the adjacent Meijer
parking lot to the southeast. Outback would require a total of
132 parking spaces based on customer seats as well as the
number of employees. The plan shows a total of 109 parking
spaces. Due to the deficiency, a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals would be required. Landscaping constitutes
roughly 20 peroent of the overall site, which is conforming.
There is a combination of materials being used. The three
primary building materials include stone, cement board siding
and E.I.F.S. There are also components including wood and
standing seam metal that would be used for the trim, awnings,
and certain roof components. The light brown or beige color is
the stone material that they propose to use on the exterior of the
building. The lighter beige and reddish color represents the
E.I.F.S. material. The area in front of the restaurant or the
outdoor patio area would be enclosed with a wooden material.
Green awnings would be installed over the windows. The green
represents the standing seam along the metal roof that
overhangs the outdoor patio area as well as other parts of the
building and other tnm materials that are being used. The
petitioner has supplied some photographs of the same
restaurant constructed elsewhere that shows you exactly what it
would look like. This is the outdoor dining area. You can see
the laminated wood. Al our study session there was discussion
regarding what type of accent lighting would be used and
whether the LED lighting would be something that would be
exposed. As you can see, it would be done in a very indirect
manner in terms of down -lighting and up -lighting on certain
architectural features of the building. With respect to signage,
October 29, 2013
21
they would be allowed one wall sign not to exceed 62 square
feet in area based on the frontage of the building. They are
showing three walls signs, one on the west facing Middlebelt
Road, one on the south and one on the north side of the
building. Each of these signs is about 65 square feel in area.
The aggregate total of the three signs is about 195 square feet
so they are going to require variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The signage, along with the parking, is something that
will require Zoning Board of Appeals review and approval.
Lastly, with respect to a ground sign, they are showing a
monument sign along the frontage on Middlebelt Road. What
we know at this point is that it would be a completely conforming
sign. They would be entified to a six foot high ground sign, 30
square feel in total area, and it would have to be set back 10
feet from the adjacent right-of-way line. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I can readout the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 3, 2013, which reads
as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal
description provided with the petition is missing one of the legs
of the boundary and does not close. The legal description
provided in the submitted plan set for the proposed outlot
appears to be correct and should be used in connection with
this project. Then; currently is no address associated with the
proposed outlot. We propose using an address of 13010
Middlebelt Road for all future matters regarding the proposed
project. We have no objections to the proposed layout of the
site, although the following items should be noted. (1) No details
for site utilities were provided with the submitted drawings. Full
engineering drawings will need to be provided prior to
determining impacts to the public utilities. (2) The site is
serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main. The existing
sanitary sewer is located within the proposed property
boundary, while the existing water main is located within the
Middlebelt Road right-of-way. Since Middlebelt Road is under
the jurisdiction of Wayne County, any work within the right-of-
way will require permits from Wayne County. (3) The proposed
plan does not show any storm sewer detention or drainage
calculations, so we cannot determine if the system meets all
current requirements. Please be advised that the developer will
need to meet all Wayne County storm detention requirements
for the proposed drainage in order to receive site plan approval.
(4) We are providing the owner, for informational purposes, a
October 29, 2013
22
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 tra;vfnterceptor requirements, and is
available on the City of Livonia website at www.ci.livonia.mi.us.
(5) 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 or within 500 feet of a lake or
stream. This permit and associated fees will be handled by the
City of Livonia's Engineering Department before any work
commences." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer II. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated October 17, 2013, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the plans for approving this petition to
construct and operate a full service restaurant within an outlot at
the above referenced address and have noted the following: (1)
If subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, an on-site hydrant shall be located between 50
feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2)
Access around building shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six
inches, a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an
inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (3) Fire
lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able
to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of
13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (4) Fire lanes shall be
marked with freestanding signs that have the words Fire Lane —
No Parking painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a
size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction.
(5) Fire Department Access shall be maintained in accordance
to 18.2.3.2 NFPA 1, 2009 edition. (6) Chapter 12, shall be
followed for New Assemblies, NFPA 101, 2009 edition. (7) We
recommend the installation of a Ladder Po"t Ladder Receiver
from Ladder Tech, LLC or an equivalent. (8) In regards to NFPA
13, 2007 edition, Fire Department Connections should be of 2-Y§
Detroit Standard Thread. These issues and other code
requirements will be addressed during the plan review process.
Providing that all details in regards to New Assemblies are
followed and inspected prior to tenant use, this department has
no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Keith Bo,
Senior Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated October 3, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have
reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no
objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
October 29, 2013
23
Inspection Department, dated October 22, 2013, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A
parking variance will be required for the deficient parking. (2)
The northwest entrance should be a one way entry to facilitate
traffic flow and another egress should be considered in
conjunction with the Planning Departments recommendation. (3)
Signage has not been reviewed. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
CBO, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Mr. Bahr:
Mark, just so I'm absolutely clear, when you talk about the three
wall signs, it says one on the front and one on each side. The
front is the north elevation. Is that right?
Mr. Taormina:
This is going to have a Middlebell address. The front is going to
be the west elevation in this case. I believe that's how it's going
to be determined, but in either event, it looks like it's almost
equivalent, but I'm not sure. I'm guessing is going to be the
west elevation.
Mr. Bahr:
So if that's the case, there will be one facing Middlebelt, one
facing Millennium Drive and one facing Meijer?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thanks.
Mr. Taormina:
Just to point out the service area, the enclosed dumpster area is
located on the east side of the building. That's the side facing
Home Depot and other retail areas of Millennium Park.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Jim Bellow, Professional
Engineering Associates, 2430 Rochester Court, Suite
100, Troy, Michigan 48083. As you see, we did make the
modification to the drive approach from our study session a
week ago where it is a one-way drive in. Other than that, the
light poles are 20 feel high. It will be shielded. The detail is on
your plan. We don't have much else to add to Mr. Taormina's
presentation. We do have representatives from Bloomin'
Brands here to answer any questions related to the building
and/or operations.
October 29, 2013
24
Mr. Morrow:
We'll see if the Commission has any questions of you or your
associates.
Elizabeth Abernethy,
Bloomin' Brands Inc., 2202 N. West Shore Blvd., Tampa,
Flonda 33607. I'm here representing Outback and Bloomin'
Brands.
Ms. Smiley:
There is signage on three sides of the building and a monument
sign?
Ms. Abernethy:
Correct. That is what we are proposing.
Ms. Smiley:
If you put it on three sides of the building, you probably wouldn't
need the monument at all. Are they always that size, the sign?
Ms. Abernethy:
It depends on the local codes and jurisdictions, what we are and
are not allowed to do. This does represent our desired signage
plan. If we need to scale it back at your suggestion, we are
certainly willing to do so, but this is what our standard package
would be.
Ms. Smiley:
I, for one, would like to see it scaled back a little bit, especially
when it's lit the way it is. That being said, I don't even know if
you need a monument because that's pretty big signage. Are
they allowed a monument?
Mr. Taormina:
They will be allowed a monument.
Ms. Smiley:
But theyre not allowed on three sides.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Ms. Smiley:
I think you're going to need to dial the signage down.
Ms. Abernethy:
And may I ask, is it the size or the number that is of concern?
Ms. Smiley:
I can see where you would want one on Middlebell. It seems
excessive, so probably the number.
Ms. Abernethy:
Again, I'd like your opinion. Scale -wise, I think it's appropriate
to the elevation, but if there is a concern about the number then
we will certainly take that under consideration.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. That would be good.
October 29, 2013
25
Mr. Bahr: First of all, I really like the fact that you're doing the one way
entrance. I think that makes a ton of sense in that area. I like
your landscaping plan too. Just from what I can see from the
drawings, it looks very attractive and you have enough parking
in that area. But actually to that point, how much parking do you
feel that you need? Right now, you're below what we require.
Is that 109 spaces consistent with what you feel you need for
the restaurant or is that even in excess of what you think you
need?
Ms. Abernethy:
We typically look at between 110 to 120 for our peak needs.
Meijers has indicated that they are amenable to some cross
parking if needed, particularly employee parking, that we can
put in areas that wouldn't have any negative impact on their
customers. So we will work with them as needed. There is
some flexibility. We did want to respect that existing berm that's
on the site. If we had redesigned to try to reduce the landscape
area in front along Middlebell, we could have created more on-
site parking but we fell that given the existing parking at
Meijers, that this was a better approach rather than try to
design to code and given the flexibility of Meijer's, that this was
a better design.
Mr. Bahr:
I completely agree. There is more than enough parking in that
area. I was just trying to get a sense of what your actual needs
were. With regard to the landscape, I notice on your rendering
that there's palm trees here. Are you proposing to bring those
here as well and the weather with it, maybe from January to
May?
Ms. Abernethy:
No. We do understand you have a different climate here. We
have only built a couple of these prototypes so far and we don't
have one in the Midwest to show you the landscape palette that
we would put here.
Mr. Bahr:
Obviously, I say that in jest. But in seriousness, with the
outdoor patio, how much of the year do you anticipate using
that?
Ms. Abernethy:
We had some discussions and we have some of our gentlemen
here from operations as well. We do have patio heaters that will
help to extend the use. If you'd like a more definitive answer,
here's Mike McCleary, who is the managing partner, and he
probably can speak to that.
Mike McCleary,
29441 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Its the current
existing Outback there. To the question, I think as frequently as
October 29, 2013
26
we can, I think would be the best answer. If healing permitted, I
certainly think that would help expand the amount of time we'd
be able to utilize that. Realistically, I would suggest about
seven months, and then if healing is an option as well, I think
we could perhaps expand that a little bit further as well.
Mr. Bahr: It sounds great. My last question is related to what Mrs. Smiley
brought up. If you needed to reduce your signage, and the
number would be the concern based on our ordinance, what do
you deem is your most important signs? You'll have the
monument sign. I imagine your Middlebell facing sign, even
with the monument, is probably the one you want the most. But
for example, on the south elevation, facing Meijer, do you think
that is critical for your business?
Ms. Abernethy: I've driven up and down the street a couple times. That's going
to be more visible from the street because when you're coming
southbound, you've got the existing monument at Meijer and the
wall that might somewhat block that anyway. So if we had to
drop one, it would be the south elevation.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. That's all my questions. I'm excited about this
development. I think it looks really good. The only thing that
disappoints me is that you're leaving Five Mile and Middlebelt,
but I understand as well. I'm all set.
Mr. Morrow:
You live close to there, don't you?
Mr. Bahr:
I have no comment on that, Mr. Chair. Inside joke. Sorry.
Mr. Taylor:
I assume this is going to be a 24 hour operation or isn't it?
Ms. Abernethy:
No. It's not 24 hour. If Mike wants to lake it, he can tell you
what our hours will be.
Mr. McCleary:
The operating hours would be, we would be open for lunch. So
on the weekdays it would be 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and then
on the weekends probably 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., ballpark. It
would be 12 hours at most.
Mr. Taylor:
I'm guessing that the other store is going to be shut down.
Mr. McCleary:
That would be correct.
Mr. Taylor:
As far as signage goes, if ft's going to be like this, I mean
actually the height of the building, you almost have beautiful
signage to start with, the building. The building is a sign more
October 29, 2013
27
than anything else. I would imagine you're going to have
problems with the Zoning Board of Appeals, as with me. I think
the sign to the south is wasted. I don't have any problem with
the one facing north and facing Middlebell, but the other one I
think is just a waste of energy. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The first question is the patio area, is that wood construction?
Ms. Abernethy:
That is correct. It's a composite, laminated wood product.
Mr. Wilshaw:
As far as the durability and life span of that, given that we do
have a harsher climate up here, how long do you expect it to
hold up for?
Ms. Abernethy:
We have done some research and talked to some local
companies. I have some specifications on the type
of wood that
we're going to be using. I didn't read through this
completely to
find out what the guarantee is on it. I can hand this in if it's of
interest to you, that provides the specifications of the wood, if
that's helpful.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That would be helpful in the sense that sometimes when wood
construction is used in this area, within a year or two it starts
looking a little ratty. Great. That would be helpful.
Ms. Abernethy:
How many do we need? I've got two sets.
Mr. Wilshaw:
We can pass it around. On that same vein, talking about the
patio area, because it looks like it is fully enclosed with
essentially window areas that allow the free flow of air, will there
ever be any intention on behalf of Outback to enclose that patio
by putting windows in and making it a year-round space?
Ms. Abernethy:
I'm looking at Brent Tran and Mike, and we would take that
under advisement. Do you want to step up to speak?
Brent Tran, Outback Steakhouse, 29441 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. We
typically have not done that with any of the Outbacks that we've
done this with. I don't foresee us doing that. I can't rule it out
down the road if it works and it happens, but there are no plans
currently to do any of that type of thing. It's mainly up here,
seven months like Mike said, and if we can get some heaters
out there, then we may expand it little bit more, but we're not
looking to have outdoor seating all year round.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I appreciate that because we have had at least one other place
that I can think of that started with what they called an outdoor
October 29, 2013
28
patio and it turned into an indoor space through the use of
windows. That does have to come back before us. It's not like
you can just do it because you're essentally changing the
character and the sealing capacity of the restaurant when you
do that. I was just curious what your intention was. So thank
you. The only other question I have is, you did present a
material board at the study meeting which was very nicely done.
I see it's here before us. I don't know if anybody wanted to go
through and actually point out the different elements and what
they are so that the viewing audience can actually get to see
these materials in a nice formal.
Ms. Abernethy:
Starting from the top left, this is our metal roof, which is a color
Outback green. Our fiber cement siding, a Vintagewood panel,
8's a pre -finished cedar product. Our E.I.F.S. is Fire Sand
finish, our color Benjamin Moore "Squire Hill Buff." Down here
is our GLU-LAM beams by Boozer Beam, stain Sherwin
Williams "Yankee Bam." That's the wood patio. Our stone is a
stone strips by Erlh Coverings. The color is "Cedarslone" So
this is the on -the -lower feature as well as along the base of the
building. Our Fire Sand finish, this is the accent along the rear
and the side at an angle. The color there is called "Spicy Hue"
We can bring that up if this is helpful.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I appreciate you showing it because when we look at computer-
generated color renderings, sometimes the colors look a little bit
more outlandish than they really do in person, so I appreciate
you showing it to us again.
Mr. Morrow:
And I think the Council will appreciate it loo. Any other
questions or comments from the Commission? Seeing none, I
will go to the audience and see if there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition.
Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing
and ask for a motion.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-68-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Petition 2013-09-02-25 submitted by OSI Restaurant Partners,
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
(Outback Steakhouse) within an oullol on the site of Meijer,
13000 Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell
Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft
October 29, 2013
29
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, which property is
zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2013-09-02-25 be approved
subjectto the following conditions:
1. Thal the Site Plan marked Drawing No. P-2.1 prepared by
Professional Engineering Associates, dated November 1,
2013, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except
that the driveway on the north side of the site off
Millennium Park Drive shall be modified to allow for one-
way incoming traffic only;
2. That the Landscape plan marked Drawing No. L-1.1
prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, dated
November 1, 2013, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydro -seeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed a total of two hundred thirty-four (234) seals,
including two hundred two (202) interior seats and thirty-
two (32) outdoor patio seats;
6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
7. That the Building Elevation Plans marked E-1 and E-2
prepared by Outback Steakhouse, as received by the
Planning Commission on November 1, 2013, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except that the stone
material along the bottom portion of the building shall be
raised;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
October 29, 2013
30
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of building materials that shall complement
that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be of
solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid
panel fiberglass and maintained, and when not in use
closed at all times;
10. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall not exceed a
height of 20 feet above grade and shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway;
11. Thal approving signage is for the north and west elevations
only, as shown, and subject to approval by the Zoning
Board of Appeals;
12. That there shall be no direct exposure of LED lighting or
neon, such as in the form of a 'lighthand," but that this
condition shall not preclude the use indirect LED lighting
for the purpose of accenting the architectural features of
the building; and
13. 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 #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: Was there going to be any discussion relative to the sign on the
south elevation?
October 29, 2013
31
Mr. Morrow: We can put the west and north signs only.
Mr. Wilshaw: I would be fine with Condition 11 which talks about the wall
signs, approving signage on the north and west elevations.
Mr. Morrow: Is that agreeable with Ms. Smiley?
Ms. Smiley: I'm very agreeable.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Thank you for coming tonight and good
luck as you move forward in the process. We look forward to
the grand opening.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2013-09-02-26 OUTBACK RESTAURANT
LIQUOR LICENSE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
09-02-26
01309-02-26 submitted by OSI Restaurant Partners, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 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 (Outback Steakhouse) within an oullol on the site of
Meijer, 13000 Middlebelt Road, located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between the CSX Railroad dght-of-way and
Schoolcratt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Taormina: This request is for a Class C liquor license in connection with
the relocation of the Outback Steakhouse on Middlebelt Road.
The Class C license would allow for the sale of beer, wine and
spirits for consumption on the premises. There are a number of
special separation requirements from churohes and schools and
from other similarly licensed establishments. The proposed
Class C license at this location does comply with the separation
requirement for the churches and schools; however, there is at
least one, and possibly two, other Class C -licensed businesses
within the 1,000 fool separation requirement. This is a
requirement that can be waived by the City Council. The
Applebee's restaurant just approved across the street is about
120 feet from the subject site, and Logan's Roadhouse is right
about 1,000 feet from the subject property. So this provision
would have to be waived by the City Council. We did verify that
this is a transfer of the license from its current location. It is a
October 29, 2013
32
license that is owned by OSI. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can
read out the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Please.
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Division of Police,
dated October 14. 2013, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with Outback Steakhouse
Restaurant - Class C liquorlicense, located at 13000 Middlebelt
Road (east side of Middlebelt Road between CSX Railroad
right-of-way and Schoo/craft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 25). After reviewing the plans with the Chief of Police,
we have no objections to the waiver being granted, contingent
that the petitioner compiles with all State laws, City ordinances,
stipulations and conditions set by the Livonia Police Department
Liquor Investigation Unit as approved by the Chief of Police;
stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic Bureau of the
Livonia Police Department We are available to provide any
additional information you may desire on this subject." The
letter is signed by Jeffrey W. Ronayne, Special Services
Bureau. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Does the petitioner want to speak to this agenda item relative to
the Class C?
Elizabeth Abernethy,
Bloomin' Brands Inc., 2202 N. West Shore Blvd., Tampa,
Flonda 33607. We are an existing restaurant. We are changing
Iocatons. If you have any questions about our operations or
any questions for our managing partner about the operations,
he is here to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Morrow:
We will see if there are any questions, but you are transferring it
from your existing restaurant?
Ms. Abernethy:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
If there are no questions, I will 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 fonvard, a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-69-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Petition 2013-09-02-26 submitted by OSI Restaurant Partners,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
October 29, 2013
33
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 (Outback Steakhouse) within an oullol
on the site of Meijer, 13000 Middlebell Road, located on the
east side of Middlebell Road between the CSX Railroad right-of-
way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25,
which properly is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-09-02-
26 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the use of a Class C liquor license at this location
shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the
standard set forth in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning
Ordinance, which specifies any new Class C -licensed
establishment not be located within 1,000 feet of any other
such licensed business is waived by the City Council;
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 primanly as a restaurant.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above heating was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw: Its really not relative to the Class C transfer, but I should have
probably said this with the last petition. Like Mr. Bahr, I'm really
excited about this development. I think we have an area that
our local residents are familiar with on Haggerty Road that's sort
of the restaurant row that has built up over a number of years
and has a lot of very nice restaurants on it. I've heard other
residents in the community say to me, hey, we need another
area where we can go eat instead of everyone having to go to
one spot. Middlebell and SchoolcraR, even though you're only
moving one mile down the road, is turning into a nice area
where there are several nice dining options available for
residents. I think this would make about six restaurants that I
can think of in that immediate area there. Not only do you have
October 29, 2013
34
the traffic that's coming off the freeway, but it also serves the
residents who live in that part of the community, and I think that
having those dining options available to people in that area and
these very nicely designed and attractive buildings is an asset to
that area and will really help continue the growth that we're
seeing in that section of the City. So I appreciate that. Thank
you.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Thank you very much for coming.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2013-09-02-27 DUNKIN' DONUTS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
09-02-27 submitted by Dunkin' Donuts requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(4) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate
a limited service restaurant with drive -up window facilities
(Dunkin' Donuts) at 34899 Plymouth Road, located on the
southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Wayne Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct and operate a limited service
restaurant with drive -up window facilities. Itis a Dunkin' Donuts,
and it is on the site of the former Flower King located at the
southeast comer of Plymouth and Wayne Roads. The property
is roughly 0.63 acres in total area. It is a narrow parcel. It has
78 feel of frontage along Plymouth Road and a depth of roughly
315 feel on Wayne Road. It is zoned C-2, General Business.
The new building would be roughly 2,800 square feet in total
area. The proposed user would be a Dunkin' Donuts but it
would have the ability to co -brand potentially with a Baskin &
Robbins. From Wayne Road, the proposed building setback
would be 27 feet. This is an increase from the current setback.
There is a portion of the structure that protmdes out from the
west side of the building that comes to about 2 feet from the
right -0f --way of Wayne Road. They are going to push the
building back another 24 feel or so, but that still would require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals by virtue of the
amount of work they're doing to the structure and the fact that it
still will not comply with the required setback, which is 60 feet.
The restaurant would have a total of 34 seats including 26
interior seats and 8 outdoor patio seals. The drive -up service
would be provided along the east side of the building, and the
October 29, 2013
35
traffic lane serving the drive -up window would commence on the
south side of the building and then loop around to the east side.
There would be stacking for about six vehicles in addition to the
space at the pick-up window. A full bypass lane is provided
alongside the drive -up traffic lane. Presently, the site has
driveways to both Plymouth and Wayne Roads. They are
proposing to change the configuration of the drive approaches
along Plymouth Road to limit the turning movements to "right in"
and "right out' only. Currently there is an open drive approach
so vehicles could technically either take a left or could
maneuver into the site from Plymouth Road taking a left, but this
would restrict the turning to "right in" and "right out" only. Along
Wayne Road, two cleady defined drive approaches would be
created using new curbing and landscaping. Currently, there is
just one large approach, and there is no landscaping within the
right -0f --way of Wayne Road. What this plan shows is new
approaches that would be curbed and added landscaping
between the two. A one-way drive would be created along the
west side of the building that would allow vehicles entering the
site from either Plymouth or the northedy approach on Wayne to
maneuver to the south side of the building without re-entedng
Wayne Road. The driveway along the west side of the building
would allow for one-way flow only. So vehicles that enter the
site from Plymouth Road could then continue south on this
driveway and enter the ddve-up on the east side of the building.
Similady, vehicles that enter from the north approach off Wayne
Road could tum right, come down the driveway and also either
park on the south side of the site or continue in the drive -up
lane. Required parking is based on the number of customer
seats, the number of restaurant employees, and the
requirement that there be two additional spaces beyond the
drive -up window for waiting patrons. This requires a total of 23
parking spaces and the plan shows 24 parking spaces. The
landscape plan shows that at least 15% of the site would be
landscaped. In terms of the design of the building, the most
recent rendering shows what the building might look like if
approved. Its finished exterior would be dominated with the use
of fiber cement lap siding, and that would also include the lower
portions of the building. We're recommending that
consideration be given to using some kind of masonry material,
either brick or stone, along the bottom portion of the building.
You can also see the use of awnings and the trademark color
scheme for the Dunkin' Donuts brand. In terms of signage, they
would be permitted two wall signs: one 45 square feet in area
on the north side facing Plymouth Road and a sign on the west
elevation of the building equal to one-half the area of the main
sign, or 22.5 square feet. The site would also be allowed one
October 29, 2013
36
ground sign, 30 square feet in area and 6 feet in height. Just to
go back to the site plan, Commissioners will recall during the
study session we were looking at a somewhat different plan.
Under the original plan, there was a second tenant unit shown
that extended probably about another 15 feel or about 10 or 12
feel closer to Wayne Road than what this plan shows. So they
eliminated the second user from the design. That has freed
them up for some landscaping along this area. The outdoor
patio that I referenced is actually located here. There will be a
row of tables provided along a pedestrian walkway. Theyve
also increased the setback along the east side where the drive -
up operation borders the Burger King parking lot. There is a
little bit of a grade separation there. This allows for a better
transition, something that the PRDA mentioned when they
reviewed this plan a couple weeks ago. Additional changes
include a reduction of the depth of the parking spaces along
both the north and south parking areas of the site, also
providing additional landscaping and then, of course,
modifications to the exterior of the building itself. The plan also
shows a dumpsler located in the southeast portion of the site.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, if you would, please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 2, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition.
The legal description provided on the submitted plan set is
comect, but the legal description provided with the planning
petition includes a typo that will need to be revised to match the
plan set. The address of 34899 Plymouth Road is correct for the
existing property and should be used in conjunction with the
proposed project. While we have no objections to the proposed
project, the following items should be noted. (1) The existing
building and property are not currently serviced by a public
storm sewer. Storm sewer is available within the Wayne Road
and Plymouth Road right-of-ways, but the owner will need to
obtain permits from Wayne County or the Michigan Department
of Transportation for any connections. (2) Storm sewer drainage
and detention for the proposed project will need to be approved
by Wayne County since the final connections to the storm sewer
will be under their -jurisdiction. (3) 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
October 29, 2013
37
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 traprinterceptor
requirements, and is available on the City of Livonia website at
wwwci.livoma.rmus. (4) The proposed building is to use
existing sanitary sewer and water main connections. The owner
shall televise the existing sanitary sewer lead to determine the
condition of the lead prior to any connection to the new building.
(5) Any removal or replacement of approaches, or any work
within the right-of-ways, will require review and approval by
Wayne County and/or MOOT prior to construction. (6) A soil
erosion and sedimentation control (SESC) permit will not be
required since the site is over under one acre in size. Although
a SESC permit will not be required, the owner is expected to
use 'best management practices' to prevent soil erosion on the
site. (7) We would like to see the owner proposed a visible
barrier (hedges, small fence, etc.) between the sidewalk on
Wayne Road and the proposed one-way drive in order to deter
vehicles from accessing the sidewalk." The letter is signed by
David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 15, 2013,
which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the petition for waiver
use approval on the property at the above referenced address
to construct and operate a limited service restaurant including
drive -up window facilities and have noted the following. (1) Fire
lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able
to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of
13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (2) Fire lanes shall be
marked with freestanding signs that have the words Fire Lane —
No Parking painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a
size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction.
(3) NFPA 101, Chapter 36, shall be followed for New Mercantile
Occupancies. (4) FPA 101, Chapter 12, shall be followed for
New Assemblies. 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. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated October 3, 2013, which reads as
follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the
petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 22,
2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) Signage as indicated is not per ordinance and would
October 29, 2013
38
require a Zoning Board of Appeals grant. (2) There are
functional issues with parking. Barrier free would be required
front and rear. (3) The Dunkin Donuts as laid out would require
a second exit from the restaurant (exiting is not allowed thm the
kitchen). This is brought up at this time to assist the applicant
as this is a plan review issue. (4) There are other functional
building issues that will be addressed at plan review should the
project move forward. Additionally, we need to know the number
of employees. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, CBO, Director of
Inspection. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road
Development Authority, dated October 18, which reads as
follows: At the 238�h Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on October
17, 2013, a presentation was made on the proposal submitted
by Vyaykumar Patel on behalf of Dunkin' Donuts requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a limited service
restaurant with drive -up window facilities at 34899 Plymouth
Road, located on the southeast comer of Plymouth Road and
Wayne Road. The PRDA discussed the following points -of -
view, concems and suggestions with respect to the proposed
development plan: 1) There was general consensus that the
proposed Dunkin' Donuts is a good reuse of the property in
question; however, the additional retail space may exceed the
capacity of the site in terms of parking and providing convenient
and safe vehiculadpedestrtan access, and 2) Site plan
modifications should be considered that would increase the
amount of landscaping and improve the transition with the grade
differential with the abutting Burger King property for both
aesthetics and drainage purposes. The suggested changes
include reducing the width of the drive aisles and the depth of
the parking spaces, where possible. The PRDA Board has
requested Staff updates on the plan as it continues through the
site plan and waiver use review process." The letter is signed
by Mark Taormina, Planning Director. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Ms. Scheel: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, the driveways to come in,
the curb cuts to come in, the first one on this side, chats an "in
only" correct?
Mr. Taormina: Are you talking about on the lop side here?
Ms. Scheel: No. Down.
October 29, 2013
39
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not aware that either of those driveways would restrict
turning movement, but I'll lel the petitioner address that issue.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. So just the one on lop is for "in only?"
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Ms. Scheel:
And the one at the bottom could be going in or out?
Mr. Taormina:
That's my understanding.
Ms. Scheel:
Turning right or left?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Can you go back to that? So if you came in through the
first one that I was talking about and parked in this bottom
parking lot right here, where would you go to enter the
restaurant?
Mr. Taormina:
With the revised floor plan, there is the ability to access the
restaurant here at the south end of the building. So patrons can
park here, and instead of walking all the way around to the front,
which is the way it was designed originally, they can now enter
the restaurant through a hallway located here at the back.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you. That's it for right now.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, can you put the building up there again? I'm a little
confused as to what the front of the building is.
Mr. Taormina:
Are you talking about the rendering?
Mr. Taylor:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
This depicts the angled part of the building right here. This is
the portion that is facing directly towards Plymouth Road and
then this would be the pickup window, which is the angled
portion right here in the northeast comer.
Mr. Taylor:
What bothered me a little bit was, you said this is what it could
look like. Is it going to look like this?
Mr. Taormina:
This is what they're proposing in terms of the materials. We're
suggesting some changes that would add some masonry
material along at least the bottom portion of the building. That
October 29, 2013
40
was something that we saw on the previous plan but not
something that appears on the most recent renderings.
Mr. Taylor:
That's what I mean. The previous plan we saw had two
buildings, which I was definitely against, as was the Plymouth
Road Development Authority. A Dunkin' Donut here I can
understand, but I just didn't understand exactly which was
facing what and what it would look like. That's the problem.
Mr. Taormina:
These are the flat drawings showing the elevation views of the
building. What it shows primarily is just the cement board siding
being used on what I believe would be all four sides of the
building. We're asking that there be consideration to provide
some masonry on the building.
Mr. Taylor:
And the letter we have mentions patio sealing along Wayne
Road. We don't have anything like that, do we?
Mr. Taormina:
Again, if you look closely at this rendering, you'll see this line of
chairs. There is a railing, a fence, being provided along the
curb. This would be the one-way drive along the west side of
the building. There is a row of four small tables located
adjacent to the sidewalk and the driveway.
Mr. Taylor:
Does the resolution allow for that?
Mr. Taormina:
The modified resolution does take that into account.
Mr. Taylor:
The modified resolution does? Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, the letter we have from the PRDA is dated October 18. 1
don't want you to speak for them, necessarily, but do you think
this new plan addresses their concerns?
Mr. Taormina:
I think it addresses all of the concerns that were identified in that
letter. That's correct.
Mr. Morrow:
And would they come up with a new letter to the Council based
on the current plan?
Mr. Taormina:
That's difficult to say. They don't have a scheduled meeting,
and it would depend on the timing. We could probably take this
to the Executive Committee of the PRDA and get their feedback
prior to the Council meeting.
Mr. Morrow:
If it could be accomplished, I think it would be nice to have a
later version of that letter going forward to the Council.
October 29, 2013
41
Mr. Taormina: l understand.
Mr. Morrow: Either with the Executive Committee or the full Board. Thank
you.
Mr. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark, again. Overall, I like this way better
than what we saw al the study meeting. I agree with that. I also
agree with your comment about wanting to see more masonry
on the building. I think that's consistent with a lot of the
development we've seen along Plymouth Road in recent years.
If we wanted something like that, is that something that we'd
have to table for another rendering or is that something we
could handle tonight?
Mr. Taormina:
That's at your discretion. You could include that if you so
desired. You could provide language in the approving
resolution, and we would make sure that change was made
prior to the Council reviewing this and with your suggestions.
Mr. Bahr:
Thanks.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anything else? Seeing there are no other questions, is
the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Vijaykumar Patel,
37200 Vista Drive, Westland, Michigan 48185. 1 have my
architects with us if there are any additional questions that we
can answer.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you have anything you want to add before we go to
questions?
Mr. Patel:
Nothing. That pretty much covers everything. Obviously this is
a revised plan. I think it addresses all the concems the
Plymouth Road commission came up with. As for the bottom of
the building that you guys are recommending, that you like what
you saw in the first plan, I don't think there's an issue. We can
do that on the revised plan. We just did not have enough time
when we got the first feedback that the tenant space is not
approved. So we had a short time to come up with this plan so
we didn't particularly show all the things we can do on the
exterior of the building. We can definitely improve that based on
your feedback.
Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Are there any questions ofthe petitioner?
Mr. Patel: Yes. I absolutely thought about that because accidents could
happen. Like I said, I didn't have enough time. We just had a
few days to come up with this one. It's possible we can do a
brick wall there and we'll take any feedback we can gel. Now,
without a tenant, we have a lot of room to work with and we can
come up with a design that makes sense. I would love to have
a patio. That was a suggestion by the City to have a patio, and I
think its a great idea to have one since we have more room
outside now. We can definitely work with the City and see
what's the best way to do that patio and what kind of fencing we
can put up that is acceptable for both of us and work with you
guys in getting something right there.
Mr. Wilshaw: I'm certainly no architect, but I'm sure our Planning Department
can assist you. I'm thinking just due to the fact that you're on
Plymouth Road and adjacent to Plymouth Road, perhaps the
brick piers and fencing that we see along the rest of Plymouth
Road, or something similar to that, the wrought iron fencing and
brick piers, assuming it's structurally sound enough to protect
someone if they happen to bump it, would be faidy attractive.
October 29, 2013
42
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Patel, are you the proprietor of this business or are you with
corporate?
Mr. Patel:
I am the franchisee. I am the local guy that is going to be
owning and operating the restaurant.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Do you have experience operating a Dunkin' Donuts currently?
Mr. Palet:
Yes. I'm a 12 year franchisee with the brand, and I was here
before the City a year and half ago for my Livonia location when
we remodeled and we added a drive-thru at Seven Mile and
Middlebell. So I appreciate all your support on that one and it is
doing well.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Excellent. The only question I have for you right now is, I know
there is going to be some conversation about the materials on
the building. I'll lel others work on that, but one thing that I
noticed is, with the addition of the outdoor patio space, which is
just a few tables and seals there for someone to drink a cup of
coffee outside, its going right along a roadway that is designed
for cars to enter and gel around the building to gel to the drive-
lhm. You have a situation where pedestrians and people silting
at tables are going to be right next to vehicular traffic. Is there
going to be some sort of a banner or fencing or bollards or
something that is going to protect those pedestrians from a car
coming in and inadvertently not taking the comer?
Mr. Patel: Yes. I absolutely thought about that because accidents could
happen. Like I said, I didn't have enough time. We just had a
few days to come up with this one. It's possible we can do a
brick wall there and we'll take any feedback we can gel. Now,
without a tenant, we have a lot of room to work with and we can
come up with a design that makes sense. I would love to have
a patio. That was a suggestion by the City to have a patio, and I
think its a great idea to have one since we have more room
outside now. We can definitely work with the City and see
what's the best way to do that patio and what kind of fencing we
can put up that is acceptable for both of us and work with you
guys in getting something right there.
Mr. Wilshaw: I'm certainly no architect, but I'm sure our Planning Department
can assist you. I'm thinking just due to the fact that you're on
Plymouth Road and adjacent to Plymouth Road, perhaps the
brick piers and fencing that we see along the rest of Plymouth
Road, or something similar to that, the wrought iron fencing and
brick piers, assuming it's structurally sound enough to protect
someone if they happen to bump it, would be faidy attractive.
October 29, 2013
43
Mr. Patel:
We can do that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thank you very much.
Ms. Smiley:
This is a vast improvement from the first plan that we had. Are
you planning to tear the whole building down and start over?
Mr. Patel:
Basically, I think we will keep one side of the wall up because
we're moving all the other sides around to make some room to
drive around. It will be one side of the existing wall structure will
remain and the three sides would change, either in or out.
Actually, two sides. The front and the east side of the building
will slay, part of it. The other two walls would change.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. My other question was, do you also have a franchise
then with Baskin & Robbins or is one franchise do both of them?
Are they connected?
Mr. Palet:
Yes. Both brands are owned by one brand. So there's an
option. You can do Baskin & Robbins in there as well. That's
something I have to decide whether I want to do that or not, and
I'll give it some thought, maybe now or do it in a way that gives
us an option to do that later in the future if needed.
Ms. Smiley:
Because that makes a lot more sense than trying to do a retail
in conjunction with it. Okay. That was my question. When you
can come into the parlang area from Plymouth Road with a'turn
right only" and then you can exit onto Plymouth Road with a
"turn right only." Is that correct?
Mr. Palet:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
But on the two on Wayne Road, those are both ...
Mr. Patel:
As you brought up earlier, we're looking at two ways right there
initially. I can almost sense the question in the front one
whether you want to allow a left turn from there onto Wayne
Road. Is that one of the concems?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Palet:
We can make a sign there that "no left tum" to Wayne Road
from there and we can force cars to come back to the back one.
They can make a left turn from there. Its much safer.
October 29, 2013
44
Ms. Smiley:
Yes, because you're really close to the comer and there's like
three lanes actually because there's a right tum lane and then
there's two other ones. So there's a lot of traffic to gel over from
where you're at.
Mr. Patel:
Sometimes this could be "right turn only." It makes sense.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, is there a difference with Baskin & Robbins coming in as
far as the seating and all those kinds of requirements?
Mr. Taormina:
No, not as long as he keeps the number of seals to what is
shown here. If there is an increase in the number of seals, then
that's something that may exceed the parking and would require
reconsideration by the Planning Commission or the Zoning
Board of Appeals, but co -branding it and then keeping the
number of seats, based on whatever is approved, would be
acceptable.
Mr. Taylor:
I know you're under constraints here. Your letter says you have
until December 15 to gel an approval. I guess that's what it is.
But we're almost having a study session here on something
completely different than what we had upstairs at the study
meeting. I'm a little uncomfortable with the looks of the building
for one thing. I dont know how we can resolve that, but like Mr.
Wilshaw says, we'd like to see a Iittie more back or something
on the front of the building.
Mr. Patel:
Yes, which is not a problem at all. I mean maybe within a week
or 10 days we can provide an updated rendering.
Ms. Scheel:
What do you plan the hours of operation to be?
Mr. Patel:
Typically, there is 24 hours as well as most of my restaurants in
Livonia we're open 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. It's possible we'll
do the same here. I'm not planning on opening 24 hours, but
the brand sometimes recommends based on the location that
you stay open 24 hours. If you guys have any comments on
that, please let us know and we will present that to the brand.
Ms. Scheel:
What about the drive-lhru?
Mr. Patel:
The drive-lhm would be the same.
Ms. Scheel:
Is this seven days?
October 29, 2013
45
Mr. Patel: Yes
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taylor, you made reference to a time constraint. What was
that? Do you have a litfle more detail on that?
Mr. Taylor:
Iljusl says here that they have to be approved by December 15
in order to comply with the franchise agreement under the
Foresla letter.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess I missed that in my packet that they were under some
kind of a time constraint. I guess we'll determine which way
we're going to go when we ask for motions. Are there any other
questions of the petitioner? Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition?
Christopher Martin, 12275 Inkster, Livonia, Michigan 48150. This is quite an
improvement. I used to send customers over to Flower King.
Rocky and I kind of had a gentleman's agreement there. I
would send him people that were interested in windmills and
lighthouses and sluff like that made out of cedar and any
flowers or whatever, and he'd send over customers to my place
that needed statues and flowerpots or whatever. So I got along
with him pretty good. I'd like to see thing this thing be approved
this evening. Dont bog this thing down. It's a sizeable
investment. Its a vast improvement. A good idea there earlier
on the somewhat of a barrier there around that patio with cars
pulling in. East Side Mario's on the north side of Plymouth
Road, I always thought that was somewhat of a dangerous
situation there, pulling into that parking lot, cars just so close to
the patio as compared to Kickers or Time Out or Buddy's or
some other establishment along Plymouth Road that had a
patio. I'm in favor of this. Who wouldn't be? I'd like you to
move the thing forward. If the gentleman here, the petitioner,
has a time constraint, Tel's not bog this thing down.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I see a young lady coming down
Soka Chow, 34801 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan. My parents own the
Dough Boy Donuts that's located just two doors down from the
petition site. We are very much against Dunkin' Donuts opening
up so close to us because it would greatly jeopardize our ability
to stay in business. There is also a Tim Horton just down the
street from us a couple blocks on Plymouth Road and
Farmington. To us, it just doesn't make sense to have three
donut shops within a couple blocks of each other. I would just
ask the Commission to put yourselves in our shoes. If you
owned an independent donut shop, would you want a huge
October 29, 2013
46
fmnchise like Dunkin' Donuts opening up next door to you?
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyone else? I see no more movement. With that, I'm going to
close the public hearing and ask for a motion.
Mr. Bahr:
I have a quick question through the Chair to Mark. With this
December 15 constraint, help me out with the procedures from
here. From the time that we approve this, how many weeks is
required to go through the City Council procedure? What is the
fastest it can be approved is what I'm asking.
Mr. Taormina:
It requires two meetings before the Council. Each of those
meetings is two weeks apart. The next meeting is this coming
Monday, a week from yesterday. They're not going to be able
to get on that agenda. So they'd be on two weeks following that
and then another two weeks from there. So they're approaching
the end of November at that point.
Mr. Bahr:
I wanted to gel that question in there. I can bring forth an
approving resolution.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-70-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Petition 2013-09-02-27 submitted by Dunkin' Donuts requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(4) of the City
of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct
and operate a limited service restaurant with drive-up window
facilities (Dunkin' Donuts) at 34899 Plymouth Road, located on
the southeast comer of Plymouth Road and Wayne Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, which property is zoned C-2, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2013-09-02-27 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked A-1 prepared by Foresta
Architects, Inc., dated October 29, 2013, as revised, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
building setback and any conditions related thereto;
3. That no left turns shall be allowed onto Wayne Road from
the site's northerly driveway;
October 29, 2013
47
4. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed thirty-four (34) seats, including twenty-eight (28)
interior seals and eight (8) patio seals;
5. That the Landscape Plan marked LP -1 prepared by J.
Brian Devlin, R.L.A., dated October 28, 2013, as revised, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydro -seeding;
7. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
8. That the Exterior Elevations Plans marked A-2 and A-3
prepared by Foresta Architects, Inc., both dated October
29, 2013, as revised, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except that brick or some other form of
masonry shall be added to the building, subject to review
and approval by the City Council;
9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick or masonry material that
will be added to the building and the enclosure gates shall
be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting
solid panel fiberglass and maintained, and when not in use
closed at all times;
11. 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;
12. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition;
13. hal no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
October 29, 2013
48
14. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of applicafion 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 surounding 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?
Mr. Bahr:
I'm going to add one more condition to this, and that is that
there be a revised plan in time for the City Council that shows
more of a masonry component that is consistent with the
surrounding establishments as have been recently developed
along Plymouth Road.
Ms. Smiley:
I also want to add that we're going to change all those October
18 dales, aren't we, because it's the new plan that I like.
Mr. Bahr:
Yes, I guess that would be true.
Mr. Taylor:
Its the 29th I think.
Ms. Smiley:
So with all those dates changed and the masonry added.
Mr. Taormina:
If I can just respond to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
We will change the resolutions to reflect the most recent plans.
The customer seating would be 34 seats including 26 interior
and 8 patio seats. That would be Item 3. The landscape plan is
actually dated October 28, so we will make that correction. The
exterior elevation plans are also dated the 291h. We're
October 29, 2013
49
referencing the use of brick materials around the dumpster. We
can make that change if it's acceptable to the maker of the
motion. Then I think you also wanted to address the safety
concerns of the outdoor dining patrons. We will add language
relative to changes to the plan that will address that.
Mr. Bahr: I agree to all those.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taylor's concerns that they get an actual rendering of the
building.
Mr. Taormina: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Including the masonry.
Mr. Taylor: I sort of scratched out something. That the north and west sides
of the building be provided with more masonry with the approval
of the Planning Director. That makes it a little more specific I
believe.
Mr. Morrow: I guess we're trying to serve two masters here. We'd like to
send completed plans to the Council. I'm glad you mentioned
the time constraint because I missed it in my packet. I think that
the Planning Director can put that all together and make sure
that it goes forward to the Council.
Ms. Scheel: What about marking that one exit "no left tum?"
Mr. Morrow: We can put that in that the northerly most exit along Wayne
Road be "right turn only." How are we doing so far?
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, through the chair to Mark. Would it do any good
to give a seven day waiver on this to help them out?
Mr. Taormina: It wouldn't hurl.
Mr. Morrow: Let's wrap this one up and then we'll come back to see if it
makes any sense to move it with a seven day waiver. I think we
have the resolution straighten out. Our maker and supporter
have approved that. With that, roll call.
Mr. Taylor: I'll ask for a seven waiver if that will help.
Mr. Morrow: Well, now we can bring that up.
Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2013-09-02-28 ST. GENEVIEVE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
09-02-28 submitted by HES Builders, L.L.C. requesting waiver
use approval pursuant to Section 5.03(a) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a chapel
addition with fixed seating to Sl. Genevieve -St. Maurice Catholic
Churoh at 29015 Jamison Avenue, located on the south side of
Jamison Avenue between Middlebell Road and Harrison
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct a chapel addition with fixed
seating to Sl. Genevieve -Sl. Maurice Catholic Churoh which is
located on the south side of Jamison Avenue just east of
Middlebelt Road. The property is just under 10 acres in total
October 29, 2013
50
Mr. Morrow:
It can't hurt. Why don't we do it and if it helps, 0 helps. If 0
doesn't help, it won't hurt either.
Ms. Scheel:
Is there support?
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-71-2013
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 date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2013-09-02-27 submitted by Dunkin' Donuts
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(c)(4)
of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
construct and operate a limited service restaurant with drive -up
window facilities (Dunkin' Donuts) at 34899 Plymouth Road,
located on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Wayne
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. I'm not sure if the petitioner knew what we
were doing here, but you can fill him in on that, Mark.
Mr. Taormina:
I will.
Mr. Morrow:
If they can gel it on the agenda quicker based on the seven day
waiver of our minutes being approved, then it may or may not
happen. Thank you.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2013-09-02-28 ST. GENEVIEVE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
09-02-28 submitted by HES Builders, L.L.C. requesting waiver
use approval pursuant to Section 5.03(a) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a chapel
addition with fixed seating to Sl. Genevieve -St. Maurice Catholic
Churoh at 29015 Jamison Avenue, located on the south side of
Jamison Avenue between Middlebell Road and Harrison
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct a chapel addition with fixed
seating to Sl. Genevieve -Sl. Maurice Catholic Churoh which is
located on the south side of Jamison Avenue just east of
Middlebelt Road. The property is just under 10 acres in total
October 29, 2013
51
area. The zoning is R -U -F, Rural Urban Farm. The church
occupies the northwest part of the site with parking on both the
east and west sides of the building. There are also two other
structures on the properly. There is a parish school which is
located on the east side of the property, and a parish activity
building which is located on the south side of the site. In terms
of the surrounding land uses, Autumnwood of Livonia, a
convalescent home, and Trinity Park apartments, both zoned R-
9, are located to the west. Meadows of Livonia, which also is an
elderly housing complex and zoned R-9, is located to the east.
Across Jamison Avenue are single family homes which are
zoned R-1. Churohes do require waiver use approval under the
provisions set forth in Section 5.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Waiver use approval is also needed whenever a church
proposes to increase its capacity by increasing the number of
foced seats within the sanctuary or place of worship. This
proposal is somewhat of an adjunct chapel addition with sealing
for approximately 60 persons. So it's relatively small in the
context of the existing sanctuary or chapel area which seats
roughly 1,300 persons. The overall building is about 20,000
square feel, and the smaller addition would be placed on the
north side of the building adjacent to the churoh's main
entrance. The addition would measure about 1,500 square feel
in total size. It would mirror the small congregation area on the
south side of the church. When it's completed, this would
increase the overall area to about 21,830 square feet and it
would contain 1,360 seals in total. The required front yard
setback for buildings in an R -U -F zoning district is 50 feet. This
addition would encroach into the front yard setback for a
distance of about 16'-8". Al the closest point, the proposed
building addition would be about 33'4" feel from the right-of-
way of Jamison Avenue and will require a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals if this moves forward. The church is
also proposing a parking lot addition in front of the existing
parish activity building of about 26 parking spaces. It would be
used mostly for convenience purposes for people using this
particular building. It coincides with the planned interior
renovation of the building. They are going to reconfigure the
floor layout to create larger rooms for the various activities and
functions that occur there. Arohitecturally, the chapel addition
would match the arohitecture of the existing church which is
mostly brick as well as limestone accent features. They are
proposing to add some stained glass windows on the side
facing Jamison Avenue. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Do we have any correspondence?
October 29, 2013
52
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 4, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced waiver use petition.
The legal description provided with the petition, as well as the
description provided with the submitted plans, does not close
and will need to be connected by the owner prior to Engineering
permit approval. The following legal description should be used
until the owner's surveyor is able to provide an acceptable
survey. That part of the NW of /. of Section 24, T. 1 N, R. 9 E.,
City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan being more particularly
described as beginning at a point on the South line of Five Elm
Park Subdivision as recorded in Liber 55, Page 64 of plats
distant S 8921'57" E, 465.17 feet from the SW corner of said
Subdivision and proceeding thence S 8921'57" E along said
South line, 801.78 feet. thence S 020'35" W, 650.18 feet,
thence N 894822" W, 489.50 feet, thence due North 327.08
feet, thence N 8935'08" W, 308.35 feet, thence due North
328.07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Excepting the North 30
feet thereof. 9.12 Acres more or less. The address of 29015
Jamison Avenue is connect for the parcel and should be used for
all future matters regarding the proposed project. We have no
objections to the proposed improvements within the site,
although full engineering drawings will need to be provided prior
to determining if Engineering Department permits will be
required The parcel is currently serviced by public sanitary
sewer and water main which will not be affected by the
proposed construction. There is no indication on how the owner
will handle drainage from the new paved area and building
addition, so we are unable to determine any impacts to the City
storm sewer. Due to the increased impervious area created by
the proposed paving and building expansion, storm water
detention meeting Wayne County standards may be required for
the proposed improvements. A soil erosion and sedimentation
control (SESC) permit will not be required since the proposed
site is less than one acre and not within 500 feet of a lake or
stream. Even though a SESC permit is not required, the owner
will be expected to use best management practices to ensure
erosion of the soils does not occur." The letter is signed by
David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer II. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 17, 2013,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the plans for
approving this petition to construct a chapel addition with fixed
seating at the above referenced address. I have no objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Senior Fire
Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
October 4, 2013, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the
October 29, 2013
53
plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the
petdion" The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated October 22, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required to maintain the deficient setback
from Jamison Avenue. 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?
Mr. Bahr:
Just one brief request if the Planning Director could go back to
the floor plan slide that you had up there. We can move on.
Mr. Taormina:
Was that the floor plan for the parish center or for the chapel?
Mr. Bahr:
You just passed it, right there. You can move on. I just want to
be able to look at that a little bit.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your
name and address for the record please.
Kal Haddad, HES Builders, L.L.C., P.O. Box 703148, Plymouth, Michigan 48170.
1 think everything sounded good as far as approvals. One thing I
want to bring up is the purpose of this addition is really not to
increase. We're not trying to increase occupancy. The Father,
he currently holds functions that are smaller in size, and to do
that, it really forces him to turn on the
power, to power up the
overall church, the healing, cooling, lighting,
what have you, and
I think this is like more of an energy cost savings for him to
incorporate the small addition.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Let's see if the Commission has any questions of
you.
Mr. Bahr:
I have a question not so much relative to the chapel but about
the increased parking down at the, what is that building called?
Mr. Haddad:
The parish center.
Mr. Bahr:
What is that building currently used for?
Mr. Haddad:
I think the Father could probably tell you a little better.
October 29, 2013
54
Fr. Howard Vogan, St. Genevieve, 29015 Jamison Street, Livonia, Michigan
48154. 1 don't live in the church. There is a rectory there. The
parish center is used, what was the question?
Mr. Bahr:
The use ofthe parish center.
Fr. Vogan:
What is it used for? Okay. Meetings. There are three AA
meetings there weekly. Very important. Women's Sodality
meetings. We have a women's prayer group that meets there.
That's the current use of the building.
Mr. Bahr:
Is the additional parking that you're requesting down there, is
that something that you feel that you need or is that something
that you're doing in order to satisfy the ordinance?
Mr. Haddad:
We have more than ample parking. I know we're grandfathered
in on the old parking lot, but the addition of the 60 seats called
for 20 additional parking spaces.
Mr. Bahr:
Is it your opinion you'd still have ample parking even with the
addition?
Mr. Haddad:
We actually have pictures.
Mr. Morrow:
We should put them up on an easel.
Mr. Taormina:
Why don't you hold them right there. We need you at a mike.
Mr. Haddad:
These are actually previous pictures of this Iasi Sunday that
were taken of the parking lot when it was at full occupancy.
This one and this one. This parking lot is the east parking lot
and this is the west parking lot. You can see, most of it,
probably three-quarters of it, is usually. empty.
Mr. Bahr:
It is the same for the school too, more than enough parking?
Mr. Haddad:
For the school, its even better or emptier, I guess. This is
during the day. You can probably count the cars on your hands.
Mr. Bahr:
I mean if you guys need it, that's fine, but whoever ends up
making the motion, I guess I would propose that its not
necessary to add that additional parking. I'll endure relentless
ribbing from my fellow commissioners for this, but that's right in
my neighborhood.
Mr. Haddad:
There's actually another reason for the parking. There is dmp-
off for canned goods and what have you.
October 29, 2013
55
Mr. Bahr:
If you have a need for it, that's fine. As a resident in that
neighborhood, I know that it's a huge parking lot that isn't
completely used and I'm never excited about adding pavement
when its not necessary. That's why I was saying, if you have a
need for it, that's fine.
Mr. Haddad:
I understand. It's more of a convenience for people dropping off
canned goods. They would be carrying heavy items. It is a
drop-off point for the cars to pull in and out. Just really
temporary parking.
Mr. Bahr:
If nothing else, it gives more space for my kids and I to ride our
bikes. Thanks. I'm all set.
Mr. Taormina:
We would not push the issue for the sake of satisfying the
ordinance recognizing that, from a practical standpoint, the
parking is not necessary, not from a numbers point of view. For
convenience, we understand why they would desire to build that
parking lot, but they can bank it as well. I just want them to
know that if theyre doing it just to satisfy the ordinance, they
don't need to do that. We could bank that parking.
Mr. Morrow:
Without having to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Taormina:
Thats correct.
Mr. Morrow:
In other words, if we say it's banked should they need it, they
can bypass the zoning board.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Fr. Vogan:
Just a couple clarification points. We realize loo that on every
weekend, there are three masses. Its not just one service.
There are three masses, and the whole structure, especially if
you're riding a bike around, you can see where time -wise the
whole campus is used in a staggered way. Different buildings
are used at different times. It's not like everybody is using
everything at once, which allows more for, again, ample parking.
And I agree with you too, if we don't have to put it in because
the green space is very nice. It is.
Mr. Bahr:
From an appearance standpoint, if I may Mr. Chair, I can't say
I'm real thrilled about putting in a huge parking lot, but that's
purely opinion. It's your properly. If you have a need for it,
that's fine.
October 29, 2013
56
Mr. Morrow: It is in your neighborhood, though, right? Do you ride your bike
overlhere?
Mr. Bahr:
Duly noted.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, can you show me where the new parking lot is? And the
parish hall is down from that?
Mr. Taormina:
Right here.
Ms. Smiley:
Where do people who use that parish hall park now?
Mr. Taormina:
They would mostly park here, and there's a sidewalk that leads
Mr. Morrow:
right to the entrance. So all this is green space with just a single
Ms. Smiley:
sidewalk that leads to the front of the building.
Ms. Smiley:
Because I can see how they would need it for convenience, like
you said. Its not just for dropping off.
Mr. Haddad:
Justfor convenience, butyou're really not....
Ms. Smiley:
For meetings at night and stuff like that. I mean it's just closer
Mr. Haddad:
and better.
Mr. Haddad:
When there's meetings in that building, there's really nothing
else going on in the church body or the school. One building is
always occupied but not all simultaneously. We have plenty of
parking but if the Father says so, ft's a convenience thing.
Mr. Morrow:
We should resolve it.
Ms. Smiley:
Its more about what you want.
Mr. Morrow:
Are we going to put in the parking lot, Father?
Ms. Smiley:
Father, would you like the parking lot?
Fr. Vogan:
Could we just keep the option? Perhaps not a full parking lot of
20 spaces, perhaps a few handicap spaces with a wrap-around
driveway. Again, to keep the aesthetics very nice too. We're
very keen on that whole thing.
Mr. Haddad:
A circular drive.
Fr. Vogan:
A circular driveway with perhaps some handicap spots.
October 29, 2013
57
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, there's an easy way of resolving that, and that's
just to allow them to bank those parking spaces so they can
build them if they choose to or they can modify the plan as he
suggested. We can incorporate that language into any
resolution.
Mr. Morrow: And then they can figure out exactly what they need.
Mr. Taormina: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: So we can move on from that now. Is there anything else?
Mr. Wilshaw: I was just going to suggest that if we offer a land bank, that
gives them the option of land banking or building the spaces if
they wish, but I was going to throw out the same concept that
maybe you would want to consider a ciroular drive just so you
could have drop off services near the door but not have to
eliminate all that green space. It might be the best of both
worlds.
Mr. Morrow: I should have gone to you first
Mr. Wilshaw: It sounds like everyone else figured it out. Maybe some bike
paths might be nice.
Mr. Morrow: Now we've cleared that up. Is there anything else?
Mr. Haddad: I have just a quick question. I know the procedure is a little
different, but we went through this approval, now we have to go
for a variance to gel the setback. Correct?
Mr. Morrow: Yes. Thal will be required. That's a regulation. I think that's the
only variance you have there, is the setback for the new
addition.
Mr. Haddad: Okay.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthe granfing oflhis petition?
Mr. Haddad: I think they're all for it.
Mr. Morrow: I was wondering, Father, if you were trying to put a little duress
on our commission.
Fr. Vogan: No duress as such. Just a little bit angelic power.
October 29, 2013
58
Mr. Morrow: We will duly note that we had all those people in favor. With
that, I'm going to close the hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-72-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Petition 2013-09-02-28 submitted by HES Builders, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 5.03(a) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
construct a chapel addition with fixed sealing to Sl. Genevieve -
St. Maurice Catholic Church at 29015 Jamison Avenue, located
on the south side of Jamison Avenue between Middlebell Road
and Harrison Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, which
property is zoned RUF, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-09-02-28 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plans marked Drawing No. SP1, SP3 and
SP4 prepared by HES Engineering, Inc., all dated
September 27, 2013, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
setback and any conditions related thereto;
3. That the Building Elevation Plan marked Drawing No. A2
prepared by HES Engineering, Inc., dated September 27,
2013, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the petitioner shall be allowed to landbank parking
spaces pursuant to Section 18.370) of the Zoning
Ordinance, and also reconfigure the driveway providing
access to the Parish Activity Center, subject to review and
approval by the City Planning, Inspection and Engineering
Departments;
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; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for building permits.
October 29, 2013
59
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: Do we want to add the Iandbanking of the parking lot?
Mr. Taylor: I think they can do whatever they want to do with their parking,
as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Morrow: Mark will incorporate that in the resolution.
Ms. Smiley: Yes. And approve the parking lot with the land bank.
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 #7 PETMON 2013-10-08-10 AMANDA WONG
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
10-08-10 submitted by Amanda Wong requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the
commeroial center (Middlebell-Norfolk Plaza) at 20307-20337
Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina: This petition is requesting improvements to a commercial strip
center located on the west side of Middlebell Road, just north of
Norfolk Avenue. It is zoned C-1, Local Business. The
development consists of two adjoining buildings on two separate
parcels. The buildings share access and parking and are under
common ownership. Altogether, the leasable area of both
buildings is about 10,500 square feet and subdivided into seven
tenant spaces, although there is only one tenant currently
located in the buildings. The Commissioners voiced their
concern relative to the design and the number of up and down
parts to the building on the plan that was reviewed at the study
session. Proposed are a series of dimensional parapet walls
along the lop half of the building that would be conslmcted out
of E.I.F.S. You can see the cornice treatment that they would
provide above the windows as well as along the lop of the
October 29, 2013
60
roofline. We expressed the concern to the pefifioner and he's
gone back and made some changes. This is the plan that has
been submitted for your consideration this evening, although he
is still working out some details relative to awnings and some of
the other accent features of the building. He did agree with your
recommendation that he tone it down a bit in terms of the
number of steps on the top of the building. He has provided a
couple of different renderings, and again, he hasn't selected
exactly which one he wants to go with. Two of them show color
options. This would either be an E.I.F.S. material, the color
band here, or it would more than likely be just some kind of
awning that would be placed above the windows, which is what
we would recommend in this case. With that, I'll answer any
questions you may have orjust go on to the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Let's go ahead with the correspondence
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 9, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition.
The proposed plan indicates that project will consist of
renovating the exterior of the building, which have no objections
to at this time. The plaza is spread across two parcels, but the
legal description provided only covers the north parcel. The
following legal description which includes both parcels should
be used in connection with the petition: Lots 1 thru 4, excluding
the east 20 feet thereof, Storm and Fowler's Country Crest
Subdivision, T. 1 S., R. 9 E., Livonia Township (now City of
Livonia), Wayne County, Michigan as recorded in Liber 42,
Page 74, Wayne County Recbrds. Addresses for the plaza fall
within the range of 20313 thru 20337 Middlebelt Road and
should be used in conjunction with the proposed project. The
existing structure is currently serviced by public utilities, which
are to remain in place. Should changes to the existing utility
leads be needed, the owner will need to submit plans to the
Engineering Department to determine if permits will be
required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer 11. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated October 15, 2013, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with
the exterior remodel of the commercial building on the property
located at the above referenced address. We recbmmend the
installation of a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver from Ladder Tech,
LLC or an equivalent. Otherwise 1 have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 10,
October 29, 2013
61
2013, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in
connection with the petition. I have no objections to the petition."
The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
October 22, 2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) No signage has been reviewed. (2)
Repair, seal and restripe parking lot as necessary. Parking
spaces are to be 10 feet by 20 feet and double striped. 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? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Johny Essou,
Essou's Conslmction, 2972 Reese Drive, Sterling Heights,
Michigan 48310.
Mr. Morrow:
You've heard the presentation. Is there anything you'd like to
add to it?
Mr. Essou:
Yes. I'm here to answer any questions.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the petitioner?
Mr. Bahr:
Do you know of any retail stores that are lined up to come in
here, or is this all speculative at this point.
Mr. Essou:
We're talking to some people to move in there, but they are
waiting to see what is going to happen there.
Mr. Bahr:
The three pictures we have in front of us, these are just three
different options that you're considering basically, the different
colors?
Mr. Essou:
Different colors, yes.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
I think Mr. Taormina recommended the one with the blue on it.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I may. If you feel comfortable moving this item
forward this evening based on the design of the alternate
renderings without gelling into details on the colors, we would
ask that he provide to the City Council for their consideration a
October 29, 2013
62
specific plan with exactly the color selection. The petitioner has
given you a couple different options but I think as it moves
forward he should really narrow it down to what it is he wants to
do before it gels final consideration by Council.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll see what the Commission wants to do. Thanks for that
input.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, looking at these revised
plans, which are a marked improvement over the previous one,
these colored sections, regardless of what color they are that
I'm looking at, are those as proposed right now just an E.I.F.S.
insert, if you will, or are these actual awnings that would pop
out?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm going to let the petitioner respond.
Mr. Essou:
Its E.I.F.S.
Mr. Taormina:
So this one, for example, represents E.I.F.S. Unfortunately, I
don't have the cross-section view, and probably the addition of
what would be an awning along this part of the building, just
above the entrances. There is an opportunity for him to add an
awning right above the windows.
Mr. Wilshaw:
All right. Thank you. I'll just say that my comment at this point is
that I do think this is definitely a step in the right direction. I do
still have some concern over the hash marking, if you will.
There's horizontal lines; there's vertical lines; there's crisscross
lines. There's kind of some haphazard lines going on there that
to me just visually kind of look a little disjointed, but I think the
general concept of having complementary colors of light and
dark and so on is fine. I don't have a problem with that. Just
when you gel into the nuances of it, you don't want it to look loo
crazy paving or whatever going on there.
Mr. Essou:
We tried to do three different colors, makes it look nicer. I mean
if you go to the blue or the green, you can see three different
colors, either this one or that. The crown molding will be lighter
and then the dark brown and the bottom, some kind of green.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yeah, I like that. That's nice. On the green I see crisscrosses
and sluff.
Mr. Essou:
Yes. That's some design. It will be in the middle.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Just be careful it doesn't look too crazy looking, busy.
October 29, 2013
63
Mr. Essou:
We'll do our best to make it look nice.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The three colors sort of complement each other, all look very
nice. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel:
Through the Chair to Mark, what's being redone on the building,
is it just the top from the awning up or is it the whole building?
Are we getting new back?
Mr. Taormina:
No, the brick is in good condition. That will remain. There is no
need to improve or modify the brick in any way. These are
improvements mostly from the lop of the windows up, the upper
part of the facade.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. And then where it shows the columns, are those columns
that are there?
Mr. Taormina:
I think those are just back.
Ms. Scheel:
A different type of the back than the plain brick?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe its all matching back.
Mr. Essou:
Yes.
Ms. Scheel:
It is? Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
The only difference here is this is actually a separate building,
and this is wood siding that they're either going to have to
replace or paint the wood on this side of the building.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. So that's going to slay wood. That's not going to be
brick.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. That's what I was picking up on.
Mr. Taormina:
Theyll keep the wood but they'll add the top part. They'll add
the parapet and theyll wmp that around the side.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
Again, here's what the building currently looks like.
Mr. Wilshaw:
What a difference.
October 29, 2013
64
Mr. Morrow:
I guess the question comes back to what we talked about
earlier. Are we comfortable sending this to the Council without
seeing a rendering of the final concept or would we want to
bring it back so that the petitioner comes in with exactly what he
wants to go forward with along with the materials? That will be
the question.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions of the petitioner? 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 ask for a motion.
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Chair, would it be a table to put it off?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, it would be a tabling motion.
Ms. Smiley:
Then I'm going to move that we table this until I have a better
rendering, a final plan with some colors and some materials.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-73-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Petition 2013-10-08-10 submitted by Amanda Wong requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior
of the commercial center (Middlebell-Norfolk Plaza) at 20307-
20337 Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebell
Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the Planning Commission does
hereby table this item until November 12, 2013.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any discussion? Roll call please.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wilshaw:
We should set a date.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm going to address that right now. When is our next study
meeting, Mark? I know the elections are coming up.
Mr. Taormina:
Its in two weeks.
Mr. Morrow:
In two weeks. Can the petitioner come back in two weeks with
a final concept?
October 29, 2013
65
Mr. Essou:
You mean the colors?
Mr. Morrow:
No, the final drawing with the colors and exactly what you want.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The colors, awnings, everything.
Mr. Essou:
To be honest with you, I'm not going with an awning there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Well, whatever you're going to do.
Mr. Essou:
Whatever. I mean we can pick any color. I can go the green
right now. I can decide it. I mean do I have to change the
colors, the green or the blue? The reason I bang more than one
color just try to see which color is better or what color the City
likes more. To delay the project more, I mean the plaza is
silting there empty. If I don't do something there, nobody is
going to be interested to move in there you know.
Mr. Bahr:
I might just suggest, I think what would be really helpful ... I
was tempted to vote no on the tabling because I recognize your
sense of urgency, and I loo want to see something happen
there quickly. I think what would really help though is if you
could actually bring material samples in of what you're planning
to do here. Its just obscure from the renderings right now.
Could you actually bring some building materials in to our next
study meeting for us to see?
Mr. Essou:
So do I have to wail one more month?
Mr. Morrow:
I think there was some confusion here. We do not have the final
plan here in front of us.
Mr. Essou:
Ninety percent of commercial buildings in the City of Livonia is
E.I.F.S. I mean do I have to bring samples of E.I.F.S.? Its the
same E.I.F.S. they use and the design is there. Nothing is
going to change, just the color. Any color the City wants we can
put it there. But waiting one more month, I mean.
Mr. Morrow:
I think where the confusion came in is, we weren't sure which
one you wanted to go for, and if this was representative of what
we can send to the Council and say this is the final plan that you
want with the color schemes. I think there was confusion if we
had agreement on that.
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a comment that typically petitioners come before us with a
single proposal that we can either vote yes or not on. It's
generally not for us to dictate from a menu of colors which color
we would want to pick. I agree with Mr. Bahr's point that while
we know what E.I.F.S. is, normally we see a color chip sample
or something that would be a little bit more accurate than what a
computer rendering would show. But the only point of order that
I do want to make is we have tabled this item and we're
continuing to discuss it, which I do believe may be an
inappropriate thing.
October 29, 2013
66
Mr. Essou:
We make a decision on the first one, first plan, and asking the
planning to do some different designs. So we come up with
this.
Mr. Morrow:
Let's see. Mark, apparently there was confusion on my part that
we didn't have the final plans to go forward to Council. Based
on that, is there anyway, I know we have a resolution now,
tabling.
Mr. Taormina:
If you wanted to rescind that resolution and then forward a
recommendation to the City Council on one of these three
renderings and have the petitioner make sure that he provides
as much information to the Council as possible prior to their
considering that, that might be helpful, but again, that's up to the
Commission whether you feel comfortable moving this forward
or not, and I get the sense that you don't. But again, this
petitioner I know he's going to be faced with weather here and
I'm not sure, was it your intention to do this work this season?
Mr. Essou:
Its not that big of job.
Mr. Morrow:
That's all right. We understand. We got the picture now. It's
between us and the Commission now.
Mr. Bahr:
Again, I want to move this forward. These drawings right now
look like a ... I mean it looks like a highlighter and Microsoft
Word was taken across there. I don't have a lot of confidence
that the colors thalwe're seeing here are represented even with
the color the E.I.F.S. would be. I mean if that was the case, I
could tell you I don't want the blue right now. I don't think that
the colors we're seeing here are representative of what it would
actually look like. That's why I think it would be helpful to see a
final plan. Going with the green or going with the earth tones, I
think either one of those could look really, really nice. I just
don't have confidence looking at this is what we're getting.
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a comment that typically petitioners come before us with a
single proposal that we can either vote yes or not on. It's
generally not for us to dictate from a menu of colors which color
we would want to pick. I agree with Mr. Bahr's point that while
we know what E.I.F.S. is, normally we see a color chip sample
or something that would be a little bit more accurate than what a
computer rendering would show. But the only point of order that
I do want to make is we have tabled this item and we're
continuing to discuss it, which I do believe may be an
inappropriate thing.
October 29, 2013
67
Mr. Morrow:
I will not disagree with that but because the Chair did have
some confusion, at lead I thought that we had not finalized what
we wanted to go forward on. So where we're coming from here
is, the better job we do at this level, it means it go through a lot
smoother at the Council level. So I guess we have a tabling
motion, and unless somebody on the Commission wants to vote
to rescind that, we do have the tabling motion.
Ms. Scheel:
And that study session is November 12.
Mr. Taormina:
We can discuss what the options might be at that meeting,
whether or not you can consider a Special Regular Meeting is
another option too.
Mr. Morrow:
What is it?
Mr. Taormina:
A Special Regular Meeting is another option that we could hold
that night, the night of the study session.
Mr. Morrow:
We will set the date certain to be November 12. At that time we
will see the final drawing and the final colors, and if it's just stock
material, we're more interested in the colors.
Mr. Essou:
I have to say something. All the change happened because
they asked me, Mr. Mark and Scott, they asked me to do some
little changes on it. From the beginning, the first plan I could go
through that one. I was trying to make you guys happy, I mean
make the City happy. Not making it so hard for us, I mean back
and forth, back and forth on this. I could slick with the first plan,
with the first color, the beige color, and that's what they do
across the street from us, the same colors I'm doing it. I'm
trying to make them happy upstairs and I come up with two,
three different colors.
Mr. Morrow:
We do have a tabling resolution. We have to stick with that.
We probably discussed it more than we should. We will see you
in two weeks and we will do what we can to help you get on the
agenda with the City Council.
Mr. Essou:
So it will be in the same meeting with City Council?
Mr. Morrow:
It will be upstairs on the Fifth Floor.
Mr. Essou:
Okay.
October 29, 2013
68
ITEM #8 PETMON 2013-10-08-11 CURIS COMPANIES
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
10-08-11 submitted by Curis Companies, Inc. requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct two mulfi-
tenanl commercial buildings within outlots on the site of the
Menards Home Improvement Store, 12701 Middlebelt Road,
located on the west side of Middlebeh Road between the CSX
Railroad right-of-way and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 114
of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: This petition would represent the completion of the development
of the out -parcels that were established at the time the Menards
improvement store was approved in May, 2012. The size of this
portion of the out -parcel is just under 2.5 acres. The zoning is
C-2, General Business. Originally, there were nine acres in total
of out -parcels created. As you know, Goodwill was recently
approved for development on the site immediately to the south.
A portion of the area will be set aside for slormwaler
management. This is a request to construct two multi -tenant
commercial buildings. Retail Building #1, which is shown on the
left side of the drawing, is on the south half of the site. It will be
one story in height and totals about 12,200 square feet and
could be divided into five separate tenants. It is the larger of the
two buildings. Retail Building #2 is located on the northerly
portion of the site. It is about 56 feet from Retail Building #1. It
too is one story in height and totals about 7,000 square feel and
can be divided into three tenant spaces. The plan does
illustrate the potential for a drive -up operation along the south
side of Retail Building #1; however, while we can consider this
as part of the site plan this evening, the actual user and the
operation of that drive -up cannot occur until it goes through a
subsequent waiver use approval process. There would not be
any direct access to Middlebelt Road. Access to the site will be
provided via three new drive approaches, one coming in from
Menards access drive. This is the road that runs east and west
and connects the Menards site directly to Middlebelt Road. Two
additional drive approaches are proposed from a new drive that
will extend along the west side of the out -parcels between the
Menards parking lot and the planned slormwater detention
basin. This driveway continues north and then connects with
Industrial Road and runs along the back of the two other
recently approved developments, which is the Del Taco retail
building and Applebee's stand-alone restaurant. In terms of
parking, this would be viewed as a Group Commercial Center.
It is based on the total amount of retail floor space of both
October 29, 2013
69
buildings. For general retail, where less than 15 percent of the
space is occupied by restaurants, the parking is computed at a
ratio of 1 space for every 150 square feet of useable floor area.
However, for this development, it is likely that more than 15% of
the floor area will be devoted to restaurant users. Thus, the
ordinance requires parking at a ratio of 1 space for every 125
square feel of useable floor area. This results in required
parking of 123 spaces. The plan shows 140 spaces, and so
they have a surplus of 17 spaces shown on this plan. A
landscape plan was submitted with the proposal this evening. It
shows a variety of plant materials around the perimeter of the
site as well as within the parking lot islands. In an effort to
establish a consistent theme along this developing stretch of
Middlebelt Road, the plans show the same walls and planter
elements along the Middlebelt frontage that was recently
approved for the Goodwill, Applebee's and Del Taco's projects.
Plans have now been submitted for the site further to the north,
the old Handy AndylWalmart site. There we are looking at a
similar type of landscape treatments. In terms of the exterior
building materials, both buildings are dominated by brick on the
lower portions of the buildings. There is a combination of cast
brick and regular brick. The cast brick is the larger masonry
units used at the bottom part of the building, 2-% feet from the
grade. Then the majority of the sides and rear of buildings
would be full face four inch brick. Other design components
include the E.I.F.S. The columns extend upward on the
buildings. There is a decorative cornice. At the Planning
Commission study session, it was suggested that the petitioner
show how the building might look depending on the initial lease
configuration. Let's say if one tenant occupied the majority of
one of the buildings, would that change the facade? Per your
request, the petitioner has submitted a revised elevation
drawing. Unfortunately, it isn't a rendering to give you a true
sense of what it might look like. What it does is reverses
basically some of the treatments. So if there is a single user for
this building, for example, or a primary user that occupies the
center, the majority of the building, including the middle part,
you can see how the design would be altered. Instead of having
the flat portion of the parapet in the center, it changes to one of
a rounded feature. So this is just an idea of how the facade
might change. This is the plan, however, that has been
submitted for your consideration al this time. Each tenant would
be allowed one wall sign not to exceed 1 square fool for each 1
lineal fool of the unit frontage. We do not have any information
on signage right now, so the resolution requests that only
conforming signage be approved with this petition. That would
include a monument sign. They would be entitled to an 8 fool
October 29, 2013
70
high sign in front of the development, not to exceed 40 square
feel in area. They are showing dimensions a little bit larger than
this but we don't see any problem with them making the
changes so that the signage is fully conforming to the Zoning
Ordinance. That would just be a slight modification. They are
showing an 8 foot 4 inch sign and they could reduce that by 4
inches and a 48 square feel sign. It would be easy enough to
change that to 40 square feel, which would make it conforming.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of corespondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 8, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced planning petition.
No legal description was provided with the submitted plan set.
We suggest using the legal description for the parent parcel
(Menard's) until such time as the planned outlots are split, or a
separate legal description is provided by the owner. The parent
parcel legal description in connection with this petition is as
follows: Part of the Northeast X of Section 26, T. 1 S., R. 9 E.,
described as commencing at the Northeast comer of said
Section 26, thence S 02' 00'00" E, 1320.17 feet, thence S 87'
52'20"W, 60.00 feet, thence S 02' 00'00"E, 361.18 feet to the
Point of Beginning, thence S 02' 00'00"E, 248.70 feet, thence
S 88' 00'00"W, 77.00 feet, thence S 02' 00'00"E, 571.44 feet,
thence N 72' 42'35" W, 225.64 feet, thence S 87' 54'03" W,
2018.81 feet, thence S 72' 24' 13" W, 289.26 feet, thence N 02'
13' 54" W, 831.66 feet, thence N 87' 52' 20" E, 550.76 feet,
thence N 02' 00' 00" W, 24.43 feet, thence N 87' 52' 20" E,
1074.53 feet, thence N 02' 00'00" W, 56.35 feet, thence N 87'
52' 20" E, 609.68 feet, thence S 01' 55' 50" E, 91.35 feet,
thence N 87' 52' 20" E, 355.90 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 46.08 Acres more or less. Subject to any
easements, conditions, restrictions and exceptions of record.
The addresses to be used for proposed buildings should be
12661 Middlebelt Road for building #1, and 12691 Middlebelt
Road for Building #2. Future tenant addresses for the individual
units within the buildings will be assigned by the Engineering
Department at a later date. We have no objections to the
proposed site development at this time, although the developer
will need to provide this office with detailed engineering plans
for permit approval prior to any construction activities. The
submitted plans show the proposed buildings connecting a
separate sanitary lead to the existing private lead that services
October 29, 2013
71
the Menard's building. The owner will need to revise the lead
layout to connect to a public sanitary main. It is advised that the
owner should extend the existing sanitary sewer along the west
side of Middlebelt Road across the frontage of the proposed
outlots. This will allow both of the proposed buildings, as well as
the proposed Goodwill store, to connect to the public main
without crossing other properties. As an alternate, the owner
can upgrade the existing private lead to the Menard's store to
current City standards and have it dedicated as a public main.
Should the owner chose this alternative, easements may be
required for the leads to the other buildings to ensure continued
access in the event the properties are split-0ff from the parent
parcel or sold in the future. Water services for the proposed
buildings are shown connecting to the existing water main within
the Middlebelt Road right -0f --way. We have no objections to this
layout, although it should be noted that permits from both the
City of Livonia and Wayne County will be required for this work,
as well as any sanitary sewer work within the right-of-way. The
developer has proposed routing storm water drainage through
an underground detention basin before being discharged to an
existing storm sewer north of the parcel. The drainage
calculations provided with this submittal appear to adequately
meet the current Wayne County detention standards, but the
developer will need to provide full Engineering drawings to this
office prior to obtaining permits. A soil erosion and
sedimentation control (SESC) permit will be required and
involve separate plans to be submitted since the proposed site
is one acre or more or within 500 feet of a lake or stream. This
permit and associated fees will be handled by the City of
Livonia's Engineering Department before any work
commences." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer II. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated October 15, 2013, which reads as follows: 7
have reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with the
construction of two multi -tenant commercial buildings within out
lots on the property located at the above referenced address
and have noted the following. (1) Adequate hydrants shall be
provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet
between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM
with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) If subject building(s) are
to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on-site
hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the
Fire Department connection. (3) Fire lanes shall be not less than
20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire
apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical
clearance. (4) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding
signs that have the words Fire Lane — No Parking painted in
October 29, 2013
72
contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing
approved by the authority having jurisdiction. (5) Chapters 8 and
9 shall be followed as they relate to Fire Protection features and
Alarm Systems - NFPA 101, 2009 edition. (6) Chapter 35, New
Mercantile Occupancies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must
be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs,
Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways, Travel Distance, Occupant
Load, and Extinguisher Requirements - NFPA 101, 2009
edition. (7) Chapter 36 shall be followed for New Mercantile
Occupancies - NFPA 101, 2009 edition. (8) We recbmmend the
installation of a Ladder Port/Ladder Receiver from Ladder Tech,
LLC or an equivalent. These issues and other code
requirements will be addressed during the plan review process.
Providing that all details in regards to New Mercantile
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. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated October 9, 2013, which reads as
follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the
petition. I have no objections to the petition." The letter is
signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 22,
2013, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) Any proposed drive thru is a waiver use and would
require a bypass lane. (2) Signage as proposed is excessive
height and excessive square footage. A monument sign of 8
feet tall and 40 square feet for (4 or more tenants) would be
allowed. Zoning variance would be required as proposed. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, CBO, Director of Inspection. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Bryan Amann, 1777 Stonebridge Way, Canton, Michigan 48188. Good evening
and thank you. I ran a marathon the other day and I think it was
still longer than what we're doing tonight though. I'm Bryan
Amann on behalf of the Curis Companies. With me I have
Michael Curis of Cuns companies. He is one of the principles in
the business. John Vitale, the architect, and Gary David has
been engineering the project. Hopefully, you wont hear a word
from them tonight, but if necessary, they are here to answer any
questions. First, thank you for the chance for us to just be here
and talk a little bit about the project. I also want to thank the
October 29, 2013
73
Mayor and Mr. Taormina and those who have participated with
great input into this project because obviously this is a very
sensitive area. We talked about other possibilities here and
your input has allowed us to get to this point with this proposal.
We heard everything Mr. Taormina has described to you. We
have absolutely no problem complying with everything he
described to you including the sign size issue. Not a problem
there at all. The parking, the one thing I notice, he's indicated
that we would be required to have 123 spaces. We've provided
140. It was made very clear to us by the Administration that
they are very concerned with the parking ratios with the
Menards store. So we thought to provide a few extra spaces for
us here. It would hopefully be a little protection for everybody
else and in light of the potential nature of the uses that could be
in here, we thought it best to protect on the safe side in this
area. We are also fans of not having to ask for anything we
don't have to do but we think in this spot, in light of the
experience that the City has observed with the Menards store, it
was prudent to at lead prepare for that. We are prepared to
answer any questions you might have on this. I would also ask
Mr. Taormina before we are done whether it makes sense for us
to discuss the seven day waiver if in fact we were to receive a
recommendation of approval. We'll talk about that at the end as
to whether it would affect any Council dates for us because we
are against a similar kind of deadline issue. Before they lett, I
did poll the St. Genevieve member parish and they all waived in
approval of this project if that matters. I just wanted you to be
clear about that. Other than that, we are prepared to answer
any questions. We do have a material board for you tonight if
you'd like to see that.
Mr. Morrow: We would like to see that. Are there any questions of the
petitioners?
Mr. Wilshaw: There's no blue options available there?
Mr. Amann: I was tempted to start up with a joke about well, what you saw
was. No, no.
Mr. Wilshaw: Its a very attractive building. I think you've done an excellent
job of putting together a combination of materials which I'm sure
we'll see shortly here on a board, but even the renderings look
very attmctive. I do have a couple minor questions. One thing I
noticed on the plan is that it did specify that you would have
cedar gales on your dumpsler enclosures. Typically, we're
going to require that you have some sort of a metal or
composite material. I'm sure that's not a problem.
October 29, 2013
74
Mr. Amann:
Not a problem. That will be, presuming we're recommended for
approval, on the plans we'll have for City Council.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That will be a condition of the approval going forward. The
question I have is the screening of rooftop mechanicals.
Typically, I know the parapet walls in front will definitely block
the view of any air conditioners and so on, but from the back
because you do have Menards behind you with a large parking
area, would people be seeing all sorts of units on the roof there?
John Vitale, 27172 Woodard Avenue, Royal Oak, Michigan. What we've done on
this building is, if you notice that we've actually shown the
roofline. So we've shown a little higher parapet all around that
building. So we feel from the perspective that it will screen the
units pretty well, and that's why we haven't gone through a
mechanical screen
Mr. Wilshaw:
That sounds perfect. A couple extra feet even around the back
like you did is perfect I think for that. I do notice that the plan
does call for the use of LED lighting as well on the site, which is
energy efficient and that's a nice touch as well. Again, it's a
very attractive rendering that we see here and I appreciate all
the detail put into it. Thank you.
Mr. Amann:
Would you like us to actually circulate amongst you now, so you
have time to look at them, the material boards? They're
handable. They can be seen as opposed to just putting them in
front for you. Theyre small enough to just pass amongst
yourselves.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I think that if you hold them. We like to see the actual
colors.
Mr. Vitale:
This is the actual brick. So you'll get a sense of the feel of the
brick that is on the project.
Mr. Morrow:
That's full face four inch brick?
Mr. Vitale:
That's right. This is just a sample board so it's just a thin brick,
but it's a full face brick.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I wanted to be sure of.
Mr. Vitale:
These are samples of the actual E.I.F.S. material. The main
body of materials, this color here, and then we have accent
colors as you can see by this other Iitfle sample here. This
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
October 29, 2013
75
E.I.F.S. is a material that you're familiar with. It's a foam -
backed product with a cement finish on R.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Are there any other questions of the petitioner?
Mr. Bahr:
I have a question that I'll try with Mark first, if I may. We've had
a lot of discussion about signage, but that big Menards sign had
protected for other tenants to come in there. Are those just
going to be blank with this new monument sign? What is the
purpose of the Menards sign if not for this?
Mr. Taormina:
That has yet to be determined. Depending on how the parcels
are created, they may or may not have rights on that sign. At a
minimum, theyre going to need easements extending to that
sign to be able to have any allowance of identity on those four
panels that are curently blank. So who gels those and the final
configuration, I just don't know al this time. We haven't crossed
that hurdle yet. They are showing a monument sign for this
development. That might then forego their ability to use any
part of the main sign. I'm not sure.
Mr. Amann:
Let me just add a little light to it for you. Its our arrangement
and agreement with Menards that we will be purchasing the
properly and splitting it off so it will essentially be a separate
thing so we will have our own sign and not have rights to their
sign.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. So that's probably a whole separate issue then. I don't
have a problem with the sign you guys are showing. That's fine.
Mr. Amann:
We thought it the wisest approach simply because these signs
in these instances tend to be directional as to people trying to
locate what use is near what sign, as opposed to having
everything on one large Menards sign which can mean
anywhere on this site. Good luck. So I thought @ best to take
this approach.
Mr. Bahr:
Il just remains a mystery to me how that Menards sign got that
big, but that's a whole other issue for another time.
Mr. Morrow:
Let's lel that alone. Is there anything else of these gentlemen?
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was
October 29, 2013
76
#10-74-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 29, 2013, on
Petition 2013-10-08-11 submitted by Curis Companies, Inc.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct two
multi-tenant commeroial buildings within ou0ots on the site of
the Menards Home Improvement Store, 12701 Middlebell Road,
located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX
Railroad right-0f--way and Schoolcratt Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-10-08-11 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP1.1 dated October
7, 2013, prepared by Stucky Vitale Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except that wavier use
approval is required prior to operation of the drive-up
facility on Building #1;
2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross access agreement, that gives notice and outlines
the terms of how the subject properly would share parking
and access with abutting property(s), be supplied to the
Inspection Department at the time a building permit is
applied for;
3. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet No. L301 and
L302 both dated October 7, 2013, prepared by Stucky
Vitale Architects, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, and provided that the frontage improvements
(i.e., planter urns, walls and landscape materials) match
that of the adjacent developments;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet
No. A3.1 and A3.2 both dated October 7, 2013, prepared
by Stucky Vitale Architects, are hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
October 29, 2013
77
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster areas) shall be
constructed out of building materials that shall complement
that of the buildings, and the enclosure gates shall be of
solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid
panel fiberglass and maintained, and when not in use
closed at all times;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feel (20') in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadways;
9. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
10. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
11. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for building permits, occupancy
permits and zoning compliance permits; and
12. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: I think we'd like to make mention in the resolution regarding the
need to come back for the drive -up window operation on
Building #2 if the maker of the motion would accept some
language that we would fashion that would clarify that issue.
Mr. Morrow: Does the maker and supporter agree to leave it up to Mark to
fashion some language pointing out that a ddve-lhru
configuration would have to come back should it apply to this
site?
Mr. Taormina: Correct.
Ms. Scheel: I'm good.
October 29, 2013
78
Mr. Bahr:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Ms. Scheel:
I have an additional question. Do we need to reference the new
plans?
Mr. Taormina:
Its my understanding that you're satisfied with these. I would
slick with the renderings that were originally submitted, the
original elevation plans.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
This will be forwarded to the City Council with an approving
recommendation, and I'm going to recommend to the
Commission that we waive the seven days.
Mr. Amann:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
And if its application, you've got it. If not, no harm done
Mr. Amann:
All we can ask for. Thank you so much for your patience and
diligence.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-75-2013
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 2013-10-08-11 submitted by Curs Companies, Inc.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct two
multi -tenant commeroial buildings within ou0ots on the site of
the Menards Home Improvement Store, 12701 Middlebelt Road,
located on the west side of Middlebell Road between the CSX
Railroad right-of-way and SchoolcraR Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 26.
Mr. Morow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. Good luck. I appreciate your patience.
Thank you very much for bringing that development to City.
Mr. Amann:
Glad to do it. Excited to be here. Thank you.
October 29, 2013
79
ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,049" Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,045° Regular Meeting held on October 15,
2013.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-76-2013 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,045° Regular Meefing held
by the Planning Commission on October 15, 2013, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Scheel, Wilshaw, Bahr, Smiley, 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 1,046'" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 29, 2013, was adjourned at
10:12 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman