Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-03-1219220 MINUTES OF THE 841st REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 841sr Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Pastor John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs 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 hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in writ ng, 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 200042 -PL -02 KENWOOD MEADOWS Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Kenwood Meadows Subdivision #2 (Petition 2000- 12 -PL -02) proposed to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Cavell and Santa Anita Avenues in the Northeast %of Section 24. 19221 Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, has the pefifioner met all the conditions? Mr. Taormina: Yes. The final plat has been submitted by the proprietor of the subdivision and is drawn in full compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Financial assurances required have been deposited with the City Clerk and there is a letter to that effect. We have received a letterfrom the Engineering Division, dated December 7, 2001, indicating thatthey recommend approval of the final plat as submitted. Mr. McCann: For the record, Mr. Soave did call me. Because Mr. Soave had other commitments this evening and because he had met all the requirements under the ordinance, I told him that he would not have to be present. Is there a motion to approve? On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #0337-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Kenwood Meadows Subdivision #2 by Leo Soave Building Co. (Petition 00 -12 -PL -02) proposed to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Cavell Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 24 for following reasons: 1. That the Final Plat is in compliance with the Preliminary Plat; 2. That no reporting City department has objected to approval of the Final Plat; and 3. That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been taken care of. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19222 ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-01-02-02 RITTER'S FROZEN CUSTARD Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-01-02-02, submitted by Brent A. Goings, on behalf ofMeni- Eight Land, L.L.C., c/b/a Ritter's Frozen Custard, requesting waiver use approval to add a drive-thru window to Ritters Frozen Custard on the south side of Eight Mile Road (31195 Eight Mile Road) between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 2. On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #0338-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-01-02-02, submitted by Brent A. Goings, on behalf of Mem-Eight Land, L.L.C., d/b/a Ritter's Frozen Custard, requesting waiver use approval to add a drive- thru window to Ritter's Frozen Custard on the south side of Eight Mile Road (31195 Eight Mile Road) between Mend man Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest%of Section 2, be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, do you want to take us through the amended plans? The petitioner is not here yet this evening. Mr. Taormina: We did receive a new plan. Most of the changes are based on previous study meetings. Some of the concems that were expressed during the initial review involved the turning radius, the width ofthe drive-thru lane and, in general, the traffic and circulation around the proposed drive -up window, which would be on the easlside oflhe building. The Planning Commission had suggested a number of changes. The revised plan does incorporate some oflhese changes. The drive -up aisle providing access to the window has been moved approximately ten feet to the south. This increases the turning radius from what was previously shown as 15 feetto a total of 25feet. Forthose ofyou who have visited the site and have taken a close look at this situation, the increase in turning radius would improve the site visibility because it is such a small building. Under the previous plan, the drive-thru lane that was shown wrapping around the building would have been difficult to actually make that tum and then position the vehicle right at the drive -up window. The other change was the elimination of a couple of parking spaces at the 19223 south end of the property. This was done so as to provide for a secondary means of access around the site and to avoid any conflict between the stacking lane for the drive -up window and the ability to drive around the south end of the site. There would be two drive aisles provided there - one for the window and one for general circulation. Along the south end of the building and along the east side of the building several parking spaces have been shifted. Some ofthe 90 degree parking spaces were eliminated and replaced with parallel parking along the south wall, and some of the handicap spaces were re-posifioned. In general, those are the changes that have been made to the plan. Unfortunately, the petitioner, who hurried to get the plan in this evening, is not in attendance. I'm not sure what action the Planning Commission would like to take. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Pastor: I was going to offer a tabling motion since the petitioner is not here, and I do have some questions. Mr. McCann: If you don't mind, we'll take some comments first. Mr. LaPine: Mark, willthetwo handicapparking spacestothe south stay there? If they remain, how are those handicapped people going to gel across? Mr. Taormina: Yes. One of the concerns we had with this plan was that those spaces would be separated from the store with the drive -up aisle. What we probably should do is shift those spaces to the west side of the building, or possibly one of those on the north side to the drive -up aisle, so as to make access more convenient for those two barrier free spaces. Mr. LaPine: We can movethosetwoovertothe west side where there already are two spaces. Now they probably could be used for the handicap parking. Otherwise, we would have five handicap on the west side of the building. Right? Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, I have a queston for you, if I may interrupt. He already has three handicap spaces on the west side of the building. He far exceeds his parking requirements. If he had the minimum parking needed for this facility, how many spots would he need and how many ofthose would have to be handicapped? It appears to me that because he has a lot of extra parking, he's added handicaps that aren't necessary. 19224 Mr. Taormina: The number of handicap spaces that are required is based on the available parking which is 58, which I believe would require a total of three barrier free spaces. So he could probably give up a couple spaces and still comply with the barrier free requirements. The reason for that is the number of spaces under the revised plan still exceeds the required number of spaces. There is a surplus of 28 spaces available on the site. Mr. McCann: Ifwe did move them lolhe west right now, thatwould completely eliminate any parking next to the building on the west side. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. McCann: I'm not sure that would be necessary under the circumstances. Mr. LaPine, I apologize for interrupting you. Mr. LaPine: I just have two other questions, Mark. The one-way going north as you come out of the drive-thru, is it still going to be a two-way coming in off of Eight Mile Road? Mr. Taormina: Yes. The approach coming in off of Eight Mile would accommodate two-way traffic. At a point just south of the landscaped area is where it would tum into a one-way. Mr. LaPine: Okay, then aren't we going to have some kind of a sign there so somebody coming in off of Eight Mile Road wont make a straight shot down through the one-way lane? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The third question I have, as you're coming out ofthe driveway, is there going to be a curb along there to slop a carfrom jumping over? Mr. Taormina: Are you talking about for the drive-thru lane? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Yes, I believe there would have to be a curb. In fact, that whole area right now has a grade separation. The concrete is raised about six inches above grade, so I would think there would have to be a curb in that area. Mr. La Pine: There are two parking spacesjustsouth ofwhere the carsfnally come out in one lane. The people parking on the east side ... how are they going to get into there, because there's a window 19225 right over here where people can come to order their ice cream? They either have to go across the driveway or cut through one of these parking ... would it make any sense to eliminate one of those parking spots and make that a walkway so people coming from cars parked on the east could have a walkway coming in without going across the one-way drive-in coming out of the drive- thru? Mr. Taormina: That probably would make sense not only from the standpoint of circulation that you just mentioned, but also for visibility. I know that in discussions with some of the other Commissioners, there is some concem over cars exiting that drive-thru lane and the ability of the driver to see the cars backing up out of either one or both of those spaces. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Alanskas: There is a water fountain where they want to put that window. Where are they going to move that to? You said that's going to be moved. Mr. Nowak: My understanding is that the water fountain is going to be moved. I'm not exactly sure to where. Mr. Alanskas: On the west side of the building? Mr. Nowak: That l don't know. Mr. Piercecchr Why dont they put it in front? Mr. Alanskas: If you have children, if you got cars there, and kids are running up to have a drink of water close to that window, that could be a dangerous situation. I'd rather see the water fountain moved either towards the front of the building or on the west side of the building. Mr. LaPine: When I was out there and talked to them, I was led to believe there wasn't going to be a drinking fountain. Mr. Alanskas: Well, Al told me this week it was just going to be moved. Mr. LaPine: Maybe he's changed his mind. Mr. Alanskas: These are things we have to ask the petitioner. Mr. LaPine: Is this something that's required— a drinking fountain? 19226 Mr. Taormina: Not that I'm aware of. Mr. La Pine: If he's going to move it, he just has to move it on the other side, I guess. The way it works now, anybody who wants to go to the bathroom has to walk all the way around the building anyway. Mr. Alanskas: Well, I'm talking about the children. Mr. LaPine: Yes, I understand. Mr. Alanskas: You know how they run across and everything. In regard to those two parking spots south of the landscape at the front of the building, I'd like to see them taken out completely. Not even have the one leftover. The walkway Bill wants to put in there ... take them both out because that's awe -way going north. If it's one- way, they can't use that anyways. You said the one-way stops right at the front of the landscape area, so cars can't even pull in there because it's a one-way. Mr. Taormina: They would have to maneuver all the way around the building. Mr. Alanskas: Yes, they would. I don't think that would happen because the petitioner has so many parking spaces left over. Those two aren't even necessary. He doesn't need them. Mr. Piercecchr You may recall that my hesitancy to approve this previous plan was due to its potential hazardous effect on pedestrian and vehicular traffic within this site. think that this is somewhat of an improvement and the suggestions that have just been passed on to us are excellent. However, I have a suggestion that I think would further increase the safety around this site. It would be curbing the east side of the drive-thru lane and adding a bumper and stop sign at this exit. No matter how this lane is designed,I can see the value of stopping the cars there to avoid running into kids running across or cars backing up, etc., etc. This suggestion, Mr. Chairman, is very cheap and hopefully my colleagues and the petitioner will concur on this idea. There is a section next to that drive-thm lane on the south end of it, they can use low planting materials. Mr. Shane can approve that... the right selection for that stuff, or grass. As far as the parking spaces on the east side of the building, you know you could practically eliminate them all, and you'd have landscaping all the way on both sides of the drive- thm lane. 19227 Mr. Shane: Well, along the lines Mr. Pieroecchi was talking about,... somebody mentioned at a previous meeting that there should be some kind of pedestrian banner around the north side of that drive-thru lam as it leaves the drive-thm window because I can seethe potential that kids can come across there. I sti l think there ought to be some kind of a banner. Mr. McCann: You want it low enough ... you want the cars to be able to see across it for kids coming around. Mr. Shane: Just to give the idea that it's not the place to be. Mr. Piencecohi's comment about parking ... I can see his point to some extent, but the other thing you have to remember about these kinds of facilities is that even though the parking requirement requires x number of cars, they attract a lot of traffic. I think we'd better have more spaces than not enough. You know what I'm saying? I think the parking spaces ought to stay along there just for that reason alone. Mr. Pastor: Justto reaffirm, again, I believe thatthe drive-thm lane is not back far enough. You need a certain stack. I don't know if the City of Livonia has certain stacking requirements for cars, but if not, where the drive-thm window is now, its not giving a car enough room in front of it to pull forward and then turn. It's one of the issues I brought up before and they didn't address it. Where the menu board sign is sitting, I'd say about five feet from actually where the drive-thm lane is, I mean that's not going to work either. I just think we need to go back to a study meeting, hash it out with the petitioner. It's pretty hard for us to banter back and forth with the petitioner not being here, so I'll offer a tabling motion again. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Atanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #0339-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-01-02-02, submitted by Brent A. Goings, on behalf of Mern -Eight Land, L.L.C., d/b/a Rifter's Frozen Custard, requesting waiver use approval to add a drive- thru window to Ritter's Frozen Custard on the south side of Eight Mile Road (31195 Eight Mile Road) between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 2, be tabled to the next Regular Meeting of March 26, 2002. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19228 Mr. Pastor: Again the drawings that the staff has done is an excellent concept of what really should be there. It is to their benefit. I know that Ritter's is not used to doing drive-thrulanes; therefore, they really need to look at this for the stacking requirements and everything else. It should be most helpful. ITEM #3 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article IV, Section 4.04 and Article V, Section 5.04 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance in order to establish an open space preservafion zoning provision in the R-5 and RUF zoning districts as required by House Bill No. 5029. Mr. McCann: Is there any additional information, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No, other than the public hearing on this item has been scheduled for March 26, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #03-40-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.04 of Article IV, and Section 5.04 of Art cle V of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance in order to establish an open space preservafion zoning provision in the R-5 and RUF zoning districts as required by House Bill No. 5029. FURTHER RESOLVED, that nofice ofsuch hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance ofthe City of Livonia, as amended, and thatthereatter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canted and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19229 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 841s' Regular Meeting held on March 12, 2002, was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman /mr CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary