HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-07-22rlli4:fi
MINUTES OF THE 8W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 869" Public Hearings and 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 LaPine John Walsh
Carol Smiley
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV, and Mrs.
Robby Williams, Secretary, 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 turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days atter 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 2003-06-02-12 Roy Poly Rolled Sandwiches
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
06-02-12 submitted by Sucha Singh Sohal, on behalf of Tu Hi Tu,
LLC, doing business as Roly Poly Rolled Sandwiches, requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant on
property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Newburgh Road and Blue Sides Avenue (37609 Five Mile Road)
in the Northeast % of Section 19.
20559
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 23, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 25, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited
service restaurant on property located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated June 16, 2003, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plan to operate a
limited service restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile
Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies. We have no
objections to the plan as submitted." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated June 24, 2003, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 9, 2003, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) As this is a change in use group this entire space,
including the entry doors, must be fully barrier free compliant
with the MBC 2000 and the ICC/ANSI A117.1, 1998, which
could include curb cuts and ramping. (2) The parking lot needs
double striping and repair in certain areas (settled trenches fore
lighting, etc.). (3) There are many enclosed dumpsters at the
rear of this site. What provision has been made for this site for
trash? (4) There are south rear exit doors on this center that
need maintenance or to be replaced. This Department has no
further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jim Bisnell, business address is 6147 Willow Creek, Canton, Michigan 48107.
Petitioner: Sucha Singh Sohal,924 Vansull Avenue, Westland, Michigan.
20590
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything you would like to tell us about your proposed
restaurant?
Mr. Sohal:
I was impressed by a speech by the president to a start small
businesses to create employment and to help boost the
economy. So this inspired me to start a business like this. I
liked this type of franchise so I am going to go for it.
Mr. McCann:
Arethere anyquestons from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
This question is to the representatve of Roly Poly. How many
franchises do you have in the metropolitan area?
Mr. Bisnell:
Metro Detroit currently has three stores that are open; one is in
Troy, one is in Rochester Hills and the other one is in
Farmington.
Mr. Alanskas:
Of those three and the fourth one, if it is approved, what percent
is carry-0ul trade?
Mr. Bisnell:
What is sit-down versus carry out?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Bisnell:
It all depends on our particular stores. The majority of our sales
are carry -out versus actual seatng but I don't know the actual
percentage.
Mr. Alanskas:
According to our site plan, it shows that you are going to have a
dumpster in the sear. How are you going to dump your rubbish
into the dumpster.
Are you going to put it in large plastic bags
and then put it into the dumpster?
Mr. Bisnell:
Yes. We have large garbage cans. We just put liners in them
and carry it out.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many bags do you go through in a day to put into the
dumpster?
Mr. Bisnell:
I would guess, because I am not in the stores everyday, I am
actually the franchise development representative for this area, I
would say no more than 7 or 8 bags a day, if that.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many Imes a weekwill that dumpster be emptied?
Mr. Bisnell:
Most ofthe stores are on a two times a week schedule.
20591
Mr. Alanskas:
It says in our notes that you may put in another dumpster if
necessary.
Mr. Bisnell:
They have talked to the landlord regarding the issues on the
June 24 sheet and everything that is listed here the landlord
said he would take care of.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I ask is because I have, myself, a dumpster in the
same location because I work for Midwest Guaranty Bank and
our dumpster is right next to Subway's dumpster. It is not a
large dumpster and it is full constantly where it overflows. They
will even put bags on the concrete floor or in someone else's
dumpster so I want to make sure that you will have enough of a
dumpster to take care of your rubbish because when people
come in and buy a large coke, the large coke's that you have,
and a sandwich, it doesn't take much to f11 up your small refuse
inside for it to be full and when you dump it four or five times the
dumpster is full. We've got to make sure that if you do go in
there, and it is approved, that you have proper dumpslers and
you have to make sure that they are closed at all times.
Because people leave them open and you gel trash all over
from the wind and it is a mess. I am very involved in that center
so I know what goes on. If you are approved, I am going to be
policing your dumpster very, very thoroughly.
Mr. Bisnell:
Do you know what size Subways dumpster is off hand?
Mr. Alanskas:
I dont know. There are three different sizes that you can gel
and I think theirs is the smallest one that you can gel. I know for
one thing it is too small. You should have a good size
dumpster back there because if your business is going with a lot
of trade, you are going to have a lot of rubbish and in the
summertime it can be a mess.
Mr. Shane:
To the petitioner, have you had experience with this type of
business before?
Mr. Soha1:
I do have a lot of experience in the field. Not this type but we
are going for training. They will be giving us training for that
before we start.
Mr. Shane:
To the representative of the franchise, we are looking at pictures
here, I see one here of the front of a typical store, is that
representative of the type of window displays that you generally
have?
20592
Mr. Bisnell: That is fairly typical. Our signs are available to be done in
whatever the local strips need to do or whatever the local
jurisdictions want us to have. We change the signs to fit
whatever the strip centers want, different colors, we can do
awnings if they allow us but that is not an issue.
Mr. Shane: Does the franchisee have a habil of putting sale signs and
special product signs in the window?
Mr. Bisnell: It all depends on the local jurisdiction and what they do allow
and dont allow. We do have some available but do we typically
do it, not necessarily. It is up to the franchisee.
Mr. La Pine: At this location right, that will be the eighth restaurant, some of
them are sit down but most of them are carryout. This will be
the third sub shop in there. My question is, have you made a
thorough study that says you can operate successfully? It
seems to me with that many subs in there, that somebody is not
going to succeed. Why is your product, do you think, will be apt
to succeed?
Mr. Bisnell: We are not actually a sub shop because we do it in a flour
tortilla, it is considered a roll up or a wrap versus a sub. One of
the things that is a little different is that you dont have the big
pieces of bread versus the four tortilla that it is wrapped in and it
is a little bit healthier and it has a lot more variety to it. You are
looking at 53 different menu items that are on the menu and
people tend to like the selection.
Mr. La Pine: What are the hours of operation?
Mr. Bisnell: Typical hours are 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. It all depends on
what the franchise owner wants to do and what the local
jurisdictions will allow. If they want to stay open later, that is
fine. But our standard hours are 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. We
can close on Sundays. We don't have an issue with that.
Saturdays are usually 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m.
Mr.
La Pine:
What is he getting here,
a five year lease?
Mr.
Sohal:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Did I understand you say that the letter of the W from
Inspector Bishop that the landlord is going to take care of all of
those issues.
20593
Mr. Sohal:
It is already agreed to in the meetings. He agreed to fix all of
that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do you have permission to speak for the landlord?
Mr. Sohal:
He agreed to fix all of that.
Mr. Bisnell:
What we dont have is something in writing.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Why I ask the question is that the previous type of business
that is going into that same mall, for all practical purposes,
we've got the same line up. I wanted to ask Mark, has any
action been taken on the Quiznos petition? Has anything
been done to the parking lot which is mentioned there, the
double striping and the exit doors which are kind of a mess.
That is why I am asking if you are speaking for him. Is there
any follow up on that Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Those are the same conditions imposed on previous petitions.
I don't believe Quizno's is in operation yet. So there has not
been a final inspection yet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Isn't Quiznos a different landlord because there is more than
one owner in there?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Its the same property. The Subway is actually on the
adjoining parcel to the east. I don't believe all of these things
have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department but part of the reason is because they haven't
actually moved in there yet. I would also like to point out fiat
with the Blockbuster's petition there were similar conditions
imposed by the Council. It seems to me that we have some
redundancy in regards to those two projects and possibly this
third project as far as getting the parking lot improvements
done and some ofthe maintenance of the rear ofthe building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It appears that if one of these establishments resolves these
problems, it resolves it for everybody. But I was wondering if
any movement had been done on that?
Mr. Taormina:
Not that I am aware of.
Mr.Piercecchi:
Thankyou.
20594
Mr. La Pine:
Will the Inspecfion Department hold up the C. of O. until such
time as all ofthose requirements are met?
Mr. Taormina:
Typically, if it is a condition of the approval, yes they will.
Mr. La Pine:
I tend to agree with Mr. Piercecchi because Quizno's started
first because if he doesn't fix the stuff we wanted at Quizno's
then I am not in favor of approving this one unfil I know that we
at lead got that much of it done. Otherwise, we have two of
them hanging out there and what if he doesn't do either one. I
don't have that much confidence they wont issue a temporary
C. of O. and once you are in there it is hard to get you out.
Mr. Taormina:
There are occasions when the Inspection Department will, in
fad, issue temporary certificates of occupancy depending
upon the conditions at the time. The weather sometimes plays
a roll in getting some of these improvements completed in a
timely manner. I am not going to say that that is possible. It
all depends on when they actually proceed.
Mr. La Pine:
As far as I am concerned, there are a lot of violations there
which I close my eyes to and all the dumpslers in the back. I
understand they dont have the room to enclose them but hey
look terrible back there. It wouldn't be so bad if they kept them
all on one line. You cant see it because of the building and I
close my eyes to it but technically it should all be enclosed. It
seems to me a lot of times we say certain things should be
done, and I can go back three or four months later and a lot of
these things aren't even done. Someone is just dosing their
eyes to them as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Alanskas: A question to Mark, this has nothing to do with the petition, but
about six weeks ago a large semi almost knocked down the
entire monument facing the north and nothing has been done
to that either and it has been over six weeks. I am sure the
Inspection Department know about that because I know the
bank called to let them know that there was an accident there
and it is half way demolished. I was wondering which owner
has that part of the mall for the sign, whether it is the first one
or the second or what we have to do to make sure that gets
done. It looks terrible so if you could check on that for us, I
would appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will
go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
20595
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#07-105-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 2003, on
Petition 2003-06-02-12 submitted by Sucha Singh Sohal, on
behalf of Tu Hi Tu, LLC, doing business as Roly Poly Rolled
Sandwiches, requesting waiver use approval to operate a
limited service restaurant on property located on the south side
of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies
Avenue (37609 Five Mile Road) in the N.E. '/.of Section 19, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2003-06-02-12 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than 30 seats;
2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated June 24, 2003 from the Inspection Department shall
be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
• That this entire space, including the entry doors, shall
be fully banner free compliant with the MBC 2000 and
the ICC/ANSI At 17.1, 1998, which may include curb
cuts and ramping;
• That certain areas of the parking lot shall be repaired
and double striped as deemed necessary by the
Inspection Department;
• Where it is needed, south rear exit doors on this
center shall receive proper maintenance or be
replaced.
3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject restaurant
and shall be emptied regularly as needed.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following
reasons:
20596
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 10.03 and 19.06 ofthe 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-06-0243 TCF BANK
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-06-02-13 submitted by Robert Griffore, on behalf of TCF
National Bank, requesting waiver use approval to construct and
operate a bank branch with drive-thru operations on property
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest''/.of
Section 27.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 25, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description is
correct as presented. No additional right-of-way dedication is
required at this time. We have no objection to the proposal at
this time. Detention facilities have been provided in conjunction
with the overall project development in accordance with Wayne
County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. The drive
approach to Plymouth Road will require a permit from the
Michigan Department of Transportation." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
20597
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 27, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a
commercial building on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building is to be
provided with automatic sprinkler system, a 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 turning radius up to forty-five feet wall
to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 X feet" The
letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 2, 2003, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection
with a proposal to develop and operate a bank branch with
drive-thru operations. We recommend that the petitioner post
the height of the canopy over the drive-thru to avoid overhead
collisions. Please remind the petitioner that each handicap
space must be individually posted per city ordinance." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June
30, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
June 24, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot light
standards are detailed at 25 feet tall. The Commission and/or
Council may wish to address the height. This Department has
no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Rein, Boxers and Rein Assoc., Inc., 2400 S. Huron Parkway, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48104. We are here on behalf of Mr. Griffore and TCF
National Bank. As Mark mentioned, we are the last building, the
furthest east as part of the Fountain Park master plan. I think a
bank was always originally intended and we are here to comply
with that. It is a one story brick building. We have agreed to be
into the architectural elements that was approved as part of the
overall Fountain Park development in terms of the brick color.
We have added some architectural features which I will go into
in a minute. This is building "E", of course we would be building
"F". Our drive-thm is hidden from Plymouth Road in the back.
We have five drive-thms proposed. The first lane is dedicated
to the ATM which is attached to the building as well as the
nighttime deposit box. In addition to complying with the
rrrss
Fountain Park architectural requirements and the building
materials master board, we are also complying in our area with
the Plymouth Road Development Authority landscape treatment
as well as the site furniture, the fence, the shrubs and the
perennials. Since the working session, at the suggestion of the
Planning Commission, Mr. Novak and I have worked together
and we have made a couple of changes. I think they were
recommendations of the Planning Commission. We have made
this angle parking in the back for the employees and increased
the drive width to 18 feel. We have lowered the height of the
light fixture to 20 feel from 25 and I think matches the light
fixtures everywhere in the center so they will all comply. It is the
same type of fixture and then, as I said as before, we have
added notes both on the site plan and on the building elevations
that we will be complying with the master materials board that
was approved by the Commission and the Council. It was part
of the records in the Planning Department. As Mark mentioned,
it is entirely a brick structure. We have a block at the base that
is a familiar looking material which is similar to limestone. It is a
split face. We have added some cass stone elements over the
windows which is above and beyond the prototype of a TCF but
again they emulate architectural features that were approved as
part of the other buildings. This is a typical TCF. What we will
have is similar features but we will match the cass stone and
columns to what was approved as part of the Fountain Park
development. This brick is actually fairly close to what we use
now. It has a little bit of an orange quality to it which will match
and some of the other colors. We intend to fully comply with
that. I have some pictures. These are some bank branches
that were actually built and again, a few of the details are
different but it will give you a general idea of what we are
proposing for this site. I am available for any questions you may
have.
Mr. Alanskas: Could you tell me why they want five lanes?
Mr. Rein: Actually, their prototype has six. I know you are in the banking
business from what you said earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Alanskas: That tells me that you have a high percentage of drive-thru as
opposed to walk-ins.
Mr. Rein: What they are trying to do, and you probably have heard heir
ads quite a bit, they have extended hours, both Saturday and
Sunday. They are really trying to separate themselves from a
very competitive market by offering this drive-thm service.
20599
Mr. Alanskas:
On Saturday and Sunday?
Mr. Rein:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
O.K. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
How is the canopy for the drive-thru, especially the ATM, lit at
night? I don't see any light fixtures.
Mr. Rein:
It is all lit from underneath.
Mr. LaPine:
That is what l thought.
Mr. Rein:
There is a 14 foot clearance and then they are recessed much
like you have here in the ceilings.
Mr. McCann:
If there are no further questions from the Commissions, I will go
to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in
order.
On a motion by
Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#07-106-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 2003, on
Petition 2003-06-02-13 submitted by Robert Griffore, on behalf
of TCF National Bank, requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a bank branch with drive-thru operations
on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the
Southwest % of Section 27, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-06-02-
13 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1.00 prepared by
Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc., dated July 17, 2003, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked LP1.00 prepared by
Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc., dated July 17, 2003, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
20600
4. That underground sprinklers shall 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 Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A5.00
prepared by Bowers and Rein Associates, dated July 17,
2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall
be full face four (4") inch brick, no exceptions;
7. That the site's dumpster enclosure shall be of masonry
construction to match the building brick and shall have metal
gates which, when not in use, shall be dosed at all times;
8. That the lighting equipment shall be shielded to minimize
glare trespassing on the adjacent properties and roadway
and such equipment shall not exceed 20 feet in height;
9. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
10.That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wane County, the City of Livonia,
and/or the State of Michigan;
11.That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed in
the correspondence dated July 2, 2003 from the Livonia Fire
and Rescue Division of the Department of Public Safety;
• If subject building is to be provided with automatic
sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between
50 feel and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection.
• Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five
feel wall to wall and a minimum vertical dearence of
13 rket.
20601
12.That this approval shall ncorporate the following comments
listed in the correspondence dated July 2, 2003 from the
Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police;
• That the petitioner shall post the height of the canopy
overthe drive-thm to avoid overhead collisions.
That each handicap space must be individually
posted per City ordinance.
13.Thal all parking spaces on the site shall be double striped;
14.Thal the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at
the time the building permits are applied for; and
15.That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#523-01, which granted approval for the commercial portion
of Fountain Park, shall remain in effect to the extent that they
are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Subjectto the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
20602
Mr. McCann: If the Commissioners have no objections, the next two
petitions will be discussed together but voted on
separately.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-06-0244 T.G.I. FRIDAY'S
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-06-02-14 submitted by Frank Jonna, on behalf of Livonia
Chestnut L.L.C., requesting waiver use approval to construct
and operate a full service restaurant (T.G.I. Friday's) on
property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of
Section 6.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 23, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The drive approach to Haggerty
Road requires Wayne County approval and this site is subject to
the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. We
have noted that there is no above ground detention area
referenced on the plan and we therefore assume that detention
to satisfy Wayne County's requirement will be by an
underground -enclosed system." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 25, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate
two full service restaurants located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the
northwest X of Section 6. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building(s)
are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant
shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet fmm the Fire
20603
Department connection. (2) Access around building shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-
five feet wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 X
feet" The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 2, 2003,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with the proposal to construct two full service
restaurants on Haggerty Road south of 8 Mile near the Target
Store. We recommend that. (1) The internal roadway that
connects this site to the Target parking lot must be well marked
so that shoppers will have no difficulty determining the route
they need to drive in order to exit at the signalized driveway. (2)
At the east end of the main driveway where traffic must tum
south along the rear of restaurant #1, we art= not sure that there
is enough mom for a delivery truck to make that tum and not
interfere with train traveling in the opposite direction. (3)
Parking should be prohibited on the east side of the dlivery
zone curb (rear of restaurant #1) to prohibit vehicles from
parking along the curb and interfering with vehicles using the
roadway to access the exit or Target parking area. (4)
Handicap parking spaces must be individually signed per city
ordinance. We recommend placement of a stop sign at the
parking lot exit of restaurant #2 where it connects with the main
driveway." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated June 24, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 19, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) Although signage has not been reviewed, each building
would be allowed only one wall sign. Any furtherincrease in the
number of wall signs would require a grant from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. (2) This has been reviewed as though the
Target Center parking count has not been diminished. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, 26100 American Drive, Suite 500, Southfield,
MI. 48034. As Mark stated, this plan illustrates the overall site
plan which consists of a Target, Costco and U of M building.
The primary focus of the work we are doing is in the northern
portion of the site and we are expanding the parking on the
northeast portion of tie site. We are reconfiguring a drive that
currently comes through the site in this area so that drive will be
20604
re-routed and provide a litlle better stack situafion than what we
had previously showed. This is an illustraton of the focus of the
area that is being developed. Panere Bread will be over here
and TGI Fridays will be here. We have added some
landscaping along the front of the building and added decorative
lighting to the lighting plan along the drive so that the decorative
lighting that is illustrated over here and in the packages, at a 14
fool height, will highlight the entrance. The balance of the
lighting is intended to be at a 20 foot height and that will also
give this area a little bit different feel because the light
standards for the rest of the development with a large parking
area are about 40 foot poles. The intent is to re -light this area
and give a slightly different feel.
Mr. Alanskas: Excuse me for a moment. Could you, one more time, show us
how the ingress and egress for how the cars will be coming in.
Mr. Jorma:
There is an existing traffic signal located on Haggerty Road.
This illustrates the litlle curve area that goes to what we propose
to be vacated old Haggerty Road. In coming traffic will flow in
here and have the opportunity to tum lett into the Panera or tum
right and enter the Friday's parking lot at various locafions. All
of this area is left to allow for stacking. We will have a left tum
movement and third thru movement and a right turn only
movement at this intersection. I believe that should be
illustrated on your plans.
Mr. Alanskas:
Didn't you also say at the study meeting that you were going to
share a driveway with Hampton Inn?
Mr. Jorma:
No.
Mr. McCann:
You are talking about Mr. Pastors property.
Mr. LaPine:
As it is now at the light, people coming and going to Costco or
Target, they tum in and they make a left. Where is that road?
Is it that white line there?
Mr. Jorma:
That road currently goes through like this. If you were to follow
this road dawn here and straight through and turn here that is
where the existing road goes.
Mr. LaPine:
What is going to happen now?
Mr. Jorma:
What we will do is reconstruct the new road, route the traffic
around it and then construct our building.
20605
Mr. LaPine:
Then it will go around the TGI Fridays building and down that
way. The question we brought up at the study session was the
cars coming in left to go into the TGIF parking lot, is there going
to be any interference with traffic coming out. Remember what
we said about widening that.
Mr. McCann:
I think that is left into the Panem is what you mean.
Mr. LaPine:
The problem is that you have people coming from Target and
Costco behind the building.
Mr. McCann:
You are talking about people coming around like this and then
these people turning left in here.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes. We talked about making it a little wider. Did you do
anything there?
Mr. Jorma:
We did increase the radiuses on this tum to make sure that we
have a nice smooth turning radius here and here but as far as
the traffic we have added slop signs in this location and in this
location to encourage the ability for the people to make a
smoother transition in either direction. We anticipate the
primary traffic pattern for the people exiling the site to go out
through this way so that will be a slow down for the slop sign
right here.
Mr. McCann: I think the decemfive lighting will help the traffic flow too.
Mr. Jorma: It will get them going in the right direction.
Mr. McCann: Does anybody else have any questions? Is there anybody in
the audience with any questions?
Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn, Livonia, Mi. I would have better shared the
information with you at a study session but I was unable to
make that. I have no particular objections for this development
but I have an interest and I work with other people that have an
interest, about the impact of this development on the wetland
that it is going to be placed in. There is a permit. The permit
was granted. The permit process for that one was a bit
troubling. The permit wasn't granted on its merits. It was
basically permitted on administrative opportunity. In any case,
there are going to be seven acres of remaining wetland at this
site. Part of the permit for allowing this development is to have
on site mitigation which is a very ambitious plan. I hope that it is
20606
successful, and while you are more interested in the buildings
and how they interact with our citizens and our tax base, there is
an audience for what will happen to the storm water that leaves
this site and the impact to the wetlands that will surround this
site.
Mr. McCann;
Actually we did go through that at the study session and we
probably haven't gotten to it yet tonight. Mr. Jonna did explain
that to us and how they have to hold the water and sift the
water. Maybe at this point it would be a proper time to go ahead
and explain it again.
Mr. Jorma:
Part of our permitting process with MDEQ was our commitment
to the delivering as clean a water to the wetlands as possible.
We will have an underground pre -filtering chamber that is
intended to pre -filter the water. Once it is pre -filtered there is an
existing sediment trap at the site that is located right at this
area. The water will be funneled over to that sediment trap and
then hopefully held there to allow sediment to drop out and then
ultimately disperse through the wetland. I might add that we are
extremely sensitive to wetlands. I feel that we have an
outstanding record with our mifigation. I invite you to look at our
project in Southfield where we created an 18 acre preserve. We
had glowing reviews from MDEQ. We are now in the third year
of that project, maybe the fourth year. It has met every criteria
that both the City of Southfield and MDEQ placed on us and we
are extremely successful in controlling purple Ioosestnfe and
creating an outstanding environment for that community. It is an
18 acre preserve and we are extremely proud of it. We have a
similar situation in Novi and this was a site that had a five acre
fill permit on it at one time. That has been reduced to one and a
half acre. I beg to differ with you that this was a permit of
convenience or political pressure at any time. This is a permit
that was granted on the meat of the project.
Mr. McCann:
Is there some more information you wanted Mr. Craig?
Mr. Craig:
Just for the record, you mentioned the storm water underground
basin. I guess we are still talking about aqua seals, aqua swirls
or stormceptor or storm water inlets.
Mr. Jorma:
Stormceptor is one of the products. Yes.
Mr. Craig:
I haven't been able to find this answer but who ultimately is
responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of those devices?
20607
It is something that I think eventually the City takes jurisdiction
over.
Mr. McCann: Probably the Engineering Department. Mr. Taormina, do you
know the answer to that?
Mr. Taormina: I dont offhand in terms of the routine maintenance of those
structures. I am going to say ultimately the cost of that is bome
by the property owner like it would be in our other
developments. But I'll find out from the Engineering Department
and report back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jorma: Our intent is to treat the storm sewer system with respect to the
stormceptor and all of the catch basins as our maintenance
responsibility. We have an agreement to manage this property,
our company, not Panem or Friday's. We will remain involved
and manage the property and the stormceptor is no different
than a catch basin that fills up with sediment and we are
responsible for maintenance and will put that on a regular
schedule to see that that is done. Because you are right, there
is no sense in having fancy equipment that nobody takes care of
and then doesn't do the job that it was intended.
Mr. Craig: The devil is in the details. Just one other angle that I wanted to
present to you is that while your concern with what happens in
Livonia that boundary line on your property is old Haggerty
Road. That dirt road that you mentioned is going to be vacated.
I guess that is a gas main that runs along that road, a 10" gas
main, if that is still in service. That is the dividing line, the
jurisdiction between Northville and Livonia and you already
mentioned Mr. Pastor of Pastor and Sons, has the adjoining
triangular piece of property and they just got site plan approval
for their project which will be two more restaurants and another
strip mall that will be adjoining your project. That will add to that
traffic mix for Eight Mile and Haggerty. As you consider the
traffic mix for this individual facility as a Livonia concern, the
adjoining property is also going to add to that mix. Also, as part
of the Pastor project, they have a much more extensive fill and
development of their site and the remaining portion of their
property will be used as a storm water detention basin.
Basically, it is going to be a large hole and that will discharge
into your project. I am always interested in the cascade of water
coming from the Meijers off of Eight Mile and those adjoining
impervious surfaces going through the Pastor project and
eventually having, hopefully, minimum impact on your project
and its survivability. Ultimately, all of this water will go down the
20608
Bell Branch of the upper Rouge River and enter the Livonia
district which we will have to address at sometime with our
storm water management program. One thing leads to another
and that is what planning is all about. While buildings are
important, the impact to the land is another thing we have a
concern about. Thank you for listening to my cencems.
Mr. McCann:
If there are no other questions, do you want to go to some
building elevations for us?
Mr. Jorma:
I have a color sample board for the Friday's project. The
Friday's building consists of a marble material brick, a little bit of
E.F.I.S. on a couple of elevations and metal and some accent
granite along with the red and white awnings that is the typical
Friday's trademark. I do apologize Mark, because Fridays has
complied with the signage on this submittal. Panere has
requested some additional signs so we can look at the signage
for Friday's based on what they have submitted. Panera has
requested additional signs and we can take that one separately.
We have provided, in the package that I gave you, the elevation
of a monument sign that is proposed on the site to go right down
here and that will be the only monument sign for the entire site
and will accommodate both users.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many Fridays do we have in the metropolitan area?
Mr. Jorma:
Southfield, Novi, Sterling Heights, Canton; the one in Canton is
the most recent.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do they all have the red awnings?
Mr. Jorma:
I believe so.
Mr. Alanskas:
That is a wonderful looking building. I just wonder if we could
tone down those awnings a little bit?
Mr. Jorma:
It is a motif that they started with. They have made dramatic
strides in the building elevation but that has come to be
something that people recognize to be synonymous with a
Friday's.
Mr. LaPine:
At our study session you told us that the newest prototype of
TGI Friday's is the one in Canton. Is that correct?
Mr. Jorma:
Yes.
20609
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Piercecchi and I were out there and it doesn't look like this
one at all. Number one, the awnings are not red and white, they
are black. Number two, this looks like there are little square
windows. There are little things up here. I don't know what they
are. They look like red and white lights. They are there and the
two front areas. This is nothing like the one out in Canton. I
went out to look at the one in Canton only because I wanted to
make sure of what I was getting. Is that what I am getting or am
I getting this?
Mr. Jorma:
You are getting this. They told me that was their most recent
prototype at the time. When we asked them last week to give
us what they intended to build, this is what they gave us.
Mr. LaPine:
Quite frankly, I like the one in Canton better than I do this.
Mr. Jorma:
We can talk to them.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me say this, number one, this looks too hokey to me. They
have black awnings which looked a lot neater. This was
altogether different. They didn't have these two things here.
This wasn't here. The only place they have the other material
was on this sign and they had little small windows in here.
Frankly, I liked that one better and I thought that was what I
understood you to say that that was the latest prototype. We
went out there to look at it. I am just curious, if that is the one
we are getting or are we getting one like the one in Canton?
Mr. Jorma:
I was not aware of the subtle differences but I believe it still has
the same grouping of materials, right? It has this tone of brick?
Mr. LaPine:
The brick and the lone were probably the same. That is no
problem. It is just different. The canopies was the big thing
thalhilmelhemost. Weren't they black?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes. I think they were black. It did look different but the Canton
facility was very attractive.
Mr. Jorma:
I apologize for not knowing exactly what the Canton one looks
like. I had seen it going up but I haven't seen it finished. I think
they made improvements from the original Friday's concept to
what we are seeing today.
Mr. Walsh:
I think, Mr. Jorma, beauty is often in the eye of the beholder. I
look a look at the Canton facility and personally, I prefer this.
Now, I don't want to muddy the waters in terms of getting down
20610
to what color the canopies are, hopefully, we can reach a
consensus tonight so that we can move forward with this
project. I think it is a good looking building but I think when you
get to that level of detail, it really becomes the eye of the
beholder at that point. They are substantially similar but with
some minor differences.
Mr. LaPine:
The only point I was making was that he said that was his
prototype and apparently it isn't.
Mr. Jorma:
The thing about prototypes is that they always change. I think
the intent is that the general theme is similar but the details can
vary.
Mr. Pierececchi:
Mark, when I was looking at that building, especially the front
side, there is an awful lot of grill work associated with that front.
I remember the Media Play.
Mr. McCann:
Are you talking about this part right here Dan?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes. There are all kinds of grill work on that sign. With Media
Play it was debated whether that was part of the sign or not a
part of the sign. Would you classify that because I heard earlier
that they do have to comply with the signage. Are you saying
that grill work is not a part of the sign?
Mr. Taormina:
I would have to see the details of that grill work.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You can see it on the plan. It shows it on the plan. I was just
wondering because we had a real hassle over Media Play.
Mr. Alanskas:
But it was nothing like this though.
Mr. Taormina:
That is part of their logo, or part of their emblem. I am not sure
if it would fall under the same category. It appears to
protrude
out from the face of the wall of the building but
it is an
architectural feature that I guess we would have to study that
further to make that decision. As I understand it, the sign area
does comply with the ordinance now. That porton only exists
on the front elevation of the building. Is that right? Or is it on
two sides?
Mr. Jorma:
Actually, it is just over the entrance which is actually facing
south. This is the Haggerty Road face. The door is down here
facing south and they wanted the sign over the door.
20611
Mr. Taormina:
I think we would probably limit the signage to just that portion of
the structure that reads "Fridays" in this particular case.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't object to the grill work. It is just that in an effort to be
consist, thatis basicallywhat this is all about.
Mr. Taormina:
I liken this to a similar architecture feature that will be placed on
the new Red Robin and we didn't consider that part of the sign.
We only looked at the actual wording.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That was a lot smaller. This is pretty big.
Mr. Atanskas:
In reading my notes here, what is a vinyl graphic bump? That is
a new phrase for me. It says along the parapet wall that you are
going to have a vinyl graphic bump that will curve a series of
spaces of about 16 feet apart. I dont know what that is.
Mr. LaPine:
Isn't that on the Panere Bread, AI?
Mr. Nowak:
On the parapet wall of the Panera Bread there is a series of
those squares with bumps on it. It has a design on it.
Mr. Jorma:
I guess a lest of whether this is part of the sign or building is if
you look the sign and put @ over here, do you still like that and
does it feel like and act like part of the building. My feeling is
that the grill work is intended to be an architectural feature of the
building and they apply the sign too. It is not intended to be a
sign. If you lake these same graphics and put them over here
but I think they like the idea of keeping the natural stones as
sign proofas possible.
Mr. LaPine:
On the one in Canton, in the rear of the building where they
have their dumpsler it is all brick. Is it going to be all brick in the
back?
Mr. Jorma:
Yes @ is. The drawings in the package show that.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no problem with that. That looks fine out there and they
have a sign
here on the west side and this faces south.
Personally I don't like the canopies and I dont like the way this
is compared to what they have in Canton. That is my personal
opinion. Everybody should go out there and take a look at. You
might get an idea.
Mr. Jorma:
On the Panem Bread this is the portion that faces Haggerty
Road which will be right along here and to the right is the
20612
masonry screening. Panere Bread basically has three materials
on the elevation; the grey and the orange are brick and the
lighter yellow color is going to be out of E.I.F.S., intended to be
well above the ground and not in harms way. Panera has
requested that the signage at this point, they are exceeding the
sign ordinance, we can either treat this one separately or just
approve the signage that complies but they have asked for
signage on three sides of the building at this point. We have
advised them that they will need to get a variance for that but
that has been their request.
Mr. McCann: May I ask, what three sides?
Mr. Jorma:
The signs would be facing Haggerty Road. They have
requested signs here, here and here.
Mr. McCann:
I am thinking that the road goes away and there really isn't
much to be seen on the northern side of the building, is there?
Mr. Jorma:
I certainly think they will get a little bang for their buck out of this
sign for people heading to the north.
Mr. McCann:
Where my question was going is because we can pass it along
subject to ZBA approval to the Council a second sign if the two
signs total within range of what they are allowed in square foot.
I am discounting the north side sign because that is basically
going into the nature preserve area, the wetland area and very
few people would be able to read it. Do you know what the
square foot of the sign on the west side and be south side
would total?
Mr. Jorma:
I apologize but I haven't done that calculation yet. My guess is,
what they requested on the west elevation will probably exceed
the ordinance. I don't think they are looking for two locations
that fit within the ordinance. I think they are looking to probably
have the west side adhere to the ordinance and then adding
something similar to the south side.
Mr. McCann:
What I would recommend then would be to bring all their
signage back because what we don't want to do is approve a
sign that meets our ordinance but they have used up every
square foot. If they are entitled to a 100 square fool then they
put a 100 square foot on the front, then they say, "Oh, we need
a second sign in the back." Normally, we don't like to do that
because we say well maybe we can go 60' and 60'. You might
be a little over but if you want 100' here and a 100' over there or
20613
80' over there so there would be no control of the size once it is
up.
Mr. Jorma:
I would be very supportive of that. I think that would be the best
way.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any otherquestions?
Mr. Taormina:
There are two points. You had asked what the allotted signage
would be. It would be 56 sq. ft. On the previous plans that
were submitted he showed 32 sq. ft. on the front elevation of the
Panem Bread. That would be for the principal sign facing
Haggerty Road on the west elevation and on the sides of the
building on the north and south elevations, they were showing
36 sq. ft. each. It probably hasn't changed too much on this
particular plan. So they are in excess of sign ordinance
requirements by about 50 sq. ft. My question goes to the
petitioner with respect to the elevation, the exterior materials on
the west elevation. On the previous plans where you show, this
is for the TGI Fridays, the original plan shows, you cant quite
see it on this oblique rendering, but if you look on the plans
submitted on the 11" X 17" on a portion of the west elevation,
you see E.I.F.S. all the way down to grade and that is a change
from the previous submittal which showed brick going up about
four feet. My question to you is, what necessitated that
change? It is our policy, typically, to see a band of masonry to
grade. Yes, maybe that does show d.
Mr. Jonna:
It does show the brick
Mr. Taormina:
It does not show on this rendering nor the building elevation
plans. It shows E.I.F.S. with maybe a concrete sloop that would
probably be just a sidewalk in front of the building. To the
Planning Commission, would we rather see the band of brick
going up about four feel?
Mr. McCann:
We can add that in as a resolution just to make sure that we gel
that, if you will remind us.
Mr. McCann:
Back to the sign, to me considering the location, a south and a
west sign would be appropriate with Panera depending on the
size. They are entified to 64 sq. ft.?
Mr. Taormina:
They are entitled to 56 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann:
Thirty-six square feet is shoving on the south?
20614
Mr. Taormina: Actually 32 sq. ft. on the west and 36 sq. ft. on the south
Mr. McCann: Just those two signs would be about 72 sq. ft., about 20% over.
We could pass that tonight, approving the south and west,
subject to ZBA approval.
Mr. Taormina: Both Council and ZBA.
Mr. Piercecchi: South and west.
Mr. McCann:
Both south and west, correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Would that be 68 sq. ft.?
Mr. McCann:
It would be 36 sq. ft. and 32 sq. ft. You are right.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I didn't measure for signage on Ford Road in Canton but that
sign in the front and on the side didn't look like they were that
big.
Mr. Jorma:
On this one or Parem?
Mr. Piercecchi:
On that one down there. I am going to back to that one.
Mr. Jorma:
I apologize because I don't have the building elevation which
would have a scale.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The reason I say that is because you could see that sign fairly
well. I think if you had 32 sq.
ft. on the west, which is where
people are going to see your sign,
and you are going to have, at
the end of the road, a directional sign. People are going to turn
left to go into your package, right? Coming in the main
Pentmnce, they are going to make a left tum to Panem, right?
Mr. Jorma:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You obviously are going to have to have a small directional sign.
You don't really need a huge sign on the south side, west is
where you need the signage. That is just my opinion.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else in the audience that has anything else to
say? If not, I am going to close the public hearing. Are there
any other questions from the Commissioners? If not, a motion
is in order.
20615
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are we going to forget about the signage?
Mr. McCann:
I think it is up to the mover. I think we can go with Friday's. It
is conforming, right?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Item eleven says only that only conforming signage is approved
but you made a good point.
Mr. McCann:
We can deal with that separately, because we are going to vole
on number three first.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I am looking at number three.
Mr. McCann:
That is for Friday's, only conforming signage.
On a motion
by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#07-107-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 2003, on
Petition 2003-06-02-14 submitted by Frank Jonna, on behalf of
Livonia Chestnut L.L.C., requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a full service restaurant (T.G.I. Friday's)
on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of
Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2003-06-02-14 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA -1 prepared by Jonna
Companies, dated July 22, 2003, as revised, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets SPA -8 and SPA -
9, both dated July 22, 2003, as revised, are hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers shall 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;
20616
5. That the Building Elevalions Plans marked Sheets SPA -3
and SPA -4, both dated July 22, 2003, as revised, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the portions of
the east and west elevations that show E.F.I.S. shall have
brick on the lower portions of the walls for a minimum
distance offour (4') feet above grade;
6. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 284;
7. That the exterior wall material for the walk-in cooler
component shall be brick;
8. That the brick used for the construction of the building, for
the walls of the trash and service yard endosure, and as the
exterior material for the walk-in coder shall be full face four
(4") brick, no exceptions;
9. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and
shall not exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above grade;
10.Thal all parking spaces provided in connection with this use
shall be double striped;
11.Thal only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
12.That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
13.For noise control purposes, there shall be no outside
speakers on the building whatsoever;
14.That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed in
the correspondence dated June 25, 2003 from the Livonia
Fire and Rescue Division of the Department of Public Safety;
• If subject building(s) are to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire
Department connection.
20617
• Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five
feel wall to wall and a minimum vertical dearence of
13 rise(.
15.That this approval shall incorporate the following comments
listed in the correspondence dated July 2, 2003 from the
Traffic Bureau ofthe Division of Police;
The internal roadway that connects this site to the
Target parking lot must be well marked so that
shoppers will have no difficulty determining the route
they need to drive in order to exit at the signalized
driveway.
Parking shall be prohibited on the east side of the
delivery zone curb (rear of restaurant #1) to prohibit
vehides from parking along the curb and interfering
with vehicles using the roadway to access the exit or
Target parking area.
• Handicap parking spaces shall be individually signed
per City ordinance.
16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
17. That this approval shall be contingent upon the vacating of
Old Haggerty Road right-of-way adjacent to the subject
site.
Subject to the preceding condifions, this petition is approved for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
041M
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. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. Ilwill go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. McCann:
I want to be more specific on the signage. We were told there
was a 32 sq. ft. and a 36 sq. ft. I would like to limit it to two
signs. We said west and south elevation but it is limited to two
signs with a total of 68 sq. ft.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That is more than they are entitled to. They were entitled to 56
sq. ft.
Mr. McCann:
But they have two signs, one is 36 sq. ft. and one is 32 sq. ft. I
think the intent was to approve those two signs, wasn't it?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
To approve two signs but I didn't know that we would put
numbers on it.
Mr.Shane:
We should.
Mr. McCann:
We should.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
They should be 56 sq. ft. shouldn't they?
Mr. McCann:
It is up to you. You are the maker of the motion. I am making
an amendment that I want to limit it, at least in size, to what we
were told. Right now he is asking for 36 sq. ft. and 32 sq. ft. I
don't have a problem with that because it is a little bit off the
road.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, if we go over what is allowable, does he have to
go to ZBA?
Mr. McCann:
He does anyway because of the variance of the two signs.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no problem with that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I have no problem with that either. My original motion here is
that it was limited to the south and west elevations. I did not
specify the size, 68 sq. ft. is fine.
20619
Mr. McCann:
It is fine with the maker. You are going to be a hero when you
leave here tonight, Mr. Jonna. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Shane:
I just want to say one thing. Mr. Jonna, thank you very much for
the additional landscaping along the front. I think it looks good
and I think it is basically what we had in mind.
Mr. Jorma:
Yes. It should do a nice job. I have a question. We
conditioned the approval
of Friday's on the vacafion of Haggerty
Road but the reality
I think is that the Friday's site does not have
a right-of-way issue. The right -0f way issue comes in over here
at Panera.
Mr. McCann:
Lets look to our staff. Was there a particular reason or did we
just kind of duplicate it into that one?
Mr. Taormina:
No. We can actually remove that condition as it pertains to the
Friday's.
Mr. Jorma:
For some reason he only builds the Friday's. I don't know that
anything changes regarding the right-of-way.
Mr. McCann:
Friday's may want to gel going in the meantime before the
vacation comes through.
Mr. Jorma:
We intend to build them both together but if for some reason
something went haywire for the Fridays, we can reconfigure
this part right here b gel out of the right-of-way, if we didn't get
the vacation, we are still good on this one.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Shane was the maker of the motion. If he will agree to
withdraw that particular thing and if Mr. Alanskas would you
stipulate to that, and if no objections, shoe seven to withdrawing
that particular reference.
Mr. Shane:
That is fine with me.
Mr. Alanskas:
It is O.K. with me loo.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Jonna, can I ask one question, when you go for the vacating
of that road, will that be a joint one between you and the
property owner?
Mr. Jorma:
The adjacent property owners agreed to vacate the road.
20620
Mr. Taormina: If you could just give us one minute. We would like to confine
whether or not that is the circumstance with the TGI Fridays
restaurant. I would suggest that we leave that language in the
approving resolutionforright now.
Mr. McCann: But we have already voted to withdraw it.
Mr. Taormina: We will report back to the Council when we have the survey
confirming if the right-0iway is impacted with the Friday's
design. We don't have that survey in front of us right now. AI
is indicating that he thinks a portion of that right -of way does
extend in front of the Fridays restaurant. If there is anyway that
we can leave that open.
Mr. McCann: Does the maker ofthe motion wanllo have it re -introduced.
Mr. Shane: I have no objection.
Mr. Alanskas: I have no objection.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-06-0245 PANERA BREAD
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-06-02-15 submitted by Frank Jonna, on behalf of Livonia
Chestnut L.L.C., requesting waiver use approval to construct
and operate a full service restaurant (Panera Bread) on property
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile
Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 6.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 23, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The drive approach to Haggerty
Road requires Wayne County approval and this site is subject to
the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. We
have noted that there is no above ground detention area
referenced on the plan and we therefore assume that detention
to satisfy Wayne County's requirement will be by an
undergroundrenclosed system." The letter is signed by Robert
20621
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 25, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate
two full service restaurants located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the
northwest X of Section 6. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building(s)
are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a 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 turning radius up to forty-
five feet wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 X
feet" The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 2, 2003,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with the proposal to construct two full service
restaurants on Haggerty Road south of 8 Mile near the Target
Store. We recommend that. (1) The internal roadway that
connects this site to the Target parking lot must be well marked
so that shoppers will have no difficulty determining the route
they need to drive in order to exit at the signalized driveway. (2)
At the east end of the main driveway where traffic must tum
south along the rear of restaurant #1, we are not sure that there
is enough mom for a delivery truck to make that tum and not
interfere with traffic traveling in the opposite direction. (3)
Parking should be prohibited on the east side of the delivery
zone curb (rear of restaurant #1) to prohibit vehicles from
parking along the curb and interfering with vehicles using the
roadway to access the exit or Target parking area. (4)
Handicap parking spaces must be individually signed per city
ordinance. We recommend placement of a stop sign at the
parking lot exit of restaurant #2 where it connects with the main
driveway." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated June 24, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 19, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) Although signage has not been reviewed, each building
would be allowed only one wall sign. Any further increase in the
number of wall signs would require a grant from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. (2) This has been reviewed as though the
Target Center parking count has not been diminished. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
20622
Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, 26100 American Drive, Suite 500, Southfield,
MI. 48034. As Mark stated, this plan illustrates the overall site
plan which consists of a Target, Costco and U of M building.
The primary focus of the work we are doing is in the northern
portion of the site and we are expanding the parking on the
northeast portion of the site. We are reconfiguring a drive that
currently comes through the site in this area so that drive will be
re-routed and provide a little better stack situation than what we
had previously showed. This is an illustration of the focus of the
area that is being developed. Panera Bread will be over here
and TGI Fridays will be here. We have added some
landscaping along the front of the building and added decomtive
lighting to the lighting plan along the drive so that the decomtive
lighting that is illustrated over here and in the packages, at a 14
fool height, will highlight the entrance. The balance of the
lighting is intended to be at a 20 foot height and that will also
give this area a little bit different feel because the light
standards for the rest of the development with a large parking
area are about 40 foot poles. The intent is to re -light this area
and give a slightly different feel.
Mr. Alanskas: Excuse me for a moment. Could you, one more time, show us
how the ingress and egress for how the cars will be coming in.
Mr. Jorma: There is an existing traffic signal located on Haggerty Road.
This illustrates the little curve area that goes to what we propose
to be vacated old Haggerty Road. In coming traffic will flow in
here awl have the opportunity to tum lett into the Panem or tum
right and enter the Friday's parking lot at various locations. All
of this area is lett to allow for stacking. We will have a Teff tum
movement and third thm movement and a right turn only
movement at this intersection. I believe that should be
illustrated on your plans.
Mr. Alanskas: Didn't you also say at the study meeting that you were going to
share a driveway with Hampton Inn?
Mr. Jorma: No.
Mr. McCann: You are talking about Mr. Pastors property.
Mr. LaPine: As it is now at the light, people coming and going to Costco or
Target, they tum in and they make a lett. Where is that road?
Is it that white line there?
20623
Mr. Jorma: That road comenfly goes through like this. If you were to follow
this road down here and straight through and turn here that is
where the existing road goes.
Mr. LaPine: What is going to happen now?
Mr. Jorma: What we will do is reconstruct the new road, route the traffic
around it and then construct our building.
Mr. LaPine: Then it will go around the TGI Fridays building and down that
way. The quesfion we brought up at the study session was the
cars coming in left to go into the TGIF parking lot, is there going
to be any interference with traffic coming out. Remember what
we said about widening that.
Mr. McCann: I think that is left into the Panem is what you mean.
Mr. LaPine: The problem is that you have people coming from Target and
Costco behind the building.
Mr. McCann: You are talking about people coming around like this and then
these people turning left in here.
Mr. LaPine: Yes. We talked about making it a little wider. Did you do
anything there?
Mr. Jorma: We did increase the radiuses on this tum to make sure that we
have a nice smooth turning radius here and here but as far as
the traffic we have added stop signs in this location and in this
location to encourage the ability for the people to make a
smoother transition in either direction. We anticipate the
primary traffic pattern for the people exiting the site to go out
through this way so that will be a slow down for the slop sign
right here.
Mr. McCann: I think the decorative lighting will help the traffic flow too.
Mr. Jorma: It will get them going in the right direction.
Mr. McCann: Does anybody else have any questions? Is there anybody in
the audience with any questions?
Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn, Livonia, MI. I would have better shared the
information with you at a study session but I was unable to
make that. I have no particular objections for this development
but I have an interest and I work with other people that have an
20624
interest, about the impact of this development on the wetland
that it is going to be placed in. There is a permit. The permit
was granted. The permit process for that one was a bit
troubling. The permit wasn't granted on its merits. It was
basically permitted on administrative opportunity. In any case,
there are going to be seven acres of remaining wetland at this
site. Part of the permit for allowing this development is to have
on site mitigation which is a very ambitious plan. I hope that it is
successful, and while you are more interested in the buildings
and how they interact with our citizens and our tax base, there is
an audience for what will happen to the storm water that leaves
this site and the impact to the wetlands that will surround this
site.
Mr. McCann; Actually we did go through that at the study session and we
probably haven't gotten to it yet tonight. Mr. Jonna did explain
that to us and how they have to hold the water and sift the
water. Maybe at this point it would be a proper time to go ahead
and explain it again.
Mr. Jorma: Part of our permitting process with MDEQ was our commitment
to the delivering as clean a water to the wetlands as possible.
We will have an underground pre -filtering chamber that is
intended to pre -filter the water. Once it is pre -filtered there is an
existing sediment trap at the site that is located right at this
area. The water will be funneled over to that sediment trap and
then hopefully held there to allow sediment to drop out and then
ultimately disperse through the wetland. I might add that we are
extremely sensitive to wetlands. I feel that we have an
outstanding record with our mitigation. I invite you to look at our
project in Southfield where we created an 18 acre preserve. We
had glowing reviews from MDEQ. We are now in the third year
of that project, maybe the fourth year. It has met every criteria
that both the City of Southfield and MDEQ placed on us and we
are extremely successful in controlling purple loosestrife and
creating an outstanding environment for that community. It is an
18 acre preserve and we are extremely proud of it. We have a
similar situation in Novi and this was a site that had a five acre
fill permit on it at one time. That has been reduced to one and a
half acre. I beg to differ with you that this was a permit of
convenience or political pressure at any time. This is a permit
that was granted on the merit of the project.
Mr. McCann: Is there some more information you wanted Mr. Craig?
20625
Mr. Craig:
Just for the record, you mentioned the storm water underground
basin. I guess we are still talking about aqua seals, aqua swirls
or stormceptor or storm water inlets.
Mr. Jorma:
Slormceptor is one of the products. Yes.
Mr. Craig:
I haven't been able to find this answer but who ultimately is
responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of those devices?
It is something that I think eventually the City takes jurisdiction
over.
Mr. McCann;
Probably the Engineering Department. Mr. Taormina, do you
know the answer to that?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't off hand in terms of the routine maintenance of those
structures. I am going to say ultimately the cost of that is bome
by the property owner like it would be in our other
developments. But I'll find out from the Engineering Department
and reportback to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Jorma:
Our intent is to treat the storm sewer system with respect to the
stormceptor and all of the catch basins as our maintenance
responsibility. We have an agreement to manage this property,
our company, not Panem or Friday's. We will remain involved
and manage the property and the stormceptor is no different
than a catch basin that fills up with sediment and we are
responsible for maintenance and will put that on a regular
schedule to see that that is done. Because you are right, there
is no sense in having fancy equipment that nobody takes care of
and then doesn't do the job that it was intended.
Mr. Craig: The devil is in the details. Just one other angle that I wanted to
present to you is that while your concern with what happens in
Livonia that boundary line on your property is old Haggerty
Road. That dirt road that you menfioned is going to be vacated.
I guess that is a gas main that runs along that road, a 10" gas
main, if that is still in service. That is the dividing line, the
jurisdiction between Northville and Livonia and you already
mentioned Mr. Pastor of Pastor and Sons, has the adjoining
triangular piece of property and they just got site plan approval
for their project which will be two more restaurants and another
strip mall that will be adjoining your project. That will add to that
traffic mix for Eight Mile and Haggerty. As you consider the
traffic mix for this individual facility as a Livonia concern, the
adjoining property is also going to add to that mix. Also, as part
20626
of the Pastor project, they have a much more extensive fill and
development of their site and the remaining portion of their
property will be used as a storm water detention basin.
Basically, it is going to be a large hole and that will discharge
into your project. I am always interested in the cascade of water
coming from the Meijers off of Eight Mile and those adjoining
impervious surfaces going through the Pastor project and
eventually having, hopefully, minimum impact on your project
and its survivability. Ultimately, all of this water will go down the
Bell Branch of the upper Rouge River and enter the Livonia
district which we will have to address at sometime with our
storm water management program. One thing leads to another
and that is what planning is all about. While buildings are
important, the impact to the land is another thing we have a
concern about. Thank you for listening to my cencems.
Mr. McCann:
If there are no other questions, do you want to go to some
building elevations for us?
Mr. Jorma:
I have a color sample board for the Friday's project. The
Friday's building consists of a marble material brick, a little bit of
E.F.I.S. on a couple of elevations and metal and some accent
granite along with the red and while awnings that is the typical
Friday's trademark. I do apologize Mark, because Friday's has
complied with the signage on this submittal. Panere has
requested some additional signs so we can look at the signage
for Friday's based on what they have submitted. Panera has
requested additional signs and we can take that one separately.
We have provided, in the package that I gave you, the elevation
of a monument sign that is proposed on the site to go right down
here and that will be the only monument sign for the entire site
and will accommodate both users.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many Friday's do we have in the metropolitan area?
Mr. Jorma:
Southfield, Novi, Sterling Heights, Canton; the one in Canton is
the most recent.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do they all have the red awnings?
Mr. Jorma:
I believe so.
Mr. Alanskas:
That is a wonderful looking building. I just wonder if we could
tone down those awnings a little bit?
20627
Mr. Jorma:
It is a motif that they started with. They have made dramatic
strides in the building elevation but that has come to be
something that people recognize to be synonymous with a
Friday's.
Mr. LaPine:
At our study session you told us that the newest prototype of
TGI Friday's is the one in Canton. Is that cerred?
Mr. Jorma:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Piercecchi and I were out there and it doesn't look like this
one at all. Number one, the awnings are not red and white, they
are black. Number two, this looks like there are little square
window. There are little things up here. I don't know what they
are. They look like red and white lights. They are there and the
two front areas. This is nothing like the one out in Canton. I
went out to look at the one in Canton only because I wanted to
make sure of what I was getting. Is that what I am getting or am
I getting this?
Mr. Jorma:
You are getting this. They told me that was their most recent
prototype at the time. When we asked them last week to give
us whatthey intended to build, this is whatthey gave us.
Mr. LaPine:
Quite frankly, I like the one in Canton better than I do this.
Mr. Jorma:
We can talk to them.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me say this, number one, this looks too hokey to me. They
have black awnings which looked a lot neater. This was
altogether different. They didn't have these two things here.
This wasn't here. The only place they have the other material
was on this sign and they had little small windows in here.
Frankly, I liked that one better and I thought that was what I
understood you to say that that was the latest prototype. We
went out there to look at it. I am just curious, if that is the one
we are getting or are we getting one like the one in Canton?
Mr. Jorma:
I was not aware of the subtle differences but I believe it still has
the same grouping of materials, right? It has this tone of brick?
Mr. LaPine:
The brick and the tone were probably the same. That is no
problem. It is just different. The canopies was the big thing
thathitmethemost. Weren't they black?
rlrTYli
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes. I think they were black. It did look different but the Canton
facility was very attractive.
Mr. Jorma:
I apologize for not knowing exactly what the Canton one looks
like. I had seen it going up but I haven't seen it finished. I think
they made improvements from the original Friday's concept to
what we are seeing today.
Mr. Walsh:
I think, Mr. Jonna, beauty is often in the eye of the beholder. I
took a look at the Canton facility and personally, I prefer this.
Now, I don't want to muddy the waters in terms of getting down
to what color the canopies are, hopefully, we can reach a
consensus tonight so that we can move forward with this
project. I think it is a good looking building but I think when you
get to that level of detail, it really becomes the eye of the
beholder at that point. They are substantially similar but with
some minor differences.
Mr. LaPine:
The only point I was making was that he said that was his
prototype and apparently it isn't.
Mr. Jorma:
The thing about prototypes is that they always change. I think
the intent is that the general theme is similar but the details can
vary.
Mr. Pierececchi:
Mark, when I was looking at that building, especially the front
side, there is an awful lot of grill work associated with that front.
I remember the Media Play.
Mr. McCann:
Are you talking about this part right here Dan?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes. There are all kinds of grill work on that sign. With Media
Play it was debated whether that was part of the sign or not a
part of the sign. Would you classify that because I heard earlier
that they do have to comply with the signage. Are you saying
that grill work is nota part of the sign?
Mr. Taormina:
I would have to see the details of that grill work.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You can see it on the plan. It shows it on the plan. I was just
wondering because we had a real hassle over Media Play.
Mr. Alanskas:
But it was nothing like this though.
Mr. Taormina:
That is part of their logo, or part of their emblem. I am not sure
if it would fall under the same category. It appears to protrude
20629
out from the face of the wall of the building but it is an
architectural feature that I guess we would have to study that
further to make that decision. As I understand it, the sign area
does comply with the ordinance now. That portion only exists
on the front elevation of the building. Is that right? Or is it on
two sides?
Mr. Jorma:
Actually, it is just over the entrance which is actually facing
south. This is the Haggerty Road face. The door is down here
facing south and they wanted the sign over the door.
Mr. Taormina:
I think we would probably limit the signage to just that portion of
the structure that reads "Fridays" in this particular case.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I don't object to the grill work. It is just that in an effort to be
consist, that is basically what this is all about.
Mr. Taormina:
I liken this to a similar architecture feature that will be placed on
the new Red Robin and we didn't consider that part of the sign.
We only looked at the actual wording.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That was a lot smaller. This is pretty big.
Mr. Alanskas:
In reading my notes here, what is a vinyl graphic bump? That is
a new phrase for me. It says along the parapet wall that you are
going to have a vinyl graphic bump that will curve a series of
spaces of about 16 feet apart. I don't know what that is.
Mr. LaPine:
Isn't that on the Panere Bread, AI?
Mr. Nowak:
On the parapet wall of the Panera Bread there is a series of
those squares with bumps on it. It has a design on it.
Mr. Jorma:
I guess a test of whether this is part of the sign or building is if
you look the sign and put @ over here, do you still like that and
does it feel like and act like part of the building. My feeling is
that the grill work is intended to be an architectural feature of the
building and they apply the sign too. It is not intended to be a
sign. If you take these same graphics and put them over here
but I think they like the idea of keeping the natural stones as
sign proofas possible.
Mr. LaPine:
On the one in Canton, in the rear of the building where bey
have their dumpster it is all brick. Is it going to be all brick in the
back?
20630
Mr. Jorma:
Yes it is. The drawings in the package show that.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no problem with that. That looks fine out there and they
have a sign here on the west side and this faces south.
Personally I don't like the canopies and I dont like the way this
is compared to what they have in Canton. That is my personal
opinion. Everybody should go out there and take a look at. You
might gel an idea.
Mr. Jorma:
On the Panera Bread this is the portion that faces Haggerty
Road which will be right along here and to the right is the
masonry screening. Panera Bread basically has three materials
on the elevation; the gray and the orange are brick and the
Iighteryellow color is going to be out of E.I.F.S., intended to be
well above the ground and not in harms way. Panera has
requested that the signage at this point, they are exceeding the
sign ordinance, we can either treat this one separately or just
approve the signage that complies but they have asked for
signage on three sides of the building at this point. We have
advised them that they will need to gel a variance for that but
that has been their request.
Mr. McCann:
May I ask, what three sides?
Mr. Jorma:
The signs would be facing Haggerty Road. They have
requested signs here, here and here.
Mr. McCann:
I am thinking that the road goes away and there really isn't
much to be seen on the northern side of the building, is there?
Mr. Jorma:
I certainly think they will get a little bang for their buck out of this
sign for people heading to the north.
Mr. McCann: Where my question was going is because we can pass it along
subject to ZBA approval to the Council a second sign if the two
signs total within range of Mat they are allowed in square foot.
I am discounfing the north side sign because that is basically
going into the nature preserve area, the wetland area and very
few people would be able to read it. Do you know what the
square fool of the sign on the west side and the south side
would total?
Mr. Jorma: I apologize but I haven't done that calculation yet. My guess is,
what they requested on the west elevation will probably exceed
the ordinance. I don't think they are looking for two locations
that fit within the ordinance. I think they are looking to probably
20631
have the west side adhere to the ordinance and then adding
something similartothe south side.
Mr. McCann:
What I would recommend then would be to bring all their
signage back because what we dont want to do is approve a
sign that meets our ordinance but they have used up every
square foot. If they are entitled to a 100 square fool then they
put a 100 square foot on the front, then they say, "Oh, we need
a second sign in the back." Normally, we don't like to do that
because we say well maybe we can go 60 and 60'. You might
be a little over but if you want 100' here and a 100' over there or
80' over there so there would be no control of the size once it is
up.
Mr. Jorma:
I would be very supportive of that. I think that would be the best
way.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Taormina:
There are two points. You had asked what the allotted signage
would be. It would be 56 sq. ft. On the previous plans that
were submitted he showed 32 sq. ft. on the front elevation of the
Panere Bread. That would be for the principal sign facing
Haggerty Road on the west elevation and on the sides of the
building on the north and south elevations, they were showing
36 sq. ft. each. It probably hasn't changed loo much on this
particular plan. So they are in excess of sign ordinance
requirements by about 50 sq. ft. My question goes to the
petitioner with respect to the elevation, the exterior materials on
the west elevation. On the previous plans where you show, this
is for the TGI Fridays, the original plan shows, you can't quite
see it on this oblique rendering, but if you look on the plans
submitted on the 11" X 17" on a portion of the west elevation,
you see E.I.F.S. all the way down to grade and that is a change
from the previous submittal which showed brick going up about
four feet. My question to you is, what necessitated that
change? It is our policy, typically, to see a band of masonry to
grade. Yes, maybe that does show d.
Mr. Jorma:
It does show the brick
Mr. Taormina:
It does not show on this rendering nor the building elevation
plans. It shows E.I.F.S. with maybe a concrete sloop that would
probably be just a sidewalk in front of the building. To the
Planning Commission, would we rather see the band of brick
going up about four feet?
20632
Mr. McCann: We can add that in as a resolution just to make sure that we get
that, if you will remind us.
Mr. McCann: Back to the sign, to me considering the location, a south and a
west sign would be appropriate with Panem depending on the
size. They are entitled to 64 sq. ft.?
Mr. Taormina: They are entitled to 56 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: Thirty-six square feet is showing on the south?
Mr. Taormina: Actually 32 sq. ft. on the west and 36 sq. ft. on the south.
Mr. McCann: Just those two signs would be about 72 sq. ft., about 20% over.
We could pass that tonight, approving the south and west,
subject to ZBA approval.
Mr. Taormina: Both Council and ZBA.
Mr. Pieroecchi: South and west.
Mr. McCann:
Both south and west, correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Would that be 68 sq. ft.?
Mr. McCann:
It would be 36 sq. ft. and 32 sq. ft. You are right.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I didn't measure for signage on Ford Road in Canton but that
sign in the front and on the side didn't look like they were that
big.
Mr. Jorma:
On this one or Panem?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
On that one down there. I am going to back to that one.
Mr. Jorma:
I apologize because I don't have the building elevation which
would have a scale.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The reason I say that is because you could see that sign fairly
well. I think if you had 32 sq.
ft. on the west, which is where
people are going to see your sign,
and you are going to have, at
the end of the road, a directional sign. People are going to tum
left to go into your package, right? Coming in the main
entrance, they are going to make a left turn to Panem, right?
20633
Mr. Jorma:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You obviously are going to have to have a small directional sign.
You don't really need a huge sign on the south side, west is
where you need the signage. That is just my opinion.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else in the audience that has anything else to
say? If not, I am going to close the public hearing. Are there
any other questions from the Commissioners? If not, a motion
is in order.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are we going to forget aboutthe signage?
Mr. McCann:
I think it is up to the mover. I think we can go with Friday's. It
is conforming, right?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Item eleven says only that only conforming signage is approved
but you made a good point.
Mr. McCann:
We can deal with that separately, because we are going to vote
on number three first.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I am looking at number three.
Mr. McCann:
That is for Friday's, only conforming signage.
On a motion
by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#07-108-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 2003, on
Petition 2003-06-02-15 submitted by Frank Jonna, on behalf of
Livonia Chestnut L.L.C., requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a full service restaurant (Panera Bread)
on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of
Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2003-06-02-15 be approved
subjectto the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA -1 prepared by Jonna
Companies, dated July 22, 2003, as revised, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
20634
2. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets SPA -8 and SPA -
9, both dated July 22, 2003, as revised, are hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers shall 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 Building Elevations Plans marked Sheets SPA -6
and SPA -7, both dated June 18, 2003, are hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
6. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 163;
7. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall
be full face four (4") inch brick, no exceptions;
8. That the three walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be
constructed of the same brick used in the construction of the
building and the structure shall have metal gates which,
when not in use, shall be closed at all limes;
9. That additional appropriate screening material for rooftop
mounted mechanical units shall be provided if the parapet
walls do not completely conceal all such units;
10.That all pole mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and
shall not exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above grade;
11.That all parking spaces provided in connection with this use
shall be double striped;
12. Signage is hereby approved with this petition for the south
and west elevations, the combined area of which shall not
exceed 68 sq. ft., subject to Zoning Board of Appeals
approval;
13.That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia and/or the State of Michigan;
20635
14.Thal the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed in
correspondence dated June 25, 2003, from the Livonia Fire
and Rescue Division of the Department of Public Safety;
If subject building(s) are to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire
Department connection.
Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five
feel wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of
13 '/feet.
15.That this approval shall incorporate the following comments
listed in the correspondence dated July 2, 2003 from the
Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police;
• The internal roadway that connects this site to the
Target parlting lot must be well marked so that
shoppers will have no difficulty determining the route
they need to drive in order to exit at the signalized
driveway.
Parking shall be prohibited on the east side of the
delivery zone curb (rear of restaurant #1) to prohibit
vehides from panting along the curb and interfering
with vehicles using the roadway to access the exit or
Target parking area.
• Handicap parking spaces shall be individually signed
per City ordinance.
16.Thal the specific plans referenced in this approving
resduti on shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at
the time the building permits are applied for; and
17.That this approval shall be contingent upon the vacating of
Old Haggerty Road right -0f --way adjacent to the subject site.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
20636
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
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. McCann:
I want to be more specific on the signage. We were told there
was a 32 sq. ft. and a 36 sq. ft. I would like to limit it to two
signs. We said west and south elevation but it is limited to two
signs with a total of 68 sq. ft.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That is more than they are entitled to. They were entitled to 56
sq. ft.
Mr. McCann:
But they have two signs, one is 36 sq. ft. and one is 32 sq. ft. I
think the intent was to approve those two signs, wasn't it?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
To approve two signs but I didn't know that we would put
numbers on it.
Mr.Shane:
We should.
Mr. McCann:
We should.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
They should be 56 sq. ft. shouldn't they?
Mr. McCann:
It is up to you. You are the maker of the motion. I am making
an amendment that I want to limit it, at lead in size, to what we
were told. Right now he is asking for 36 sq. ft. and 32 sq. ft. I
don't have a problem with that because it is a little bit oft the
road.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, if we go over what is allowable, does he have to
go to ZBA?
Mr. McCann:
He does anyway because of the variance of the two signs.
Mr. La Pine:
I have no problem with that.
20637
Mr. Pieroecchi: I have no problem with that either. My original motion here is
that it was limited to the south and west elevations. I did not
specify the size, 68 sq. R. is fine.
Mr. McCann: It is fine with the maker. You are going to be a hero when you
leave here tonight, Mr. Jonna. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Shane: I just want to say one thing. Mr. Jonna, thank you very much for
the additional landscaping along the front. I think it looks good
and I think it is basically what we had in mind.
Mr. Jorma: Yes. It should do a nice job. I have a question. We
conditioned the approval of Fridays on the vacation of Haggerty
Road but the reality I think is that the Friday's site does not have
a right-of-way issue. The right -0f way issue comes in over here
at Panera.
Mr. McCann: Lets look to our staff. Was there a particular reason or did we
just kind of duplicate it into that one?
Mr. Taormina:
No. We can actually remove that condition as it pertains to the
Friday's.
Mr. Jorma:
For some reason he only builds the Friday's. I don't know that
anything changes regarding the right-of-way.
Mr. McCann:
Friday's may want to gel going in the meantime before the
vacation comes through.
Mr. Jorma:
We intend to build them both together but if for some reason
something went haywire for the Fridays, we can reconfigure
this part right here to get out of the right-of-way, if we didn't get
the vacation, we are still good on this one.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Shane was the maker of the motion. If he will agree to
withdraw that particular thing and if Mr. Alanskas would you
stipulate to that, and if no objections, show seven to withdrawing
that particular reference.
Mr. Shane:
That is fine with me.
Mr. Alanskas:
It is O.K. with me too.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Jonna, can I ask one question, when you go for the vacating
of that road, will that be a joint one between you and the
property owner?
20638
Mr. Jorma: The adjacent property owners agreed to vacate the road.
Mr. Taormina: If you could just give us one minute. We would like to confine
whether or not that is the circumstance with the TGI Fridays
restaurant. I would suggest that we leave that language in the
approving resolutionforright now.
Mr. McCann: But we have already voted to withdraw it.
Mr. Taormina: We will report back to the Council when we have the survey
confirming if the right-0iway is impacted with the Friday's
design. We don't have that survey in front of us right now. At
is indicating that he thinks a portion of that right -of way does
extend in front of the Fridays restaurant. If there is anyway that
we can leave that open.
Mr. McCann: Does the maker ofthe motion wanllo have it re -introduced.
Mr. Shane: I have no objection.
Mr. Alanskas: I have no objection.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-01-06-01 WAIVER USE REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-01-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #23503, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 19.06(f) of Article XIX of the Livonia Zoning
Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to give City Council
more flexibility with respect to waiver use requirements. For
those not acquainted with item #5, Section 19.06 deals with the
general waiver requirements and standards, especially in
regards to use impact on its neighbors in areas such as size,
harmony, aesthetics and safety.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina is there anything additional you would like to tell
us?
20639
Mr. Taormina:
As directed by the Council, the Law Department has prepared
language, which, if adopted, would amend Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance to give the Council more flexibility with
respect to special waiver use requirements. This currently
stipulates that waiver uses must comply in every respect with
the special requirements and regulations provided for each of
the waiver uses. Unless specifically authorized, the condition
or requirement is not eligible to be waived by the Council or for
a variance to be granted by the ZBA. The new language would
allow any or all special waiver use requirements to be waived or
modified by a separate resolution approved by a five -member
supennajorily of the City Council. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing nobodywishing to speak, a motion is in
order.
On a motion
by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#07-109-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 2003, on
Petition 2003-01-06-01, submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #235-03, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 19.06(f) of Article XIX of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to give
City Council more flexibility with respect to waiver use
requirements, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petifion 2003-01-06-01 be
approved for following reasons:
1. Thatthe proposed language amendmentwill give City
Council more flexibility in dealing with waiver use requests
by providing that any or all waiver use requirements may be
waived by a supennajority vote of the Council;
2. Thatthe proposed language amendmentwill maintain
adequate regulation ofwaiver uses underthe provisions of
Section 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance, General Waiver
Requirements and General Standards;
3. Thatthe proposed language amendmentwill allowforrelief
from Ordinance mandated conditions of waiver uses in
20640
cases where these requirements cannot be met by the
project as proposed; and
4. That the proposed language amendment contains provisions
to assure that relief from special waiver use requirements is
not granted through inadvertence.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
It 1 LTi E:f-�9=k IIt IEel : fQQrkErbEQDErk1:7=Xe] ;i II S [H ;i [o] II a[e_\ I[e] ;i
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #236-03, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 23.05 of Article XXIII of the Livonia Zoning
Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to modify signage
requirements for public notification of properties proposed to be
rezoned. Tonight's issue basically is whether to require a two
sided sign placed perpendicular to adjoining streets with a one
foot setback or leave it as.
Mr. Taormina: Pursuant to a directive by the City Council, the Law Department
has prepared language which, if adopted, would amend Section
23.05 of the Zoning Ordinance that would modify signage
requirements for public notification of properties proposed to be
rezoned. Currently, Section 23.05 requires the applicant to post
a 4' X 4' sign on the property proposed to be rezoned at least
fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. There are no
conditions or requirements pertaining to the location or
onentation of the rezoning notification signs. Typically, one-
sided signs are placed so that they are parallel to the street that
the involved property abuts. This language amendment is in
response to a concern raised by a Livonia resident that rezoning
signs are being erected on sites at locations which makes it
difficult to read for traffic on adjacent roadways. This draft
amendment that was prepared by the Law Department would
impose additional standards that are intended to make such
20641
signs more visible. The signs would be required to be two-sided
signs as indicated by Mr. Pieroecchi and they would be placed
in a localion one foot behind the right-of-way line perpendicular
to the adjoining streets and clearly observable by passersby on
adjoining streets. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn, Livonia. I support this modification of this ordinance for
the two sided signs. I think it would be helpful because I was in
one of those situations where people argued about, "I didn't see
the sign in my passing by". I think this is a good modification.
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Were you the person who couldn't see the sign?
Mr. Crag:
No. It wasn't me.
Mr. McCann:
My concem is that certain things go on in our neighborhoods.
We publish for public hearings in the newspaper. The agenda is
placed on the web site for the City of Livonia. We mail to
neighbors on certain items. There are a lot of affirmative things
that the City does to notify people. One of the things that we
came up with, probably about eight years ago, was the
requirement of posting on the property when there is going to be
a change of zoning. We thought that was reasonable to have
them build a 4' X 4' sign to lel the neighbors know. Now it is
possible to designate by ordinance where is going to be the
most visible place. Sometimes a sign perpendicular to the road
will be much harder to read than one that is parallel to the road.
Sometimes you cant see the middle of the frontage of the
property because sometimes that is a wooded area and you
would put it right in the middle of the trees. You try and have
the Planning Department explain it has to be in the most visible
place on the property. The other thing is that we had a meeting
with the Council regarding moving the process along so that we
don't have unnecessary delays. We are, by Ordinance,
suppose to try and get this through in 60 days to the City
Council and that means study it and try to get it on our agenda.
We try to get it on our agenda as soon as possible so that if we
do table it, we will have time to study these issues and answer
unresolved questions. My concern is that you are adding to the
cost of the developer and not really creating an effective way of
getting notice to the people. Two sided signs doubles the cost
because they are all hand painted signs. You don't have
20642
something pre -done for this. It has to be hand painted so it is
doubling the cost. My personal opinion is if you don't have
enough interest when you see a sign go up on a vacant lot near
your home to stop and look at it and say that, "I want it
perpendicular to the road so I can read it easier and I don't have
to get out of my car." I think there is a point when the City goes
too far to try and hold someone's hand to try and inform them by
putting the 4' X 4' sign facing the main road is a reasonable way
to doing it without being burdensome to the developers. I am
kind of going through my litany because you are presenting the
opposite point of view and I am trying to determine whether you
personally feel that or someone just said it at a prior meeting.
Mr. Shane:
I would just like to add one thing to that and why requiring the
sign to be almost right at the sidewalk, just one foot inside the
property line, it gets you right up by the roadway as close as you
can and not be on public property. If you can't see it then, I
don't know why you wouldn't see it. As Jim said, if it is your
neighborhood, most people are going to take the time to see the
sign, however they have to get out of the car, walk there or
whatever. I don't think a perpendicular sign is going to help
that. Maybe he can see it when he flies by going to work but if
there is a sign there when you come home, you go and look at
R. That is my view of it.
Mr. McCann:
Do you have any other comments, Mr. Craig?
Mr. Craig:
Only vaguely do I remember the issue at all. I can't remember
the site specific petition but as I vaguely recall it was regarding a
large area. It might have been a school area where there was a
large block and more people traveled on the other side of the
block than this common roadway. So, this modification, while I
agree with it, I think answers a controversy that was site
specific at that time. So this is an additional burden on the
developer, that doesn't bother me, but part of that was to
address concems of other people that were more distant from
the site specific petition thatwas being addressed.
Mr. McCann: I think you mise an interesting point. Basically what you are
telling me is that if you have a piece of property that has
common boundaries on two major roadways, is there a better
way of advertising on that property in that unique situation. If
you've got half a city block you might have 10 acres. You've got
it on this block over here but not over there. Doing
perpendicular up here is not going to answer the question.
Maybe if it is five acres or more or if it abuts two major
20643
thoroughfares at that point, it would be more reasonable under
those unique circumstances to require two signs, one on each
roadway where it abuts two roadways rather than just doing a
perpendicular sign.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If memory serves me right, these signs have to be up 15 days in
advance. Is that correct?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You have 15 days to find that sign. If they are really interested,
they will find il. Is this just one person that wanted this change?
Mr. McCann:
One person made the comment and the Council referred it to us
to review it and make a recommendation.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
In 15 days, I would think they would see it. If we go out to look
at properly, which we do, and we do it prior to 15 days and if the
sign isn't up, they don't gel heard. We table it. Everybody gets
a 15 day nofice. But the big areas that Jim referred to that goes
half way across town and perhaps might require more than one
sign and we can take care of that.
Mr. Walsh:
This is just a quick comment. I appreciate, Mr. Chair, your
explanafion and I think it is important to set out a record for the
Council to consider our thoughts on this. We certainly
discussed this at our study session and Mr. Craig received a
response because you made a point but the true value of your
comments are for the Council to consider what we had in mind
when we take our action. We weren't certain exactly what it
would be but if it is a denying resolution, they will understand.
While that is the case, just to reflect for a moment from my time
as a councilperson we always felt badly when somebody was
out of the loop for whatever reason and legifimately try to reach
an agreement amongst people on how can you better improve
the process. In this case, I don't think there is an improvement
to be made. We had one person who didn't see it. I am going
to accept that they didn't and that there was a legitimate
concern. It could have been site specific but I am convinced
that our exisfing Zoning Ordinance provides the flexibility
necessary to provide notificafion to our residents. For that
reason I am going to vole in denial of the proposed amendment.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Craig, I am going to see if there is anybody else in the
audience wishing to speak.
20644
Mr. Craig:
I was just saying that more is better. I was more concerned that
the modification was going to be less. If it remained the same I
am not the person that initiated this change so I won't speak for
them.
Mr. Shane:
I just wanted to say Mr. Craig's comment on the burden on the
petitioner, he is probably right in the case of Mr. Jonna and
maybe Mr. Soave but a lot of people have one piece of property
and are not big developers. It could very well be a burden on
them. I think you have more of them than you do large
developers anymore.
Mr. McCann:
There are a lot of times where people have had residential
property that is part commercial and can't even sell their home
until they get the whole property changed to residential they
have to go out and buy the signs too. It is a good point, Mr.
Shane. A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#07-110-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 2003, on
Petition 2003-05-06-03 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #236-03, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 23.05 of Article XXIII of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to
modify signage requirements for public nolificaton of properties
proposed to be rezoned, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05-06-03 be
approved for following reasons:
1. That the Zoning Ordinance currently contains sufficient
language requiring signs to provide public notification of a
pending change of zoning;
2. That a two sided sign, which would be required under the
proposed language amendment, will not provide for
substantially better public notification; and
3. That the proposed language amendment would place
unnecessary additional burden on the petitioner.
20645
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. This concludes the Public Hearing section
of our agenda. We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans
section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in
support or opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please
read the next item? If there are no objections from the
Planning Commissioners, I would like to have items 7 & 8
presented together ad discussed together and then we will
have a separate vote on them.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-07-08-17 Leo Soave (Boulder Pines West)
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-07-08-17 submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Boulder
Pines West requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws
and Site Plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct Phase II of
a condominium development located on the south side of Seven
Mile Road between Merriman Road and Brookfield Avenue in
the North %of Section 10.
Mr. Taormina: Petition 2003-07-08-17 deals with what is referred to as the
westerly parcel; whereas petition 2003-07-08-18 deals with the
easterly parcel, which is Phase III. So its called Phase II on the
west and Phase III on the east. Phase III is actually a portion of
two adjoining parcels that lie south of Seven Mile Road. Directly
to the south of this properly is Rotary Park and to the east is
land zoned RUFC. The original description provided with the
rezoning request, when it went from RUF to I-3, included all the
frontage on the Seven Mile Road. Al that time there were a
total of eight site condominiums shown with this development
and there were going to be two additional condominium units
with frontage on Seven Mile Road. Those have been eliminated
from this proposal. That is not to say that he would not split
those off at a later date, but what we are looking at is a portion
of that original area that was rezoned. It is the southerly 313
feet and is showing 6 site units all taking access from a cul-de-
sac that would be an extension of the "T" street pattern that will
be provided within the original Boulder Pines development. This
20646
is the original development which is in the center between
Phase II and Phase III consisting of nine single family site
condominiums. These would be six units. They all comply with
the R-3 standards which require a minimum each lot to be a
minimum of 80 feet in width and 120 feel in depth for a total
area of 9,600 sq. ft. All of these lots fronting along the south
side of the road are all over 10,000 sq. ft. All of the lots on the
north side of the road are in excess of 9,000 sq. ft. The area on
the west side which would take its access from a westerly
extension of the road in the Boulder Pines development would
include three additional site condominiums. This is the Phase II
or the westerly parcel. Again, this is an area that was zoned R-
3 at the same that the easterly parcel was rezoned. This land
area involved in this request is just under one acre. All three of
these sites exceed 12,000 sq. ft. in area so they meet the R3
minimum requirements. There would be cul-de-sacs provided
at both ends, each would have a minimum pavement radius of
40 feet which complies with our engineering standards. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four departmental letters. The first one reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to develop Phase 11 and 111 of a
condominium development on property located at the above
referenced location. We have no objections to this proposal with
the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be
provided and located with spacing consistent with residential
areas. Most remote hydrant shall Flow 1,000 GPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI. (2) Minimum diameter of cul-ieaac shall be
atleast110feet. (3) Any curves orcornerof streets shall
accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 45 feet
wall to wall." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. The second letter reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of July 10, 2003, the above referenced Petition has been
reviewed. This Department has no objections to this Petition. 1
trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. Thelhirdletler
reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No furtherright of way
dedication is required and the private mads to serve the units are
shown on the plan. The addition of these units to the original plan
should be reviewed by Wayne County under their Storm Water
Management Ordinance. Rear yard storm sewers will be required
20647
in conjunction with this development We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to
contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The fourth letter reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the site plans in connection with a
proposal to develop Phase 11 and 111 of a condominium
development. We recommend the following for your
consideration: (1) Install streetfighting to enhance traffic safety
and to promote crime prevention. (2) Install sidewalks for
pedestrian safety. (3) Install a stop sign for southbound traffic at
the intersection." This letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia. Just to add to what Mr. Taormina
said, these homes will sell for over $400,000 and I'll answer your
questions.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I think we
spent quite a bit of time going through this, the design and the
zoning process in the original Boulder Pines Subdivision. I guess
what I'll do is open it up to the audience. Is there anybody in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no
one, a motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#07-111-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Patton 2003-07-08-17
submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Boulder Pines West
requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and Site Plan
required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct Phase II of a
condominium development located on the south side of Seven
Mile Road between Merriman Road and Brookfield Avenue in
the North %rof Secton 10, be approved subject to the following
conditons:
1. Thatthe Master Deed complies with the requirements of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tite 16, Chapter 16.04-
6.0416.40
16.40of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX,
Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, except for
the fact the following shall be incorporated:
20648
that the first floor of each condominium
unit shall be brick or stone, on all four
sides, and the total amount of brick or
stone on each two-story unit shall not be
less than 65% and not less than 80% on
one-storydwellings;
2. That the pefitioner shall include language in the Master Deed
or a separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of Livonia
for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm
water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and giving the
City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owners
property prorata and place said charges on their real estate
tax bills in the event said charges are not paid by the
condominium association (or each lot owner) within thirty
(30) days of billing for the City of Livonia;
3. That the brick used in the construction of each condominium
unit shall be full face four (4") inch brick, no exceptions;
4. That the petitioner shall establish language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument a cross access
agreement between this development and the adjacent
developments that are being developed in relationship to this
phase;
5. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 6/26/03 prepared
by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
6. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
7. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable
bank letters of credit anc/or surety bonds which shall be
established ky the City Engineer pursuant to Arlide XVIII of
Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be
deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering
permits for this site condominium development.
8. That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed in the
correspondence dated July 18, 2003, from the Division of Police
of the Department of Public Safety:
20649
Install street lighting to enhance traffic safety and to
promote crime prevention.
Install sidewalks for pedestrian safety.
Install a stop sign for southbound traffic at the
intersection.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed in the correspondence that there are some comments
bythe Departmenlof Public Safety. Mr. La Pine, do you think
these things should be included in your motion?
Mr. La Pine: I have no objection. Let's ask the petitioner. Is that induced in
your plans?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. It is part of the plans.
Mr. La Pine: He says it is part of the plans and I have no objection to puffing
it into the motion to make sure that it is done.
Mr. Taormina: If l can ask the petitioner whether or not he knows if Boulder
Pines will include sidewalks in its development?
Mr. Soave: We haven't talked about. All I know is as far as my developer
streetlights is no problem. That is part of the ordinance anyway
that streetlights are required. It is not an issue.
Mr. Taormina: Regardless of whether or not the original Boulder Pines has
sidewalks, he would have to seek a waiver from the Council to
waive the sidewalk requirements for this project.
Mr. McCann: It wouldn't make sense to have sidewalks in this development
without sidewalks in the original Boulder Pines.
Mr. Taormina: True. However, because Boulder Pines because it is a cluster
development, it is not required to have sidewalks. But that is
not to say that the developer of that project won't choose to
include sidewalks as part of his development.
Mr. McCann: When we did the final site plan approval did we miss this?
20650
Mr. Taormina:
I dont believe sidewalks were on the original site plan.
Mr. La Pine:
The only point here is if we are going to require sidewalks here,
on the east and west, then I say the one in the middle should
have sidewalks so they will conned.
Mr. Taormina:
I agree but we can't go back and require it at this point. It is not
a requirement of the ordinance.
Mr. McCann:
We would like something that the Council will know that we
prefer sidewalks. We prefer sidewalks at Boulder Pines. The
main entrance is where I am really concerned about sidewalks,
not east and west, but the original Boulder Pines because that is
the straightaway and there is really no place for the kids to play
because there will be traffic and because they are shorter in
depth lots too. There is not much room in the front yards so I
think sidewalks would be appropriate. I am sure Mr. Soave has
great influence on the developer ofthe original Boulder Pines.
Mr. Soave:
I dont think so.
Mr. McCann:
Now you are speaking like a dad.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are we going to include these?
Mr. McCann:
Let's include them and the Council can deal with it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thatsame language is forthe east loo.
Mr. McCann: I do have a comment. I was not in favor of the original zoning
change for Boulder Pines nor the original development but I
think it left us with a 'T' at the end. I think Mr. Soave asked me
what I wanted when he came here and I said I just want it to end
here. He did put cul-de-sacs on both of these roads and I
appreciate the developer taking my concerns and
recommendation into it so that it helps to slop the development
here with these two projects.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner like to make any comments?
Mr. Soave: As far as the streetlights, that is no problem. As far as the
sidewalks, if the first phase doesn't have sidewalks the other
two phases will have sidewalks going nowhere.
20651
Mr. McCann: I agree. So if we can get sidewalks in the first phase, then we
want them to follow through in yours.
Mr. Soave: There is no problem.
Mr. La Pine: We expect you to use your influence.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
(Item 8 vas discussed along with Item 7 (2003-07-08-17 — Boulder Pines
West)
ITEM #8 PETITION 2003-07-08-18 Leo Soave (Boulder Pines East)
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-07-08-18 submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Boulder
Pines East, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and
Site Plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct Phase III of a
condominium development located on the south side of Seven
Mile Road between Merriman Road and Brookfield Avenue in
the North %of Section 10.
Mr. Nowak: There are four Departmental letters. The first one reads as
follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to develop Phase 11 and 111 of a
condominium development on property located at the above
referenced location. We have no objections to this proposal with
the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be
provided and located with spacing consistent moth residential
areas. Most remote hydrant shall Flow 1,000 GPM with a residual
pressumof20PSL (2) Minimum diameter ofcul-desac shall be
atleastll0feet. (3) Any curves orcomerofstreets shall
accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 45 feet
wall to wall." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. The second letter reads as follows: `Pursuant to your
request of July 10, 2003, the above referenced Petition has been
reviewed. This Department has no objections to this Petition. 1
trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The third letter
20652
reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No furtherright of way
dedication is required and the private roads to serve the units are
shown on the plan. The addition of these units to the original plan
should be reviewed by Wayne County under their Storm Water
Management Ordinance. Rear yard storm sewers will be required
in conjunction with this development We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to
contact this office ifyou have any questions." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The fourth letter reads
as follows: We have reviewed the site plans in connection with a
proposal to develop Phase 11 and 111 of condominium
development. We recommend the following foryour
consideration: (1) Install streetlighting to enhance traffic safety
and to promote crime prevention. (2) Install sidewalks for
pedestrian safety. (3) Install a stop sign for southbound traffic at
the intersection." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Would the petifioner like to make any comments?
Mr. Soave: As far as the streetlights, that is no problem. As far as the
sidewalks, if the first phase doesn't have sidewalks the other two
phases will have sidewalks going nowhere.
Mr. McCann; I agree. So if we can get sidewalks in the first phase, then we
want them to follow through in yours.
Mr. Soave: There is no problem.
Mr. LaPine: We expect you to use your influence.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Piercecchi and unanimously approved,
it was
#07-112-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-07-08-18
submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Boulder Pines East,
requesfing approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and Site Plan
required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct Phase III of a
condominium development located on the south side of Seven
Mile Road between Merriman Road and Brookfield Avenue in
20653
the North %rof Section 10, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-
16.40
6.0416.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX,
Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, except for
the fact the following shall be incorporated:
that the first floor of each condominium
unit shall be brick or stone, on all four
sides, and the total amount of brick or
stone on each two-story unit shall not be
less than 65% and not less than 80% on
one-storydwellings;
That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed or
a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium
association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any
maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water
detention/retention and outlet facilities, and giving the City of
Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owners property
prorata and place said charges on their real estate tax bills in
the event said charges are not paid by the condominium
association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing
for the City of Livonia;
3. That the brick used in the in the construction of each
condominium unit shall be full face four (4") inch brick, no
exceptions;
4. That the petitioner shall establish language in the Master Deed
or a separate recordable instrument a cross access agreement
between this development and the adjacent developments that
are being developed in relationship to this phase;
5. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 6/26/03 prepared by
Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
6. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for; and
7. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable
bank letters of credit ankllor surety bonds which shall be
20654
established by the City Engineer pursuant to Arlide XVIII of
Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be
deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering
permits for this site condominium development.
B. Thatthe petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed in the
correspondence dated July 18, 2003, from the Division of Police
of the Department of Public Safety:
• Install street lighting to enhance traffic safety and to
promote crime prevention.
Install sidewalks for pedestrian safety.
• Install a stop sign for southbound traffic at the
intersection.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 869" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 22, 2003, was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
/rw
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary