HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-07-2021522
MINUTES OF THE 8891h REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 889" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director IV, was also present
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in 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 and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-05-08-12 LEARNING TREE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-05-
08-12,
0040508-12, submitted by Learning Tree Child Care Center
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the commercial building located at 32955 Plymouth
Road in the Northwest % of Section 34.
21523
Mr. Taormina: The properly that is the subject of this petition is located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and
Woodring Avenue. The properly is zoned C-2, General
Commercial. Immediately to the east of the property is land
zoned PL, Public Land, which is the site of the Alfred Noble
Library as well as the Sheldon Center Park. The balance of the
C-2 zoned property surrounding this site, both to the west and
south, is part of the Sheldon Center Shopping Center, and to
the north is Fountain Park commercial development, also zoned
C-2. This is the site of the former Bill Knapp Restaurant. The
existing building is approximately 5,728 square feet. Over the
past year, this building has been renovated and converted to the
Learning Tree Child Care Center. The existing building has five
classrooms. The petitioner would like to construct an addition
onto the existing building. That addition would take place on the
north side of the building between the front of the building and
Plymouth Road. This addition would total approximately 4,600
square feet, bringing the total facility to a size of about 10,335
square feel. Altogether there would be six classrooms added to
the new space. You can see from this plan that the proposed
addition would occupy a portion of the front yard, which is
currently used for parking. A number of parking spaces would
be removed to accommodate the proposed addition. To the
west of the addition is a patio area where the loading and
unloading of students would take place. The building elevation
plan shows that it would contain a gabled roof with dormers.
There would be a number of features added to both the
proposed addition and tothe existing building that would make it
uniform in appearance and construction. It would be built
primarily of brick on all three sides. It would have asphalt
shingles. The existing building is shown on the right hand side
of the building elevation plan and this is the proposed addition,
which shows how the two would relate to one another. In terms
of parking, the ordinance requires that there be at least one
space for each employee, plus a sufficient number of parking
spaces for the loading and unloading of students. This plan
shows a total of 39 parking spaces, which would include 24 staff
parking spaces, and the balance of 15 spaces would be used
for student loading and unloading. The addition would comply
with the required setbacks. It is required to be at least 25 feet
from the Woodnng Avenue right-of-way, which is on the top side
of the drawing. Its required to be 60 feel from the Plymouth
Road right-of-way, and it complies with both of those minimum
required setbacks. It also meets the minimum requirements for
landscaping. Al least 15% of the site would be dedicated for
21524
landscaping. The ordinance for this type of use requires a
minimum play area for the children. There would be a total of
178 students enrolled at this facility. The ordinance requires
150 square feel per child for outdoor play space. That would
require a total of 26,623 square feel. The play area is provided
at the rear of the existing building. This area presently
measures about 13,774 square feel, so there is a deficiency
with respect to the minimum play area requirements. It's about
12,849 square feel, so that would require approval of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. Lastly, we have a plan that was presented to
the Department yesterday showing the details of how the
outdoor play area would be improved. I believe each of the
Commissioners should have a detailed drawing in their packets
showing all the different improvements that would take place in
this area. I'd just like to point out that one of the items we
discussed at the Study Meeting was the accommodation of
loading and unloading students. It was indicated that most of
the cars would enter from the south entrance or driveway,
proceed north to the drop off area, which is in front of the
existing entrance, and then exit at the northerly driveway back
onto Plymouth Road. However, the parking lot to the north of
the existing building did not have any provision for vehicles to
tum around. It was suggested that they either exit onto
Woodring Avenue providing an additional curb cul or,
alternatively, eliminate a couple of spaces in the northeast
corner of the properly in order to allow vehicles that are parked
in these spaces to back out and then proceed to the exit. This
plan does reflect the second alternative, showing the elimination
of those two parking spaces, and not the suggestion that they
provide the curb cul onto Woodring Avenue.
The following correspondence was received.
The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 11,
2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
petition. Additional right -0f --way is not required at this time. It
should be noted that the addition will require relocation of the
storm sewer and re -grading of the northerty parking lot facilities
since the existing catch basin will be under the addition." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
June 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct
an addition to the existing childcare center on property located
at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
21525
proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
June 10, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
plans as submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the existing childcare center located at 32955
Plymouth Road. We have no recommendations regarding this
plan. Please remind the petitioner that each handicap parking
space must be individually signed per Livonia City Ordinance."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July
13, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
June 1, 2004, the above-referencedpetition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) Although this site meets the minimum
front yard setback, it is noted that at the proposed distance the
structure will be more out of alignment with the existing
buildings to the east and west (2) The parking lot needs
maintenance; weeds are in cracks and the lot needs double
striping. This Department has no further objections to the
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Mr. Morrow:
With the elimination of those two parking spaces as a
turnaround area, does it meet the ordinance as far as the
number of parking spaces?
Mr. Taormina:
Again, that determination is made based upon the petitioner's
needs, including the number of employees and sufficient
number of spaces for loading and offloading. There are 178
students, and they're showing, in addition to the 24 required
spaces for staff, another 15 spaces for that purpose. I think we
have to pose that question to the petitioners. They would be
eliminating about 20 or 30 parking spaces with this particular
plan.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Taormina, seeing they're 12,849 square feet shy of the play
area, that 25 feet to the east from the street over, 25 feet where
they have a dead area there. I don't know how deep that is
from the south to the north. If they included that as part of the
play area, how much additional square footage would they pick
up?
21526
Mr. Taormina:
That would be about 140 feet times 25 feel, or roughly 3,500
additional square feet of play space.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, 3,500 additional square feet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ted Maguran,
11037 Auburndale, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to Mr. Taormina's
presentation this evening?
Mr. Maguran:
He did a wonderful job. He should be up here in my shoes.
The one point about the parking, with the 11 rooms that we
could potentially have with the addition being approved, we
have two counselors or teachers per classroom, providing that
the facility is at 100% capacity. So when we designate 11
rooms with two counselors, that would be 22 parking spaces
required for the leachers, and then two parking spaces for
administration. That's a total of 24 providing that we're at 100%
capacity. So we have flexibility with the 24 confirmed parking
spaces and then, of course, the balance of the parking spaces
would be for parents dropping off kids, and the parents drop the
children off at various limes. It's not a total influx of 100% of the
parents coming at one time. So we feel, under those
circumstances, that the parking spaces satisfy our needs.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Ms. Smiley:
You also have vans for picking up children. Are you going to
have school age children?
Mr. Maguran:
The enrollment will be up to 13 years of age.
Ms. Smiley:
So you will have some school age children. Would you have
the Learning Tree vans, that you pick up children and drop them
off from the schools, would they also be parked on this site?
Mr. Maguran:
Potentially. We're dealing with that in terms of whether they're
parked on-site or they're parked in the adjacent parking facility
of the shopping center. We've been talking to the owners just
for backup parking areas.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. Maguran:
Maybe park them along side Chris Furniture's vans out there.
21527
Mr. Shane:
Sir, I wonder if you could tell me about your play space? As you
know, there's a disparity between what you provide and what
the ordinance requires. I was just wondering how you
determine how much play area you need regardless of what the
ordinance says.
Mr. Maguran:
We're approximately 50% of the required space that is dictated
by the ordinance. The children go out at different times of the
day. The children are taken off-site to various field trips. If for
Mr. Alanskas:
example, we had a capacity of 178 children, those children
would not be in the building and be subjected to the use of the
playground at one time. There are school age children where
Mr. Maguran:
we would be picking them up with the vans. These children
Mr. Alanskas:
don't arrive at the facility to after school hours. So there's
various flexible programs that are instituted whereby all of the
Mr. Maguran:
children wouldn't need to use the playground at one time.
Mr. Shane:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to the playground, what kind of turf are you going to
be pulling in there?
Mr. Maguran:
One moment. I'll show you. The artificial turf would be located
in this area, which would be like the soccer field. This is artificial
turf that comes in a roll. The roll is 15 feet wide and put down
with crushed limestone, then it's embedded with sand so ilslays
in place. One of the objections to playgrounds that have wood
chips or grass that has become worn and turns into a muddy
condition, was to have a surface area, in this case the artificial
turf, lhatwould attemptlo keepthe clothes clean.
Mr. Alanskas:
Looking al your playground, I have never seen a playground like
what you're going to give these children. It's unbelievable. Now
where the basketball court is, is that going to be all concrete?
Mr. Maguran:
Thalwill be painted asphalt.
Mr. Alanskas:
Painted asphalt. Okay. But the turf play, it will have a cushion
so they can't gel hurt?
Mr. Maguran:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
When I was out there, we had a long discussion. One of my
concerns was, is 25 feet between where your fence is now and
where Woodring Avenue is, and I thought you indicated to me
21528
that you would like to have that space for additional play area.
Now, my contention is that you're 12,849 square feet less than
you need. I grant you, I think our ordinance is a little harsh at
150 square feet per child. But I think we can pick up 3,500
additional square feet by putting that area as part of the play
area. Now, I understand you're not in favor of that. Can you
give me your reasons why, because if I understand what you
told me and Mr. Piercecchi, that the fence is coming down and
there's going to be a while vinyl fence to replace it. So why
don't you think that should be part of the play area?
Mr. Maguran:
As far as our feelings about having a larger playground and
using that extra 25 feet, my thoughts on that were that the
ordinance stated that we had to have a 25 fool setback. If the
Zoning Board of Appeals would give us that 25 feel, we'd be
glad to have it.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I understand you told me. So basically, if the
motion slates that we would suggest that it be part of the play
area, if the Zoning Board of Appeals gives you the authority to
use that, waives the ordinance, then you have no objection to
that. Is that correct?
Mr. Maguran:
No, not at all.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you. I just have one other question. Now the
artificial turf, let's assume for a minute, ZBA turns you down on
that, then that dead area in there, I call it a dead area because
you can't really use it for anything because you'll have a fence
there which you can't even see through. Would that be artificial
turf loo or are you just going to plant plain grass there?
Mr. Maguran:
That would be sod. That would be outside the play area so that
wouldn't be an issue inside.
Mr. Morrow:
A question about the existing landscaping. The building looks
absolutely magnificent, but the existing landscaping that's
around the beds, there seems to be a lot of weeds and things
growing. Is it your intention to bring those up to speed and get
those cleaned up?
Mr. Maguran:
Absolutely. Nothing was done with landscaping because we
juslfinished painting the outside ofthe building, and ourpainfing
procedure look place on weekends so that we wouldn't be
spraying paint on children. So it's been a lengthy process to
21529
complete the painting. But now that we're out of the flower beds
and shrub beds, we can attend to the landscaping needs.
Ms. Smiley:
My question was about where the playscape area is. That's not
turf under there. Is that cushioned?
Mr. Maguran:
The play structure?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes, under the play structure.
Mr. Maguran:
That's going to be poured -in-place rubber. In the play structure
area, that poured -in-place rubber, the thickness will be two to
two and half inches thick because that is based on the height of
fall. It's thicker poured -in-place rubber under the play structure.
The water structure would have a half inch thick coating of the
poured in place rubber on lop the pavement.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just for clarification on that 25 feet, I was under the assumption
that if you got the additional 25 feel, it would cost you more
money to put in the playground and you didn'lwant to spend the
funds for that. Is that correct?
Mr. Maguran:
That was an observation that was made, but as far as gelling
the extra 25 feet of playground, that wouldn't be an issue.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you're more flexible. Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
About the way the traffic is coming in. If I remember right, you
told me you're going to be open 6:00 in the morning until 7:00 at
night. Is that correct?
Mr. Maguran:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
How many employees would come in at 6:00? That's my first
question. My second question is, where would they park? Are
they going to park over here on the west side, or would they be
better off parking over here because coming in here, drop off,
and then they come out. I'm just worried about cars being
slacked up dropping off and then these people trying to back
out. Can you tell me approximately how many people would be
there?
Mr. Maguran:
That I would have to defer to the Regional Director who is silting
in the audience.
21530
Mr. LaPine: Okay. We're talking about this turnaround. I'd prefer if the
employees parked here, then they only come out one time a day
and I don't think it would be such a problem.
Mr. Maguran: One thing that we would address in terms of the parking, the
employees would be parking in the front area, the north part of
the parking lot. The parents would be educated as to which way
to approach the property, enter the site, drop off the children.
That's not to say that a stranger from the bingo hall might gel
lost on our properly and end up where they're not supposed to
be, but the employees will be parking in the front part and a sign
will be erected to show that it's not a through traffic path. That
would leave the spaces on the west side of the building.
Mr. LaPine: One other thing that we discussed when I was out there. I was
worried about the people coming from the Sheldon Shopping
Center and I asked you this question: Because we've got the
traffic coming in here on the west side, there's a driveway there
that people from the shopping center could cul through there. I
understood you to say that would be blocked off. Is that going
to be blocked off? So the people from the center ... see here.
The center is here. People could come out here, cul through
here.
Mr. Maguran:
No, that's going to slay open where the arrow is.
Mr. LaPine:
Its going to stay open?
Mr. Maguran:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
I thought you said it was going to close.
Mr. Maguran:
The next two openings to the east would be blocked off.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I remember now. Now if you could just tell me about
how many people would be there in the morning.
Mr. Walsh:
I think the Regional Director is here.
Karen Ballard,
31055 Pendelton, New Hudson.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Did you hear the question or do you need it
repealed?
21531
Ms. Ballard:
No. I did hear it. The center opens at 7:00 a.m. so leachers
usually come in every half hour. At 7:00 a.m. there could be a
possibility of six to eight employees coming in at opening time.
Mr. LaPine:
What do you think is the biggest time for people to come in? I
understand it opens at 6:00. Can people bring children in at
6:00 in the morning?
Ms. Ballard:
We open at 7:00 a.m. At 7:00 a.m. parents can start dropping
off, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Oh, at 7:00 a.m. So from 7:00 to 8:30, you would say was the
biggest time?
Ms. Ballard:
Usually 7:30 to 8:30 is our largest drop off time.
Mr. LaPine:
Every parent that comes, they have to stop and take their child
out and go into the building. They have a card I understand to
open the door.
Ms. Ballard:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
You don't come out and pick up the children?
Ms. Ballard:
No, we do not.
Mr. LaPine:
So there is going to be kind of a like a backup for maybe a few
seconds for each car.
Ms. Ballard:
We've never had a problem in the past. Parents usually come
in the morning and they're off to work. So they drop off pretty
quickly and leave. The time fluctuates pretty decently between
7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, and then pickup time can fluctuate from any time, I
assume?
Ms. Ballard:
It does. It starts usually around 3:30 and goes to about 6:30.
Mr. LaPine:
What if a child is not picked up by 7:00. Somebody is there until
the Iasi child is picked up, right?
Ms. Ballard:
Correct. Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I have one question here in regard to the 150. I'm curious to
know, just what type of age bracket you have. How many under
21532
5 to 10? Do you have any idea of what type of breakdown you
have in age variances?
Ms.
Ballard:
As of right now, we start at 2-1/2 years of age and go until 13.
Right now we have two classrooms that range 2-1/2 to 3-1/2,
one classroom that's our 4 and 5 year-old room, and then a
kindergarten classroom and a school-age classroom.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
So two and a half, how many in that class?
Ms.
Ballard:
Sixteen per classroom and there's two of those.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
So that's 32.
Ms.
Ballard:
Correct.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
How about from 2-1/2 to what's the next bracket?
Ms.
Ballard:
The next bracket would be 4 and 5 year olds, and there's 16 in
that room.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Okay. How about above 5?
Ms.
Ballard:
Kindergarten - there's 16 in that room.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
And that goes from 5 to what?
Ms.
Ballard:
Its 5 and 6 year olds. Its our kindergarten class.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Do you want to go on?
Ms.
Ballard:
And then our school-age classroom has 16 kids. Six to 13 year
olds.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Oh. You go from 6 to 13 there? Okay. What kind of
breakdown do you have there?
Ms.
Ballard:
Sixteen children as well.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Sixty
Ms.
Ballard:
Sixteen.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Sixteen. Okay. And above 13?
Ms.
Ballard:
None.
21533
Mr. Piercecchi: None. Well, you've only got 32, 64. You've only got 80 here.
Ms. Ballard: Thats with our current locafion.
Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. That's your current. So this one will be more or less just
multiplied by two, let's say? Okay. Getting back to my
colleague, Mr. La Pine, if the motion did include the 25 feel
provided that the Zoning Board of Appeals would concur, you
would be glad to accept that 25 feel?
Ms.
Ballard:
Definitely.
As far as them parking in front of the building?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. Say, there are four or five cars and it's gelling all jammed
We do not, no.
Mr.
Alanskas:
When the
parents
pull up to drop
off the
kids, do they go in
these parking spots, or do they go right by the front door?
Ms. Ballard: For the most part, they park. We do have an occasional parent
that will just pull up right there, but for the most part, they park in
the parking lot.
Mr. Alanskas: They park and they walk the child into the facility so that you
don't have a backup of traffic.
Ms. Ballard: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: And if you did have a backup of traffic, how would you alleviate
Mr.
it?
Ms. Ballard:
As far as them parking in front of the building?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. Say, there are four or five cars and it's gelling all jammed
We do not, no.
up. What would you do?
Ms. Ballard:
We would just communicate with the parents that they need to
park in the parking spaces for safely.
Mr.
Alanskas:
You don't have a loud speaker for outside,
do you?
Ms.
Ballard:
We do not, no.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petifion? Seeing no one, are there any other
questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine: If the young lady wants to advertise and tell the people out there
you're open for applications, now's your time. You're on world
21534
wide television. Are you taking applications now for the new
building?
Ms. Ballard: For employees or children?
Mr. LaPine: Children.
Ms. Ballard: Once we get the okay, definitely.
Mr. LaPine: When do you expect the new facility to be completed?
Mr. Maguran: Hopefully, in the sprang if we gel all our approvals, and we're
anticipating, if we were successful with all our approvals through
the various departments of the City, we would like to look at
September/October to start our construction, get a shell up
before the bad weather sets in. Get the outside done before the
bad weather sets in and then work in the inside and have it
ready for spring.
Mr. LaPine: One other thing, you did indicate you're going to put up green
shutters. Is that still on board?
Mr. Maguran: They're ready now. They'll probably be picked up and start
putting them on tomorrow.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, there was a question I had asked earlier. You
said your staff was going to be parking on the Plymouth Road
parking lot.
Mr. Maguran: Could you repeat that, sir?
Mr. Morrow: The parking is just south of Plymouth Road. Is that where
you're going to put your staff parking?
Mr. Maguran: Yes, in front of the building.
Mr. Morrow: My concern was that if that was filled up to its maximum, they
couldn't use that turnaround that you provided. They wouldn't
have the space to back in or out. One of the things I thought, if
you saw that was a problem, you could lake that last parking
space and cross -hatch it or say no parking there so that if it ever
was filled up and somebody got down there, they wouldn't have
to back out. They could always have space to pull out and then
back in.
Mr. Maguran: That's something we would be receptive to doing.
21535
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I would certainly give that some consideration. We won't
complicate it tonight. But if you do have a problem, by opening
up that one parking space to no parking, you'd always have a
good turnaround area there.
Mr. Maguran:
Yes. We feel with education and communication with the
employees and parents, but as time goes on and we see that
adjustments have to be made, of course, for safety purposes,
we'll certainly do that.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, that was the reason we were concerned about people
having to back up the whole distance of the building. So if it is a
problem, I'm sure you'll correct it. Thank you.
Mr. Maguran:
Sure.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I think this is a win-win situation, Mr. Chairman, so I'm going to
offer an approving resolution. My question here is, how do you
want to handle the 25 feel addition? In the first condition that
our staff put together or as Item 18?
Mr. Walsh:
I think we'll handle it as Item 18, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I think that would be appropriate.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#07-99-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-05-08-12,
submitted by Learning Tree Child Care Center, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition
to the commercial building located at 32955 Plymouth Road in
the Northwest % of Section 34, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -1 dated May 20,
2004, prepared by AZD Associates Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. Subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department, either a driveway connecting the front parking
lot to Woodring Avenue shall be established or sufficient
21536
space shall be provided to allow vehicles to turn around at
the east end of the parking lot;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated May 20,
2004, prepared by AZD Associates Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4. Thalthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the lop leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-
2.1 and A-2.2, both dated May 20, 2004, prepared by AZD
Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face 4
inch brick;
9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gales shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all limes;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
12. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
21537
trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated June 10, 2004:
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code and Livonia City
Ordinance;
14. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
outdoor play area and any conditions related thereto;
15. 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;
16. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
17. 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
18. That the fence be permitted to be moved eastward 15 feel
providing that it receives approval from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: I wonder if the maker and supporter of the motion would
consider altering Condition 18 so as to leave, let's say, 10 feet
of landscaping. In other words, move the fence 15 feel instead
of 25 so that there would be a landscape buffer along that
roadway between the road and the playscape.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. LaPine went to the trouble to do some measuring as far as
distances were concerned. Do you have that data available,
Bill?
Mr. LaPine: I've got that here someplace
21538
Mr. Piercecchi:
Il seems to me it was like 21 feet right next to the road.
Mr. LaPine:
I've got no objection. But right now, from the edge of Woodnng
Road, the actual pavement to where the sidewalk starts, there's
12 feet there. Then you have a five fool sidewalk. Then you
have four feet of greenbelt where there's 23 bushes planted
along there, plus at the south end there's four large trees. Then
you have 24 inches from where the curb starts and goes into
where the asphalt starts. Then you have 20 feet in parking. So
I think there's more than enough. You have 23 feel before you
even start where the fence is.
Mr. Shane:
Part of that is right -0f --way?
Mr. LaPine:
It could be. I'm talking from the road.
Mr. Shane:
Well, yes or no to my original question?
Mr. Walsh:
Its up to the maker and supporter of the motion.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What do you want to do? Reduce that to 15 feel?
Mr. Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What do you think, Bill?
Mr. LaPine:
I have no objection.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The problem is, what's going to happen to that 10 feet?
Mr.Shane:
Landscaping.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Who's going to maintain that 10 feet?
Mr. Shane:
They are, just like they'll maintain the 25 feet.
Mr. Walsh:
They have to maintain d either way.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm always willing to compromise. If that satisfies the
Commissioner, and he's a very intelligent man, I'll be happy to
reduce that to 15 feel if my colleague approves too.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no big problem with that.
Mr. Walsh:
Then Condition 18 is so modified.
21539
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Maguran: Could I just clarify one thing now?
Mr. Walsh: Yes.
Mr. Maguran: As far as Item 18, that's going to be 15 feet eastward.
Mr. Walsh: Correct.
Mr. Maguran: Now if the ZBA says no, then we're back to 25.
Mr. Walsh: We've approved your site plan as submitted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 200406-08-13 LARRY'S KITCHEN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
06-08-13,
00406-08-13, submitted by Larry's Kitchen requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
restaurant located at 27545 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/.
of Section 36.
Mr. Taormina: Larry's Kitchen is located at the southwest corner of Plymouth
Road and Arcola Avenue. This site is immediately adjacent to
the Dunkin' Donuts restaurant that is currently under renovation.
Immediately to the east on the opposite side of Arcola is the
City -owned Sesquicentennial Park, and to the north across
Plymouth Road are various commeroial uses. The property in
question is zoned C-2, General Commercial. To the south is a
single family subdivision, which is part of the New Detroit
Subdivision, which is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. There
is an existing building located on the south side of the properly.
This is the site of the former Magic Pan restaurant. Parking is
provided on the north side of the site between Plymouth Road
and the building. This is a brick -faced building that has a hip
roof with asphalt shingles. The applicant would like to renovate
the exterior of the existing building. They are proposing to
install a new decorative parapet that would run along the entire
front elevation of the building. It would be constructed of EIFS
or an exterior insulated finish system, sometimes referred to as
dryvil. The height of this new parapet would vary between five
feel and eight feet depending on the number of steps and
21540
peaks. The parapet would also continue around a portion of
both the east and west elevations of the building, approximately
eight feet. This shows you a cross-section view oflhe parapet.
You can see how the parapet would be constructed in
relationship to the existing roofline. This structure is being built
right on top of the existing roof to make it look like a flat roof
structure from the front of the building, although the existing
pitched roof would not be altered. The color rendering shows a
combination of beige along the majority of the parapet with a
cranberry, a dark red color, on the upper and lower portions of
the trim.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated July 13, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 28, 2004, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) South of the east dividing wall the parking area is in disrepair
and must be replaced. The landscaping/growth in that area is
not maintained and in at least four areas the weeds are over
four feet tall. (2) The alley is in disrepair also. (3) The rooftop
HVAC unit is visible from the front. (4) A grease bin is sitting out
in the alley. (5) The dumpstergates in front have plastic slats in
them. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Djela Shkreli,
16843 Woodside, Livonia, Michigan 48154.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mrs. Shkreli:
I'm just going to try to do the best I can. My husband couldn't
make it.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for being here. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
On the west side of your building, the end where the dumpsler
is, what is that vent? Is that from the kitchen?
Mrs. Shkreli:
It has to be the hoods. We just bought it. We're just going to fix
it up and remodel because we just bought the place a couple
months ago. It's from the hoods, heat going outside.
21541
Mr. Shane:
I had a question for the architect, but I'll make it a statement
rather than a question. That is, I'm hoping that the parapet will
cover that HVAC unit. The parapet I presume extends above
the roof a bit. The HVAC unit that you have on the roof, would
you check with the architect to make sure that the new parapet
that runs across there will hide that HVAC unit?
Mrs. Shkreli:
Okay.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I know we had looked at the new parapet that would be on the
east side that is only partially wrapped around the building. Is
that correct?
Mrs. Shkreli:
I think we're going to go all the way around.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I wanted to verify that you have been advised of
that and that's our wishes.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Okay. No problem.
Mr. Morrow:
Then also, on the west side, to add it as far as you can up until it
interferes with some of the apparatus on the roof.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
And you are aware of the Inspection Department's comments,
what has to be taken care of? 1, as one Commissioner, was not
aware of the fact you've only been there a few months. You're
just getting started.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Yes, just gelling started and we're trying to fix it up.
Mr. Morrow:
We certainly think you're making some nice changes. It will be
a welcomed site in Livonia. Thank you.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Madam, according to our Inspector, Alex Bishop, there's a
grease bin silting in the alley. How do you plan on handling
that?
21542
Mrs. Shkreli:
Usually a company comes and picks it up, and they come and
pick up the grease trap. They come and pick it up every couple
months. I'm going to ask them to bring me a new one.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is there any way to not have it on City property?
Mrs. Shkreli:
I can probably put it next to the garbage, but its Dunkin' Donuts.
I dont have too much space.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Because we've had problems in the past with grease bins.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Yes, but I mean I don't know how much room I have next to
Dunkin' Donuts. I dont know because they're building up, loo,
next to us and there's not much room. I don't know where else
it can be.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mark, do you have any comments on this?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
The only allemafive is to put it in the area between the two
buildings, which is screened. So it's a question if there's
sufficient space there for both the trash dumpster
as well as the
grease bin. I don't know. We did not investigate that.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Its very close.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow, did you have a comment on this?
Mr. Morrow:
Along the same lines, I don't know if there is room where the
dumpster and trash is maintained. If there would be a grease
dumpster, it would be small enough to fit in with that.
Mrs. Shkreli:
I've never seen a smaller one. I don't know.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm just reminded of the one we saw, a fairly small one, on
Seven Mile Road, that was the same question that Mr.
Taormina addressed.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is it legal to put it in the alley, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know that the ordinance makes any provisions for it to be
in the alley. So to that extent, it's probably not allowed to be
placed there. I'm guessing that its been there for some time.
Its probably a vestige of what was there from the two previous
restaurants, the Magic Pan and My Granny's Restaurant. So I
21543
really don't know how to address it other than if we require it to
be relocated, we would certainly want it to be screened from
public view. If it goes on the east side, it would be visible from
the side street. If it goes on the north elevation, it would be
visible from Plymouth Road. So we'd want to put it behind the
existing screened enclosure.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I must confess that I did not walk the alley. Is it possible for cars
and trucks to hit this?
Mrs. Shkreli:
No, no.
Mr. Taormina:
The alley is approximately 20 feel in width and the item that
you're referring to is probably only about three feet by five feet
or something of that nature. So it's not a large obstruction. Its
placed immediately adjacent to the building so there's still plenty
of room for a vehicle to maneuver in the alley. I think the
problem is its exposure in the back there, and the fact that its in
the public right-of-way and is not screened. Maybe they could
put some kind of enclosure off the back as long as it's not within
the public right -0f --way. Maybe they could find a way of
enclosing it right behind the building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Can you work with these people on this?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we can lake a look at it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Naturally that's grease from all the cooking that you do. Does it
attract any rodents?
Mrs. Shkreli:
I don't think so. It has a lop on it.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know it has a lop, but as far as aroma?
Mrs. Shkreli:
I didn't see anything.
Mr. Alanskas:
You say they only come every two months to dump it?
Mrs. Shkreli:
They have a time when they come and empty it out.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do they at the time you want to have it dumped or the time the
company comes?
Mrs. Shkreli:
Usually they have setups.
215"
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm sure it would get filled by how much business you have.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Even now, its this much filled. It's not overfilled or anything like
its full.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because the more that you could keep it less filled, the more
problem we'd not have with possibly attracting rodents or a lot of
flies.
Mrs. Shkreli:
Like I said, I've only been there two or three months. I've never
had any problem with it.
Mr. Alanskas:
With your new business, you're going to be very busy there.
Mrs. Shkreli:
I hope so because I'm trying.
Mr. Shane:
I know nothing about grease disposal. Is that the only way there
is to dispose of grease?
Mrs. Shkreli:
I mean, they expanded Dunkin' Donuts more, and for now, I
don't see much room.
Mr. Shane:
The only way is to have a bin like that? There's no other way to
handle it?
Mrs. Shkreli:
I don't see anything because Dunkin' Donuts and the trash
that's next to each other. It's very close. I don't know how the
set up because its very different. It's kind of halfway is his
driveway, halfway is ours. I don't know.
Mr. Shane:
All right. Thank you.
Mrs. Shkreli:
There is no room for us.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one in the audience and ifthere
are no additional questions from the Commissioners, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-100-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-06-08-13,
submitted by Larry's Kitchen requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
21545
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
restaurant located at 27545 Plymouth Road in the Northeast %
of Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 1
dated June 15, 2004, prepared by Designs Plus Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the
following:
That the
parapet on the
east
elevation shall be
continued
along the entire
length
of this side of the
building;
That the parapet on the west elevation shall be
continued as far as the existing mechanical apparatus
on the building will allow;
2. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building, and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all limes;
3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated July 13, 2004:
That the parking lot south of the east dividing wall shall
be replaced and the landscaping in this same area
reestablished and maintained;
That the petitioner will investigate the idea of screening
the grease bin or an alternative disposition;
That the existing dumpster gates shall be replaced with
wood privacy gates;
4. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition;
5. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
6. 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.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 200406 -SN -05 POTBELLY SANDWICHES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
06 -SN -05, submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works requesting
approval for signage for the restaurant located at 17370
Haggerty Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 7.
Mr. Walsh: I will be stepping down. This restaurant will be built on property
owned by SchoolcraR College of which I am an employee. I am
going to pass the gavel to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request by Potbelly Sandwich Works to install signage
at the facility on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six
Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. They received waiver use
approval to operate a full-service restaurant at this location back
in June of this year. This is at the Marketplace, which is part of
the College Park development on the grounds of the SchoolcraR
Community College. As part of the approval for Potbelly's, it
was conditioned: That only conforming signage is approved
with this petition, and any additional signage shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council. This request is for two wall signs and two awning
signs, for a total of four signs. This plan shows the location of
Potbelly Sandwich Works within the Marketplace. It is one of
two 'end -cap" units at the west end of the shopping complex,
which is about 14,000 square feet in total. This particular unit is
at the northwest corner, so it does have its west elevation facing
Haggerty Road. The ordinance only permits a single wall sign.
It would allow for one sign totaling 62 square feet. As I
indicated, the petitioners are requesting a total of four signs for
a total combined area of 124 square feet. This is a detailed
drawing showing what the proposed main identification sign
would look like, both on the west elevation as well as the north
elevation of the building. The sign would be about 3 feel 10
inches in height and 13 feel in length, which is just under 50
21547
square feel. There would be two sets proposed, so that would
account for approximately 100 square feet of the total signage.
This is the lop sign shown on the north elevation plan. If you'll
look closely at the dark black band underneath that sign, you'll
see the logo, which is also proposed. It doesn't show up well on
this particular slide, but there's a smaller logo placed centrally
on the awning that would be about 12 square feel. So this
would be the same appearance on the north elevation as would
be on the west elevation. When you add the 100 square feel for
the two channel letter signs, plus the 12 square feel for each of
the awning signs, it comes to a total of 124 square feet. So
there is excess signage. The excess amount of signage would
be three wall signs where only one is permitted and 62 square
feet of wall sign area. This would require approval by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated June 28, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 15, 2004, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
This site will require variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for excessive number of wall signs and excessive
square footage. One wall sign is allowed on the frontage
elevation, four are proposed on two elevations. 40.5 square
feet of signage is allowed, approximately 118 square feet of
signage is proposed. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, there seems to be a
variance in the allowed signage versus what our Inspection
Department has said. Can you shed any light on that? I have
62 square feel and I believe they said 45 square feet.
Mr. Taormina:
The amount of signage allowed is based on the frontage of the
building. In this case, we have a corner unit. On the west
elevation facing Haggerty, the building is 40 feel 6 inches in
length. On the north elevation of the building, it's 61.5 feel in
length. So the Planning Department used the north elevation
for computing the allowable signage at 62 square feel
approximately, whereas the Inspection Department used the
west elevation for computing the allowable signage at 40.5
square feel.
21548
Mr. Morrow:
I will go along with what our Planning Staff came up with, the 62
square feel. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Edgar Cepunlis, Director of Real Estate, Potbelly Sandwich Works, 222
Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60654. I'm here this
evening to request a variance as Mr. Taormina discussed.
Given the position of the store with the two elevations and the
access off College Park Drive, the only real entry into the
shopping center being at the far east end of the property, we
feel that it's necessary to have identity both to the traffic coming
into the shopping center as well as our customers that are going
to be traveling Haggerty Road on a daily basis. It's critical to
Potbelly, as we discussed previously, to communicate the
brand, not only with the product and the interior presentation but
also the exterior presentation. Generally we like to see a lot
more of our trade dress incorporated into the building
development. In this situation, we're somewhat limited by the
entire development. To compensate for that, we're requesting
the additional signage this evening.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
I sympathize with you. You're a new restaurant coming into the
Michigan area, but as you realize, we've got three other
restaurants coming in. In this little shopping center, there's
going to be a Caribou Coffee Shop, an ice cream shop, a
Mexican restaurant. The problem we have is that once we give
you additional signage, what do you think the other people are
going to ask for? They're going to ask for the same thing. You
may have an argument as an end unit, but that doesn't sway the
people who rent the other units. They figure, well, I want a large
sign; I want the same square footage. On the other hand, I'm
not in favor of giving you any additional signage at this time.
Now, in the future, if you can prove to me that your business is
really suffering because people are going by your business and
they don't know it's there, then you could always come back and
ask for additional signage. I believe once Mitchell's is in, the
Insh restaurant, the Italian restaurant, and all these other shops,
there's going to be a lot of traffic in that area. You probably
won't need the additional signs.
Mr. Cepuritis:
I'd like to respond to that. I do have some photographs of the
same signage that we just installed in a similar unit, and every
community is different as to how they address signage. The
21549
majority of communities will allocate it to a portion of your
frontage on public streets. As far as other tenants looking to
receive equity, this is the only unit that has visibility and frontage
on two public streets. So I think it would be relatively
reasonable to respond to those and say that, using that criteria
as establishing where you may have signs and how you
calculate it. As far as the logos on the awnings, in calculating
that, again, different communities calculate it differently. I'd be
amenable to removing those in reducing the total square
footage requested in an effort to try to achieve the sign on both
facades. Additionally, I think if you look at the elevation, it's a
pretty wide and tall elevation. Without any sort of identity, l think
it may look awkward in addition to obviously our desire to have
additional signage. It would be a pretty large open space.
Mr. LaPine: If I may respond. One of the problems I have, the other stores
are only going to have visibility for their signage from traffic
coming from the north going south. Do you agree with me?
Mr. Cepurifis: Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine: I think that they need some additional signage, too, to give them
visibility from Haggerty Road and people driving by. I brought
this up at our Study session. Maybe the solution is, on the west
side of this building, we have a small sign. I'm just going to
throw out a size of 24 by 48. Then each of these restaurants in
the other area, plus you, can have your name on the side of that
building. That gives all the other businesses in that shopping
center visibility off of Haggerty Road. That's all I have to say.
Mr. Cepuritis: As with anything relative to real estate, you pay a premium for a
location, and I'm paying more, as is Caribou, for having the
visibility from Haggerty Road, for exactly that reason, because
its more valuable. The developer fell that we were the right
tenant to put in that spot, and we're certainly financially stable
enough to afford the economic structure that's been prepared.
And consequently, the cold stones or the other tenants down
the line will ... that potential negative of not having visibility will
be compensated by lower occupancy costs and therefore
needing to do a little less business. Additionally, relative to the
Camerons and the Bravos and the Claddagh, those are different
types of restaurants. When you are looking to go to Camerons,
its not going to be an impulse type reaction. Potbelly is quick
service, lunch business. We need to capture the customer in
order to be successful. Relative to the other food users in our
category, we invest two to three times what they do in our
21550
spaces. And I believe from our last meeting, some of you have
visited some of our locations and seen the kind of presentation
and the attention to detail that we present. As such, we need to
do more business than they do, and that's why we're willing to
pay for the premium real estate and invest and have the money
we do because we feel we have a superior product and a
superior presentation, and we feel that Livonia is certainly a
great opportunity for us.
Mr. Morrow:
Like Mr. LaPine, I'm a little reticent to drift loo far from the
ordinance as it relates to the signage. My question is, we have
not received a master ground sign plan for the development.
Have you had any discussions with the developer as it relates to
your participation in that ground signage because that could be
an additional sign over and above what we're talking about here
today?
Mr. Cepurifis:
Sure. Mr. Taormina, could you show that site plan again,
please?
Mr. Cepurifis:
The site plan at the lop comer where that radius is at the
entrance, that's a proposed monument sign where everytenant
in the Marketplace, and I'm nolsure aboullhe other restaurants
or office users in the rear, will have some identification. Again,
given the shape and the direction that it's facing, it has the same
effect as that signage on your north elevation, yet on a much
smaller scale. I have not had any specific conversations with
the developer relative to size but given the number of people
that are going on it, it will be relatively insignificant and I'd
certainly forego that.
Mr. Morrow:
But you will be a part of that sign?
Mr. Cepuritis:
I believe so, yes.
Mr. Morrow:
I would be so bold as to think that because you are paying
premium space, you might gel a liftle bit bigger sign than that,
but that's just speculation on my part. But I just want to make
you aware that you could possibly have another sign in the
general area directing people to your place of business. Thank
you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, I appreciate your desire for more signage. Everybody that
has a restaurant tells us the same thing. You did choose to
locate in that position. You chose to move there.
21551
Mr. Cepuritis:
We wouldn't have taken another position.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Pardon?
Mr. Cepuritis:
We wouldn't have taken another position.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. So you're very happy with the site. It's just the signage
that you want more. But you see, we have a little bit of a
problem here. That's why we basically are staying with
conforming signage only. We have three other restaurants, as
was mentioned by one of my colleagues here, and they all want
more signage loo. We're gong to evaluate this whole package
Mr. Piercecchi:
when all the signage proposals have been submitted to us.
Right now we are slaying with conforming signage. Some of
these restaurants are 600 square feet. We can't have this thing
look like a coney island. So we have to be very careful on
signage. A good business doesn't need any signage. There
are some cities that don't allow any signage as you know.
Those restaurants survive. But I sympathize with you, but at
Mr. Cepuritis:
this stage of the game, we have to slay with conforming signage
and you're not being treated any different than anybody else.
Mr. Cepuritis:
The failure rale in restaurants is astronomical. To put yourself
one step behind at the get go wailing to see if you'll fail and then
at that point add a sign, at that point its loo late. I understand
the position to stay with conforming signage. I would just re-
state that I believe we are the only tenant in that position that
faces, certainly in the Marketplace development, that faces two
public roads. It certainly could be rationalized or justified to
anybody else who requests it, that that's the criteria that was
utilized. I certainly will understand your position.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I don't want to spar with you on location, but there is another
restaurant that is going to have a similar package. It's going to
face Haggerty and north. We have an obligation to not have our
City look like an amusement park. So we're very careful on
signage and we're fair. By giving you conforming signage
according to the ordinance is certainly not having a bad
relationship with you.
Mr. Cepuritis:
Well, let me ask you this, the ordinance I believe reads the
frontage. Right now it's calculated using the north or the west
elevation. Why can't I use both?
Mr. Alanskas:
Because you're only allowed 62 square feet no matter what the
frontage is.
21552
Mr. Piercecchi:
If you were located on two major streets, our ordinance does
permit additional signage. It gives the regular allocation plus
one half, but you are not on two streets.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you, Mr. Pieroecchi. I have two questions for you. Are
you going to derive most of your business from the traffic on
Haggerty Road orfrom SchoolcmR College students?
Mr. Cepuritis:
I would say that it will probably be relatively equally split. Our
business motto is primarily once Aiven in the suburbs, you're
going to have a tremendous amount of neighborhood business
coming from the soccer games and so forth. All of your
neighboring businesses across at the mall just across 275,
everyone of those offices, Comerica to our south, Eastern
Michigan University to the south, as well as SchoolcraR to the
north and the office business to the north. My business is going
to be coming from all directions.
Mr. Alanskas:
Then don't you think in regards to a college, that once a few
students go there for lunch, that word would spread like crazy?
Hey, there's a Potbelly restaurant in this area right close to the
university. So you wouldn't need a sign for that, would you?
That's verbal signage.
Mr. Cepuritis:
There is, without question, in a university scenario, word of
mouth.
Mr. Alanskas:
So if you only had the choice of one sign at this time, wouldn't
you rather have the sign facing Haggerty Road?
Mr. Cepurifis:
I would probably say yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
On that note, I just wondered if you'd consider a sign on
Haggerty Road and just the awning and the sign facing north so
that you would gel maximum signage from Haggerty Road and
minimal signage from the interior. If I'm hearing you right, that
would be the better of the two words given the fad you may not
gel two signs.
Mr. Cepuritis:
Yes. If the choice were one sign and one logo or one sign,
sure.
21553
Mr. Shane: You have the choice of one elevation or the other. We don't
care which elevation you put it on but once you pick one, then
we calculate the sign accordingly.
Mr. Morrow: I just want to expand on what Mr. Shane has said. I said that I
didn't want to drift loo far from the ordinance. You're only
allowed one sign, but I could support a 50 square foot sign on
one of your elevations facing whichever way you choose, and a
12 square fool logo on the opposite side on your awning, which
would give you two signs, which would be an excess of one sign
but you would slay within the 62 square feel that we determined
is appropriate.
Mr. Cepuritis: Okay
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I would just like to reference the provision in the ordinance that
would apply if this site qualified as a corner lot. It begins "where
a business center has exposure along two major
thoroughfares," which this technically does not. However, it will
draw a significant amount of patronage from Schoolcraft
College, which is immediately to the north of this site. Some
argument could be made that the College Parkway servicing
this development is a fairly significant roadway. The ordinance
says that "the corner or end business unit which has exposure
on the two thoroughfares shall be permitted a second wall sign
on the other facade facing a street provided that the area of the
second sign shall not exceed one half of the allowable area of
the first permitted sign." This goes to Mr. Morrow's line of
reasoning. That is, if Haggerty Road is considered the primary
frontage, in which case the length of the building is 40.5 feet,
then the allowable signage would be 40 square feel on the west
elevation. If this were considered a corner lot, there would be
an allowance for signage on the north elevation. It would be
one half the allowable sign area, or 20 square feet.
Mr. Morrow:
So if I'm following you correctly, then they are entitled to two
signs, one on each elevation?
Mr. Taormina:
No, technically they're not because the road servicing College
Park is not considered a major thoroughfare under the
ordinance. That is a private road servicing only this
development.
21554
Mr. Morrow:
So we're slaying within the square footage but we are in excess
of one sign.
Mr. Taormina:
You would be applying the standard to this case similar as you
would if it was a corner unit with frontage on two thoroughfares,
but you would use the west elevation as the frontage allowing
for only 40 square feet of maximum signage on that elevation
and possibly, as a suggestion, allowing only a 20 square fool
sign on the north elevation.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thankyou.
Ms. Smiley:
I just want to be sure that I'm understanding you, Mark. What
you're saying is, he could have a larger sign on one side and a
smaller sign, and then not do the two awnings at all?
Mr. Taormina:
He already indicated a willingness to forego the awning signs.
He would eliminate the two awning signs in exchange for the
Commission's recommendation for two primary signs. Originally
it was proposed to be 50 square feel each, which has been
determined to be excessive. So this would only allow for a
smaller sign on the west elevation and a sign half that size on
the north elevation.
Ms. Smiley:
So like a 40 and a 20?
Mr. Taormina:
A 40 square fool and a 20 square fool is what I'm suggesting
might be a reasonable alternative to what you're discussing
here, but again, that's up to the Commission.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any problem with that. Its still 62
square feel. When we discussed this in our Study Meeting, we
thought a 50 and a 12, so that's still 60 feel basically. So that's
fine. In fad, I brought up the same point. I staled you gel the
whole sign and half. I made that point in the Study Meeting.
We realized that it was not technically correct, but if he has to
go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for more signs anyway,
perhaps that could be resolved there. And he's still in a
conforming range. Right?
Mr. Alanskas:
Cored.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, you're treating this as if itwas a corner unit, but it would be
subject to the approval of the Zoning Board.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I know, but 60 square feet is conforming. Correct?
21555
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, but not splitting it this way.
Mr. Taormina:
A single 62 square foot sign on the north elevation would
conform to the ordinance. Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Just 50.
Mr. Taormina:
No, 62.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, okay. He's getting 60.
Mr. Taormina:
But split between two signs where he's only allowed one.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The only thing is, the Zoning Board of Appeals has to approve
this because it's more than one sign.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. But the total signage that he's allowed is basically 60 feel
and that's what we're getting.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, 62 feel. I have no objection. The only thing I would say is
that people coming from the north going south, you're better off
having the larger sign facing north because people are going to
see it. I'm afraid they're going to be beyond your building before
they glance over and see the smaller sign. That's my personal
opinion. So that's your call. Otherwise I have no problem with
it.
Mr. Morrow: I want to add just one more comment just so he knows where
we're coming from. We try to protect our ordinance because
this is the body that initiates the ordinances. People come to us
and ask for excessive signs over and above what we've
determined is right. In extenuating circumstances, we can
recommend to the City Council and the Zoning Board that they
approve what we come up, but the basic fact is, we're
digressing from what we consider is a good signage ordinance.
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, could you live with a 40 and 20?
Mr. Cepuritis: I believe so, yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Forty on the north and 20 on the other elevation?
21556
Mr. Cepuritis: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: You can. All right. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Piercecchi: Did you want the larger sign on the west elevation?
Mr. Cepurits: Can I not identify where the 40 and 20 go and just leave it as
two signs?
Mr. Alanskas: Just approve it with 60 square feel and then you can decide
what you want to do. Are there any other questions? Hearing
none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#07-101-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-06SN-05,
submitted by Potbelly Sandwich Works, requesting approval for
signage for the restaurant located at 17370 Haggerty Road in
the Southwest I/ of Section 7, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Potbelly Sandwich
Works, as received by the Planning Commission on June
4, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except for the fact that only two idenlif cation wall signs will
be allowed, one 40 square feet and one 20 square feel, on
the north and west elevation at the discretion of the
petitioner;
2. That the awnings of this unit will not include any logo sign
on the awning, shall not be backlit;
3. That the wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
4. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
5. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
21557
6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time the sign permits are applied for.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow, Smiley,
Alanskas
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Alankas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. Will the Secretary please show that Mr. Walsh returned
the gavel at 8:55.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2004 -05 -SN -04 BIG BOY RESTAURANT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
05 -SN -04,
00405 -SN -04, submitted by Beacon Sign Company, on behalf of
Big Boy Restaurant, requesting approval for signage for the
restaurant located at 33427 Plymouth Road in the Northeast %
of Section 33
Mr. Taormina: This is a request for additional signage by Big Boy Restaurant,
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road. This site received Waiver
Use approval back in January for the construction of an addition
that increased the sealing capacity of this existing full service
restaurant. This properly is zoned G2, General Commercial.
As part of the approval it was conditioned: "That no signs,
either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this
petition, all such signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council." The petitioner is requesting approval for a single wall
sign that would be located on the north or front elevation of the
restaurant. An on-site inspection shows that the sign has
already been installed on the building. It's permitted under a
Temporary Banner Permit until such time that the permanent
sign is approved. The size of the sign is roughly 11.6 feel in
21558
length by 7 feel in overall height and approximately 81 square
feel. Itdoes conform as a single wall sign; however, according
to the Inspection Department, because this site presently has
nonconforming signage in the form of two pylon signs, one on
Plymouth Road and one on Farmington Road, it would require
the approval of the Zoning Board of Boards for the additional
signage.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated June 22, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 15, 2004, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This site has two existing noncronforming pole signs. If
these signs are to be retained, the petitioner will need a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
number of signs and sign area. (2) If the existing pole signs are
to be removed, the wall sign would be conforming and we would
have no further objections." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The second letter is from Allen
Industries, dated May 21, 2004, addressed to Randy
Abrahamson, Zoning Board, and Scott Miller, Planner III, which
reads as follows: 7 spoke with Scott this morning concerning
the above -listed site. Original checking of codes reflected a 1:1
ratio of one square foot of sign per linear foot of building. Cur
information stated an 82 linear foot building. We designed a
sign that is 80.5 sq. ft. for installation. This week, we learned
that the site is within a Planning Controlled Zone and requires
two meetings with Planning and two meetings with the City
Council for approval. As per my conversation with Scott, we
have a dilemma. Big Boy Corporate Officers will be at this site
June 60 - 9r" and expect the sign to be installed. We
respectfully request that you allow us a permit to install the
building sign on the basis that if anything does not pass during
the fourmeetings; the sign will be removed. We prefer to be up-
front on issues. This is a must to have the sign installed. This
letter will stand as acknowledgement that we will agree to the
above items and may be filed with the permit as an attachment.
Please assist in showing Corporate Big Boy their logo sign on
their restaurant." The letter is signed by Betsy Swan, Sr. Project
Manager, Allen Industries. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
21559
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, this letter from the Building Department still
confuses me. Maybe you can enlightened me. I was unaware
that they lumped wall signs and freestanding signs together
when they talk about too many signs. Have we always done it
that way? I thought they look the wall signs separately from the
freestanding signs and counted them that way?
Mr. Taormina:
Unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to clarify this prior to
the meeting. It is the Building Director's responsibility to make
decisions on matters such as this. But I understand your
concern. We have a case where a conforming wall sign is
proposed and only by virtue of the fad that there are other signs
located on the property that are nonconforming, that they would
have to seek a variance for that sign. I'm not sure that I fully
understand the logic there as well.
Mr. Shane:
Itjust struck me as strange.
Mr. Taormina:
I understand. In either event, depending on what the Planning
Commission decides, that would only be appealed to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for either a variance or a clarification on that
question.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thankyou.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, have we received any correspondence or communication
regarding the removal of those two signs, one on Farmington
and one on Plymouth.
Mr. Taormina:
No, we have not.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Wail Bamieh,
Big Boy Restaurant, 33427 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 42389.
I'm one of the owners of the Big Boy Restaurant.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add the Mr. Taormina's
presentation?
Mr. Bamieh:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the
petitioner?
Mr. Alanskas:
I have two questions. I drove by twice today coming from the
east on Plymouth and then turning around and coming west.
21560
The trees there are so high you can't even see that huge sign
on Plymouth Road any more.
Mr. Bamieh:
That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
The trees are blocking the sign. So do you have problem with
that sign coming down?
Mr. Bamieh:
Actually, I would like to have that sign up there. It's an historical
monument to us.
Mr. Alanskas:
It can't be seen.
Mr. Bamieh:
The only time it can't be seen is when the trees are green and
the leaves are covering it. Otherwise you can see it. Al
nighttime you can see it too. Actually, we're having a lough time
as it is. When we started with the business, when we bought
the restaurant four years ago, that was one of the problems we
were facing. People were not even seeing the Big Boy, period.
When we decided to do an addition, hopefully we could put that
logo in front of the building and that would be lit up and will help
with more traffic.
Mr. Alanskas:
We have another Big Boy on Six Mile just east of Newburgh.
They had a large sign like yours, which was taken down, and
they only put up one sign on the building. They're doing very
well. Since your grand opening, I've been to your restaurant
four times and you've been very busy.
Mr. Bamieh:
Luckily, it paid off for us what we did with the addition and the
remodeling.
Mr. Alanskas:
You did a nice job. You have a very good menu. The food is
good.
Mr. Bamieh:
I appreciate that. We're trying our best to make ends meet over
there. But referring to what you said about the Six Mile location,
I would love to have half of their business. Actually, their
location is what's making them big. They don't even need a
sign in that parking lot and they will still do well.
Mr. Alanskas:
But don't you think with the two new signs, you have two Big
Boys down on the ground that you can see very well
approaching your restaurant. Now you want to put one on the
building. Isn't that a lot of signage?
21561
Mr. Bamieh:
Actually, when we decided to go ahead with the addition, we
saw the new prototype of Big Boy in Grand Rapids and that was
the attraction of the whole thing, having the logo on a round
shaped radius building and it looked really sharp. We thought it
would help us out.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just to give you another example, there's a restaurant further
east called Kicker's. They came before us when they first did
their renovation. They wanted to put neon entirely on the
roofline. They said, "People cant see us. We need that neon."
And, of course, we said we don't think you do. First of all, you
haven't even been in there yet with this new addition, and you
could always come back at a later dale if you have a hardship.
Two years down the road he said, 'You know what, Mr.
Alanskas? You were right. We didn't need the neon." Just in
my estimation, I don't think you need those two big signs.
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a couple comments. Do you own the properly on
Farmington Road that the sign is on?
Mr. Bamieh:
Yes, we do.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay, because apparently you've given the American House
approval?
Mr. Bamieh:
Yes, we did.
Mr. Morrow:
Its been the goal of this City and this Commission that as
changes are made to the basic building, we've endeavored to
try to get the businesses to bring down their tall pole signs and
supplement it or augment it or add a ground sign. So I think this
is what this body is trying to gel across to you. We'd like to see
that large sign come down and the ground sign lake its place.
Mr. Bamieh:
Can we compromise here? The sign on Farmington Road, we'd
be more than happy to lake it down to the ground, but the one in
front, I believe its grandfathered in, and we'd like to keep it up
there. That's a hard thing to lake down because that's an
historical monument. It's been there for a long time, and these
signs are not made anymore. As a matter of fad, I questioned
about even painting the background because it's kind of dull in
the back, but they told me that's porcelain, that's antique, and
you don't want to mess with it.
21562
Mr. Morrow:
On that comment, I'd like to gel a little direction on that through
the Chair to the staff. Is it grandfathered up until the point when
they change the footprint of the building and then the
grandfathering remains or goes away?
Mr. Taormina:
There are no hard and fast rules relative to how we condition
these waiver uses, but typically we can attach reasonable
conditions to waiver uses. Oftentimes, we try to upgrade these
properties. So if there's a reasonable connection between the
waiver use approval and the improvements we're making, then I
think it's entirely within this body's authority to make sure that
those upgrades lake place. In this particular case, a condition
of approval for the signage and also the original waiver use to
have existing nonconforming pole signs removed. I'm not so
sure that they would otherwise be required to be removed. He
could maintain them as nonconforming structures if he did
nothing else and they would be grandfathered. Again, it's
whether or not you feel this is a reasonable condition to those
approvals that we've granted.
Mr. Morrow:
Did the Plymouth Road Development Authority give us any input
as to their position on this sign?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe there was any indication from the PRDA as to
their preference on the signage. I'd have to go back and take a
look.
Mr. Morrow:
I think if you had something it would probably be in the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Is it possible to take that sign on Plymouth Road and relocate it
somewhere else to take it down to a lower level? If you could
lower it down and move it to where it could be seen better and
still maintain this old sign. Like lake that "come celebrate our
fresh new look" off of there and just have the Big Boy breakfast
bar and the little guy on lop. If you could set that down maybe
in the landscape bed or something out in front. Would that be
possible?
Mr. Bamieh: May I say something here? You know, from experience, I can
even prove it. A couple of the Big Boy's that look the sign
down, like the one in Ypsilanti, they Iosl40% oflheir sales, and I
don't think that's something we can afford al this point.
Mr. Shane: Exceptyou cant see the sign.
21563
Mr. Bamieh:
Some months of the year you can't see it, but you can see it the
rest of the year. I drive up and down every single day.
Mr. Shane:
If you put it out 10 feel from the sidewalk, for example, right in
the middle ofyourfronlyard orsomelhing, you could sure see it
then even though it was lower.
Mr. Bamieh:
We look the back structure down as it was recommended. We
did a lot there. We spent over $200,000. We're maxed as far
as money. It's costly to do something like that to begin with.
Hopefully, we're asking for help here. We can keep it as we
started to do with the help from the Committee here.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just want to make it really clear that 1, as one Commissioner,
am not picking on you or on Big Boy to beleaguer my point.
About six years ago on the corner of Merriman and Five Mile,
we have a place called Showerman's Party Store. They had a
sign; I believe it's taller than the one you have now. It's been
there for years, as you said, an historical site, which I don't
agree with. But anyways, they put on a new addition for that
whole front of the mall, and that sign is no longer they. They
now have a monument sign, and they're doing very well. Thank
you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Shane, if I understand you correctly, you're questioning the
logic or the possibility of reducing the height of that sign and
relocating it?
Mr. Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Ijust wanted to make sure we're on the same page. There's
also a pylon sign on Farmington Road that hasn't even been
mentioned.
Mr. Walsh:
Yes, it has. The petitioner has indicated that he will remove that
sign.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Oh. Tonight he did that?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. I missed that.
Mr. Bamieh:
I said I'd compromise and take that down to the ground if you'd
like.
21564
Mr. LaPine:
I dont know how tall that sign is, but I think our ordinance states
that 35 feel is the maximum height of a sign we allow in Livonia.
That's sure a lot taller than 35 feet. Being a long time resident,
I'm pretty sure this sign was put up one time, and the Big Boy
wasn't on lop. That was put on at a later date when they started
using Big Boy as a sign.
Mr. Bamieh:
I have no idea. That's been there for 40 years.
Mr. LaPine:
We probably don't have any records, but I have to agree with
Mr. Shane. The ideal location for that sign, in my opinion, is in
your new landscape area. If you had that sign, a low sign, you'd
have more visibility on Plymouth Road than you have now.
Mr. Bamieh:
Okay. If we didn't have the trees all along the sidewalk, you're
probably right. You would be able to see that sign.
Mr. LaPine:
What trees are you referring lo?
Mr. Bamieh:
The City sidewalk. There's no way you even see a lower sign
where you're referring to.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, you know, we spent a lot of money renovating Plymouth
Road, and it is beautiful.
Mr. Bamieh:
I agree with you.
Mr. LaPine:
We're trying to eliminate all these big signs whenever possible,
and I think we have an opportunity now. We're not here to
interfere with your business. We want you to be so successful
and make so much money you might open two more
restaurants.
Mr. Bamieh:
If we take that sign down, I guarantee you that business will go
down.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I'm not going to belabor the point with you. I think that
the sign is too large and loo big, and this might be the Iasi
opportunity
we may ever have of doing something about it. I'm
willing
to compromise and work something out with you.
Personally, I don't want that big sign to be there any longer.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. LaPine. Are there any other questions or
comments? Sir, we definitely want to work with you. We know
you made a significant investment there. I do patronize your
restaurant from time to time. I think you've done a wonderful job
21565
with the renovation. As Mr. Alanskas has said, the food is very
good. This sign is something that the City would like to come
down, both your two pole signs. It's not specific to Big Boy or to
your restaurant. It's been an effort underway in this City for
many years, at least six or seven. All you've done here, you've
come forward and asked for additional signage. Whalthaldoes
is give us leverage and an opportunity to work with you to say,
we'll give you that extra signage but you've got to take that pole
sign down.
Mr. Bamieh:
We're willing to lake the one on Farmington Road down, and
that's a big sign loo.
Mr. Walsh:
We've heard that, and I think a vole will soon take place. I'm
going to predict that the vole is going to be requiring the
removal of both signs, but I can't say that for certain. And then
you'll be on your way to the Council if you choose to go in that
pattern. But I just want to tell you my personal thoughts. I think
you've done a wonderful job. I think what you've requested is
permissible. I would vole for that as long as we can gel the two
pole signs down. We'll see how other people vole when we gel
to that point. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, are there any
additional questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Could we include in the resolution that he could have that one
large sign on Plymouth Road for another 12 months and then it
must be removed, or does it have to be taken down right away?
Could that be a condition, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't see why not.
Mr. Alanskas:
So he will have at least a year to get established and then take
it down. Give him a chance to have it for one year and then
within 12 months, that sign must come down.
Mr. Bamieh:
Isn't that big sign grandfathered in?
Mr. Walsh:
You've asked us for permission to install additional signage that
exceeds our ordinance. What we're saying is we'll give you that
if you're willing to remove your signs. If you're not willing to give
up your pole signs, then you won't be able to install the
additional signage you've requested. So grandfathered or not,
you've asked for additional approval from this body and we're
using that opportunity, in just straight English, to gel the pole
21566
signs down. You're asking for more. We're asking you to give
up the two pole signs.
Mr. Morrow:
And replace it with a ground sign.
Mr. Walsh:
That's correct. Mark, are you comfortable if we do put a time
certain on the removal of the Plymouth Road sign in that
manner?
Mr. Taormina:
Some type of amortization schedule I don't think would be
unreasonable at all if it's attached to the approval of this sign
and even the installation of a new conforming monument sign or
submitting of a new sign plan to the Planning Commission.
Mr. LaPine:
I think Bob has brought up a very good point, and I was going to
make the same suggestion. I don't want to hurt the gentleman.
I want him to be successful. In the meantime, maybe he can
work together with our department here and maybe he can
come up with some kind of signage in front of the building. I just
think the signs have to go. They've been there for umpteen
years. We've been trying to gel you to tear down the stuff
behind there for years and now it looks beautiful back there.
You've done a nice job.
Mr. Bamieh:
We've done that, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
We appreciate that. And now we've reached the point we think
those two large signs should come down, and I think it's
reasonable to give you some time. You can work with our
Planning Department and maybe they can come up with
something that will be acceptable when you come back to us for
additional signs. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order.
Ms. Smiley:
I will make the motion if Mark will help me with some verbiage
because this is new. Mark, do you have a suggestion on how
we could word the removal of the two ground signs.
Mr. Walsh:
I will suggest in the opening paragraph, "subject to the removal
of the two existing signs, the Farmington Road sign being
removed immediately and the Plymouth Road sign being
removed within 12 months forth the dale of the resolution"
21567
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-102-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -05 -SN -04
submitted by Beacon Sign Company, on behalf of Big Boy
Restaurant, requesting approval for signage for the restaurant
located at 33427 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/. of Section
33, be approved subject to the removal of the two exis0ng signs,
the Farmington Road sign being removed immediately and the
Plymouth Road sign being removed within 12 months from the
date of the resolution, and to the following additional conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Beacon Sign
Company, on behalf of Big Boy, for an eighty-one (81)
square fool wall sign, as received by the Planning
Commission on May 26, 2004, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
3. That this site shall be allowed a conforming monument
style ground sign identifying the restaurant from Plymouth
Road;
4. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
5. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I'd like to see Condition 3 changed - "identifying the restaurant
from Plymouth Road" period, and then deleting "and a
conforming directional sign directing traffic to the restaurant." I
dont think we need that.
Mr. Walsh: Period after Plymouth Road and then delete the balance?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
21568
Ms. Smiley: "And the conforming directional sign directing traffic to the
restaurant from Farmington Road" be deleted?
Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and the supporter?
Ms. Smiley: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: The motion on the table is so amended. Any further comments?
Ms. Smiley: Only that I want to tell you how attractive the landscaping and
the building itself is, not to mention the interior. It is 100 percent
improved.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-11-02-22 BIG BOY RESTAURANT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
11-02-22, submitted by Big Boy Restaurant requesting approval
of a landscape plan as required by Council Resolution #40-04
for the full-service restaurant located at 33427 Plymouth Road
in the Northeast % of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina: Attached to the January 28, 2004, waiver use approval for the
construction of the addition at the Big Boy Restaurant was the
requirement that a fully detailed landscape plan, that shows
additional plant materials in the landscaped area in the front
yard between the proposed addition and the Plymouth Road
right-of-way, be submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council within 60 days following approval by the City Council.
The petitioner has submitted a detailed landscape plan for this
area. Most of it is that triangular shaped landscape area that's
located in front of the restaurant between the two driveways off
of Plymouth Road. Most of this area is maintained with new sod
that was installed after the completion of the addition. There is
a circular -shaped planting bed close to Plymouth Road that has
a variety of shrubs and flowers incorporated into 1. There are
other planting beds located closer to the building that include
yews and other shrubs and fountain grass. This plan shows the
21569
location of the trees along Plymouth Road. There are three
existing Honey Locust trees that will be maintained. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there
anything the petitioner would like to add?
Wail Bamieh, Big Boy Restaurant, 33427 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 42389.
No.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one come forward, I will seek a motion from the
Commissioners.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-103-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of
the landscape plan, submitted by Big Boy Restaurant in
connection with Petition 2003-11-02-22, which previously
received site plan approval by the City Council on January 28,
2004 (CR #40-04) for the full-service restaurant located at
33427 Plymouth Road in the Northeast '/. of Section 33, be
approved subjectlolhe following additional conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked 2004-1 dated May 25,
2004, prepared by Verdure H2O, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #40-04,
which granted waiver use approval to construct an addition
and to increase the seating capacity of the Big Boy
restaurant, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions; and
21570
6. 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.
Mr. Walsh, 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 Miscellaneous Site Plan section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item
section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at
length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
ITEM #6 PETITION 2003 -08 -GB -05 BIG BOY RESTAURANT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
08 -GB -05 submitted by Big Boy Restaurant requesting approval
to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in
Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at
33427 Plymouth Road in the Northeast % of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina: This item was tabled at the September 16, 2003, Regular
Meeting ofthe Planning Commission. Allhallime, the Planning
Commission wanted to give the petitioner an opportunity to
clean up the proposed greenbelt. Just by way of background,
the Ordinance requires where a commercial district abuts a
residential zone that there be a minimum five fool high masonry
wall separating the two uses. At the rear of the Big Boy
restaurant, where the property abuts the R-9 zoned properly,
which is the American House assisted living facility, there is an
area of vegetation that separates the two uses. The Ordinance
does allow the substitution of a greenbelt in lieu oflhe prolective
wall. In this particular case, the greenbelt is about 45 feel in
width. It's located from the edge of the asphalt area where the
parking lot is to the rear property line, which is coterminous with
the lot line at American House. This area is heavily landscaped
with natural vegetation, a combination of both deciduous and
coniferous trees, Ash, Box Elder, and Elm trees, as well as
some evergreen type trees. Several of the Ash trees, as would
be expected, have died as a result of the ash borer problem.
Over the course of the last six months or so, many of those
trees have been removed and the area has been cleaned up.
However, the area still serves as an adequate buffer. There is a
21571
thick understory of shrub layer in this area that serves as an
adequate buffer between the two uses. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for staff? Sir, could you step forward
one more time.
Wail Bamieh,
Big Boy Restaurant, 33427 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 42389.
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
You know where your parking lot ends and there's 12 feel and
then you have a fence there. Is that your fence?
Mr. Bamieh:
Which side?
Mr. LaPine:
At the south end of your parking lot.
Mr. Bamieh:
Thais our fence, yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Why is that fence there because you own the 45 feel behind it.
Do you not?
Mr. Bamieh:
Yes, we do. We bought the properly actually four years ago,
and that fence has always been there. It was a jungle, and we
cleaned it up, but the fence stayed there.
Mr. LaPine:
Did you ever think of the possibility, in front of that fence where
there is some grass there and dirt, planting some grass there
and putting some shrubs along there?
Mr. Bamieh:
Down the road, yes, we will. But we cleaned it up. Everything
is nice and clean.
Mr. LaPine:
A lot of that sluff on the 45 feel behind the fence is still pretty
bad. It's not what I would call landscaping. I wouldn't go back
there because there's poison ivy, and there's still some dead
trees in there.
Mr. Bamieh:
We worked on that backyard for over two weeks. I spent about
$7,000 cleaning up that back area, and at the time we cleaned
it, everything was clean. But you know, having these kids
running back and forth and constantly throwing garbage in that
area, we go there at lead four or five limes a week and we
clean that up. I don't know what else we can do there, but it
21 572
was perfectly clean right after we got that violation. It was done
within two weeks from that.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Mr. Bamieh:
The kids go through there and you don't even see them. They
go there all the time, constantly.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'll acknowledge that the 45 feet does serve as a buffer, but as
Commissioner LaPine pointed out, it's got very thick
undergrowth. It's predominantly buckthorn, wild rose, grape
vine, poison ivy, honeysuckle and small saplings. There are
some dead ash trees in there. I would like the petitioner to
commit to really cleaning up that area.
Mr. Bamieh:
Everything has been cleaned. I don't know the last time
somebody checked it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I was out there just a few days ago, and I find it very, very
unpleasant to look at.
Mr. Bamieh:
Well, I'll go take a second look, but I thought everything was
clean because I hired a company to do that. We paid them
$7,000 to do that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
On the other side of the fence?
Mr. Bamieh:
Yes, sir. We sure did. Between us and American House. You
know you're probably talking about the building next to us. I
saw them. It is a jungle.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm talking about on the other side of fence where the so-called
grass has got a big muddy zone You've got a lot of small
shrubs in there. You've got such a wonderful facility, I can't
understand why you wouldn't want that to be really a highlight.
You could almost put tables back there.
Mr. Bamieh:
Would you allow us to? I'll open up a restaurant there. I'm
sorry. I don't mean to be funny, but ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you saying tonight that you're committing to cleaning upthat
and making that area look like it's landscaped rather than just
wild brush?
Mr. Bamieh:
Yes, we'll go back there and clean it up again. Yes, sir.
21573
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is that what you're committing to tonight?
Mr. Bamieh:
Landscaped? Do you want a sprinkler system there? I don't
understand what you want landscaped.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Not a sprinkler system, but remove all the bad trees.
Mr. Bamieh:
I did already. There are more bad trees back there? I wasn't
aware of it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Get rid of the brush. I don't want to banter about here. But I
looked at it. and I think Bill will back me up because he was with
me, that it does need cleaning up.
Mr. Bamieh:
Okay. We'll go back there and clean it up.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#07-104-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -08 -GB -05
submitted by Big Boy Restaurant requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in
Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at
33427 Plymouth Road in the Northeast I/ of Section 33, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the south
property line, as shown on the plan marked sheet 1 dated
August 1, 2003, prepared by Devlin Land Design, is hereby
accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall
required by Section 18.45 oflhe Zoning Ordinance;
2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission and City Council forlheir review and
approval or immediately construct the prolective wall
pursuant to Section 18.45; and
21574
3. That using a combination of tree species, along with other
landscape materials, will contribute to the sites aesthetic
attractiveness, help reduce visual monotony, and provide
year-round appeal.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to say that you have done a fantaslicjob on the
entire site, and we look forward to making sure that you do very
well there. Thank you.
Mr. Bandied: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2004-05-08-10 PALLAGIA SITE CONDOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
05-08-10 submitted by The Parz Group, on behalf of Pallagia
Site Condominiums, 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 a site
condominium development on property located at 35300 Joy
Road in the Southwest % of Section 33.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, due to a conflict of interest, I will be stepping
down for this item.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Alanskas. If the Secretary would please note
that Mr. Alanskas left the table at 9:35. Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: This dem was last reviewed in early July, 2004. At the July 13
study meeting, the Planning Commission focused mainly on
issues related to the width of the road and whether or not an
exception should be made to the City's typical design standard
of 31 feet in order to protect the trees along the west side of this
properly. After further analysis, Staff is of the opinion that if the
Planning Commission is, in fact, favorable to this petition, that at
least a 28 fool wide cross-section for the road would be
appropriate in this case. The reasons are that this standard is
widely used and accepted. It preserves land without
compromising other important design considerations. We've
21575
provided you with some examples of streets herein the City that
actually have the 28 -foot wide cross-section. It allows for both
on -street parking and maneuvering. If access to future lots on
the west side of this proposed road is ever needed, then we feel
that 28 feet would be adequate. Lastly, gaining a few extra feet
between the road and the trees would increase their chance of
survival. This plan shown on the overhead is one of three plans
that were submitted by the petitioner. One plan showed a 24 -
fool wide road. The second plan showed the 28 -foot wide road,
and finally, a 31 -fool wide road was shown on the last
alternative. It was indicated that it was the plan with the 31 foot
wide road that would most certainly jeopardize those trees along
the west side of the road. We felt that the plan with the 24 -foot
wide road would not be appropriate in this particular situation.
Otherwise, the plan has remained the same since the last time
you saw it. It provides for the same number of lots, a total of
seven home sites, including the existing residential structure,
which has frontage on Joy Road. There would be one
additional lot in the southeast corner of this site with frontage on
Joy Road and then the remaining five lots proposed for
construction would each take their access from the proposed
cul-de-sac road. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ronald Parzuchowski, 31353 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr Parzuchowea_ All the items that were raised by the Engineering Division,
Planning Department, Police and Fire have been answered on
this plan. It is really up to the Planning Department as to what
size of a road they would wish to have there. Do they wish to
have 24 feel, 28 feel or 31 feel? I would argue that 24 feel
would be the road in here. Again, the more room you can
supply to those conifer trees, because of the nature of the
conifer tree, and that is a surface tree, unlike a deciduous, and
the age of those trees, the less disturbance around this
particular root, the better off they are. I will abide to whatever
this body wishes to have in the way of 24, 28 or 31. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: We spent a lot of time trying to preserve those trees along the
road. I think you said that anything with more than the 24 feet,
like the 28 or 31, you'd lose most of the trees. Do you still stand
by that comment?
21576
Mr Parzuchow iu
Yes, I stand on it. I have brought in Cal Hall who has submitted
a letter to this body staling that the further we move the road to
the west, east of the property, the better chance we have.
Construction is going to take place over there. The curb
machine will come in there. Its been my experience in the
5,000 housing units that I've built in my life, both apartments,
condominiums and residential, the further you stay from the
roots of those trees, the better you can protect them. But again,
it is up to this Commission as to what size of a road they wish to
have.
Mr. Piercecchi:
There's more to this package than the width of the road. We
seem to be concentrating on that area. We've had the public
come up and give some opinions on it, and I really don't know of
any real difference, other than the cul-de-sac that you made a
complete circle, initially it came over and slopped, and the width
of the road, since the inception of this idea, and that was in
March, 2003.
Mr Parzuchowea_
I'm sorry. Idont understand yourqueslion, please.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Pardon me.
Mr Parzuchowea_
I don't understand yourquestion.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm saying his plan is more than a road. You seem to think
that's the hang-up on this area. We're going to hear from the
general public tonight. There's more to it than that, and like I
said, we were never really excited about this plan. I'm speaking
for myself and I think others, but it's more than just the location
of the road. This is not really a "save the tree' project. This
issue is, is this in the best interest of the people that live in that
area?
Mr Parzuchowiu Mr. Piercecchi, l muststate thatthe single family development is
the first development that's being built in this area in the last 35
years. There is a definite need for houses under $250,000 in
the City of Livonia. Does the City of Livonia wish to have an
altitude that the City of Livonia wishes to have people as a
family community, but only those people who can afford to write
checks for $400,000 and $500,000? 1 don't believe so. Are
they required to have new? Yes, they can have new, and this
might be the emphasis or the shot in the arm, just like Plymouth
Square was 25 years ago when I first came in and lore down
those old buildings and resurfaced the new project and put in a
new thing that started the re -development of Plymouth Road.
21577
This might be the beginning of redevelopment of the lower part
of the City of Livonia.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm notquestioning housing needs, and $400,000 or$500,000 is
high.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi and Mr. Parz, Tel's focus on the site plan before
us. Mr. Piercecchi, do you have any specific comments?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Like I said, this to me is not any different than your original
presentation on March 11, 2003.
Mr Parzuchowsa_
I think that's not the case, is d? The road was on the northeast
side of the property. I'm talking to Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina:
Is the question whether or not this plan differs from the original
plan?
Mr. Walsh:
Right.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, we've seen various proposals. The plan initially submitted
with the rezoning petition was quite a bit different in terms of the
road configuration. I don't believe the number of homes has
changed. Some other things have changed such as the
provision for storm water management, the shifting of the road,
the configuration, some of the geometrics, but I guess you're
both right. Its changed but certain facets of the plan have
remained the same when you look at the number of homes.
Mr. Walsh:
Maybe we can acknowledge that you're both right, and are there
any other questions for Mr. Parz?
Mr. LaPine:
I want to ask Mark one question. Has the Council approved the
rezoning? We recommend denial. Is the Council just holding
this until the site plan comes through? Is that what the plan is?
Mr. Taormina:
The Council held First Reading on this item on April 5 of this
year. They are holding the Second Reading and the Roll Call
Vole in abeyance until such time that the site plan is presented
to them for action. So they will not ad on the final step of the
rezoning until they have the site plan presented to them in a
study meeting following this body's recommendation.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me just follow-up on one other thing, Mark. Originally, back
in March, the Engineering Division submitted a letter to us
saying that they think the road should be a standard 60 foot
21578
wide road. They see no hardship not to have a 60 foot wide
road. Has the Engineering Division backed off on that?
Mr. Taormina: I think their letter back then was actually a review letter for an
earlier plan. This does, in fact, provide for a 60 foot right-of-
way. More critical to the issue of the road design was the
diameter of the cul-de-sac where the Fire Department and
Engineering were indicating that the new fire apparatus requires
a minimum radius of at least 50 feel. The latest plan, the one
that's presented this evening, does in fact comply with that
recommendation.
Mr. LaPine: Because I asked Mr. Parz at that time about that 60 fool width.
Assuming the rezoning to R-2, the Engineering Division staled
there was no apparent hardship not to put in the standard 60
foot wide road. Would you be willing to put in a 60 fool wide
road? You, Mr. Parz, said, I'd be willing to be in either a 60 fool
wide road or a private road, whatever the case may
accommodate. Now the only thing I can figure, at that time you
didn't care about putting the 60 -fool wide road in. Now we're
talking aboul24, 28, 31, and I'm just confused why you changed
your position.
Erich D'Andrea,
Brashear, Tangos & Spence, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48154. Good evening. I represent Mr. Parz. I think
there may be some confusion in terminology in terms of whether
we're talking about a 60 fool right-of-way or the width of the
road. I believe its been stated that the standard in the City of
Livonia, Mr. Taormina please correct me if I'm wrong, is 31 foot,
but 28 fool is acceptable. Twenty-four fool is unusual and
would require the approval of City Council. I believe there's an
Engineering letter from sometime fairly recently that indicated
that 28 fool was fine, and the bigger issue, as Mr. Taormina
staled, related to the diameter of the cul-de-sac. I believe the
60 fool is a right-of-way issue which is, like Mr. Taormina has
said, is probably taken care of in that plan in terms of the right-
of-way being at 60 fool. So I think we might be caught up in the
terminology that is not exactly correct.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, you were referring to minutes, though, from the
meeting.
Mr. LaPine:
These are the minutes of when we made a motion to the
Council. We made the motion to deny it. I could go through
and read this Engineering letter here. They talk about a 50 -fool
wide road. They talk about a 28 -fool wide road and five fool
21679
sidewalks. I'm just curious how we've gotten from 60 down to
24 down to 28 down to 31. It seems to me we're jumping all
over the place. Al one time, Mr. Parz said he had no problem
putting in a 60 -fool road.
Mr. D'Andrea:
Again, Mr. Chairman, I think that's a matter of terminology.
Mr. Walsh:
I have to disagree. I think the minutes are very specific. This is
some time ago, but he just quoted from the minutes.
Mr. D'Andrea:
How many 60 -fool roads are there that we're talking about?.
We're talking a 60 -fool right -0f --way. Mr. Chairman, I
understand what the minute say.
Mr. Walsh:
We don't need to argue this point. All Mr. LaPine is asking is
what look you to a 28 fool road. I think the answer is in the
material from earlier meetings, but if you would explain it to us
again, that may be sufficient. I don't want to debate what was
said how long ago, but it is in the minutes. He has read it quite
specifically.
Mr. D'Andrea:
I think if we go through the Iasi minutes loo, we addressed the
issue of the road as it related to 24 fool and the trees. During
the study meeting, we discussed the reason for the 24 foot. As
was mentioned previously by Mr. Parz, the road was moved
from one side of the project to the other side of the project
and
the issue as it related to whether it's 24, 28 or 31 really
dealt
with the attempt to preserve what we fell was a nice amenity to
the project, which was the trees.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine, any other questions?
Mr. LaPine: No, I don't have any more right now
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Morrow: If you would allow me to gel up to speed. I was not on this body
when the zoning went through. One of the problems I have
from the gel go on this particular plan is where the detention
pond is placed on the site. We've been back to that site three
times, and I'm not so sure if I was neighbor I would want that
detention pond in my back yard. I think it said in the notes that
in a 10 -year rain, it would hold up to three feet of water. In other
words, it would run off in a matter of 10 hours. You have to
have a larvicide program. So my question was, was there ever
any thought given to reversing that and putting the detention
21580
pond away from the residential, that would be the northwest
quadrant of the site behind the road?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do you recall?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm sorry - relative to the storm water?
Mr. Morrow:
Just some way to gel that away from the neighbors.
Mr. Taormina:
The land area requirements for that really force it to be
positioned on the site in a way that can conned to the existing
storm lines. Provisions elsewhere on the site would necessitate
either the removal of a lot or a complete reconfiguration of the
site or the removal of the trees along the west side of the
properly. From an engineering standpoint, I don't know what
the implications would be in terms of moving the basin away
from the point of discharge, whether or not all the grades and
everything else would be suitable, but he's designed this based
in the manner that he can still maximize utilization of the site for
the number of homes that he is currently proposing.
Mr. Morrow:
So what we're saying here is it wasn't explored before and it
would be opening up a can of worms?
Mr. Taormina:
There was one other plan provided and that showed a much
smaller detention basin in the rear yard of some of the homes.
One possible alternative, and again it's a question of
engineering, ultimately, would be underground storage with an
easement along the rear of those homes. That's a significant
cost increase, but it is done in some applications, most recently
with the Soave subdivision on Gill Road.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, those are my comments relative to fitting into the
surrounding areas. I think there's three or four neighbors
affected bylhe pond. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions for the petitioner? On pending
items, we do not go to the audience. However, we do have a
number of people who have been here for the entire evening. If
there is no objection from any members, I'd like to invite the
audience to speak. although we will limit the commentary to two
minutes per person. Are there any objections to opening the
floor to the public?
Mr. Morrow :
None here.
21581
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Don Devore, 8853 Russell. I back up to this property here. One question I have
right off the bat, this bottom part right here is the western
border. Does there need to be an easement between that piece
of property and the street, right where that cul-de-sac is?
Shouldn't there be at least a six foot easement right there
between that street and the next door piece of property? There
doesn't appear to be anything at all there to me. Isn't that pretty
much the way it is? There's got to be some kind of easement
right there, and I don't see that.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, in the absence of the Engineering Department,
are you able to answer that question?
Mr. Taormina:
An easement for utility purposes would only be needed if, in
fact, there was a need to service that area with utilities. I don't
believe that is necessarily the case. If what this gentleman is
referring to instead is a setback, there is no requirement for a
setback between a road and an adjacent property line. In fad,
there are cases in the City where we require the roads to abut
up to other property lines in order to facilitate future extensions.
So if it's a setback you're referring to, no, there is no mandatory
setback required here. In this case, I don't believe there would
be any special need for an easement. Keep in mind that the
whole area is part of what would become the public right-of-way
for that road, and that would include all of that area between the
road west to your property line and any other space that might
exist between the curb up there by the cul-de-sac. So that
would all be part of the public domain and public right-of-way
under this plan.
Mr. Devore:
Okay. Another question is, R-1 is a 60 by 120 lot. Cored?
The one house there, I don't see any dimensions on here at all.
Maybe I just can't read them. That lot, right there, is that
actually 60 by 120?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
The dimensions shown on this plan show a 60 foot width, and
that would be defined as the least straight distance between the
side property lines measured at but not encroaching into the
setback. So this dash line that you see on the plan is the actual
setback line and the dimension across is 60 feel, so it complies
with the width requirement. There are many subdivisions with
21582
pie -shaped lots where the 120 feet is measured as an average
distance. Now he's showing 120 feet along this transect here.
That's measured maybe as a midpoint between this point on the
property and this point on the property. Technically, 120 feet
from here to here, it would be less than that along this south
side of the property. That can be waived by the Planning
Commission and the Council.
Mr. Devore:
That's not conforming though.
Mr. Taormina:
Its conforming if we consider this to be the average between
the two, which is something that the Planning Commission has
considered in the past. He is showing the building envelope
here on Lot 5 that appears to be slightly smaller than the other
envelopes as a result of the reduced depth because of that cut -
de -sac.
Mr. Devore:
Okay. What is the actual distance between the western edge lot
line and the road itself, not the cul-de-sac, but the straight part
of the road?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, can he repeat the question?
Mr. Walsh:
Could you repeat the question please?
Mr. Devore:
The western property line, which is the bottom part here, and
the straight part of the road, what is that distance right there?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe 35.8 feet is the dimension that is shown on the
drawing.
Mr. Devore:
Once you put that road in there, like Mr. Parz mentioned, these
are all giant evergreen trees. The roots are pretty much surface
roots. Once you put that road in there like that, all those trees
are going to die. That's what's going to happen to them. They'll
die out. That's pretty much all the comments I have right now
with this plan.
Darwin Glass, 35380 Joy Road. My property abuts up to the west side of that. I
was curious about what kind of greenbelt or fence is going to be
along there, especially if that concrete is going to be right on my
property line.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, can you describe again where your property is?
Mr. Glass:
I'm on the west side. That's my property line, the full length.
21583
Mr. Walsh:
The road is going to run right up to the property line. Is that
correct, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
This part of the road would come right up to the edge of Mr.
Glass' properly. This part of the road would be, as I indicated
previously, about 36 feel away from the property line. I think his
question is with respect to how will this area be maintained.
Mr. Glass:
Yes, is there going to be a fence? If that concrete is going to be
right there, its going to be open to my properly for a playground
and a dog run.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Parz, would you be able to answer his question? Is there
going to be any fencing or any kind of screening?
Mr Parzuchowsa_
Where is it at?
Mr. Walsh:
The western portion of the cul-de-sac where it touches the
adjacent property.
Mr Parzuchowsa_
There's no fencing needed.
Mr. Walsh:
So you will have the cement go right to the properly line?
Mr Parzuchowsa:
Yes. That's what I was directed to do for future development.
Mr. Walsh:
His question was just simply, is there going to be any
screening? The answer is no.
Mr Parzuchowsa_
What's going to happen? I intend to leave all the natural
vegetation on the property line as it is. There is no intent to put
any storm sewer, any type of utilities, etc., on the west property
line, with the exception of where the cul-de-sac is. Everything
remains the same.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Parz. Mr. Glass, any other questions?
Mr. Glass:
Yes. We have no sanitary sewer four houses west of that
property. I was curious. If that moves 200 feel closer towards
my property line, I believe the ordinance is that you have to
hook into it if its 200 feet from your properly. That may bring it
closer to my property line. Is there going to be an extension
brought over for that?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, can you answer that?
21584
Mr. Taormina: I had this conversation with Mr. Glass earlier in the week, and I
had an opportunity also to talk to the Assistant City Engineer.
John Hill. Mr. Hill indicated that what might be a requirement
ultimately with the approval of the engineering on this site, if in
fad it is approved, would be a provision allowing for the
extension of that sewer line to the west properly line. The way
its shown now, I think that extension would be about 40 feel in
order to stub to the west properly line and that would allow for
future extension to service the properly to the west, which
apparently is not currently connected to the City sewer. If I
could, Mr. Chairman, go back to an earlier question relative to
an easement? In looking at this plan, there may be some need
to pull this road either back a couple feet or some type of
easement. One of the things that this would indicate would be
construction right up to the edge of the property, which would be
okay as along as they could keep it at that property line. But if
for some reason this road is raised above a certain grade and
there's a need to do excess fill in this area, that certainly would
require some considerations for drainage and grading in this
area that would have to be accounted for as part of the final
engineering. One thing this plan does indicate is construction
right up to that property line. Oftentimes that construction has
impact a few feet beyond depending on what the grades are
and so there would have to be some kind of provision or
allowance for that.
Mr. Walsh: We'll certainly note that in our materials. Engineering is
considered at the Council level. We're certainly glad to help you
if we can with an answer.
Mr. Glass: But I'm still concerned about the fence so my yard does not
become a playground or a dog run.
diivrlR1�4'=00fIimimi
Michael Thompson, 8889 Russell. I'm directly behind the retention pond. First of
all, I'm very concerned about my property value going down for
when it's time for me to sell and I have prospective buyers. I
can't believe anybody is going to want to purchase my house
with a mosquito pond behind it. But second of all, what they're
doing down Joy Road by John Hix is, they'll have a similar piece
of property, roughly two acres, and they'll have house and they'll
build another house right behind it. That road will be like a
driveway. What I see is, Mr. Parz needs to acquire more
property to put in a normal type neighborhood with sidewalks
21585
and larger lots. It just seems tome that you're trying to squish
loo many houses onto this little area. I wouldn't object to maybe
pulling one house in the back and leave the house that's
already existing, but you're trying to cram too much into loo little
of an area. It doesn't appear to be neighborhood conforming
with the rest of the area. Those are my comments.
Douglas Copi, 8871 Russell. I'm also one of the homes that back up to the
retention pond. My concern is that the retention pond is
dependent on a sewer that is actually located partially bordering
my lawn as well as the gentleman that just spoke. One of the
concerns, of course, is that I don't want the retention pond
behind the house; and the other is, if I ever wanted to have the
option of putting up a privacy fence, for example, I wouldn't be
able to because I would be restricting the flow of the water to
that sewer. Just to reiterate what the gentleman just said, I feel
like there's just loo much stuff trying to be crammed into this
area. Everything I'm seeing on there with just the sidewalk
being almost part of the road, its all just being crammed in
there. The frontage of the houses, as well as the backyards,
aren't consistent with the neighborhoods around there. In our
neighborhood, for example, we have approximately 60 feel for
our backyards, from the back of the house to the back fence.
Some of these lots only show 30 feelfrom the back of the house
to the back of the fence. I just feel like its loo much trying to go
into this little area.
Don Allen, 35216 Joy Road. I live on Joy Road. I do not live adjacent to the
properly in question. I was at the meeting last Tuesday night
and I enjoyed it. I heard how wide the road should be or what I
call a driveway. I'm totally against any kind of construction over
there. There's one empty lot adjacent to the old house that
used to be there and two doors away from me. I could
understand somebody building a house there, but I cant think of
any reason for anybody making a driveway like that to go out to
Joy Road. The anticipated traffic problem - those of us that live
on Joy Road know what's going to happen. We're not loo far
away from making that, especially the tum lanes going up to
Wayne Road. If you look at between Ann Arbor Road and Joy
Road, there's a block of traffic. When those lights change,
there's what you might call a storage area for cars in the traffic
hours. The light on Wayne Road goes past Ann Arbor Trail,
they can't go nowhere because the light on Joy Road is red.
There's a capacity for about 20 double lane cars that slop there.
Then if you do gel past Joy Road and you want to go to
Hudson's down the road to Warren Road, there's a housing
21586
project there. I forget what it is on the other side of Joy Road.
My children lived there for a while. If you go there on a Friday
or Saturday night, you're just not going to get down there.
When we moved there, my wife and 1, there were a lot of empty
lots. The lot next door to me was vacant so I bought that lot. I
paid $4,000 for that lot.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Allen, we're trying to keep people to two minutes tonight on
a pending item.
Mr. Allen :
Do I gel three minutes?
Mr. Walsh:
I've already given you three, actually. If you could please try to
wrap it up.
Mr. Allen :
I'm just basically saying I don't see why anybody, that builder or
any other one, why would he want to build homes there? I think
there are empty homes in Livonia today because there's one
three houses from me for $250,000 if that's his price for those
homes. If you get down a one-way street like that, who brought
up the parking at the meeting the other night? One of you
fellows did. If you have a party, there's no place to park cars.
Mr. Walsh:
It was probably a study session for the City Council. Mr. Allen
I'm going to move on to the next person.
Mr. Allen :
Okay. I'm out of here. Thanks very much for listening to me
because we've been listening to you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak?
Seeing no one, are there any additional comments or questions
from the Commissioners? A motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine:
I might be unpopular, but I'll make a motion and then I'll tell you
the reason why.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Plercecchi, and adopted, it was
#07-105-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-05-08-10
submitted by The Parz Group, on behalf of Pallagia Site
Condominiums, 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 a site condominium
development on property located at 35300 Joy Road in the
Southwest %of Section 33, be denied for the following reasons:
21587
1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general
standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the site layout and number of condominium units
proposed for the development would have a detrimental
effect upon the adjacent properties;
3. That the proposed use would unduly lax and conflict with
the established and normal treffcflow of the area;
4. That the proposal creates significant adverse impacts on
adjoining parcels, publicservices, and community planning
efforts;
5. Allowing this type of development would be detrimental to
the aesthetic quality and appeal of the of the area, and
thereby, inappropriately altering the character of the
neighborhood; and
6. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the
concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of
the City and its residents.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine, you wish to address your motion?
Mr. LaPine: Yes. I voted against the rezoning of this properly. As far as I'm
concerned, nothing has changed to make me change my vole
and allow this development to go in. Its going to go onto the
Council. If the Council, in their judgment, thinks this is a good
zoning and they want to go ahead with this development, that's
their prerogative. I think I was right in voting against the
rezoning, and therefore I think the denying motion is the right
motion.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I have written down a few remarks here. I was
glad to support the denying resolution. Like each of you on the
Planning Commission, I've given a lot of thought regarding this
properly. In fact, within the last month, I've been there with Mr.
Morrow, Mr. LaPine and a couple days ago with my wife. In
March, 2003, we were confronted with the task of determining
whether this parcel of land should be rezoned from RIF, which
is half acre lots, to R-1, 60' by 120' fool sized lots. At that
meeting, we recommended to Council via a motion offered by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, to deny the rezoning.
21500
Following our denial, consideration for rezoning was made via a
first reading by Council, with finalization to be based on the site
plan, etc., by the City Council. Tonight we're at another phase
acting on the bylaws, master deed and the very important site
plan. My question and problem is, are the minor changes since
preliminary plans were submitted sufficient for us to change our
pasldenial position? Let's examine our previous concerns. Will
the proposed rezoning, coupled with R-1 development,
adversely alter the character of the subject area? Will it add
traffic? Does the current status provide for the utilization of the
subject property? Is the current rezoning classification
consislenlwilh similar situated properties in the vicinity? Is this
proposed development incompatible with its surroundings?
Since all of the above are still very open questions, I, for one,
cannot vote to approve a site plan that contains so many highly
problematic, adverse characteristics. It's been suggested that
perhaps if this site plan was extended, that perhaps they could
put together something that would be a little more compatible,
but I'm pleased to support the motion by Commissioner LaPine.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any more questions or comments? I'd like to indicate
I'm going to support this motion. Coming in tonight, I was
inclined to move forward with this. We did deny the rezoning,
and I'm standing by that decision. I think the site plan, Mr. Parz,
in all respects, is perhaps the best you can do there. But Mr.
Glass has convinced me there's a very serious problem. There
are other problems. I'm not dismissing what other people have
said. But you're answering our request to do the full turnaround,
I think is creating a problem for Mr. Glass. So as you move
forward, perhaps you can lake some of those comments into
account. For tonight's purposes, I do intend to support the
denying resolution. I think you have some opportunity to work
on it before you gel to Council. Are there any other comments?
Hearing none, would the Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Pieroecchi, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES: Shane
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to
the City Council in writing. Please show that Mr. Alanskas
returned at 10:15 p.m.
21589
ITEM #8 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING MASSAGE
THERAPISTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to
hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #301-04,
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 Sections 2.08, 9.03, 10.03 and 11.03
of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to allow
myomassologisls (massage therapists) to either open their own
office, or to work in health clubs, hair salons, day spas, for
corporate chair massages, or in a YMCA within the City limits.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it
was
#07-106-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #301-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Sections
2.08, 9.03, 10.03 and 11.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to allow myomassologisls (massage therapists) to
either open their own office, or to work in health clubs, hair
salons, day spas, for corporate chair massages, or in a YMCA
within the City limits.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
21590
ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 887TH Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 887" Regular Meeting held on June 15, 2004.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-107-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 887"' Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on June 15, 2004, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Smiley, Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi,
Morrow, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a moton duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 889" Regular
Meeting held on July 20, 2004, was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman