HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-11-3021883
MINUTES OF THE 896" REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 896" 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 Pieroecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
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 tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the dale of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
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 2004-10-08-19 APPLE CREST DENTAL
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-10-
08-19, submitted by Apple Crest Dental requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a dental office on
property located at 37500 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast %
of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a dental office
on property that is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
21884
between Newburgh Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway. This
properly is in the process of being rezoned (Petition 2003-07-
01-13) from RUF, Rural Urban Farm to OS, Office Services.
The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing on
September 30, 2003, recommended approving the requested
rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City Council gave First
Reading on the requested rezoning at its December 3, 2003
Regular Meeting. Second Reading and a Roll Call Vole will be
scheduled at the time the site plan is presented to the Council
for action. Review of this petition is based on the assumption
that the property is rezoned to OS. The proposed structure
would be positioned in approximately the middle of the site. The
parking lot for the development would be laid out in a somewhat
reverse "L" shape, with parking situated along the Seven Mile
Road frontage and between the building and Bethany Street.
The proposed building would be one-story in height and 6,300
square feet in area. Because of the site's drop in grade, the
building would have a walkout basement. The basement area is
not included in the given square footage of the building as it
would only be utilized for storage. The following parking
calculations are based only on the square footage of the first
floor. They are required to have 25 parking spaces and 36
spaces are shown on the site plan. Access to the site would be
achieved by a single drive off Seven Mile Road. Another drive
labeled "Optional Entry Location" is illustrated off Bethany
Street. If this drive were created, three parking spaces would
have to be eliminated. An existing garage would remain and be
refaced with building materials that would match the new dentist
office. The plan shows that the site's enclosed dumpsler area
would be located next to the existing garage. An existing pond
and ditch, laking up most of the southwest comer of the site,
would be reworked for storm water detention. Proposed
landscaping equals 50% of the site, which exceeds the required
15%. The high percentage of landscaping is due to the fact that
most of the western half of the site is unbuildable because of the
existing pond and ditch. A note on the plan indicates that the
natural vegetation of these areas would remain. The rest of the
site's landscape would consist of some pear trees out along the
right -0f --ways of both Seven Mile Road and Bethany Street, and
a couple of trees within the parking lot areas. Annual flowers
would be planted next to the front foundation of the building.
Twelve spruce trees would be positioned in a straight line next
to the north property line in an effort to provide screening of this
site from the abutting residential homes. The architecture of the
proposed building would be residential in nature. All four sides
of the main body of the structure would be brick. A limestone
sill would bisect the walls just below the windows and continue
around the entire building. A stone veneer would highlight the
21885
front entranceway and the comer turret that faces the retention
pond. The roof would be covered with asphalt shingles. The
Elevation Plan does show that the proposed building would be
34 feet 10 inches in height, which is 2 inches short of the
maximum building height of 35 feel designated in an OS district.
The site plan does not indicate the prolective walls that are
required between this property and the abutting residential
properties to the north and west. It is not known at this time if
this is an oversight or the petitioner is seeking approval to
substitute greenbelts in lieu of the prolective walls. The
greenbelts that extend along both property lines would qualify
and could be granted permanent approval status.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan L. Amann, Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton, and Amann, 355 N.
Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan 48187. Thank you for
the opportunity to be here to address any questions you might
have. I am here on behalf of the Zylinski's, who are essentially
Apple Crest Dental. You have before you the proposed site
plan, and you can tell from the elevation, the drawing that was
shown, and then the color elevation you're viewing, that it was
really designed in an attempt to respect and lake into
consideration the concerns that we heard. We heard some
concerns during the rezoning hearing process. Some people
were concerned that it would be more appropriate to have this
property remain residential even though, I think in the end,
everybody came to the conclusion that it couldn't be
residential. Nonetheless, we wanted to make sure this
building had very much a residential character to it so that
although it would have this office use, it would not look out of
character or out of place to the adjoining residences to the
north. As it relates to the garage structure, there were really
two reasons for the garage and we're certainly prepared to
talk. We've read the staff recommendations and obviously had
the discussion at the study session. But the purpose of the
garage was, number one, again helping to keep and add some
of that residential flavor but, number two, to store only
equipment for purposes of like clearing the parking structure
and things like that. It was not to be stoning anything else from
off-site. It's something we're certainly prepared to talk to you
about. If there's a strong feeling about the garage, we're
prepared to deal with that accordingly. Other than that, we've
read the concerns and recommendations and are prepared to
act accordingly and meet those concerns. So, with that, we'd
be glad to answer any questions or deal with any issues that
might come up.
PAL18d
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions?
Mr. Shane:
I want to be clear about the walk -out basement. I understand
that is to be used for storage only?
Mr. Amann:
Right. Pursuant to the plans which are submitted to the City
and which would obviously be submitted for part of the detailed
construction documents, that floor plan shows that for storage
only. That's it. So the intention is to use that for storage and it
will be functional space, but again, having that walkout
appearance on the back and that look is another element to
make it look more residential instead of just having a solid
basement type wall there and filling in. This would give a
much better appearance out to the back. Nonetheless though,
it's the understanding and the intention to have that operate as
storage space, nonetheless attractive from the rear, but still
storage space.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I have here some correspondence on the matter. Was that
read into the record as far as the Inspection Department?
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, did we have anything to read in?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we do have some items of correspondence. Should I do
that now?
Mr. Walsh:
Why don't we go ahead and do that. I apologize. We're a little
bit out of order.
Mr. Morrow:
As we progress here, let's get that as part of the record.
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, go ahead if you will.
Mr. Taormina:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 6, 2004, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal and no additional right-of-way is
required at this time except as discussed below. The new
drive approach will require a permit from Wayne County, and
the storm water facilities will require a permit under Wayne
County's storm water management ordinance. The east half
of Bethany street adjacent to the development is a private
road. Additional right-of-way should be dedicated or an
agreement established between the petitioner and the
adjacent landowner concerning the use of the private road
21887
area. Lacking this, the two drives to Bethany Street will have
to be deleted. The proposed drive to Seven Mille Road is
large enough to act as a two-way drive." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 3,
2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a
dental office on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal and have no
concerns with respect to traffic, points of ingress and egress,
site capacity to accommodate the proposed use as related to
off-street parking or any other safety matters." The letter is
signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter
is from the Division of Police, dated October 15, 2004, which
reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to
the proposal to construct a dental office on property located at
37500 Seven Mile Road. We submit the following
recommendations for your consideration: (1) We recommend
a deceleration lane for westbound traffic turning into the
property. (2) Installation of sidewalks. (3) Installation of STOP
signs for exiting vehicles at each driveway. Handicap parking
spaces to be property posted. We have no objections to the
plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated November 12, 2004, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 21,
2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This review is conducted as though this
is OS Zoning. (2) This site will need variances from the Zoning
Board of Appeals to keep the accessory building. This use
had a zoning variance in RUF Zoning, which will not carry over
to OS Zoning. The accessory use is not permitted in OS
Zoning and the side yard setback must be 15 feet (to the
north) and the front yard setback must be 40 feet (to the east).
(3) The parking calculations do not take into consideration the
basement, which is readily useable space with the elevator
and window/door configurations. The use of the basement
needs to be determined to ascertain if this site will have the
required parking. There could be 51 parking spaces required.
(4) It is unclear if this petitioner is applying for a greenbelt in
lieu of the required protective screening wall along the north
and west property lines abutting residential zoning. 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: Thank you. Mr. Morrow, would you like the floor back? Do
you have any questions?
YSf:I:il
Mr. Morrow:
No, I just wanted to get that read into the record.
Mr. Walsh:
I appreciate that.
Mr. LaPine:
I have two questions. Number one, the garage. Has your
client agreed to take down the garage?
Mr. Amann:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
He has.
Mr. Amann:
We'll make it easy. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
In the discussion we had at our study session, you had an
alternate entrance off of Bethany in case Wayne County does
not allow you a curb cul.
Mr. Amann:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
Now what happens if we make our motion tonight, because we
have made a commitment to the people along Bethany and
behind Northland and those other streets, that we weren't
going to allow any exits and entrances off of Bethany. If you
don't gel that curb cul, then what happens to this site? I don't
think its going to happen, but I'm just curious.
Mr. Amann:
Yes, and I've had some preliminary conversations with Wayne
County, but I think any approval you make is a
recommendation to the Council and the Council then acts on it.
It is always subject to the jurisdiction of the county as it relates
to curb cul access, and so they make the determination as it
relates to access on Seven Mile Road. If the county denied
that access and said we do not want you to have it; we want
you to have access on Bethany Road, I believe we'd probably
have to come back to the City, whether it be the Council or
Planning Commission or whatever, to discuss what that
alternate would be or how to solve that issue. Clearly under
the law, under the Land Division Act, every properly owner has
a legal right to have access to their site. So the question is
then, how do you make that right comply if, in fact, they're
denied that right on Seven Mile Road?
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. The third question I have is, it is our understanding that
Bethany is a private road. Do you know who owns that road?
Mr. Amann:
It is my understanding that a portion, and I'm going to try and
gel this right, an eastern portion of Bethany, and I haven't yet
YSf:I: 1
seen a survey, but I intend to certainly delve into this, if, in fad,
we have to gel into that part of the conversation. If Wayne
County says okay with Seven Mile, then this is an non -issue.
If it becomes an issue, then I'm clearly going to gel into clearly
delineating what that ownership is as it relates to the nature of
the interests, to the extent of the interests, and then, in fad,
what it covers, how much of the road. My preliminary
understanding is that it essentially covers an eastern portion of
the roadway running along the rear of the center owned by Mr.
Soave. Having said that, it certainly will bear some clarification
because you have a roadway which is being used for all
intents and purposes as a public roadway being maintained by
the City in the usual manner of public roadways. So there are
all kinds of questions that need to be resolved as it relates to
the nature, use, extent and any legal or equitable interest of
ownership of that street, and we will get into that if necessary.
I understand the questions that have to be raised, and I clearly
intent to go into it if necessary.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I understand that this particular site is under
protest.
Mr. Walsh:
Cored.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Has any date been presented which will resolve it?
Mr. Amann:
For the City Council? The City Council has awaited the action
by the Planning Commission on the site plan before they lake
up the actual zoning, so once we're resolved with the process
here at the Planning Commission, then they're going to give
us, my understanding is, a dale for the actual determination on
that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay, so once we clearing this matter off our agenda, then the
Council will respond.
Mr. Amann:
It lees it up for the Council. It obviously doesn't determine
anything, but that's right.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have a couple questions for the proprietors.
Mr. Walsh:
Sure.
Mr. Amann:
For my clients?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
21890
Mr. Amann: I normally make them assert their Fifth Amendment Rights, but
I'll let them come up and talk to you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just a couple questions. What would your hours be if you
went in there?
Eric D. Zylinski,
DDS, Apple Crest Dental, 13992 Merriman, Livonia, Michigan.
Our hours right now, essentially, we work on Monday from 8 to
5, Tuesday from 10 to 7. Wednesday we're off. Thursday we
work from 7:45 to 5, Friday from 8 to 3:15.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know its difficult to answer this question because you do
different services, but on a maximum number, how many
people could you see a day? I know, like teeth cleaning takes
45 minutes.
Mr. Amann:
What's the highest number of people you have seen in your
practice in a day?
Dr. Zylinski:
On a practical matter, we'll see probably between 20, possibly
30.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you're referring to now a much smaller building. This is
going to be a much larger building.
Dr. Zylinski:
Yes, its a larger building.
Mr. Amann:
Its still two dentists.
Dr. Zylinski:
Its still the same staff.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you'll still have a maximum of about 20 people a day?
Dr. Zylinski:
I gave you a range, from 20 to 30 patients.
Mr. Amann:
Spread out over that eight hour period. Obviously, from an
operational perspective, almost all dental appointments, other
than emergencies, are prescheduled way in advance, so
they're spread out through the day. And that's one
characteristic that I think is really a great advantage for this
use on this site and this site plan in that it really spreads out
any potential traffic impact very evenly throughout the day.
They usually go on a half-hour appointment basis, so you're
never going to end up with 20 cars in the parking lot at any
given time. So it will all work out just fine.
21891
Mr.
Alanskas:
Thats why I asked that question because of the fad that even
at 30 people a day, or even 40, traffic patterns will be very
minor.
Mr.
Amann:
Right.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Question number two so we can clarify it, you said that sliver
owned by Soave. That's Dominic, not Leo Soave. Is that
correct?
Mr.
Amann:
I am not sure.
Mr.
Alanskas:
I'm pretty sure it's Dominic. But I don't want someone to think
its owned by Leo Soave. Okay. Thank you.
Mr.
LaPine:
Before the doctor leaves, that number of people you say, that
also includes the hygienist?
Dr.
Zylinski:
Yes, it does.
Mr.
LaPine:
How many hygienists do you have? Two?
Dr.
Zylinski:
I have one hygienist.
Mr.
LaPine:
Just one?
Dr.
Zylinski:
Just one.
Mr.
LaPine:
That kind of surprises me with the number of rooms you have
in there. I thought maybe you had more than one hygienist.
Mr.
Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Cathy Klockner, 37680 Northland Drive. I'm one of the neighbors who will be
directly affected by this. Needless to say, most of the neighbors
are against this. The traffic is a real problem in that area as you
well know. I have young children who wail for the bus at 8:30 at
the corner of Bethany and Northland, and I may say that quite a
few people cul through there from Newburgh to gel around
traffic and go down Bethany. So I know there is a problem
there. So adding any more additional traffic on that corner is
very upsetting to me and some of the other people who have
young children. I walk past this properly everysingle day on my
daily walk, and I'm very familiar with it. It's a beautiful old home
and to see this huge dental office going in here, we were under
the impression that it was going to be kind of small low key kind
of dental office, so seeing this drawing, I'm just really blown
21692
away about the size of it. Fifty one cars? We're going to have
parking for 51 cars?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Miller, can you tell us?
Mr. Miller:
It says 36 parking spaces.
Ms. Klockner:
Now is this an open lot or is this going to be a covered parking
structure?
Mr. Walsh:
Its an open lot.
Ms. Klockner:
Its an open lot. Okay, so it looks very nice in the drawing, but
when reality hits, as we all know, backs of buildings are not
attractive. No matter what you do, we see the step mall. I walk
past that strip mall every day, and it is horrendous to look at.
Mr. Soave is not doing very good upkeep on the landscaping or
anything else back there. So I really hate to see this corner
turned into another strip mall look. There's already two dental
offices right around the corner on Newburgh. Perhaps this
gentleman could add on and we could have another drycleaners
there, because we only have two on that corner also. I really
feel that this area should be continued to be residential, and I'm
really sorry to see where my neighborhood is headed. Thank
you.
Mr. LaPine:
Madam, could I ask you a quesfion? I'm just confused on one
thing. There's going to be no ingress or egress off of Bethany
into this location. How does that change the traffic flow through
Bethany now? No matter if this development goes in or not,
you're still going to have the problem with people culling up
Northland through Bethany.
Ms. Klockner:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
So this is not going to affect that one iota.
Ms. Klockner:
I disagree. I think it will. I think people will cut through from
Newburgh to avoid that light.
Mr. LaPine:
Bulthose aren't people going to the dentist office. The onlyway
they can get into the dentist office is off of Seven Mile Road.
Ms. Klockner:
Right, well they can cut through Northland, down Bethany, and
turn into the dental office so they don't have to sit al the light.
Mr. LaPine:
Its hard for me to believe that people are going to be that
worried about getting to the denfist
21893
Ms. Klockner:
I don't know. If people run late ...
Mr. LaPine:
You've got a point. The point I'm making, if nothing goes into
that location, you're still going to have the same problem you
have today.
Ms. Klockner:
Well, I disagree. I think there will be more. Maybe not that
much more, but in that area, I'll tell you, you try and get out of
my street at 5:00 or 8:00.
Mr. LaPine:
Try to gel out of my street.
Ms. Klockner:
Well, you're the ...
Mr. LaPine:
We all have the same problem in Livonia. Al 5:00 or 9:00 in the
morning, getting onto Seven Mile Road, and I live off Seven Mile
Road. It's a lough thing to do.
Ms. Klockner:
Well, then I think it's your job to stop, to do what you can to
prevent adding to the problem.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Seeing no one, does the petitioner wish
to have another opportunity before we proceed with the vole?
Mr. Amann:
We just appreciate the time, and I think that any traffic impact
would
be absolutely miniscule, and we think the rear of this
building as constructed will look much better than what's
currently on site. We think it's going to be a net improvement in
many ways. So thank you very much, and I'd like to express
our appreciation to the Engineering and Planning Departments
that worked so hard on this thing.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-153-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-10-08-19,
submitted by Apple Crest Dental requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a dental office on
property located at 37500 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast''/.
of Section 6, be approved subject to the property being rezoned
to OS, and to the following additional conditions:
21894
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 2 dated March 24, 2004,
prepared by Mickalich and Associates, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except for the following:
- That there shall be no vehicular ingress/egress
provided from Bethany Street;
- That the existing garage shall be removed, including
the drive approach onto Bethany;
- That the lower level of the building (basement) shall be
utilized for storage purposes only;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated July 19,
2004, as revised, prepared by AM Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets
A-2.1 and A-2.2 both dated July 19, 2004, as revised,
prepared by AM Associates, are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete system is
used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. 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
21895
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated October 15, 2004:
That STOP signs shall be installed for vehicles exiting
the site;
13. 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;
14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
15. That the greenbelts along the north and west property
lines, as shown on the approved site and landscape plans,
are hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the
protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
16. That any change of circumstances in these area containing
the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the
properly shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45; and
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.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
21896
Mr. Piercecchi: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I can't think of any
business than would be more ideal for this particular site. As
pointed out, we're not going to have any problems with traffic
and the hours of the dental office will not conflict with any of the
heavy used hours that we are normally subjected to, in other
words, the 8 to 5. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: In the past, we have had a couple other pefifioners come before
us for other types of businesses, and we listened to the
neighbors and they were denied. But this evening, we only
heard from one person. I think there's two in the audience that
says the entire neighborhood is against this proposal. Yet,
there's nobody here, which tells me that, I think, a lot of the
people now say that this could be the best type of business for
that area, which is why I'll be supporting this petifion. Thank
you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolufion
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2004-11-08-20 JOE'S PRODUCE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
11-08-20, submitted by Joe's Produce requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to, and
renovate the exterior of, the commercial building located at
33152 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to
the Joe's Produce store, located on the north side of Seven Mile
Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue. Along
with the addition, the petitioner is also planning on remodeling
the exterior of the existing building. This site is also the home of
the Maiorana Center, which is a multi -tenant commercial strip
center. The proposed addition to Joe's Produce market would
be added to the east side of the existing store and would be
approximately 8,700 square feet in area. The addition would
expand Joe's to an overall size of 25,350 square feet. To
accommodate the expansion of the building, the site's parking
lot would be reconfigured slightly. The westerly driveway off
Seven Mile Road would be shifted about 60 feel to the east, and
the existing double row of parking spaces between Joe's and
the strip center would be removed. Parking is based on both
Joe's and the commercial center. Combined, both uses are
21897
required to have a total of 244 parking spaces; they have 254
spaces so they meet the requirements. They are providing
approximately 12% landscaping, which does not meet the
required landscaping of 15% of the total site. Other than a few
new small deciduous trees near the new main entrance area
and back by the brick paver walkway, the landscaping of the site
would basically remain the same. Parts of the new addition
would contain a simple pitched roof, overhanging porch over the
walkways, large glass dormers and the decorative bracketing
and sashes of the windows. The brick used in the construction
of the new addition would match that of the existing building. A
new decorative parapet and comice would be installed along the
lop of the south elevation of the existing building to help blend
the wall with the new addition. A segment of polished slate
would be added as a feature to the south elevation of the
existing building. This not only helps balance the new with the
old but also provides a backdrop for signage. Existing signage
includes three walls signs and one ground sign. They are
proposing two wall signs totaling 116 square feet in sign area.
Although they are under the maximum square footage
permitted, the extra wall sign is considered excessive and they
would need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence for the record?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 6, 2004, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objection to the proposal and no additional right-of-way is
required. The on-site storm sewer under the proposed building
will have to be relocated. The new drive approach will require a
permit from Wayne County, and the petitioner should verify that
no detention is required under Wayne County's storm water
management ordinance since the degree of imperviousness is
not increasing because of 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 November 16, 2004,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition
to, and renovate the exterior of, the commercial building on
property located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal and have no concems with respect to
traffic, points of ingress and egress, site capacity to
accommodate the proposed use as related to off street parking
or any other safety matters." The letter is signed by Randall D.
Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated November 29, 2004, which reads as follows: "We
YSf:1 I:1
have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to, and renovate the exterior of the
commercial building at 33152 W. Seven Mile Road. With 254
parking spaces, a total of 8 handicap parking spaces are
required. The plan indicates that only 7 are proposed. We
recommend 'no parking' signs posted in front of the dumpster
enclosure and recommend a posted 'fire lane' in front of the
main entrance of the building." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated November 22, 2004, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 4, 2004, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This existing nonconforming building has zoning
grants for past expansions. This expansion will require
variances for deficient front and side yard setbacks and for
increasing the deficiency along the Seven Mile roadside. (2)
This site will also need a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for the change proposed to the signage. This site
would be allowed 188 square feet of signage along Seven Mile
Road only. They could reface existing permitted signage with
same size signage. 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?
Fred Hofmann, Cubellismarco, 235 E. Main Street, Northville, Michigan 48167. 1
appreciate all your time in looking at this petition. As you can
see, we're trying to enhance the building of Joe's Produce, add
some additional square footage to increase his sales and make
it a little bit more convenient for his customers to gel around in
the building. By the architecture show, we're trying to work in
with the existing surrounding buildings and the residential that is
in behind this site. We've relocated the driveway to help the
circulation at the site as it is a little cumbersome right now to
come into the site and get around at that one main driveway off
of Seven Mile to the west side. If you have any questions, I'd be
glad to answer them.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: When you look at the site plan, it's obvious that you are
removing parking spaces which are currently adjacent or close
to the building. It just occurs to me that human nature being
what it is, I don't know if people are going to park in back of that
big building. Do you know what I'm saying? You're forcing them
to go a little further away, and I'm just wondering how you might
comment on that as to how you think people might react to that
21899
type of thing. It just looks like the parking is not as convenient
as d is today.
Mr. Hofmann:
Currently, the entrance is closer to Seven Mile, and what we're
doing is relocating the main entrance to the center on the east
side of the building, which is halfway between the rear parking
and the front parking, so that it allows people in the rear of the
building to have greater access to the building. It also allows
some access from the parking spaces that are in front of the
strip center and the parking spaces to the south of the building.
It relocates it a little more central where right now it's to the
front, to the south of the building, and the rear parking is very
difficult to gel to. You have to cross through a lot of different
service areas to get to that. We have a front porch that goes
across the entire east side which allows people to enter into that
porch and walk along the east side of the building to the
entrance.
Mr. Shane:
So you're client is comfortable with the idea of kind of borrowing
parking spaces from the shopping center itself? This looks to
me like people who would ordinarily be parking elsewhere might
now have to encroach into the shopping center area. I know the
numbers work on paper.
Mr. Hofmann:
We feel right now the parking to the north side or to the rear of
the strip center is used hardly at all. If you go there at any time,
unless it's extremely busy, the rear spaces are not used at all.
By laking and moving the entrance to the east side, it makes the
rear as accessible as the front Seven Mile parking spaces, and
more people will park in the rear of the building. We've added
some landscaping, the brick pavers, giving it a sense of
walkway in the back so it's a little more inviting to the customer
in the back. It's just not a large sea of parking back there.
Mr. Shane:
Well, ifyour client is comfortable with that, that's not a problem.
From my perspective, it just looked like it might cause a
problem. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, I share Mr. Shane's comments in reference to meeting the
parking requirements but really making it very difficult to utilize
all that parking space. Is it possible to accommodate some of
that far away parking to have a canopy or attached to the strip
mall or over the portions of the walkway, which you have all the
way to the back? Is there a way to do something of that nature
to accommodate that northeast parking area?
Mr. Hofmann:
Part of the problem with doing that is the delivery trucks, the
semi's that come in very early in the morning. As you can see
21900
by the circulation arrows there, they would pass right through
where that canopy is between the strip center and Joe's
Produce and the north side of the building there. So that would
inhibit any canopies or anything thatway. The rear elevation is
inviting and there is sort of a feel of entrance as you come from
the parking from the northwest area.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I assume that's a brick wall that abuts up to R. Will there be an
entrance there?
Mr. Hofmann:
That goes to an under -canopy. I don't know if you can come
back to the rendering.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is it possible to put some canopy on the strip mall?
Mr. Hofmann:
You see to the right of the words "Joe's Produce?" That's the
main entrance and there are doors there to enter the building.
There's a covered walkway each side of "Joe's Produce'
allowing circulation in front of the building and giving it a sense
of entry from both sides.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I realize you moved that entrance probably 30 - 40 feel north
from what it is today, but that walkway is totally exposed to the
elements.
Mr. Hofmann:
Yes, it is.
Mr. Piercecchi:
If you got a snowy, blizzard day, it's going to be a problem.
Mr. Hofmann:
Its a covered walkway. It is still open to the elements on the
one side, but its still covered from above.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Am I being ridiculous to suggest something on the strip mall, like
a canopy which the people could get under.
Mr. Hofmann:
The problem with that is ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do you want to put that slide up for us?
Mr. Hofmann:
As you see, the driveway there that's between the strip center
and Joe's Produce, that will be part of the truck circulation.
Right through there is where you're talking? Somewhere in
there?
Mr. Piercecchi:
No, I'm talking about east right in through there.
Mr. Hofmann:
That's the back alley and delivery area for the strip center. To
put a canopy over that ...
21901
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm just making some suggestions because I know when I first
came home and I told my wife they're moving the parking, the
entrance 60 feet east, she said, 'Well, where am I going to
park?" Because there's not a week that goes by that we don't
go to Joe's. That's what she said, "Where am I going to park?"
I said way in the back.
Mr. Hohmann:
You can park in the back still. There's still parking in the front,
and you're still getting to a covered walkway getting to the
entrances because that whole east side is all covered walkway.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But you've got a heck of a walk from the northeast section all
the way over to Joe's. Right?
Mr. Hohmann:
We understand that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. I just wondered if there was a way to accommodate that
through some type of canopy. Apparently not.
Ms. Smiley:
Would it be feasible to walk through a section of the strip mall
where people could cul through? Do you know what I'm
saying? That way they could use any one of those strip mall
stores and also sneak over to Joe's.
Mr. Hohmann:
I guess I'm not following you. You mean take part of the strip
center out?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes, cut through the strip center. Like at Maple and Telegraph,
they have a strip mall. You can enter behind Andiamo's there.
You can enter from the back where they have a great deal of
parking or you can enter through the front. See the majority of
your parking is in the back. I'm thinking more safety.
Mr. Hohmann:
Well, we still have the driveway on the east side of the strip
center which they can circulate around and come around to the
back side also, which has a curb cul directly in front of it off of
Seven Mile. To cut through the strip center is really unfeasible
to do.
Ms. Smiley:
That's not something you'd consider?
Mr. Hohmann:
No, because the strip center is notthat large.
Ms. Smiley:
No. I'm very familiar with it. Okay, my other question is, you're
short on handicap parking. Where were you planning on putting
that?
21902
Mr. Hofmann: I thought I had eight parking spaces. We can gel one more
across the front of the building or one more down the south side
of the building, right along next to the building there. If we're
short one parking space, I can gel in one more.
Ms. Smiley: There's 8 for 254 spots. Is that the right ratio?
Mr. Hofmann: We can get one more handicap in there without a problem.
Mr. Taormina: You do have to distribute those across the front of both the strip
mall and Joe's. So he will have to provide some additional
handicap spaces along the front of the strip center, I believe. I
can't see where that's shown on the plan.
Mr. Hofmann: Its right around the center tree in front of the strip center.
Mr. Taormina: Okay. I see it right here.
Mr. Hofmann: There's four right there. I think what's missing is there's one up
in front of the strip center in the comer. The parking space is
right to the south of this abutting the strip center. There's one
handicap right there, existing. I think that's what happened.
The symbol got taken off.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. And there's no sidewalk up that east side, is there?
Mr. Hofmann: No, there is not.
Ms. Smiley:
Because of the parking and the people driving there?
Mr. Hofmann:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
So coming up that east side, really is actually kind of dangerous.
Mr. Hofmann:
If you're walking, yes, ilwould be.
Ms. Smiley:
Yes, it would be if I'm parking in that northeast corner.
Mr. Alanskas:
This is food for thought. On the comer of Plymouth and Wayne
Road, there's a business called Flower King. He has less
parking than you do in front of his building, and he has a big
parking lot in the back. What he does during his busy hours, he
or an employee will be out there waving people, pushing them
by just saying this way. And when you're in a car and someone
goes like this, they follow you. That would get them in the back
of the building. And then to lake care of your customers and the
problem with walking that far, they have these courtesy golf
carts, eight or 10 passenger, where you could have ... and
21903
they're not that expensive because I used to sell them ...but
you could have like a shuttle service from that entrance to that
back parking lot taking people back there with whatever they
buy from the counter. I mean it's something to get people used
to getting in that back parking lot, and that might be a thought to
alleviate your problem.
Mr. Hohmann: Okay.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: I think we recognize that to facilitate this expansion, we do lose
some parking spots, but I'm pleased to see that the petitioner
was sympathetic to the fad that he will be using some more
parking to the rear by moving his main entrance to the center of
the building and providing that covered walkway and the
pathway to the rear lot where the shortage in front will be made
up in most cases. I guess what I'm saying here is that when I
site checked this place, I parked in the rear. I was still using the
front entrance, and I really didn't feel like I was walking that far.
Although, it would be nice to be able to maintain the same
parking configuration, I think it is something his customers can
live with and certainly it's a business that, regardless of where
people park, they will come because of the product that Joe's
sells. So that's all I wanted to say.
Mr. LaPine: Basically, Mr. Morrow pointed out some of the points I was
going to make. This building has been there for a long time.
This family has owned that property. It was an apple orchard I
believe years and years ago. When he started off here, I don't
believe he realized how successful he was going to be. It's a
very, very successful business. And the strip mall, if he was
going to build that strip mall today, I think he probably would
have pushed it back another 60 feel and have all the parking in
front. Unfortunately, it's there and there's not much we can do
about it. The only suggestion I would make to you, Joe, is in the
future when one of your tenants leaves that ship mall, if there's
a possibility to have an entrance in the rear which would make it
easier for people to go in the back and come through the rear.
Some businesses you can't do that. You know, like the credit
union. You can't very well do that. Probably you couldn't do it
with Byrd's Meat because of the freezers. But there might be
some incidents where in the future you can look at that. The
other observation I made is, you know I go to a Lion's football
game and I walk six, seven blocks to the stadium. So the few
feet you have to walk here for the product and the service you
have, I think it's worth it. The one thing I am happy to see you
do, Joe, you're putting in more checkout lanes. That's very
21904
important. Are you putting in a deli? I heard you're pulling a
deli in there, which is a very good idea. The other question I
have, what happens to your display in the summertime with your
flowers and in the wintertime with your pumpkins? Where is
that going to be located?
Mr. Walsh:
If you could step up, I would appreciate it. And of course, just
for our records, your name and address.
Joe Maiorana,
Joe's Produce, 33152 W. Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan 48152.
We currently in the summer and in the fall lake that front area
where there is parking now and we put up a tent. We will no
longer do that. We are going to display everything in that
covered walkway, which is about eight feet deep. In the center
section, we also will display product, and on each wing, we will
display product. That will alleviate the product being out in the
parking lot. The whole design of this, when we set out to do
this, was really to make it more convenient for our customers
that are shopping in the store and that are coming into the
parking lot because the reason that we moved the entrance to
the east and kind of into the middle of the area there was so
people could enter from several sides and walk into that
covered parking and into the central area and into the front of
the store. I think that it's really going to help that we gel all our
product out of the parking lot and into this covered walkway
area. That's my thought on that.
Mr. LaPine:
I want to tell you, you've done an excellent job on the mix you
have in there. Its nice to go there. You go to Joe's, leave your
car parked, walk over to Byrd's meat to get your meat, and then
walk over to Breadsmith and get some good bread. You've got
a nice mix of tenants in there, and you've done an excellent job.
Mr. Maiorana
Thank you. I feel that the tenants will benefit. There will be nice
central parking. There will be an interplay between Byrd's,
Breadsmilh and myself. We will all be very close together there,
and I think that will make a good mix for everybody.
Mr. LaPine:
The only downside, I wish people returned your carts. They
drop them wherever they drop them. In supermarkets, they
have an area where you can push them back in, but you guys
do a pretty good job of picking them up.
Mr. Maiorana:
Yes, we tryto send people out every half hour to pick those up.
Mr. Walsh:
Al this point, I'd like to make a quick comment, and then I'll go to
the audience although I'm not sure if there is anybody who
wishes to speak on this. You're hearing many comments about
21905
parking and so on, and I think they're all correct, but ultimately
your customers will grow. I think moving that driveway over is
going to be helpful. I use almost every single store in the strip
mall and Joe's on a regular basis. Most of us do. So just out of
personal knowledge, we're trying to be helpful. You're not
hearing any criticism of your plan. The place is well maintained
and we do wish you luck, but I think we have customer concerns
and planning concerns, and I think customers as they come will
deal with it.
Mr. Maiorana:
I appreciate your comments. I really do. Hopefully, we have
thought this out well enough that our customers will appreciate
the changes that we've made. I do lake all your
recommendations very seriously and want to comply with
whatever the City wants, and we want to make it very customer
friendly. That's what we're therefor. Thankyou.
Mr. Piercecchi:
They say that necessity is the mother of inventions, and
perhaps when we get three or four feet of snow, you can come
up with an easier way for these people up in the northeast to gel
to your place. I think you'll have to because what are you going
to do when you gel a heavy snowfall? That's a long walk.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? I see no one. A motion is in order.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-154-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-11-08-20,
submitted by Joe's Produce requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to, and
renovate the exterior of, the commercial building located at
33152 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 3, be
approved subject to the following additional conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked C101 prepared by Cubellis
Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on
November 3, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked C201 prepared by
Cubellis Associates, as received by the Planning
Commission on November 3, 2004, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
21906
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A201
and A202 prepared by Cubellis Associates, as received by
the Planning Commission on November 3, 2004, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete system is
used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
10. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
11. That the signage shown on the approved elevation plans is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and that any
additional signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
12. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
13. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on
21907
to a nonconforming building and excessive signage and
any conditions related thereto; and
14. 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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: We heard earlier that we're still a little bit deficient as far as
landscaping is concerned. I'd just like to indicate that the
condition that Joe's Produce keeps their landscaping more than
makes up for the little bit of shortfall that we have in that area.
Mr. La Pine: I'd say amen to that.
Mr. Alanskas: I think seeing the site plan on the screen really doesn't do it
justice. The building that you're putting up is magnificent. Its
going to really add to that corner.
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 2004-11-08-21 GROUND ROUND
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
11-08-21 submitted by Ground Round requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
restaurant located at 17050 Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast
%of Section 18.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to remodel the exterior of
the Ground Round Restaurant, which is located on the south
side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and 1-275/96
Expressway. This site and the site immediately to the west
were recently before the Planning Commission (Petition 84-07-
02-26) for the modification of the landscape berm that runs in
front of these buildings along Six Mile Road. A cultured stone
wainscot would be introduced along the north, west and portions
of the east elevations of the building. Except for the rear (south
side) of the building and a portion of the east side, the existing
wood siding that now covers the exterior walls would be
removed and replaced with dryvil. Striped awnings, with
gooseneck sconces, would be installed over the windows. Wall
21906
light fixtures would be installed intermittently around the building
to create a glow and cast shadows on the restaurant's exterior
walls. Stacked glass blocks, illuminated from the inside, would
outline the double doors of the main entry. The restaurant
would be made slightly higher, just over 6 feel, by way of a new
extended parapet wall along the lop edge of the building. A
monolithic vertical element with offsets and steps would be
created over the front entranceway and become the main focal
point of the restaurant. Decorative crown molding would
enhance the lop edge of the new parapet. The plans note that
the new colors of the Ground Round would be a combination of
light browns and beiges, or more specifically Honey Beige and
Coppertone. The petitioner submitted an elevation plan
showing two wall signs for the restaurant. One sign would be a
smaller version of the existing sign and the other would be a
logo sign over the main entrance. They are allowed one wall
sign not to exceed 100 square feel. They are proposing two
wall signs, one on the north elevation and one on the northwest
elevation over the entrance which is the Ground Round logo.
They meet the square footage requirements, but because they
are in excess of one wall sign, they would need a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence for the record?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 24, 2004, which
reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal and no additional right-of-way is
required." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated November 16, 2004, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to renovate the exterior of the restaurant located
at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal and have no concerns with respect to traffic, points of
ingress and egress, site capacity to accommodate the proposed
use as related to off street parking or any other safety matters."
The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 23,
2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans
regarding a proposal to renovate the exterior of the restaurant
located at 17050 Laurel Park Drive. The site plan does not
indicate any handicap parking spaces. Handicap parking
spaces must be individually posted. The site plan indicates the
parking space width to be nine feet wide. Parking spaces must
be ten feet wide with handicap parking spaces twelve feet wide."
21909
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
November 24, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of November 4, 2004, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The sign referenced
to remain at the sidewalk along Six Mile may be the six square
foot sign authorized by a previous zoning variance. It must be
no larger than six square feet (2) There is no seat count to
determine if the count is beyond the original approval (259),
which could affect required parking. (3) The existing siding on
the east and south walls, that is proposed to stay in place and
be repainted, is in a state of disrepair and may be at the end of
its useful life expectancy. The wood siding on the south wall
should be replaced and the east wall needs much repair. (4)
The parking spaces must be double striped and the barrier free
parking must be properly sized, marked and signed. This plan
appears to remove existing barrier free parking on the west
side. Approximately five barrier free parking spaces are
required and must be near the main entry. 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?
Gary Lamarand, Lamarand Design & Build Corp, 11717 Pardee, Taylor,
Michigan 48180.
Sam Matar, Ground
Round, 17050 Laurel Park, Livonia, MI 48154. 1 am the
owner of the Ground Round restaurant.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr. Lamarand:
We have brought color renderings.
Mr. Walsh:
Would you like to put those on the tripod, and we have a
portable microphone for your use.
Mr. Lamarand:
The color represented here is a little more yellow than the actual
color. We did this first rendering using a print -off from the
computer, and this is the actual sample. I know there was some
concern the other day on the review of the shade of yellow.
This is the true shade here. It is a beige.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Good evening. I notice on your plans and it was mentioned just
recently here in a letter that you have wood problems. Thal you
are retaining some wood on your building, in particular on the
21910
east and south elevations. Do you intend to substitute the
remaining wood sections at a future dale?
Mr. Lamarand:
What we did on the original design, we didn't have any
intentions of bringing the design down the east side. And then
after observing the traffic flow, we realized you could see part of
this coming down Six Mile, so we did incorporate that design
down to the dumpster enclosures. And I did bring some
photographs of the dumpster enclosures to show how large they
are and how wide they are. We know that those are just fenced
off areas, and we couldn't take it past that point. But as far as
the south side, we currently have no intentions of doing anything
on the south side other than painting R.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Staying with the east side, if I may, that whole area above and
around the dumpsters is wood. Correct?
Mr. Lamarand:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you going to extend the stone into that area and complete
that off?
Mr. Lamarand:
If you allow me, I can grab my photograph for you and I can
show you how that's constructed. I think it would be difficult to
take it around the dumpster enclosures unless the dumpster
enclosures were actually removed and replaced with a
permanent structure. They are just poles. They're just fence
poles with a wooden fence attached to it, and they use the
whole width of that dumpster space.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. I will accept that. But above the dumpsters, there's
probably a good 10 feet of that wood. I was hoping that the
answer would be in the affirmative. I realize you're incurring
tons and tons of costs here and its being borne by the new
lessee.
Mr. Lamarand:
Well, that's one of the reasons why we stopped where we did,
due to costs.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But inasmuch as it was reported that some of that wood is
deteriorating, I would just like to get some feel. Hopefully, you'll
say, yes, at a later date, we will replace that.
Mr. Lamarand:
That would be in Sam's hands. Do you have any opinions on
how you would like to handle that above the dumpster? The
wood is a rough cedar, so it does look like its deteriorating, but
its pretty solid material. The original technique of putting that in
gives it an appearance of curling on it, but I think it was that way
21911
right from the beginning. I don't know when they put that in -
1978 1 think.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Just for aesthetic purposes alone, my opinion anyway, if the
tops were the same all the way down there, I think you would
have a much more beautiful building.
Mr. Matar:
We will probably paint that portion with the same color of honey
that is on the side and the front, which could probably match
with the rest of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So your intentions are to just paint that at this stage of the
game?
Mr. Matar:
Al lead at this stage of the game, yes, because we are
incorporating lots of costs for this 10,000 square feet building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I understand that. Thank you.
Mr. Lamarand:
As far as the south end, we did have some initial discussions of
changes on the south end, but that would be in the future.
Mr. LaPine:
Is that culture stone at the bottom. Is that whats going down
below the brick?
Mr. Lamarand:
Yes, that is the actual sample. That is a water table that would
break between the efface and the stone and then a flashing
would go between here.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Ms. Smiley:
I really like those colors. They're much prettier. They're a very
nice blend, very attractive. And the inside of the restaurant
really looks nice loo.
Mr. Matar:
We are doing some changes on the inside. We are putting new
furniture and new wallpaper and new carpet, so the inside will
look as new as outside too.
Ms. Smiley:
Great.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
21912
#11-155-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-11-08-21,
submitted by Ground Round, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
restaurant located at 17050 Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast
'/. of Section 18, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A-2 and
A-3 all dated November 16, 2004, prepared by Lamarand
Design & Build Corporation, are hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A-1 and
A-4 dated November 18, 2004, prepared by Lamarand
Design & Build Corporation, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
3. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
4. That the signage shown on the approved elevation plans
are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and any
additional signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
signage and any conditions related thereto;
6. 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
7. 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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Just one question. I was there last week for lunch and I noticed
inside its kind of dark in there. I hope you're going to do some
lighting to make it brighter in there.
21913
Mr. Morrow: Again, just a comment. I know that the petitioner is making a
large investment in refurbishing that building. As a resident of
Livonia, I wish him well and I Iookforward to going overthere to
see it once ifs complete.
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 #4 PETITION 2004 -10 -GB -06 SHELDON REAL ESTATE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
10 -GB -06, submitted by Sheldon Real Estate requesting
approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as
outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property
located at 15870 Middlebell Road in the Southwest''/. of Section
13.
Mr. Miller: The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in
lieu of the protective wall that is required between commercial
zoned property and land zoned residential. This site is the
location of a vacant furniture store and is located on the east
side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Sunnydale
Avenue. This property abuts residential zoned property along
its entire east property line. Sitting on this property is a 9,500
square fool single -story commercial building. The building sets
back approximately 75 feel from Middlebell Road and is
positioned right up against the north property line. Parking is
available out in front between the building and Middlebell Road
and directly behind the store. A one-way drive along the south
side of the building connects the two parking lots. Between the
rear parking lot and the east property line is an open grassy
area. This is the greenbelt that the petitioner is proposing to
substitute for the wall. The petitioner was most recently granted
a five (5) year temporary wall waiver (Appeal Case #8011-128)
in 1995 from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This waiver has
expired and now the petitioner is seeking a permanent wall
waiver. The greenbelt measures 65 feet deep and runs the
entire 115 feet of the east property line. The greenbelt consists
mainly of grass, weeds and some underlying pockets of gravel.
An old 5 -fool high cyclone fence separates this commercial
property from the abutting residential. The adjacent residential
property is zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm, and is the location of
residential homes. Directly on the other side of the cyclone
fence, on the residential side, is a natural wooded area. An on-
site inspection showed that the property to the north, Newton
21914
Furniture, and the property to the south, a vacant restaurant,
both have a protective wall screening them from the abutting
residential properties. Both walls are masonry and, because of
topographic grade changes of the sites, are in some places
stepped between 5 to 6 feet in height. The subject site is the
only one in the area that does not have a screen wall.
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated November 5, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 21, 2004, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The parking lot needs repair, resealing and restrtping
including barrier free parking property done. (2) The parking
area at the rear of the building is not striped at all. (3) The rear
main door of the building is in disrepair and needs to be
replaced. (4) The wood siding on the north and south sides of
the building needs to be property surface coated. The
southeast corner of the building needs siding repair. (5) The
greenbelt area is grass, weeds and gravel. The wooded area of
screening is on the property to the east. 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?
Sheldon Fuller,
Sheldon Real Estate, 6060-A Dixie Highway, Clarkston, Michigan
48436. Based on the recommendations that I was just listening
to, we have repaired the area at the corner of the building, that
would be the southeast corner, I believe it is. That has been
repaired since the report evidently.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I do have a question for the staff, Mr. Chairman. I notice on our
notes here, a late edition, that it is the opinion of the staff that it
might make better sense to delay the erection of a wall until the
building is occupied. With this being approved as a furniture
store, the parking requirement is very minimal. If a more
intense commercial use were to occupy the building, the parking
would have to be increased, and it would be at that lime, during
the site plan approval process, that a wall could be required. I
don't understand that. Why does the tenant get involved in this?
We have a gap there, and it may be wise to complete the wall.
Mr. Taormina:
The building as it exists today really was designed as a furniture
store. Its use for most other commercial uses or as a place of
assembly is going to require more parking. Or, it could require
some significant remodeling to the building to possibly reduce
the square footage of leasable space in order to meet what
21915
would be current parking standards. It is at that time, that
possibly as one altemative, we could consider what changes to
the site would be undertaken that would necessitate the
installation of the wall. We did lake a look at the original
approved plan for this site and it indicated a fence in lieu of the
wall. That's something that was subject to review and approval
by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Absent this body's approval of
any greenbelt, then the only choice lett to the petitioner would
be to, once again, bring a petition before the ZBA for
consideration of the wall waiver. As an alternative, our advice is
to wail and see what happens with the building as far as its
occupancy.
Mr. Piercecchi: So how would we respond to this? To table it?
Mr. Taormina:
That's one option. Or, we could reject the greenbelt. That
would force this matter before the Zoning Board of Appeals. If
they deny it, then certainly the only option he would have at that
point would be to construct the required masonry wall.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So what would you recommend here?
Mr. Taormina:
Considering again that the building sits vacant, I would offer a
possible tabling motion. Maybe the petitioner can update us if
there is anything happening with respect to the building that
might give us a better indication as to how to proceed.
Mr. Walsh:
Before we do that, we have a couple other people with
questions before we move to a motion. Mark, I think that's a
good suggestion.
Mr. Morrow:
After site checking this place, the building certainly needs a lot
of work - on the building as well as the grounds. At this
particular juncture, I could not go along with any type of
permanent waiver of that protective wall, and I concur with the
line of reasoning we were just discussing. Until we really know
what's going to go in the building, I don't see any point in
building a prolective wall back there until we really know what's
going in there. My recommendation would not be to table it but
to deny the permanent waiver of the wall, and see that the
petitioner goes back to the Zoning Board to get a temporary
waiver of that wall, which will allow him time to perhaps lease
the building and figure out exactly what his requirements are
going to be as it relates to parking and other related items.
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I agree with Mr. Morrow 100 percent. I don't see any reason
why we should wail until the building is occupied. No matter
21916
who goes in, the wall is required. Period. So he either puts the
wall up now or he puts it up six months from now or six years
from now. What's the difference? I think Mr. Morrow has taken
the right position. We should deny it and the Zoning Board of
Appeals can override us if they so feel that's the right way to go,
But in my opinion, the right way to go is to put the wall in
because we have wall all up and down that area. That's the
only building along there that doesn't have a wall, and as far as
I'm concerned, now is the time to gel the wall.
Mr. Shane: I agree with that except that I think it further gives us the
opportunity down the road to maybe take another look at it.
Maybe the wall is a good idea and maybe it isn't, depending on
what this building does in the future. So it gives us some time to
lake a look at it and maybe gel the comments of the properly
owners to the rear as well. So I'm for denying it at this point so
that he can get a temporary waiver, and then when things begin
to happen, we can deal with it again.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to reiterate my position so it's understood that he's
asking for a permanent waiver of the wall, which as indicated
earlier, I'm not in favor of. By denying it, he has two courses.
He can either build the wall or he can go to the ZBA and get
either approval or build the wall, but I like the line of reasoning.
Let's see if the petitioner has anything more to add to that as it
relates to what's currently going on with the building.
Mr. Sheldon: Currently, it is being handled by one of the lop companies in
town, Signature Real Estate. Originally, the idea was to try and
sell the building. Eighty percent of it is owned by a group in
California, so they're not aware really of what the situation is
here. The back line on that property is so heavily wooded you
can't even see the houses behind it. The only question I have
is, what would this prolective wall do that isn't there right now
that nature has done? The building is about 25 years old. We
have never had any complaints from anyone surrounding us in
regards to anything on the property. We've been in ownership
now, and I have a minority ownership in the property as the only
person here in Michigan. We have had the property now for
approximately 14 years. As I say, during that time period, we
have never had a problem with any of the neighbors, and you
cannot see any of the homes behind the property because of
the densely wooded area.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anything currently in the works as to a possible lessee?
Mr. Sheldon: I wish there was.
21917
Mr. Morrow:
So you would say right now there's nothing ...
Mr. Sheldon:
Nothing whatsoever. They are showing it, according to what
they tell us, but there was one party who was interested in the
property recently. It was a party that had some connection with
Suzuki motorcycles or bicycles, whatever, and they were
infringing on somebody else's area so they were not able to go
ahead with the properly. The other party would not allow them.
I believe it was 200 or 300 feel infringement and they turned it
down.
Mr. Shane:
How long has the building been vacant?
Mr. Sheldon:
At this time, approximately five months. It was leased before
that for a period of two years, and prior to that it was vacant for
two and a half years. Unfortunately, the market right now is not
very strong.
Mr. Walsh:
If there are no other questions and there is no one in the
audience, we can go straight to a motion.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-156-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
deny Petition 2004 -10 -GB -06, submitted by Sheldon Real
Estate, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the
protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance for property located at 15870 Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest % of Section 13, for the following reasons:
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the
requirements as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. That providing a wall along the rear lot line would connect
to existing walls on either side of the subject property and
therefore provide a consistent and effective means of
buffering the commercial district from the abutting
residential district; and
3. That the owner shall have the option of either erecting a
protective wall immediately to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department or going to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a temporary variance.
21918
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? I would like to let the petitioner know
I'm going to support the motion. I think there's something
simple about the tabling resolution, but in either event, what
we're suggesting to you is that if you go to the ZBA and get a
temporary variance, it may be that you won't have to build the
wall. There's just a speculative nature right now as to what's
going to happen. I think you coined it correctly. Nature has
taken care of it pretty well, but until we know what the next use
is, its difficult for us to grant what you're asking, but you still
have the opportunity to go, assuming this will pass, to the ZBA
and gel a temporary waiver. With that, is there any other
discussion? Will the secretary please call the roll. The motion
is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 894TH Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 8941 Regular Meeting held on October 26, 2004.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#11-157-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 8941 Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on October 26, 2004, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 390THSpecial Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 390' Special Meeting held on November 9,
2004.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
21919
#11-158-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 390' Special Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on November 9, 2004, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Smiley
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 896th Regular
Meeting held on November 30, 2004, was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman