HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-02-23 16681
MINUTES OF THE 780111 REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 23, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
780th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale
Robert Alanskas *Elaine Koons William LaPine
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, Allen Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,Bill
Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing, makes 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 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 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.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-2-1 by Sang
K. Kim requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto repair shop within a portion of an
existing building located on the South side of Eight Mile Road between Melvin Avenue and
Purlingbrook Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated January 27, 1999, which
states: "Pursuant to your request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal. The following legal description should be used in connection
therewith: Lot 168 and 169, except the North 27 feet thereof as well as
Lots 170, 171, and the North 30 feet of Lot 172, Storm and Fowler's County
Crest Subdivision as recorded in Liber 42, Page 74, Wayne County Records.
16682
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel
free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer I. There is a letter dated February 8, 1999
which states: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has
no objection to the site plan as submitted. Please advise the petitioner that all
handicapped spaces must be individually posted; no sharing of signs for
handicapped spaces." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer,
Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated February 8, 1999 stating: "Pursuant to
your request of February 4, 1999,the site plan for the above subject Petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Section 16.11(a)requires that
except for the front yard, the lot area be enclosed with a fence approved by the
Planning Commission. The fence that currently exists conforms to that
requirement; however, the portion that abuts the residential property to the
south is fitted with barbed wire which is prohibited by Section 15.44(A) of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances. (2) The existing dumpster is on a concrete pad
at the southeast corner of the property. No enclosure is provided. (3) There
have been several yards of soil deposited at the southwest corner of the
property. In its present state it is not in a mowable or maintenance free
condition. (4) All miscellaneous debris should be removed from the rear yard.
I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by
David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. We have a letter dated
February 9, 1999 which states: This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate an auto repair shop in an
existing building located on property located at the above referenced address.
All required separations between Use Groups shall be complied with. We have
no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. That is the extent of our correspondence
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sang K. Kim, 1215 Torpey Dr., Troy.
Mr. McCann: Tell us about your proposal.
Mr. Kim: It is going to be an auto repair shop. I would like to do minor things such as
oil changes, and brakes and mufflers and some minor auto repairs.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Hale: Will you be doing any kind of painting at this facility?
Mr. Kim: No sir.
Mr. Hale: There was a car there that was apparently stripped down at one point and it
appeared it was going to be painted.
Mr. Kim: That car was the previous tenant's. He left it because he had a towing service
and left it there just for parking because he wants to take it to the collision shop
to be painted and he asked me to park it for another month or two.
16683
Mr. Hale: That leads me to my next question. How often are you going to be storing cars
outside for a lengthy period of time? More than a couple of days?
Mr. Kim: I will ask the customer no more than two or three days to park outside
otherwise I will store inside.
Mr. Hale: Are you going to be doing any kind of major engine repair,taking the whole
engine out, anything like that,that would involve having the car there for an
extended period of time?
Mr. Kim: I imagine sometimes I will have engine repairs which I will get another engine
from the factory and replace the engine and repair on the inside.
Mr. Hale: Do you operate other facilities?
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
Mr. Hale: How many do you have going now at the current time.
Mr. Kim: I don't understand.
Mr. Hale: You said that you have some other businesses that are for auto repair?
Mr. Kim: Oh, no sir. This is the only one.
Mr. Hale: You have never been in the business before?
Mr. Kim: I used to work the Oklahoma station on Eight Mile Road. The problem was
that the landlord was asking me for higher rent so I had to move out from
there.
Mr. Hale: There is a hoist there now. Right?
Mr. Kim: Yes.
Mr. Hale: Are you working there now on cars?
Mr. Kim: I did for a few days but after that Mr. Bedzyk, who is the landlord, asked me
not to do anything. But that equipment I do have it. I moved in because I am
trying to store my equipment. In the meantime, I put the hoist in there.
Mr. Hale: Of the three service bays, that takes up a good chunk of space there right, how
much do you have left over for other storage of parts?
Mr. Kim: Right now,the space is empty so if I get a permit I am going to make a parts
storage room.
Mr. Hale: No outside storage, correct?
16684
t, Mr. Kim: No sir.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you. That's all I have.
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed on my visit to your place, you have barbed wire along the south side
on the fence. I didn't see where that was addressed in the letter that that would
be removed. Has that been addressed?
Mr. Nagy: The petitioner is a tenant within the facility but the landlord indicated in his
letter to us that he would be removing the barbed wire.
Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. So that is being taken care of. If I understand you correctly, there will
be no outdoor overnight parking.
Mr. Kim: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: No outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap debris or other things of
that nature?
Mr. Kim: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I understand you correctly, there will be no overnight outdoor parking.
Mr. Kin: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: How is the dumpster going to be handled? Has that been addressed by the
owner?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it will be enclosed with a gate.
Mr. Alanskas: John, do you know how long that big mound of dirt has been there in the back?
Mr. Nagy: I don't know how long but I do know it has been there for quite a while. I don't
know exactly.
Mr. Alanskas: It seems when we have petitioners come before us we will fmd that they have
not been complying with different regulations the city enforces and then when
they want something done they then say they will take care of getting it done.
All of that mound of dirt in the back has to be removed. Are you aware of
that?
Mr. Kim: I discussed this with the landlord.
Marie Eckert, 2254 Wilshire, Plymouth, Michigan, Bedzyk Bros. We do plan on taking care
of that pile of dirt as soon as the weather breaks. It has been there since about
the middle of last summer.
Mr. Alanskas: Why wasn't it taken out last summer?
16685
Ms. Eckert: We had a new parking area in the front of the building and we paved it and the
dirt was put back there and it just hasn't been taken care of.
Mr. Alanskas: What are you planning to do with the landscaping along that west fence? That
is where the garage door is. Where you go into the garage.
Ms. Eckert: As far as landscaping on that side, that will be taken care of as soon as the
weather breaks.
Mr. Alanskas: Because all that is there now is a bunch of junk. How long has the junk been
there? There are some axles laying on the ground.
Mr. Eckert: We moved into the building in December of 1997 so as long as we have been
there. I can't really recall.
Mr. Alanskas: See what I am trying to say is whether he goes in there or not,I would like to
see that property maintained correctly and properly. As you can see right now,
it has not been since 1997.
Ms. Eckert: Yes I agree with you. We have done a lot of other improvements to the
building. We have put a lot of time in on other parts of this building.
Mr. Alanskas: The building in the front looks very nice but the back looks like a junk yard.
Ms. Eckert: It is just a matter that we are a small company and getting all of our laborers to
get the work done. We do plan on getting the work done.
Mr. Alanskas: I have another question for Mr. Kim. When I was there I saw you had an air
compressor hooked up and you have it attached loosely to a piece of wood.
That is not in compliance and it should be bolted down to the floor. John
could you take a look at the compressor installation?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Ms. Eckert,the space "A" where Mr. Kim is going to move in, that looks like
that has been an added on area. Was that there when you bought the building?
Ms. Eckert: Yes, we haven't added on to the building.
Mr. LaPine The front of the building looks very nice. I remember last year when you did
some landscaping and did a nice job. The back needs some cleaning up as I
am sure you can understand. I am not that happy about leasing it to another
garage that close to residential property but as long as he keeps it small and I
think he has to because there is not much room there, as long as you as a
landlord keep an eye on it and make sure he doesn't start storing parts out
there.
16686
Ms. Eckert: We have put a lot of work into the building and we don't want to see it look
any worse. We want to make it look better.
Mr. Alanskas: I have one more question. Mr. Kim, it says in Mr. Bedzyk's letter that Mr.
Kim intends to install a proper ventilation system. What do you term a proper
ventilation system?
Mr. Kim: At the bottom of the garage door there is about a 3" wide ventilation hole
which I am going to get a 3" flexible exhaust hose to hook up to it whenever I
an running the car and I am going to hook it up to the garage door.
Mr. Alanskas: So you are just going to have the exhaust going out through an exhaust tube.
It will not be with a motor pulling the exhaust fumes out. Is that correct?
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I am
going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#2-34-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on February 23, 1999, on Petition 99-1-2-1 by Sang K.
Kim requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto repair shop within a
portion of an existing building located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Melvin Avenue and Purlingbrook Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 99-1-2-1 be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Site Plan prepared by Bedzyk Brothers, Inc., as received by
the Planning Commission on February 3,1999, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
(2) That the petitioner shall rectify to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the problems and site deficiencies as outlined in their
correspondence dated February 8, 1999;
(3) That the petitioner shall either submit a landscape plan within 60 days
of the date of this approval which shall provide for a greenbelt at least
10 feet in width along the south 45 feet of the west property line,the
full extent of the south property line and along the south 150 feet of the
east property line where the subject property abuts residentially zoned
land and which shall consist of appropriate live plant material in
accordance with the standards pertaining to the substitution of a
greenbelt for a protective wall where such substitution is authorized by
the Planning Commission and City Council, or in the alternative, this
petitioner may elect to construct a protective wall where the subject
property adjoins residentially zoned land;
16687
(w,
(4) That the existing dumpster on the subject property shall be screened by
means of a masonry enclosure with wood gates which, unless a
protective wall is constructed, shall be located so as to not interfere
with the provisions of a 10 foot wide greenbelt where the property
abuts residentially zoned land;
(5) That there shall be no overnight outdoor parking or storage of customer
vehicles on the site;
(6) That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap
material, debris or other similar items generated by the subject use;
(7) That automobile and light truck repair work conducted in connection
with the proposed use shall not permit such repairs as bumping,
painting, spraying or rustproofmg.
For the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections
16.11 and19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
(2) That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
(3) That the proposed use is consistent with other similar existing uses
occurring in the industrial zoning district located along the south side of
Eight Mile Road in this area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale: Sir, one of the things that came to mind when I was asking you questions was
your indication that cars may be there longer than two or three days. This
proposal that we have set forth provides that you will not be allowed to have
outdoor storage of those vehicles even if they are there for a longer period of
time. Is that something that is acceptable to you?
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-2-3 by
Michael Palazzolo requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive
brake facility within an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
16688
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated February 8, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your
request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal. The following
legal description should be used in connection therewith: Lot 208, except the
South 537 feet also except the North 27 feet, Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 2 as
recorded in Liber 66, Page 01, Wayne County Records. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this
office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E.,
Civil Engineer I. There is a letter dated February 18, 1999, which states:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request
to operate an automotive brake repair facility on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. We have a letter dated February
19, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your request of February 12, 1999,to
review a site plan submitted in connection with a proposal for waiver use
approval to operate an automotive brake repair facility with an existing
building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and
Stark Roads,the petition has been reviewed and the following problems or
deficiencies are noted. (1) The proposed parking provides for only one (1)
barrier free space. Two barrier free spaces are required. (2) The parking
spaces are required to be double striped. (3) All paved areas need to be
repaired prior to being seal coated. (4) All wood and debris need to be
removed from the south and west property line. I trust this has provided the
requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? I do not see the petitioner in the audience. Is there
anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I don't see
anyone. I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: I was there on Monday to see the property and I talked to Julie Stanley who is
the owner of the property. As of Monday she thought Mr. Palazzolo finally
had approval to go back to the original site to which was the west of her and
she thought he was going to be pulling permits. I will offer a tabling
resolution.
Mr. McCann: Will that work for you John?
Mr. Nagy: It will work for us. We too have tried to contact Mr. Palazzolo on several
occasions and have been unsuccessful.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, and seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#2-35-99 RESOLVED that,Petition 99-2-2-3 by Michael Palazzolo requesting waiver
use approval to operate an automotive brake facility within an existing building
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark
16689
Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33,the Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 99-2-2-3 to date uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the public hearing section of our agenda. We will now move to
the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. The audience may speak
for or against these petitions.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-8-7 by
Laurel Pointe, LLC requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
office/retail building on property located at 17000 South Laurel Park Drive in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Six Mile between Laurel Park
Drive and Newburgh Road. The petitioner is proposing to demolish the
existing structure on the site and construct a brand new office/retail building in
its place. This property is located adjacent and to the west of the Ground
Round Restaurant. The new building would be two stories in height and a total
of 20,600 sq. ft. in area. The first floor would be utilized by commercial uses.
The second floor would be occupied by office uses and would be accessible
from the rear or south elevation. The petitioner wanted to separate the
entrances so that the uses would not compete or interfere with one another
during normal business hours. They are required to have 97 spaces for parking
and they are providing 102 spaces. They meet the parking requirement. They
are required to have 15% landscaping and they have 18% of the total site
which includes this large 45'buffer of greenbelt area along Six Mile Road.
The Building Elevation Plan shows that the new building would be constructed
out of brick on all four sides with dryvit panels accenting the windows. The
roof would be metal seam with a depressed area in the middle of it to hide the
rooftop mechanical equipment. The submitted color rendering shows that the
new building would be similar in color to the Ground Round Restaurant.
Mr.Nagy: We have a letter dated February 12, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your
request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the overall legal
description provided at this time. However, it has come to the attention of this
office that the property is proposed to be split. Should the property be split,the
appropriate utilities'easements should be granted. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this
office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated February 17, 1999, which
states: "In reply to the captioned petition, the Police Department Traffic
Bureau submits the following recommendations: (1) The addition of at least
two parking lot light posts on the west side of the building. Currently, there
are no light posts on the west side which are used to illuminate the parking lot.
The only light posts near the west side are those on the right of way, which are
used to illuminate Laurel Park Drive S. This recommendation is a necessary
addition due to Kinkos being a 24-hour business. (2) All handicapped spaces
16690
must be individually posted no, sharing of signs for adjacent spaces. Signs
must conform to the standards as stated within the Michigan Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (sign R7-8)." The letter is signed by John B.
Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated February 19,
1999 which states: "Pursuant to your request of February 9, 1999 to construct
an office/retail commercial building at the southeast corner of Six Mile Road
and South Laurel Park Drive,the site plan for the above subject petition has
been reviewed and the following is noted. (1) The overall site plan appears to
be in conformance with Ord. 543. (2) The signage on the building as shown is
nonconforming; excess number of signs and sign area. This sign package
requires that a variance be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I trust this
provides the requested information." The letter is signed by David M.
Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. We have a letter dated February 18,
1999, which states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct an office retail building on property
located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is
the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Michael Boggio, 30100 Telegraph Road, Bingham Farms. I am the architect.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us?
Mr. Boggio: No, I think everything has pretty much been stated.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: What is the main reason for tearing that building down? I went over and
looked at that building and it looked pretty good other than the walkways
along the front facing the Laurel Park Drive. What prompted you to want to
tear that building down and build a new one?
Mr. Boggio: First of all, the first floor of the building is below grade by almost half of a
floor. That structure is an old precast concrete structure and there is a lot of
decay in the precast concrete. And the site was desirable enough that the
owners felt that tearing the building down and building a brand new building
was justified by the location and the value of this site. I think the value of the
site if the first floor is on grade as a retail use, again justifies the demolition of
that building and the construction of a new building. That building by my
opinion and the owner's opinion is an unsightly building and he would like to
have a new good looking maintenance free building.
Mr. Piercecchi: This particular building is going to serve two purposes, commercial on the
first floor and offices on the second floor. Is that correct?
* Mrs. Koons arrived at 8:00 p.m.
16691
Mr. Boggio: Yes that is correct.
Mr. LaPine: I notice that the letter we got from the Police Department regarding the lighting
on the west side, are you going to put in some lights on that side? Will that be
taken care of?
Mr. Boggio: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I, for one, am glad that you are tearing that building down and redoing it
because I think it needs improvement. You have a tenant for the first floor, is
the top floor going to have multiple tenants?
Mr. Boggio: Yes. There will be a couple of tenants. One of the tenants that currently
occupies the building, a real estate company, will occupy about a third or half
of the second floor when this new building is completed.
Mr. LaPine: I assume you are going to start construction this spring of summer?
Mr. Boggio: I would guess probably early summer.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir in the process of tearing downing the existing building and the length of
time it takes to build a new one, where are your existing tenants going to be?
Mr. Boggio: The owner of the building plans to file an application to the Zoning Board of
Appeals to see if they will allow a temporary building on the parking lot to
relocate the one real estate company during the construction of this new
building.
Mr. Alanskas: You mean something like trailers?
Mr. Boggio: Something like that and if that is denied then the owners will look to relocate
that tenant in another location temporarily.
Mr. Piercecchi: In my walk around the building there,the parking lot is really going to pot.
The area adjacent to Six Mile Road. Are you planning on doing any repair
there?
Mr. Boggio: When this building is constructed and is part of the overall construction
program, they will cap the entire lot and stripe it.
Mr. Piercecchi: The parking lot will be capped with asphalt? O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved it was
#2-36-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-2-8-7 by Laurel Pointe, LLC requesting
16692
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an office/retail building on property
located at 17000 South Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-2 prepared by Nowak&Fraus, as
received by the Planning Commission on February 5, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the entire parking lot shall be double striped and capped with
asphalt;
3) That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets L-1, prepared by Michael A.
Boggio Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on
February 5, 1999, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
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 Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared
by Michael A. Boggio Architects, as received by the Planning
Commission on February 5, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
7) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face
4-inch brick, no exceptions;
8) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out
of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all
times;
9) 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.
10) That two parking light posts be added on the west side of the building
and that all handicapped spaces will be individually posted.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE
YEAR ONLY from the date of approval, and unless a building permit is
obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
16693
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Hale, McCann, Piercecchi
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-8-8 by
Phoenix Land Development Company requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct commercial buildings on property located at 33330 Plymouth Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Miller: The location of this property is on the northeast corner of Plymouth and
Farmington Roads. The petitioner is proposing to construct a group of
commercial buildings on a portion of the George Burns Theater property to
this development is the first phase of the Fountain Park Project. The remaining
area of the theater site is in the process of being rezoned to accommodate
condominiums. The Site Plan shows that the petitioner is proposing to
construct six retail buildings near the intersection of Plymouth Road and
Farmington Road. The buildings on the plan are identified as Buildings "A"
through "F" and would have a combined total area of 75,910 sq. ft. Building
"A" would be an 18,400 sq. ft. multi-tenant building located approximately
300 feet north of the intersection. Building "B" would be located adjacent to
and face the intersection. This building would be 11,080 sq. ft. in size and
would be occupied by a single tenant. This building's footprint shows a drive-
thru window configuration along its north elevation. Building "C" would be
located east of"B" and would face Plymouth Road. This large multi-tenant
retail outlet would be 24,800 sq. ft. in size. Buildings "D" and "E", as far as
staff knows, would be two restaurants. Building "D" is shown at 8,880 sq. ft.
and Building "E" is shown at 9,750 sq. ft. in size. For now the petitioner is
only showing a preliminary footprint of the two buildings. Once the petitioner
knows what restaurants are going into the two buildings, each would have to
come back under separate waiver uses and go through the approval process.
At that time the details of what the building would look like would be ironed
out. Building "F" would be 3,000 sq. ft. size and because the footprint shows a
drive-thru teller structure on its west elevation would apparently be a bank. No
Elevation or Floor Plans have been submitted for this building. Access to the
overall site would be achieved by three drives off Plymouth Road and two off
Farmington Road. Based on the total sq. ft. of all the buildings combined, they
are required to have 486 parking spaces and they are providing 490 parking
spaces. They meet the parking requirements. The submitted Landscape Plan
shows a very extensive landscape theme throughout the entire commercial
development. This site should be adequately screened from the adjacent
roadways, as well as, from the future residential district to the north. They are
required to have not less than 15% of the total area of the site. They are
providing 15% of the total site. There is landscaping throughout the site. It is
heavily landscaped. The Building Elevation Plans show that buildings "A"
16694
through "C" would have a streetscape type of architecture. Each structure
would give the appearance of a cluster of buildings. Each unit would have a
somewhat different looking facade than the adjacent unit. The plans show that
each building would be primarily brick on all four sides. The Elevation Plans
show signage on the buildings. Because no dimensions are shown for any of
the signage, the depicted signage cannot be evaluated at this time. This site is
located in a "Control Zone" so signage would have to come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
Mr.Nagy: There is a letter dated February 12, 1999, which states: "Pursuant to your
request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the commercial
site legal description provided by Basney& Smith, Inc. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this
office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by John P. Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. We have a letter dated February 12, 1999, which
states: "The plans submitted about Fountain Park have been reviewed. The
Traffic Bureau has no objections to the development of this land for the
purposes illustrated within the plans. However,there are concerns that were
raised due to the increased traffic along Plymouth and Farmington Roads
which are sure to accompany a development of this magnitude. With respect
to the driveways, the following is submitted for your consideration and
recommended by the Traffic Bureau: (1) Both driveways nearest the
intersection of Plymouth and Farmington to be located further away from the
intersection than as proposed in the site plan. (2) If the driveways were not to
be located further away than the site plans indicate, then "No Left Turn"signs
posted for traffic exiting either driveway nearest the intersection. (3)
Additionally "No Left Turn"signs posted to prohibit eastbound Plymouth
turning into driveway immediately east of Farmington. (4) The westbound
right turn flare lane on Plymouth Road to be extended the entire length of the
development, which is further than the site plan proposes at this time. This
extension will then include all driveways upon Plymouth Road for Fountain
Park, thus creating less interference to through traffic. (5) Construction of
right turn flare lane (deceleration lane)for northbound Farmington from
Plymouth Road This would widen the road to a total of 6 lanes (curb to curb).
The added lane would then accommodate the traffic intending to turn from
northbound Farmington into Fountain Park, thus creating less interference to
through traffic. The intersection of Plymouth and Farmington Roads is an
already congested intersection, especially during morning and afternoon rush
hours. Consideration should be given to the impact of the increased traffic
flow associated with this development. With the present traffic flow,
congestion occurs and traffic backs up on southbound Farmington at Plymouth
during afternoon rush hour. Those attempting to turn left out of the driveway
and onto Farmington immediately north of Plymouth is sure to create conflicts
which will result in an increase of total number of crashes around this
intersection. Increases in crashes also accompany an increase in traffic
altercations. This same condition exists for the driveway on Plymouth nearest
16695
Farmington. For these reasons, I believe my recommendations should be given
consideration. While it is unknown to the Traffic Bureau how much of an
increase will accompany this development, it is certainly apparent that an
increase will occur. The Traffic Bureau is recommending that an "Impact
Study" be conducted to determine how much of an impact the increased traffic
flow will effect these roads and the intersection. Once the results of this study
are available, all those involved with this development will be in a much better
position to make final recommendations to this proposal. All handicapped
spaces must be located as near as possible to the entrances of the buildings
which they are intended for and each must be accompanied by its own sign; no
sharing of signs of adjacent spaces. All handicapped spaces shall have easy
access to handicap ramps to the sidewalk areas of the building." The letter is
signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated
February 18, 1999, which states: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct commercial buildings on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That
is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Steve Schafer, Phoenix Land Development, 32000 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills,
te Michigan. We were in front of you a few weeks ago in regards to rezoning of
this property in conjunction with the residential development. This was the
existing zoning before it was changed. What we are here to discuss tonight is
the remaining commercial zoning which is this blue area that wraps the site.
You will be seeing in several weeks from now, some more residential site
plans that will tie in, in conjunction with this project. This is our colored up
landscape plan. The plan that you looked at earlier. We've spent quite a bit of
time with our landscape architect, along with the Beckett&Raeder the PRDA
landscape consultant, and we have incorporated their ideas for what the theme
is through this corridor on the Farmington and Plymouth Road frontage of this
project as well as we have tried to carry that same theme through the interior
and throughout the residential buildings here. If you note and take a look at
the landscaping in through this area, we are looking to place some tall spruces
to increase the buffer zone to the residential area that is proposed for the rear
portion of this site. We have also created some very friendly pedestrian access
ways as well as plazas on the front side of the commercial buildings so it will
be very friendly from a pedestrian standpoint. These two buildings are going
to be multi-use buildings, a number of specialty retail tenants. This particular
building is proposed to be occupied by a drug store pharmacy and that would
have a drive-thru situation that we have shown here in this area. We have also
made some modifications from when you first saw the conceptual plan and we
had a little bit more opportunity to analyze our parking and setbacks. Some of
the changes in our conceptual plans you will see that the buildings have started
to move in and out a little bit. We are creating a little bit more interest on the
fronts of those buildings. Our architect is here tonight and I would like him
to say a few words on the elevations and where we are going with them on this
point. Obviously as we move along with our tenants, we will be able to
16696
solidify the signage and things like that. All of those individuals that I have
met with we want to keep all of those very nice scale to the center so they don't
become overbearing. Again this is a neighborhood center and I think a lot of
the people in the area will know very quickly who is here and I think it will be
a great shopping opportunity that currently isn't available on the corridor. We
are excited about that and so are the initial tenants that we have talked with.
This area in here is contemplated to be free standing restaurants or something
like that. These envelopes have been shown to comply with parking although
we have not submitted any elevations yet. You will be viewing elevations of
these three buildings and as we move along and solidify that, we will be
coming back in front of you to discuss that. We are talking to a couple banks
who are looking to locate on the corridor as well. People that are not currently
here so it's not going to a cannibalization of the same banks opening up a lot
of different branches in the same locale. This plan shows the landscaping - we
did exceed the 15%required and if you have any other questions that I can
answer, I will glad to do so.
Mrs. Koons: Give me some idea of what specialty retailers will be there.
Mr. Schafer: I don't want to get into specific names at this point. We are talking to a bread
maker. A drug store, Rite Aid, they have been in the area for over 25 years
and this is a location that they feel deserves an upgraded type of drug store.
The face of drug stores is changing drastically and from a convenience
standpoint and the way market is going they have an interest in staying in this
intersection. I don't think another drug store would necessarily be the way to
go. I don't think we need to cannibalize the business they currently have.
There is an electronics outfit that we are talking to that I think would be a great
compliment that currently isn't available on the corridor. There is a
convenience mail packaging type of opportunity that we are talking to. We
have several sit down type restaurants that we are chatting with and those
things should be materializing here in the coming weeks and you'll be hearing
more about that. But we are looking to try to do something upscale here. This
has to compliment the residential. We are making a big investment here on the
residential portion of the site and the retail has to drive what is going on in
here. We are just cautious about what goes in here. We don't want the same
old thing where you have 15 other opportunities right down the street. That
isn't what we are looking for. We are talking coffee, baked goods,there are
some neat pizza opportunities, not the typical things that are going on with
some sit down opportunities. We have to be very careful with how much food
we are doing here as well. I think some of you were at the joint meetings
where we talked about the interior service corridors and the way we were
channeling the traffic behind these buildings to keep it very centralized to get
to the dumpster where in some of there centers there are doors out the backs of
the units and it tends to get unsightly and we want to be very protective of that
as well. Because they need to be able to operate and we need to be able to
coexist. We can't have a situation where the uses don't coexist. I think a lot of
the tenants we are talking to understand a lot of the same tenants that we have
talked to in Dearborn are very pleased with the success they have had there. I
think it is a site that has a very similar type of ClNergy than Dearborn in more
16697
respects,this is a lot larger physically but a lot more things offered in the
general vicinity of this project that will compliment this project as well. I think
you will be pleasantly surprised as we move through. Actually with the type
of elevations and the type of detail, we are looking to capture over market rents
and we know what market rents are for the corridor. We are looking for
several dollars more just to be able to support what we are doing here. I think
people understand the success they will have being a part of this development.
I think as we move forward I will be able to disclose more. Tenants will be
coming in and discussing it. Right now we want to get through the site plan
portion so we can go out there and say this is what we have,this is how deep
the stores are,this is where the stores are located.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Schafer,that in Livonia is a very beautiful corner. Why would you want
to put, right on the corner, a drug store instead of possibly one of your
restaurants?
Mr. Schafer: One, economics.
Mr. Alanskas: Why not put that on the other side?
Mr. Schafer: Because that is the prominent spot for that type of use.
Mr. Alanskas: I just can't see another drug store going on the corner of Plymouth and
Farmington Road.
Mr. Schafer: It isn't just another drug store. It would be a shame if another drug store were
added to Plymouth Road. This is a relocation of an existing drug store. I will
tell you the economics right now for these type of uses, I have to tell you this
project is a hugely priced piece of property. Meijer's was involved.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm sure it is.
Mr. Schafer: There are a lot of issues we are trying to deal with, the mitigation issue and
other issues that we are trying to deal with. We have told the pharmacy that
they will have to be in tune architecturally with what we are doing here. We
have submitted those elevations and everything has to look generally the same.
I think the parking fields work out well for them, the parking works out well
for them. The drive-thru opportunity works out well for them. Here and again
it is the prominence of that intersection.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm sure when you bought that property you knew how expensive it was and
what it would be to complete that project. I have a problem with the drug store
being there, I really do. And when you take away the trees, all I see there is
another strip mall.
Mr. Schafer: It certainly is not another strip mall. I'll have our architect allude too the detail,
the brick, the architecture,the urban style we are doing. This isn't all dryvit
center. This isn't all one flat panel. I think our architect will go in and explain
how we are going to achieve some urban look with some brick colors. Listen,
16698
there are some other alternatives here. We brought the concept in early on.
We've told everyone early on exactly what we wanted to do here. We weren't
able to disclose uses because I didn't know what those uses would be. But
realize that this site can accommodate 155,000 sq. ft, of retail. Either
configured in one building, or two buildings or six buildings or eight buildings.
Mr. McCann: Excuse me, I know what you can do but I don't think we are here to be
threatened.
Mr. Schafer: I didn't mean it to sound like that.
Mr. McCann: We are trying to work with the developers. When you came to the city you
told us you were going to do a little residential type commercial development
surrounded by a mix of the apartments so that it would have a tremendous
amount of walk through ability so that people would come, go get a cup of
coffee, go to the drugstore and walk around, and go to the breadsmith and it
would all be integrated within the apartments. All we see right now is the back
of the buildings, a number of commercial buildings facing the apartments and
putting drug stores on the corner. This isn't what you told us when you were
coming in. The eastern end of the project kind of looks that way. That is kind
of what we expected where you would walk around the buildings there would
be circular patterns where people would come and walk through but 80%of
that project is a strip mall facing the main roads. We want to work with you
and we will work with what you brought here tonight but address some of our
concerns. O.K.?
Mr. Schafer: I understand. In the spirit of what we are trying to propose is certainly what we
did in Dearborn and what we did on a prior project was very well received with
the brick and the limestone. Again the units in the back, you may be referring
to them they are not apartments, they are going to be for sale condominiums.
We did have a meeting with the staff and there was some discussions and my
architect did add some additional detail, some bumps on the roof some of the
things we talked about in that meeting I would be able to show you here
tonight. We are also prepared to add some detail to the back of that building,
such as some arches and things on one of the buildings that we submitted
elevations for that sort of gives a little more texture on the back side. The rear
sides are very heavily landscaped. We are proposing material that will be 8'to
10'. So this has to be screened to a certain standpoint as well as the roof
sections have been built up to sort of act as a screening barrier and the units sit
down. You have probably seen some commercial buildings where the
screening devices go up. We have really tried to be conscious of the
elevations to keep that down. As far as details we would be amenable as to
what would be suggested that would make it more appealing but we have tried
from a pedestrian standpoint to focus that access through this spine. We are
looking to put a tremendous amount of landscaping through this area and this
pedestrian area runs through into the retail in this areas as well as an additional
opening we discussed that would facilitate some more activity through here.
This particular area access this is the rear of one of the units, it is very minimal
in here so I think the pedestrian access in this area isn't as much as a concern
16699
from our standpoint. We feel there is enough opportunity for people to
circulate through the project.
Mr. Alanskas: John, regarding the parking, for 486, by the square footage of the two
restaurant footprints how do we know how many seats they are going to have
in these restaurants to predicate how much parking they are going to need?
Mr. Nagy: Under our group commercial center our ratio of 1 to 125 it factors in all from
the high end to the low end uses therefore, we feel very comfortable that since
they comply with the 125 ratio there is sufficient parking to accommodate the
restaurants.
Mr. LaPine: First thing, when you first came in to attend our joint meeting I told you I was
very impressed by the development in Dearborn Heights and I still am. I
assume this site plan you are showing me here tonight that all the buildings are
going to built with all brick,just like your Dearborn project. I don't have any
renderings here tonight showing me how they are going to be. Secondly, as
you remember that meeting we had discussion about the drug store.Now once
you got your rezoning I can't stop you from putting a drug store in there. You
got the rezoning and it meets the requirement. The one thing I heard you say
that makes me happy was that the one thing that worried me when I heard
about the drug store across the street was that we were going to move in there
was that we were going to have another drug store like they have a certain type
of drug store they build, and I think from what I am hearing from you tonight,
and I hope I understand you, but it is not going to be that way. It's not going to
have that big thing out in front where they have the glass and it's going to be
conforming to your design and you are going to have control over how the
building is going to be built? Is that correct?
Mr. Schafer: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: I have a problem with the parking because I'm being asked to approve
something when I don't know exactly how many seats you are going to have in
those restaurants. You may have 200 in each one or 150 in another at this
point we don't know. At this point we are assuming that the staff has taken all
the parking into consideration. Personally, I think there is going to be a
parking problem. You will also remember at that meeting, again this is site
plan approval, I brought up the subject about pavers. I don't see anything here
that shows me that at this point. Are you going to have any of that in there?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. We are showing some paver detail in this pink thin area. We are going to
modify some of this but it is also showing pavers in here and here and at the
entry ways and there also will be some more detail at the side the residential
portion of the development. We are looking to keep those at the entries when
you come into the development.
Mr. LaPine: What is the main entrance to this whole complex?
Mr. Schafer: Right there.
16700
Mr. LaPine: Is this going to be called Fountain Park?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Have you given any consideration to having an island going in there and have
a fountain there?
Mr. Schafer: We would like to have something in this area. We will be exploring that once
we get into a little bit more of scale of center and we start placing tenants in
here and get some more architecturals. We will probably do some smaller
scale things in here and maybe something larger over the restaurant area.
Mr. LaPine: See what my problem is, and I know you are a good builder, I have looked at a
number of your establishments around town. I am being asked to approve a
site plan this evening and you are telling me about things that you are going to
take into consideration at a later date. Unless I have it down on a piece of
paper, you don't have to put any of those things in. I believe you will do what
you say, but the bottom line is it is hard for me to approve something unless I
know exactly what we are approving.
Mr. Schafer: Certainly we are intending on putting one in here. We are not in front of you
tonight for a site plan. I think we have an opportunity to do this here but John,
correct me if I am wrong, I have not decided who these individuals are. Our
proposal would be to immediately start construction of this section of the site.
This may lag a little because there are some DEQ issues. Our permit has been
submitted. There may be some impact where we may be slightly delayed on
that point from a standpoint of starting construction. As we bring these site
plans along or with some tenants or we would be coming back to you with
some site plans. Is this conceptual to you based on the parking requirement
because chances are these users are probably going to come in a little bit
smaller than what we are proposing here, possibly 500 sq. ft, 800 sq. ft. What I
didn't want to do was to ask for less and then have to come back and ask for
more. I wanted it to comply to the ordinance with my parking to a point where
we had a comfort level where we had additional parking. I thought with the
elevations of these buildings since we aren't submitting anything we would be
back in front of the Planning Commission again at some point?
Mr. Nagy: The way staff is structured,the approval would be to approve the site plan with
respect to buildings C, D,E, and F would be to approve the footprint of the
building only. The corresponding parking layout and landscaping, before the
permits are issued for building purposes,that elevation plans come back to the
Planning Commissions for review and approval.
Mr. LaPine: Let me just continue, at the joint meeting we had with the Council,the Council
people brought up about the type of businesses that were going into this
development, and we were assured that they would be high class, a lot of
names were thrown out to give us some ideas. Tonight you mention Mail Box.
To me, that in my estimation is not a high quality establishment. Maybe from
16701
your perspective it is. And an electronics store, I was under an impression that
the stores that would be going in here would be to service the apartments that
will be located here especially along with the two restaurants, maybe three. I
envisioned what you have at Dearborn where you had the Starbucks,you had
the bread store there, a little ice cream parlor, I am hoping we are going to get
quality stores in here and not the type of stores that anyone can run up and
down Plymouth Road and have the same stores. That was my conception of
what you presented that night and what Council and some of us envisioned.
Mr. Schafer: Excuse me, I was conferring with Randy Thomas of Schostak Brothers. They
are doing a lot of my commercial leasing. Some of these people I guess I can
get more specific on. We do have letters of intent we haven't signed. We are
looking at Starbucks as submitting a letter of intent, Little Daddy's, Parathion
is submitting a letter of intent as a restaurant. We have letters out to ice cream
users we have received letters of intent back. This has only been probably a
little over 30 days since these packages went out. We are working very
diligently to put those tenants in place. The other user,the electronics user,
Radio Shack chain, which covers the phone service as well. We had an AT&T
store in Dearborn. They do have a lot of neat things in there that they are
offering with the internet and things. Radio Shack did offer that. They are
getting very heavy into the Sprint PCS phones. We thought it would offer a
little bit more variety and that it would probably be a good service use for the
t, homeowners. The packaging store, I think, are tremendous type of
convenience for the people in the general area as well as the people there. You
can receive there, if you are out of town you don't have to go to the post office.
They can collect your mail, you can get mail box numbers. Again, we were
thinking of these with the people in mind. I think the pharmacy would be a
tremendous draw from a pedestrian standpoint. It is much more pedestrian
friendly than across the street. Again, Breadsmith is extremely interested in
this location. They have another location on the north end of town. They are
doing very well and I believe they would like to put the franchisee here in the
south end.
Mr. LaPine: To the best of your knowledge, are any of the stores that you are considering
have a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Schafer: No.
Mr. LaPine; O.K. Thank you. That's all I have.
Mrs. Koons: I am looking at the landscaping summary and I see 15% is a minimum and that
is where you are. What can you do about that?
Mr. Schafer: I believe we are a little over that There is going to be substantially more back
behind it aswe proceed into the rest of the project.
Mrs. Koons: Substantially?
16702
Mr. Schafer: If you want to eliminate parking, we are a little bit more over parked. If you
want to sacrifice some of that for more green space.
Mrs. Koons: Question to John. Is the fountain part of the landscaping.
Mr. Nagy: The fountain would be, yes.
Mrs. Koons: I agree with Mr. LaPine. Something called fountain, should at least have a
fountain in it.
Mr. Schafer: I agree. I don't have a problem with that. We have a much larger area to put a
nice fountain in this area here. If it has to be identified, we would be happy to
do something here. I was looking at these 12 foot islands that would be a
rather small area to work with. There is something we could do out in front of
some of these plaza areas. Certainly subject to once we are able to hammer
that down I would be happy to come back and address that issue.
Mrs. Koons: 15% is always a minimum particularly in this area where we are losing
wetland, and I realize you can't replace wetland with landscaping. I, as one
commissioner, would like to see more landscaping.
Mr. Hale: It seems that we have some outstanding issues and tabling at this time I think
would be in order.
Mr. McCann: John, what does our schedule look like?
Mr. Nagy: March 2, 1999,there is a study meeting.
Mr. Schafer: Yes, I believe I can attend that. I need to focus on this meeting so I can recap
with some additional information.
Mr. McCann: I have numerous things that I would like to address regarding the access and
more friendly to the residents in the rear,the greenbelt and the fountain if that
is o.k., March 2, for discussion.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously agreed it was
#2-37-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-2-8-8 by Phoenix Land Development Company
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct commercial buildings on
property located at 33330 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27,
it is determined by the City Planning Commission to table Petition 99-2-8-8 to
March 2, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. LaPine: I agree with my colleagues that we need a little more landscaping. You
suggested we do away with some of the parking but there is an alternative
16703
maybe we could scale down some of the buildings to get some more room for
landscaping. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application
by Judd Electronics, on behalf of O'Malley's Bar& Grill, requesting approval
for signage for the restaurant located at 15231 Farmington Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five
Mile and Lyndon. The applicant is requesting approval for a new wall sign for
the business establishment formerly known as "Sneaky Pete's Restaurant&
Tavern". The old sign was located on the north elevation of the building near
the northwest corner. The new proposed sign would be located above the
entrance, along the top of building, near the middle of the north elevation.
This building is two stories in height and has office uses on the top floor. The
new sign would be located above the window line of the top floor offices. The
existing signage is one wall sign- north elevation- "Sneaky Pete's Restaurant
&Tavern" is 80 sq., ft. The signage permitted for this site under Section
18.50-H for one wall sign is not to exceed 80 sq. ft. in sign area. The proposed
signage is one wall sign- north elevation- "O'Malley's Bar& Grill" is 60 sq.
ft.
Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated February 19, 1999,which states: "Pursuant to your
request of February 12, 1999, the sign detail package has been reviewed and
the following is noted. (1) The proposed wall sign consisting of raceway
mounted channel letters is calculated to be 51 sq. ft. of overall sign area. This
is a conforming wall sign where 80 sq. ft. would be allowed." The letter is
signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Phil Venables, 15385 Inkster, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Anything additional you want to tell us?
Mr. Venables: We tried to design the sign to be tasteful. We thought the Sneaky Pete's sign
was sort of an eyesore on the building. Even though it conformed to the
ordinance it was an older style and deteriorating. We were pretty comfortable
with the design of the new sign, a little bit more Irish and tied in with the
theme of the restaurant. It is all aluminum so there will be no rusting in the
future as the other sign did. Of course internally lighted with transformers.
Mr. Alanskas: Will this be a neon sign?
Mr. Venables: Yes, each of the letters will have plastic faces.
16704
Mr. Alanskas: And what are the hours O'Malley's will be open?
Mr. Venables: I think as a bar, they will be open until 2:00 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: We always like to have the sign shut off an hour after closing.
Mr. Venables: I don't think that will be a problem.
Mr. Alanskas: So that is neon. It doesn't look like neon. It looks very nice.
Mr. Nagy: It's a light source within an encased letter.
Mr. Hale: When you move these signs sometime you have residue, you can see where the
sign has previously been there. When you take the Sneaky Pete's sign down,
what are we going to see behind there? Are there going to be holes in the
metal?
Mr. Venables: There may be some holes there. That will be a maintenance situation that
come spring it will be painted. I don't know if they can successfully paint this
time of year.
Mr. McCann: Isn't the sign already removed?
Mr. Venables: Yes, we took the sign down. I haven't seen it since the sign came down but I
am assuming there are holes there from the electrical. There shouldn't be a
great number of them because even though it was a 20 foot sign there should
have been only eight holes and perhaps one for the electrical.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, and seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it
was
#2-38-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Judd electronics, on behalf of
O'Malley's Bar& Grill, requesting approval for signage for the restaurant
located at 15231 Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Judd Electronics, as received by
the Planning Commission on February 12, 1999, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
3) That the sign will be off one hour after closing.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the
16705
Minutes of the 777th Regular Meeting held on January 12, 1999.
Mr. McCann: All members of the commission were present at this meeting. A motion is in
order.
Mr. Hale: I did not receive a complete copy of these minutes so I will not be able to vote
on these minutes.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, and seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved it was
#2-39-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 777th Regular Meeting held by the
Planning Commission on January 12, 1999 are approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Koons, LaPine, McCann
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Hale
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted,the 780th Public Hearing and
Regular Meeting held on February 23, 1999, was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A(v44,' a 4
ATTEST: - (t /t- --;
J. e;C. McCann, Chairman
/rw