HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-03-14 17594
MINUTES OF THE 802nd REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 14, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
802nd 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 Robert Alanskas Dan Piercecchi
William LaPine * Elaine Koons Michael Hale
H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II and
Bill Poppenger, Planner I were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn,
will hold its own public hearing, and will make the final determination as to whether a petition
r., 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. We
will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda.
*Mrs. Koons arrived at 8:07 p.m.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-01-08-01 Parkside Credit Union
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-08-01 Parkside
Credit Union requesting approval of all plans required by Section 19.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
existing building, change the parking lot scheme and erect a new drive-thru
structure on property located at 36525 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 32.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Levan and Raleigh.
The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of the existing
credit union located on the subject site. Along with this renovation, the credit
17595
union would also like to erect a stand along drive-thru teller canopy. To
accommodate the new drive-thru canopy, the existing parking lot would be
reconfigured. The elevation plans show that exterior of the building would
become a combination of brick and dryvit. The lower portion of the north
(facing Plymouth Road) and east elevations would remain brick, as they are
today and a new 3-1/2 ft. band of dryvit would be installed along the top third.
The west (facing Raleigh Avenue) elevation would be covered entirely by
dryvit. The south(rear) elevation would be half brick and half dryvit on the
lower portion, with the dryvit band continued along the upper section. A new
pre-finished aluminum facia panel would be installed around the entire building
underneath the roof line. The new stand along drive-thru apparatus would be
constructed out of the same building materials as the principle building and
have the same architectural look. The new drive-thru canopy would cover four
(4) banking kiosks and one automatic teller machine. To accommodate the new
stand alone canopy the parking lot would be enlarged and reconfigured. New
approach lanes would be installed to allow vehicles access to the drive-thru.
The two driveways off Raleigh Avenue and the one off Plymouth Road would
be repositioned. New landscaping and an access sidewalk would be installed
within the parking lot. The site plan shows that an enclosed dumpster area
would be located near the southeast corner of the new parking lot. No detail on
site light has been submitted at this time. The site plan does not show a
protective screen wall along the zoning line of the Parking District where it
abuts residential. There is considerable green space (52 ft.) between the rear of
the parking lot and the residential zoned property that could be substituted in
lieu of the wall.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first one is from the Livonia Fire
& Rescue Division, dated March 7, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate
the exterior of the existing building, change the parking lot scheme and install a
new drive thru structure on property located at the above referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated March 8, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 29. 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted: (1) The required west side yard is incorrectly noted on
the plans. The required west side yard is twenty-five (25)feet not five (5)feet.
(2) This petition will either need the continuation of a variance (8305-62,
1986, 1989, 1995) or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
absence of the required protective wall along the south 145 feet of lots 16 and
17 and east 205 feet of lot 17. (3) The required double striping of the parking
lot is not noted and must be clarified The type, site and location of required
lighting is also not noted and must be clarified (4) This petition as proposed
will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the deficient side-
yard for the new drive up canopy and structure. Proposed is one(1)foot and
required is twenty-five (25)feet. (5) Landscaping as proposed at over 30%
exceeds the minimum 15%. However, the parking as proposed is directed to
17596
the residential area and the parking expansion causes five (5) mature trees to
be removed and replaced with much smaller trees. There is also note c. about
"Hydro-seed" which needs to be revised to class A sod. (6) The trash
receptacle is noted as concrete block and may not match the building. The
exact material needs to be clarified (7) The west elevation is depicted as a
"Dryvit System"from roof to ground level. As a sidewalk is there, care must
be taken so that the proper type of system is installed to guard against contact
damage. I trust this will provide you with the requested information." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is
from the Engineering Division, dated March 9, 2000, which reads as follows:
"The City of Livonia Engineering Division has no objection to the proposed
conceptual expansion of the Parkside Credit Union. However, the Engineering
Division reserves the right to review the plans in detail when submitted to this
office. A few of the questionable items are the "Storm Water Storage Provided"
calculations and whether storm water retention on the site can be completely
eliminated. Most of the proposed pipe runs are for 00 linear feet and the notes
for the Raleigh Avenue curb cuts are unacceptable. Despite the above
mentioned shortcoming in the current plans, there is nothing that would
preclude the Engineering Division from finding the plans acceptable once the
corrections are made." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Scott Kania, 211 East Ravine Bay Road, Bayside, Wisconsin,
Mr. McCann: You are the architect?
Mr. Kania: I am the architect and construction manager for the credit union.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us at this time?
Mr. Kania: I know he mentioned about having the 25 foot side yard. I have an application
for the variance to change that to five feet. The existing drive-up canopy and
the building right now is on the lot line and we feel as if we are maintaining the
same integrity that exists there today.
Mr. Hale: The main problem I have with the site plan as it is now is with respect to the
kiosks. The areas of the drive-thru, you are actually adding two additional
carrels, correct?
Mr. Kania: That is correct.
Mr. Hale: One of which is an ATM which you essentially would be moving from the
existing building to one of these carrels, correct?
Mr. Kania: Correct.
Mr. Hale: Then you would be adding an additional teller/checkout, correct?
17597
Mr. Kania: The plans would be one drive up ATM and four remote drive-up kiosks units.
Mr. Hale: My question is, why the need for additional kiosks?
Mr. Kania: My company, Building Committee Inc., specializes in the design of financial
institutions and we specialize in credit unions. A credit union is sort of like a
bank with the exception that the credit union is owned by members and every
credit union is a little bit different. Parkside Credit Union is the Ford employees
credit union. We were hired about a year ago to do a study for the credit union.
We examined the existing facility and how it was being used by members. We
did a contact study where we kept track of how the members were using the
facility. One of our findings was that the two existing drive-up lanes were
inadequate to support the volume of the members that were using it on Friday
afternoons, when payday occurs, and it was our recommendation at that time to
increase the number of drive-up lanes so that we can alleviate any traffic
congestion on the site.
Mr. Hale: Why the purpose of moving the ATM out of the building and into one of the
kiosks?
Mr. Kania: The main reason is Mutual Kuna Insurance has a risk management which looks
at the security of credit unions. One of their concerns is with ATMs and the
visibility of the ATM from public streets for the security aspect of it. Right now
at the current location, if somebody were to use the machine after hours on a
winter night or later on a summer evening, it requires them to park their car, to
leave their car to walk up to where the existing ATM is located. Nobody on
Plymouth Road would be able to see that person and it might put them in a
situation where they could be robbed or mugged. The drive up, because it is out
in the open it allows the person using it to have visibility to be able to see
around them as well as cars on Plymouth Road also having visibility of the use
of that ATM.
Mr. Hale: As far as you know, there have been no safety problems concerning the ATM at
that particular credit union. Correct?
Mr. Kania: None that I am aware of.
Mr. Hale: The other thing that I have a difficult time with is that these kiosks are now
going to be facing east as opposed to their current direction, south. They are
actually going to be facing the building.
Mr. Kania: Yes.
Mr. Hale: Why is it we can't have these still facing south?
�••- Mr. Kania: The existing drive-up units right now, typically when you design a drive-up,
traditionally, a drive-up is situated that when you drive into a drive-up, the
tellers that have a window are on the left and when the credit union bought this
17598
building and did the remodeling, they weren't able to put what I would say a
conventional drive-up in where you would have the drive-up tellers being on the
left because there wouldn't have been enough stack-up. I don't know who the
architect was at the time but he came up with the scheme of turning the drive-
ups coming from the wrong direction. The problem is the tellers cannot see any
of the people in the car window because the tellers are in the building and they
are looking at the side of the car and the person using the remote unit is on the
other side so they lose the visual contact to know whether they recognize that
person or not. What we propose is this head-up drive-up where the members
using the credit union when they pull in with their car, if I am the teller I am
able to have that face to face contact with you and be able to recognize you.
Mr. Hale: There is a significant distance from that teller window to where these kiosks
would be. I have a hard time believing that they would be able to recognize
anybody on that basis.
Mr. Kania: What we try to do is we try to bring them as close to the building and what
dictates that distance is twofold. Number one is, I have electrical panels and
generator. I am outside of the building there. I have the existing sidewalk and
there is a certain distance from the end of the island of the drive-up to that
sidewalk to enable cars to be able to take the left-hand turn and that is set at 30
feet.
Mr. Hale: All the credit unions that you've worked with and designed over the years, as an
""' architect, how many of them have this setup where it is a face-on drive-thru?
Mr. Kania: Nowadays it is getting to be about 50% of them are going with this head-up
drive-up. If it was a smaller credit union with one or two lanes of drive-up. we
usually try to do it the old standard way but when you start to get more lanes of
drive-up, especially the third, fourth and fifth lane, it requires the cars to be
staggered and not only does the member have difficulty turning their head to be
able to see the tellers, and again, it is trying to make it feel as personal as
possible.
Mr. Hale: The last question I have is, the study that you prepared, it was prepared by your
office for the need of the additional kiosks?
Mr. Kania: That is correct.
Mr. Hale: We haven't been provided a copy of that, have we?
Mr. Kania: No, you have not.
Mr. Hale: What did you do to figure out that they have this need? Did you talk to the bank
and they said on Friday we are running out of
�•- Mr. Kania: We had them track how many members were coming into the credit union by
each teller window. We also looked at the volume of the people that were using
the drive-up lanes. We usually like to see 50% of the members using the drive-
17599
up and 50% of the people coming in. In this case, what was happening because
of the set up of the drive-up, we were only getting about 20% of the members
using the drive-up which we feel is totally inadequate and I think part of it is the
way the drive-up is situated. The fact that the people can't see the drive-up
tellers probably forced them into coming into the building. What we are trying
to do is make is easier for them to have the option of coming in or using the
drive-up.
Mr. Hale: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Let's get back to the ATM questions. Can you tell me how large your
membership is for the credit union?
Mr. Kania: I think it is 15,000.
Mr. Alanskas: Give me a little history on the ATMs. Is it usually mainly in the evening?
During the day? On the weekends? Give me a little information on that.
Mr. Kania: The purpose of the ATM for the credit union and the ATM they have right now,
our preference is that the hours the credit union is open, that if a member pulls
into the parking lot, we want them to come into the building to be able to have
that personal contact and be able to sell other products and services. What the
ATM provides is 24 hour banking. Specifically, when the hours of the credit
union are closed, they have an alternate means to be able to get cash.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have records of monthly usage? How it is used? How many customers
are going through it?
Lisa Pionk, President and CEO of Parkside Credit Union. 36525 Plymouth, Livonia. With our
ATM, especially the ATM that is located at our Plymouth Road office, we serve
a lot of the community in addition to our members and we have a lot of night
and weekend traffic from the community members. Our members typically will
use the ATM or come within the building. Most of our members work at Ford
right across the street and we have an ATM inside the building of Ford. The
drive-up ATM that we are proposing is not only to serve our members but to
serve the community in that area on nights and weekends. As Scott said, our
primary concern actually is more expensive for us to locate it away from the
building but our insurance company highly recommends that to protect us from
any liability with rising ATM crime, and I am sure everyone is aware it is
getting to be severe, especially in the Detroit Metropolitan area.
Mr. Alanskas: The question I have is that during the month, would you have 1,000
transactions, 5,000, or 10,000? Roughly?
Ms. Pionk: Off the top of my head I do not know. I do have records of that but I can't say
off the top of my head.
17600
Mr. Alanskas: Roughly, do you have any idea? Do you have 1,000 transactions a month? I
am trying to figure out how much usage there is for the ATM, and so far you are
not helping me.
Ms. Pionk: I didn't come prepared to answer that question. I am the CEO of the property,
so as far as the number of the transactions at each ATM, I don't get that
involved.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the west wall and the south wall, you do not want to brick. Is there
a reason why you can't brick the entire building?
Ms. Kania: When we looked at the existing building, apparently there is an original building
where that existing texture 111 wood siding used to be a garage or warehouse.
In 1983 the credit union had put this addition on the building and at that time it
was decided to just maintain the wood on that side. When we looked at fixing
up and renovating the building, we looked at a bunch of alternatives. The main
thing was if you look at pictures of the existing mansard roof, I would say this is
not what I consider a real attractive building. We want to try to make it a little
bit more presence. Because of the wood siding, the fact that the original
building wasn't designed to accommodate brick and a brick wall, we elected to
select the dryvit material which we wanted to be able to select a complimentary
color for the brick and also be able to carry that banding around the building to
give it, instead of that high facade look to give it more of a horizontal look.
ti•• Mr. Alanskas: Are you saying that on those two walls, there are no footings for brick?
Mr. Kania: I am not sure if there are or not.
Mr. Alanskas: But if not, it is no big deal to put in footings, is it?
Mr. Kania: It would be quite a chore. What we would have to do is dig down four feet
along both of those walls, with a trencher. We also have all the utilities coming
into the building, the electrical, the water and the gas piping are coming in right
at that location which would probably mean we would have to terminate all of
those to be able to get a trencher to come into there to be able to do that.
Mr. Alanskas: Doesn't the trencher come very close to the building? They have a new modern
trencher that comes right against the wall and digs right down.
Mr. Kania: I am not familiar with that but I think we would have to do something a little bit
more considerable because I don't know how deep the existing footings are and
how much of the footings are also sticking out on that existing building.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that on buildings that do not have footings, you can put a metal
railing at the bottom once you dig your trench. You can sit that down and put
your brick right up on that because it is not a bearing wall. I don't see why you
couldn't put brick in.
17601
Mr. Kania: I personally feel that the drive-up looking at that texture 111 and other buildings
in the area, we installed that material in other places around the United States,
other financial institutions, and see it is quite attractive when you look at the
building for what it is now versus when we are finished with it.
Mr. Shane: I would like to get back to the ATM for a second. I don't have a problem with it
being there but what I am concerned about is its location. Is it possible to move
that ATM machine further east?
Mr. Kania: It is possible but then again we lose the visibility of the street. Where it is now,
it has more visibility for the cars and traffic driving down Plymouth Road. If
we move it further east, it gets behind that building so that we lose some of that
street visibility. Also, where it is next to Raleigh is during the evening, the
street lights at Raleigh are going to help to lighten that area.
Mr. Shane: If you moved that to the other end of the canopy, I think you would get even
more visibility from Plymouth Road and it wouldn't be that far from the Raleigh
Avenue as well. I guess my problem is that it is located so close to the street it
becomes a little bit obtrusive and I would rather see it on the other end, if that is
possible. Even if you were to replace it with one of the drive-up locations,
those would be somewhat smaller. I am just saying to flop it over.
Mr. Kania: You know the building for the ATM isn't that large of a structure. I think it is
about 10 feet wide and 3-1/2 feet wide. It isn't as large as the canopy itself.
Mr. Shane: Nonetheless. I would like for you to consider moving it as I indicated. I still
think you would get better visibility from Plymouth Road and still you would
have spill-over light, I would think from Raleigh Avenue. Will you have
lighting on your own property?
Mr. Kania: Yes we will. I sure want to make every attempt to brighten up the area around
the ATM and any cars that are using it.
Mr. Shane: Will you have overhead lights right next to that area?
Mr. Kania: That is correct.
Mr. Shane: Can you tell me how high they will be?
Mr. Kania: I don't know at this time. I would have to look at the drawings.
Mr. McCann: They are marked on the plans. It is 30 feet. They would have to be reduced to
20 feet. There is one at the east north corner of the drive-thru.
Mr. Shane: It appears to me that you are going to have adequate lighting. Better visibility
from Plymouth Road that where it is now.
17602
Mr. Kania: Yes. Where it is located now is a potential disaster waiting to happen at night. I
would hate to be driving up and getting out of my car and walking where it is
now.
Mr. Shane: What I mean now is currently in your plan, is located behind the building as
well. It just seems to me in looking at your plan, you are going to have better
visibility from the other direction. I may be a committee of one.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, in reference to the location, I totally agree with Commissioner Shane. As
far as safety is concerned, I think it would be safer inside. You will be awful
close to the street where people could jump out of their car and raise havoc with
somebody at an ATM. A person would be quite visible and speaking of safety,
when I was there late at night with Commissioner Hale and Commissioner
Alanskas, a couple of people came up to utilize the ATM that is currently on the
slope of the building. One of us said something about moving it and they said
no, they didn't think it was a good idea to move it. So you can take that as you
like. It should be moved. It doesn't belong there. It isn't going to look good.
Mr. Kania: Tebo is probably one of the major manufacturers of ATMs. We were
discussing this the other day and they mentioned drive-up ATMs get 30 to 40%
more usage than those that are walk-up ATMs because the people feel as if they
are safer to use.
Mr. Piercecchi: First of all, you are talking about a business venture. Prior to that you were
talking safety.
Mr.Kania: They feel it is safer. therefore, they use it. There are people who may not opt to
use the ATM because they have to get out of their car.
Mr. Piercecchi: It was mentioned about putting brick around that building and the simple ways
that it can be done. You said that you looked at other alternatives. What other
alternatives did you look at?
Mr. Kania: When we originally looked at the building we were thinking about painting the
existing texture and not doing anything with it. Upon closer examination of it,
it was starting to rot away and that is where we started to consider putting some
type of aluminum siding or a metal panel on it. The decision, ourselves and the
credit union, is going with the dryvit material.
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, I notice too that that west wall by Raleigh is starting to rot quite badly.
But I don't know if you talk about putting dryvit, and you put it down anywhere
near the surface, you are going to have a real problem. You probably only have
a foot or so between the sidewalk and that wall. Right?
Mr. Kania: It might be a couple of feet.
.,. Mr. Piercecchi: It will get destroyed just like that wood got destroyed. Obviously something
has hit it. It just didn't rot because it is up in the air a little bit. I think the
suggestion to put brick all the way around is a good one then you would be glad
17603
down the road that you did it that way. I am quite sure of that. Mark, would
you go through that 25 foot setback again? This is news to me. You mean the
canopy should be moved 25 feet?
Mr. Taormina: The 25 foot setback applies to the principle structure, the bank building, as well
as the accessory structure, which is the canopy. The 25 foot setback is required
for both structures.
Mr. Piercecchi: We can't move the building because it is there but the canopy, how can that
meet the ordinance requirement?
Mr. Taormina: That is a new canopy proposed. Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals is
required to locate the canopy, or any portion of the canopy within the required
setback.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is the total length of that canopy? It must be about 50 feet.
Mr. Kania: I would say approximately 50 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: The way you've got it proposed now, you would have to give up two of them in
order to accomplish that.
Mr. Kania: After this meeting I have an application to get a variance on the 25 foot setback.
Realizing that the existing drive-up canopy is right on the lot line and the
existing building is there right now.
Mr. Piercecchi: They are non-conforming. This is an opportunity to make it conform.
Mr. Kania: Yes. That is why I am going to be requesting a variance of the setback.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't think you need the ATM where it is located. I think you should have
brick on that top 7-1/2 feet, especially on Raleigh and in the back just to
improve your site. I don't think it is going to be that prohibitive in cost because
you are talking a pretty small distance there. That is how I stand on this. I think
you are making a mistake.
Mr. LaPine: I agree, I think it is a lot safer to go to an ATM in your car because if things
should happen, you can hit your gas pedal and you can get the heck out of there.
I think Mr. Alanskas has brought up a point that is very germane to me. How
many hits do you get on an ATM a day? Because as you well know, the ATM
business is getting more competitive. You've got a lot of gas stations that you
can go to an ATM today so it is getting to a point where anywhere you go you
can find an ATM machine today. It used to be you had to go to a bank or a
credit union. I saw one in a donut place the other day, believe it or not. They
are getting all over the place. That may affect your business and later times.
No doubt about it, people are going to go to an ATM that is close by the house.
`,4 One that they feel is considerably safe. I have to agree with my fellow
Commissioners, I think it is too close to the road right here at this location and if
we could flop it over or if we could eliminate one kiosk and just move
17604
everything over. That would be another solution. We had a letter from the
Building Inspection Department about a number of violations that they saw on
the site. Did you get a copy of that? Did they get a copy of that Mark?
Mr. Miller: A copy was sent but I don't know if he got a copy.
Mr. LaPine: I don't know if you are aware of all the things the Inspection Department says
has to be fixed or that there is a problem that they have.
Mr. Kania: No, I haven't seen anything.
Mr. LaPine: There are a number of things on there but there are a number of violations that
they see that have to be taken care of. I just want to make sure that if we
approve this thing that you agree that the things have to be done. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: You have a comment Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: Just to go over that letter for clarification purposes. Some of the issues sited by
the Inspection Department relate more to the proposed site plan as opposed to
the existing conditions on the site. Those would include the requirement to
maintain the 25 foot setback along Raleigh Avenue. The need for the double
striping of the parking lot considering the fact that you are going to completely
reconstruct the parking lot. That would be something that would be required at
the time you develop that parking lot and that is double striping. Secondly, the
Now need to go back and get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals possibly
for the wall. Although we did check the wall and that wall variance is valid
through the year 2002. They also want to see the screening around the trash
receptacle match the building. They want to see Class A sod used in the
landscaping as opposed to hydro-seed and I noted on the landscape plan they do
call out Class A sod and they do indicate the use of the dryvit all the way down
to the ground level and that is particularly a problem along the west elevation of
the building where it is in very close proximity to the sidewalk. It may not be as
much of a problem on the south elevation where there is going to be
landscaping along side much of the building right up close to western portion of
the building and they are showing brick down to grade on all of the north
elevation and all of the east elevation of the building. I just wanted to point
those features out.
Mr. McCann: So the solution might be to go with brick on the west elevation and not on the
south elevation. That would also solve your utility problems as well. Correct?
Mr. Kania: I don't believe there are any utilities. I think they are all coming in from the
south
Mr. McCann: The west elevation would be your recommendation to go with brick since it
abuts the sidewalk?
17605
Mr. Taormina: That is something to consider just by virtue of the fact that its exposure from a
visibility standpoint along Raleigh and Plymouth Road and the fact that it is so
close to the sidewalk.
Mr. McCann: Would that be something the credit union would like to concede on, the west
elevation as far as brick?
Mr. Kania: It is something to consider.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? Since there is nobody in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this petition, a motion is in order.
Mr. Hale: I am not sure that we are ready to pass this along yet and therefore I would like
to bring a tabling motion so that some of these other areas can be re-worked.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved it was
#3-51-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-01-08-01 Parkside Credit Union requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 19.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the existing building,
change the parking lot scheme and erect a new drive-thru structure on property
located at 36525 Plymouth Road in the northeast 1/4 of Section 32 be tabled to
Now April 11, 2000.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine. Shane, Hale, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Kania: Could you describe the procedure?
Mr. McCann: If you will get in touch with the staff tomorrow, they will explain what will need
to be done. There are some concerns of the Commission they want to have
addressed. If you want to contact the Planning Department tomorrow they will
explain what we would like to see.
Mr. Kania: O.K. Thank you.
ITEM #2 PETITION 99-05-02-16 Bahama Breeze Restaurant
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-2-16 Bahama
Breeze Restaurant requesting approval for signage and to modify light standards
17606
for the restaurant located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile
and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: The applicant is requesting approval for two (2) wall signs for the recently
approved Bahama Breeze Restaurant located in the Pentagon Centre. One sign
would be located on the west elevation of the building, over the main entrance,
and one would be located on the north elevation. Both signs would be internally
illuminated. Because the proposed signage is in excess of the number of signs
allowed by the sign ordinance, the applicant would be required to be granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The petitioner is also requesting to
modify one of the conditions of the wavier use approval required in the
construction of the restaurant. The condition read as follows:
6) That all light fixtures shall be shielded and all light standards shall
not exceed 20ft in height;
Bahama Breeze is requesting to increase their height of the light standards to 30
ft. The height of the light standards previously approved for the rest of the
Pentagon Centre is 40 ft. The petitioner understands the concerns of the City
about the illumination of this campus but explains that 30 ft. is more efficient for
their development and would be a nice transition along Haggerty Road.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
�• Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is a letter from the Inspection
Department dated March 3, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of March 1, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted: (1) This petitioner is allowed one (1) wall sign of
approximately 140 square feet. As proposed, they would need a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for the second wall sign. This Department has no
objection to this petition except as noted above." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jack DeGagne, Darden Restaurants, 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive, Orlando, Florida.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us?
Mr. DeGagne: I am quite satisfied with the presentation of the items and I am here for any
questions.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I have no objections to your proposal but I am just curious about the two signs
you are asking for. Why wouldn't you have them on the north wall and on the
south wall to attract the traffic going north and south? It seems to me the sign
you are putting over the door, the entrance, is really not needed because once
they get there, they can see that restaurant stand out like a sore thumb. It is
17607
going to be a nice restaurant. It is going to be very unique and I am just curious
that you are going to be back to us at a later date saying that the people coming
from the south cannot find us. We need another sign. I just want to be on record
to let you know that I am not in favor of another sign at this location. I think you
are making a mistake as one of the other restaurants came back to us for another
sign because it turned out that they said people coming from a particular
direction couldn't find us. I am just curious why are you going with a sign over
the door and not on the south side of the building?
Mr. DeGagne: The sign over the door is the main sign and quite honestly that is part of the
architectural package. I believe also that we are going to be associated with the
existing ground signage of the development which will help us. We are allowed
one ground sign and we're not going to be having a ground sign. That is why we
are going with a second building sign.
Mr. LaPine: What is this sign you are saying is going to be out there for all
Mr. DeGagne: As far as in reference to the ground sign for the development? Correct me if I
am wrong, but I believe there are spaces on that for
Mr. LaPine: That is news to me.
Mr. DeGagne: Am I mistaken on that?
Mr. Alanskas: I believe you are.
Mr. DeGagne: O.K. Then I retract that statement. The main reason for the sign, it would be on
the front, and then for the north side because of the feature of the intersection as
far as on the north side of the development.
Mr. LaPine: It seems to make more sense to me to have the sign on both the south and north
side to get the traffic coming up and down at Haggerty. Once they get there,
they are going to know where the restaurant is. There is no doubt of that in my
mind. But that is fine. I've got no objection, if that is what you want.
Mr. Piercecchi: Bill, I don't think the other two restaurants have it on the south side either.
Mr. LaPine: They did come in for one and we turned them down. I know on Champps we
did. They wanted a third sign.
Mr. Piercecchi: Champps wanted one on the north, extra. They finally got it. I don't think
either has it on the south side wall.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I am going to go to the audience. Is there
anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no
one wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am assuming that the signage will get Zoning Board of Appeals approval
since it is two signs rather than one, but inasmuch as it does conform with the
17608
square footage requirement, in fact, it is under the square footage requirement, I
am going to offer an approving resolution.
`.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved it was
#3-52-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 99-05-02-16 Bahama Breeze Restaurant requesting
approval for signage and to amend the approved site plan in order to modify the
height of the light standards for the restaurant located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the sign package submitted by Darden Restaurants, as received by the
Planning Commission on March 6, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this
restaurant closes;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
4) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related
thereto;
5) That the City Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that
resolution #714-99 be amended to allow all parking light standards for this
development be increased to a height not to exceed 30 feet and that all other
conditions and requirements set forth in the original resolution shall be
adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 98-12-PL-01 Merriman Forest Subdivision (Landscape Plan)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-PL-01 Merriman
Forest Subdivision requesting approval for an entrance marker and landscaping
for the subdivision which received preliminary plat approval.
Mr. Miller: The site is located on the east side of Merriman between Seven Mile and
Mayville. On March 10, 1999, the Merriman Forest Subdivision received
preliminary plat approval. As part of that approval it was conditioned: (1) That
a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval
r.• prior to Final Plat Approval. (2) That a plan for the entrance marker shall
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of
the final plat. In compliance with these requirements, a landscape plan for the
17609
25 ft. wide easement (Forest Park North & South) adjacent to Merriman Road
and a the cul-de-sac island areas has been submitted. The plan has been
'''aw reviewed and found to be in compliance with all applicable standards and
requirements. The petitioner is also requesting approval for a conforming
entrance marker for the development. The submitted site plan shows that the
proposed sign would be located in Forest Park South on the south side of the
entrance drive. The framework of the sign would be constructed out of brick.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence and it is from the Inspection Department,
dated March 3, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
March 1, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following
is noted: (1) Entranceway sign is at a proper size and location; however,
plastic letters do not seem to meet the natural materials specification. (2)
Permanent required irrigation of all landscape areas was not noted and should
be clarified This Department has no objection to this petition except as noted
above." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, 36937 Schoolcraft, Livonia, and I am representing Merriman
Forest LLC, the developer of this property.
Mr. McCann: Do you have comments regarding the landscaping and the lettering?
Mr. Donna: Yes I do. We have talked with the owner and he has agreed that the lettering on
the sign will be brass lettering and an irrigation system will be installed as per
the City's requirements.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-53-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-12-PL-01 Merriman Forest Subdivision requesting
approval for an entrance marker and landscaping for the subdivision which
received preliminary plat approval should be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the landscape plan marked Sheet 1 dated 2/8/00 prepared by
Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
17610
3) 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;
4) That the entrance marker and its location, as shown on the approved plan, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the sign be
constructed of natural materials (i.e., brick) and that the lettering consist of
brass.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-01-SN-03 Victor Park West
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-SN-03 Victor
Park West requesting approval for signage for the office building located at
91575 Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: The site is located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and
Eight Mile Roads. The applicant is requesting approval for a ground sign for the
4-story office building located in front of the Valassis Communications building.
According to the site plan the sign would be located within the landscape island
of the boulevard drive. The base of the sign (letters D & F on the front view
plan) would be "dryvit to match limestone of building". The sign would be
illuminated by ground lighting. In compliance with the correspondence from
the Inspection Department, on March 7. 2000. the petitioner submitted a revised
drawing of the sign omitting the graphic "DeMattia/734.453.2000".
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated
February 23, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 7, 2000, the above petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted: (1) A master sign plan shall be submitted prior to any permits being
issued. (2) This site is permitted a business center sign which gives direction,
name and identification. The sign may be up to 30 sq.ft., not exceeding 6feet
in height, 10 feet in length. As proposed, with the DeMattia name and
telephone number, (Item G) this sign would need a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. This Department has no objection to this petition other than
as noted above." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand that. They are allowed 60 sq. ft. and this one
is 30 sq. ft. It is 6' x 4' and they are allowed 6' x 10', I don't understand that at
all.
Mr. Taormina: I believe they are referring to the actual area of the message which is limited to
30 sq. ft. The structure upon which the sign is placed can be up to 6 feet in
17611
height and 10 feet in length. There is a distinction made between the structure
and the actual sign area. We determine the area of the signage based on the
lettering and/or any logos that may be included on the structure.
Mr. Piercecchi: The structure is 6' x 4', isn't it? That is the whole ball of wax, isn't it, the
lettering on it?
Mr. Miller: It can be 10 feet in length. If they want to go 6' x 5', that could do that too.
Mr. Piercecchi: How about 6' x 4'?
Mr. Miller: Six feet is the whole sign. We don't count the base. The base is not counted as
part of the sign area. This is 30 sq. ft. and the sign can be 6 feet in height.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is the sign too high now?
Mr. Miller: No. It is 6 feet in height. It is 6 feet from the grade. It is a conforming sign.
Mr. Piercecchi: I still don't understand.
Mr. McCann: The variance is regarding the lettering.
Mr. Miller: What happened is when they originally proposed their plans, they had a
DeMattia name with their phone number and when we got that letter, I
mentioned it to the petitioner and he submitted a new plan.
Mr. McCann: O.K. So the new plan complies.
Mr. Miller: That is an old letter. but he is conforming now.
Mr. Alanskas: So the new sign is just going to say "Victor Park West" and that is all?
Mrs. Koons: And with an address.
Mr. Miller: Yes, with an address.
Mr. Alanskas: Which is included in the 30 sq. ft.?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina, I just want to make sure in my mind, where he has the address
leads me to believe that with all this blank space somewhere along the line
someone is going to come in and want their name put on this. But that is not
permissible, is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: In this case, that would not be allowed.
11111111.,
Mr. Miller: No, it is a business center sign. It can just identify the business center.
17612
Mr. Taormina: The fact that it is a multi-tenant building it can only identify the name of the
building.
Mr. LaPine: The second question I have is, but if this is a four story building, say a
corporate headquarters comes in there and takes three stories, they could come
in and ask for a sign on the top of the building, ABC Corporate Headquarters
or something of that nature. We have done that on other buildings, isn't that
correct?
Mr. Taormina: It is possible that they could get a variance to do something like that or they
could actually re-name the building and change the monument sign.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing nobody
wishing to speak, a motion is order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-54-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-01-SN-03 Victor Park West requesting
approval for signage for the office building located at 19575 Victor Parkway in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the sign package submitted by Huron Sign Company, as received by
the Planning Commission on March 7, 2000, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to:
2) That this ground sign shall not be illuminated between the hours of
midnight and 5:00 a.m.;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of the agenda. We will now
proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been
discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from
the Commission.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-03-01-04 City Planning Commission
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-03-01-04 by the
�... City Planning Commission proposing to rezone certain property located on the
south side of Glendale Avenue between Farmington Road and Merriman Road in
17613
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27 from PL to a more appropriate zoning
classification.
Mr. McCann: This is just to hold a Public Hearing on this item. Is there anything additional?
Mr. Taormina: No, there is nothing further.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-55-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#152-00, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not certain property
located on the south side of Glendale Avenue between Farmington Road and
Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27 should be rezoned from PL,
Public Lands, to M-2, General Manufacturing.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation
submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #6 Final Plat approval for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for Revised
Merriman Forest Subdivision by Merriman Forest LLC to be located on the east
side of Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and Mayville Drive in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Taormina: The Final Plat has been submitted by the proprietor of the Subdivision and is
drawn in full compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat, and the financial
assurances required have been deposited with the City Clerk and there is a letter
to that effect. Also the Engineering Department has reviewed the Final Plat and
in their letter of February 23, 2000, similarly is recommending approval.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#3-56-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
Plat for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision by Merriman Forest LLC to be
located on the east side of Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and
Mayville Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the Preliminary Plat;
17614
2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the Final Plat;
and
3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City
have been taken care of.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 802nd Regular Meeting held
on March 14, 2000, was adjourned at 8:28 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
./7 / 1.4"://)<jeZ
Michael Hale, Secretary
ATTEST:
/du:s C. Mc ann, Chairman
"%or