HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-02-29 17519
MINUTES OF THE 801st PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 29, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
801st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale
William LaPine Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons
H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,
Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams 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, make the final determination as to whether a petition is
�.. approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight. the petitioner has ten
days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by
the City Planning Commission becomes 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.
ITEM #1 PETITION 99-06-1-06 Marvin Walkon
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-06-01-06, as
amended, by Marvin Walkon proposing to rezone property located on the west
side of Newburgh Road between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in
the N.E. 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to RC.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
17520
Mr. Taormina: We have a letter from J. D. Dinan Co. LLC, received by the Planning
`�► Commission on February 28, 2000, which reads as follows: "Petitioner Marvin
Walkon is proposing to rezone property on the west side of Newburgh Road
between Pembroke Street and St. Martins Road from RUFC (Rural Urban
Farm) to R-C (Condominium- Residential). We are the adjoining property
owners to the west of this property site and object to the R-C zoning. Our
property as well as other property along Pembroke has been developed for low-
rise office usage and we feel that is the proper use for the subject property.
Therefore, this is our formal protect to Petition#99-06-01-06." The letter is
signed by John D. Dinan, Managing Member. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Gerald Joe Taylor, 36734 Sunnydale, Livonia, Michigan. I would like to give you a little
background on how this started. Mr. Walkon became aware of the property
being for sale. When we came before the Planning Commission it was quite
evident that the OS zoning we were asking for was not favorable to the
neighbors. We also asked for a delay because we weren't sure whether there
were wetlands on the property or not. When we talked to the neighbors, I
personally talked to one of the neighbors, they felt the condominium would be
the right use for the property. We talked about a one story office building but
even at that it was said that it would be better off if it were condominiums or
some sort of residential. We felt, Mr. Walkon and I, that rather than pursue the
OS we would go ahead and change the petition for condominium use. It is 7.2
acres on the southwest corner of Newburgh and Pembroke. Originally we were
talking about a two-story office building. That did not go over too well with
many of the people in the area so we are asking to have it changed to RC.
Rather than cause a lot of problems with the neighbors we want to work with
the neighbors the best we can and do whatever we can to please the neighbors.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: Are there any wetlands back there?
Mr. Taylor: No. So far we don't know of any wetlands. There is a little small piece on the
farthest west part of the property but a wall has been built on the property next
door.
Mr. LaPine: Will you be taking borings?
Mr. Taylor: We are taking borings now and it seems that the property is all right with the
borings we have.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
17521
petition? This is only on the issue of zoning tonight, whether or not rezoning
the property from RUFC to RC, condominium use, is proper or not.
'41111,
Lou Santo, 37600 St. Martins, I am almost an adjoining property owner. I am neither for or
against this at the moment. Please describe RC to me as far as density of units
per acre. Educate me a little bit.
Mr. McCann: That would be up to 10 units per acre. I think the maximum would be
approximately 70 units for the maximum density possible. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That would depend on the number of bedrooms in each of the units. The land
area requirements are based on the number of bedrooms. For example, where
there would be proposed two bedrooms units, the minimum required land area
per unit is 4,350 sq. ft. On the other hand, if they were to include units with
three bedrooms, the minimum required land area would be 5400 sq. ft. per unit.
What that translates to is a density between 8 to 10 units per acre.
Mr. Santo: At the last meeting the fellows were gracious enough to offer up a picture of
what they were proposing so that we had an indication of what was possibly
going on. Do they have that again tonight? A possible look of a building?
Mr. McCann: The Commissioners have decided that we are going to come back and that we
are going to address that. We looked at it as, is RC is an appropriate zoning?
We are trying to keep it within that.
New
Mr. Taylor: We have Alex Bogart, an architect working on that right now. Of course, as
you know, we will be back before the Commission and Council for approval of
those. You would get another chance to see that.
Mr. McCann: We are going to invite the audience to participate in the site plan process. You
will have an opportunity at the site plan to inspect the drawings and approach
and make comments for or against the condominium use. This will go on. The
site plan is a separate process. They would have to come back and go through
the Planning Commission, the City Council and the ZBA if there were any
variances involved. This is just to change the zoning so that it would be
proper to file the site plan use.
Mr. Santo: O.K. Thank you.
Pete Adzema, 19753 Newburgh, Livonia. I am the current owner of the property. I just want
to make a comment about John Dinan's petition. He wanted to buy the
property too and put office buildings in there. So I don't know if he is doing
this because he didn't get it or whatever. I just wanted to let you know what
happened.
John Dillon, 37730 St. Martins. I just want to echo a few sentiments. I have no problem with
the zoning change to condos but without seeing a site plan, I think a majority
of the neighbors were concerned about was putting in a two story building
there. It just wouldn't fit in with the neighborhood. I think if they are going to
17522
put condos in there, that might also be two-story. Without seeing a drawing, it
s„� would be hard to say. I am concerned about the density problem. If they are
going to cram 70 units into that 7 acre property, it would be nice to get some
kind of feel as to how that is going to look in our neighborhood. What is the
foreseeable future of that? How soon will we be able to see that? When will
the next meeting be?
Mr. McCann: We are probably looking at 60 days when that petition will be coming before
us, aren't we Mr. Taylor?
Mr. Taylor: We have the architect working on that now and as everyone knows, it takes a
little while to get through the City processes, and as soon as we get some
renderings we are certainly going to file a petition to the Planning Commission
to start the process.
Mr. Dillon: We are talking 70 units?
Mr. Alanskas: Up to a maximum of 70 units. It could be less.
Mr. Dillon: O.K. But it hasn't been decided on your part?
Mr. Taylor: No. It hasn't.
Mr. McCann: But they probably would be two story townhouses. That is my understanding.
Is that correct?There could be some one story ranches as well. There may be a
mix, depending on the popularity. The more ranches or end units that are
requested, the less the density will be and that is determined as the orders come
in. What is the height limit on RC?
Mr. Taormina: The maximum height would be 35 feet and that would be the peak of the
structure. That is consistent with a standard single family construction.
Mr. McCann: That is standard?
Mr. Taormina: Yes it is.
Mr. McCann: It would be similar to single family homes as far as height.
Mr. Dillon: Thank you.
Bonnie Kramer, 37615 St. Martins. I just wanted to thank Mr. Walkon and his associates for
trying to work with the community and our feelings on the subject. I do echo
my neighbors opinion that it would have been nice if there had been some kind
of preliminary drawings as you did supply last time. I just ask you to consider
our neighborhood and the feel of our neighborhood and the way it looks when
you design your project. I reserve judgment until the next meeting.
Pat Ambroziak, 37502 St. Martins. I would like to know how many units are going to be per
building? How many buildings are we going to have over there?
17523
Mr. McCann: I think that is the subject of the site plan. Do you know how many offhand?
Mr. Taylor: All I can tell you is that I personally drove Alex Bogart around the
neighborhoods and throughout Livonia to show him what the architecture is in
Livonia and what we are looking at in that particular area. We wanted to make
him familiar with what a nice area that is. We are planning on upscale units. I
could not tell you how many units or how many buildings. He has to tell us
that.
Mr. Ambroziak: I am sure if he was there looking, that he will see that they are all single
family dwellings. I am sure that is not what you are putting in, you are asking
for condominiums. I don't have a problem with condominiums but I would
like to see exactly what you are proposing. How many buildings, where the
roadways are going to be and where all the traffic is going to be.
Mr. McCann: Sir, that again is going to be discussed during the site approval process.
Mr. Ambroziak: I am just echoing that this Planning Commission wants us to say it is O.K. for
condominiums but they don't want to let us know exactly what they are going
to put in there or what they have in there.
Mr. McCann: You have to understand what we are trying to do up here is take a look at what
is the best use of this land to fit into the community. Obviously if there has
'�► been other offers for office use, there is a strong desire by developers to put in
office. The community hasn't responded to office as being appropriate use,
neither did the Planning Commission or the Council. We are taking a look at
what would be the proper zoning. We don't necessarily have to approve any
site plan. When we come back to site plan process, that is when we want the
neighbors there to determine what the appropriate density is. Where the
appropriate driveways are and try to make it a project that fits both the
community, the developer and be a nice buffer between the post office,
between the office and between the residential. Those are the type of questions
we were looking at tonight.
Mr. Ambroziak: So we are in a wait and see position right now? Is that correct?
Mr. McCann: We would welcome your comments when they come back.
Mr. Ambroziak: O.K.
Mr. McCann: If there are no final comments from the Commissioners, I will go to the
petitioner for the final comment.
Mr. Taylor: No. Other than the fact if you look favorably upon this, we are missing the
Council agenda by one day and we would ask for a seven day waiver, if that is
possible.
17524
Mr. McCann: I will take up that after we have a resolution. I am closing the Public Hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved it was
#2-34-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on February 29, 2000 on Petition 99-06-01-06, as
amended, by Marvin Walkon proposing to rezone property located on the west
side of Newburgh Road between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in
the N.E. 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to RC, Residential Condominium, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
99-06-01-06 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a transition zone
between nonresidential land uses to the north and west and low density
residential land uses to the south; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more of a variety of
housing types in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
Now accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Walkon, I am very pleased that you have submitted a revised petition for
the rezoning of said property from RUF to RC, that is residential condos
instead of your original office services proposal. I find this development
approach can be in harmony and in character with the surroundings and can be
accomplished within the principles of sound planning. During our study
meeting, RC was considered an acceptable if not an ideal transition zone from
non-residential on the north and west to single family units on the south of this
site along St. Martins and further south along Newburgh Road. However, as
you know, at this junction we are only deciding the issue of zoning. The next
phase, as you are fully aware, will fully mandate an in-depth study of your site
plan and how it relates in particular to our zoning ordinances and to its
surrounding neighbors who will have input in the final judgment. Sir, I wish
you well.
Mr. LaPine: I support his motion. Mr. Walkon and I don't agree very often but this is one
proposal that I can buy. The only comment I would have is that when your
architect is designing the building, make sure that they do everything they can
... to keep them as far away from the residential neighborhoods. The ordinance
says 30 feet. We try to get a little bit more than 30 feet if we can and give us
some nice high scale development. Thank you.
17525
Now. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Taylor, you
were requesting a waiver of the 7 day rule. We require three things in order to
waive the 7 days. (1) The petitioner has to demonstrate a need. (2) That I
have to contact the Council President, which I have done in this matter and
they will accommodate the petitioner in putting them on their agenda sooner
than normal which Council President Maureen Miller-Brosnan would be able
to do in this instance, and (3) we need a vote from a majority of the Planning
Commission to approve the 7 day waiver. Can you give us the reasons for this
request?
Mr. Taylor: As the Commission knows, we have been waiting on whether we could use
the wetlands property itself plus the fact that we decided to change the zoning.
So the time limit as far as the options are running out on the property and we
would like to get something going as quickly as possible.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#2-35-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of
Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 99-06-01-06, as
amended, by Marvin Walkon proposing to rezone property located on the west
side of Newburgh Road between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in
the N.E.I/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to RC.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The seven days are waived.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-02-01-01 City Planning Commission
(Bobby's Country House)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-01-01 by the
City Planning Commission proposing to rezone certain property located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (Bobby's
Country House site) in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 17 from PL to C2.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:There are no items of correspondence related to this petition but I will give a
brief description. This petition would rezone the property from its current land
use category of PL (Public Land) to C-2 to facilitate the sale of the parcel by the
17526
City of Livonia to a private interest that would maintain its use as a restaurant
and banquet facility. We have been working very closely with the perspective
purchasers of this land in order to make this transition as smooth as possible.
They do have plans to occupy the building within the next couple of months and
will be submitting plans for your review and consideration at next month's
public hearing. This will include both a waiver use petition for the restaurant as
well as a Class C Liquor License. The building will be maintained as a
restaurant and banquet facility and will include a reciprocal agreement between
both the City and the landowner for the purposes of providing and insuring
parking and access for both uses. There will also be a deed restriction relative
to the use of the property limiting it to restaurant and banquet purposes. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: I will go to the audience. This is a petition by the Planning Commission. Is
there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Bonnie June Legge, 15524 Golfview Drive. I just wanted to ask, the sale involves the
restaurant and clubhouse only, not the rest of the golf course? The golf course
remains as is, right?
Mr. McCann: That is correct.
Ms. Legge: O.K. That was my question.
�..
Mr. McCann: If there is no one else wishing to speak, I am going to close the Public Hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was
#2-36-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
29, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-02-01-01 by the
City Planning Commission proposing to rezone certain property located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive (Bobby's
Country House site) in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 17 from PL to C-2 the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-02-
01-01 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning reflects the fact that the subject property
is to be sold and will no longer be under public ownership; and
2) That the proposed change of zoning will place the subject property under a
zoning classification that will allow for the continuation of the present use
under private ownership.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
17527
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. It is our petition
and we do have a demonstrated need and that the sale of the property has
already been authorized by the Council. We need the zoning to catch up with
the sale. Therefore, in order to get it placed on the Council's agenda in time, we
need to waive the 7 day rule. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#2-37-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of
Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2000-02-01-01 by
the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone certain property located on
the north side of Five Mile Road between Golfview Drive and Ellen Drive
(Bobby's Country House site) in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 17 from PL to C-2.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-01-02-01 Borman's, Inc. (Farmer Jack)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-02-01 by
Borman's, Inc. (Farmer Jack) requesting wavier approval to utilize an SDM
license in connection with a major retail facility proposed to occupy an existing
building located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road
and Middlebelt Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter dated February
1, 2000, from the Division of Police and reads as follows: "In response to the
captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as
submitted. The second item is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated
February 1, 2000, and reads as follows: Pursuant to your request of January
18, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. No problems or
deficiencies were noted." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector. The third item is a letter from the Fire & Rescue Division, dated
January 28, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval to utilize a SDM
License 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 fourth item is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated
January 26, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
17528
Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal. The following legal
�... description should be used in connection with this petition: 'That part of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, T. IS., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County,
Michigan described as beginning at a point distant South 89°52'00" West
along the North line of Section 11, 982.37 feet and South 00°03'00"East,
335.86 feet from the Northeast corner of Section 11 and proceeding thence
North 89°52'00"East, 240.00 feet; thence South 00°03'00"East, 262.50 feet;
thence South 89°52'00" West, 240.00 feet; thence North 00°03'00" West,
262.50 feet to the point of beginning.' We trust that this will provide you with
the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Albert Lord, 18718 Borman Avenue, Detroit. The store is well under way as far as
construction. The construction department, through our architects, was before
the Planning Commission some time ago in 1999, everything had been
approved to go ahead with the facility then. We are a retail grocery chain,
Farmer Jack, as with most retail facilities, in fact all of our retail facilities, we
would like the ability to sell beer and wine. We are here under the guise of the
City of Livonia to ask for the waiver.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Now
Mr. Shane: What percentage of your business is represented by an SDM license?
Mr. Lord: Excellent question. I can't answer that question because I am not with the
Finance Department, I am with the Real Estate Department and it is my
responsibility to secure SDM licenses. Typically, we will hold an inventory in
the store of about 35,000 on an average basis, including beer and wine.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Lord: I have an additional question. I am a novice at this, you can probably appreciate
this. What is the 7 day rule that you referred to?
Mr. McCann: It would only benefit you if you had made prior arrangements with the Council
to get on their agenda. Our minutes do not become official for 7 days.
Mr. Lord: O.K.
Mr. McCann; Once that happens, then you can request a date before the City Council for a
hearing before them. In this instance, you will be put on the regular track.
Mr. Lord: The reason I questioned that was because of the fact, again as a novice, I did not
�— realize the time that it would take to get through Planning Commission and City
Council and so forth. I was in discussion with the Michigan Liquor Control
Commission. What they are waiting for is approval with this license is merely
17529
the report from the Police Department. In talking to Sergeant Sawyer, I
New understand the procedure has to go to Planning Commission and Council before
he can do anything. The time constraints, I feel, may take us another 6 weeks to
get through that procedure. We were hopeful of opening the store before that
period of time and I don't know if that 7 day rule would apply or not.
Mr. McCann: When is the planned opening date?
Mr. Lord: We were planning before the end of March.
Mr. Alanskas: You could always open, if you don't have your beer and wine license, you
could still open.
Mr. Lord: Certainly we could appreciate that but when, in order to be a complete retail
outlet, we would appreciate the ability to have this.
Mr. Alanskas: Other stores have done that in the past.
Mr. Lord: We, of course, have opened other stores without that license.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: Unlike the previous two petitions, which will be forwarded to a regular meeting
for the purpose of scheduling public hearing dates, this would go through the
normal procedure of first being placed on a Council study agenda and then,
following that review, being considered at its next regular meeting. So I don't
necessarily see where a waiver of the 7 day rule would benefit this petitioner.
Mr. McCann: O.K. If there is no further discussion from the Planning Commission, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#2-38-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
29, 2000 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-01-02-01 by
Borman's, Inc. (Farmer Jack) requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM
license in connection with a major retail facility proposed to occupy an existing
building located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road
and Middlebelt Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-01-02-01 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
17530
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding
uses in the area; and
4) That the utilization of a SDM license is a part of the normal operation of the
subject business.
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.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-01-02-02 Jeffrey A. Scott Architects
(Wendy's International)
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four letters of correspondence. The first letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 1, 2000, and reads as follows: "This
Now office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct a full service restaurant with drive-thru window 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 February 1, 2000, and reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 18,2000, the above referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The sign package is incomplete.
We recommend it be resubmitted with complete details. (2) There are several
concerns and/or deficiencies in regard to parking and the parking lot. (a) There
is one barrier free space missing (8'space with an adjacent 5'aisle). (b)
Location of barrier free spaces may be improper. (c) Required double
striping is not indicated (d) The turning radius of the drive thru as required
by Ord. #543, is not indicated. (e) The two (2) additional drive thru parking
spaces as required by Ord 543 are deficient. (fl Light poles are not clarified
as to height and type. (g) Surface of parking lot and drainage have not been
specified. (3) The footings for the masonry trash enclosure seem excessive at
26'3" deep, unless the Professional Engineer has determined such a need. (4)
Landscape indicated as existing has not been inspected and approved and the
landscaping along Middlebelt has not been approved. (5) The areas between
trees are not specified as to material or type. I trust this provides you with the
requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 1,
2000, and reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police
Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed
by John Gibbs, Police Officer Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated January 26, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant
17531
to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering division has no objection to the proposal or the legal
contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Christopher Koch, 300 River Place, Suite 3000, Detroit, Michigan. I am with the law firm of
Abbott and Nicholson. I have been asked to represent Wendy's International on
the site that was submitted for your review. As was indicated, we are seeking
approval of a waiver use to construct a Wendy's Restaurant on vacant property
basically located in front of the existing Wal-Mart and F& M stores. We realize
that the site plan has been reviewed by the Planning Department and that there
were some deficiencies. I would be happy to go through and address some of
those. Unfortunately, we had that list for only about 7 days and we were unable
to revise the site plan. Although I can say, with certainty, with the exception of
one which we have a little bit of confusion on, all of the issues can be complied
with without any problem. You are, as you know, to review this site plan and
give us approval under the standards set forth in 19.06 of the ordinance. We
believe that we complied with or are able to comply with all of the requirements
set forth therein. I would be happy to give you a little prepared speech or if it
makes more sense, I would be happy to respond to some of your questions of
concerns you may have about the proposal.
Mr. McCann: Do you have a drawing that you want to show us?
Mr. Koch: I do actually. Basically, the first drawing I would like to show is a mock-up.
What we have tried to do is superimpose what the proposed store will look like
on the vacant property. It is an interesting piece of property in so much as it is
in front of two existing commercial structures, however, it is an independent
parcel and it is developable under the C-2 designation. This basically shows the
Wendy's as it will look from the street side with the Wal-Mart in behind. I had
hoped that it would give a better example of how far it is in between the two
structures actually because there is quite a bit of property between the two of
them. Next, I have some further site plans which attempt to show a little bit
more of the configuration of the property and some of the landscaping all of
which was not submitted on the original site plan. I guess there is a request for
ome additional landscaping and also some specifics requested with regard to
what will be sod or seed. It will be some sort of grass.
Mrs. Koons: Could you please show me where the drive-thru path is?
Mr. Koch: Yes, I would be happy to. This is Middlebelt and what will happen is traffic
will be entering through this existing curb cut, proceed around the restaurant
and the drive-thru will start here with the ordering being taken right here and the
delivery of the food, right here. So the stacking lane will twist around the back
of the building and be away from Middlebelt Road until the food is being
received.
17532
`o. Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you using the same entrance for ingress and egress?
Mr. Koch: Yes, ingress and egress. It will be paint striped and marked with arrows
assisting to direct traffic.
Mr. Piercecchi: I started to look at your traffic study and they always amaze me. Sometimes I
think they are one size fits all. I don't think there has ever been a traffic study,
that has shown that the place is overloaded with traffic if you put another
business in there. Have you ever seen one, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I haven't read them all, yet.
Mr. Piercecchi: I believe one size fits them all. That was my compliment.
Mr. Hale: Do you have any other alternative layouts that would provide for a different
type of drive-thru in stacking of vehicles. The concern I have is this looks very
similar to McDonalds at Five Mile and Middlebelt, which I think is very poorly
designed in terms of the layout. I really don't want to see the same kind of thing
occur here. One other thought that has been put into this, it is not only can
traffic come in through the curb cut off of Middlebelt, but you've got a whole
No.-
bunch of traffic that could be coming from somewhere else. It could be a busy
area and I think somewhat dangerous because at the entrance you are going to
have, is very close to that drive-thru delivery area. Am I correct?
Mr. Koch: The entrance to the property?
Mr. Hale: No, the entrance to the building.
Mr. Koch: The entrance to the building is going to be on the opposite side of where the
delivery is.
Mr. Hale: There is only one entrance to the building?
Mr. Koch: One public entrance to the building. There might be an additional entrance right
in front, as is typical in most fast food restaurants where the food is delivered.
Mr. Hale: That is what I don't like because I think it presents a safety issue but are there
any other layouts that you considered for this. You have a lot of Wendy
restaurants out there?
Mr. Koch: We haven't for this particular site. Our initial feelings from the Planning
Department was that they wanted to use the existing curb cut as it sits and on
that basis, we tried to design a site that would facilitate the flow in what we
thought was the safest matter. So no, as we sit here today, we don't have an
alternate site.
17533
Mr. Hale: In terms of the square footage of this building, is it a smaller than the standard
Wendy's?
Mr. Koch: It is a standard size and it also complies with all the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance in terms of size on the piece of property; seating, parking and such.
Actually the seating will be smaller than the standard Wendy's restaurant.
Mr. Hale: If you know are there a number of other layouts of Wendy's restaurants similar
to this that are out there? I haven't seen any.
Mr. Koch: I have done quite a few, and eaten at quite a few, and this is the one I am most
familiar with. I can look into that. I just don't know the answer. I do not that
typically they are willing to work with municipalities preserving as much as
possible the trademark style of the restaurant.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: In the drive-thru pass around lane, when you are coming around to get to the
drive-thru window, if I am in that line and change my mind, there is no way I
can get out of it. Doesn't the ordinance require a pass around lane adjacent to
the drive-thru lane, so if you are in line you can get out of it and pass around
which would mean you would need another 12 feet of width?
Mr. McCann: I think we do that on car washes. I don't know if we do that on restaurants.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, the ordinance requires that a by-pass lane or other suitable means of
access to a public street shall be provided for vehicles that do not use the drive-
up window.
Mr. Shane: So in this case, you are not providing that. The other thing I have a problem
with is the curb cut. Regardless of what this says, there is a fair amount of
traffic that traverses Middlebelt and if I am coming north or south to turn in here
once I get in here, you have to take a little turn. In other words, its not a straight
shot into the site. You have to make a decision to make a little turn there and the
other thing I am concerned about is when I come out, I hope I am not going to
make a left turn. I don't think you are ever going to make it because that curb
cut is so close to the intersection of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt and that
concerns me. Although there are other ways to get off the site, you can go into
the Wal-Mart parking lot but I don't think it is a good plan to have one entry/exit
that is so close to the Middlebelt Schoolcraft intersection. My comment on the
pass around lane, that one problem there requires that site to be redesigned
somehow so you can accommodate another 12 feet.
Mr. Koch: We can take a look at the pass through lane but my understanding of the pass
through requirement would be this part of the site over here that allows traffic
that is not going through the drive-thru lane.
Mr. Shane: My concern is, once I get in that lane
17534
Mr. Koch: I would agree that provides for that. I am not sure the ordinance requires an
escape route from the pass through lane but we can certainly look at that as
well. It could be a simple matter of opening this up here to permit some traffic
to get out of there.
Mr. Shane: Except, I think, the ordinance requires that lane to go all the way adjacent to the
drive-thru lane itself and the building would have to be moved back.
Mr. McCann: Mark, can you read the ordinance again. I think the ordinance just said for other
traffic or for drive-thru traffic.
Mr. Taormina:A by-pass lane or other suitable means of access to a public street shall be
provided for vehicles that do not use the drive-up window. I think what that
would indicate is that cars that wanted to circulate around the site would not be
forced to go through the drive-thru lane.
Mr. Shane: I am concerned about once they get in it.
Mr. Taormina:Whether there is a secondary means to get out.
Mr. Koch: I don't think the site permits for a secondary lane running parallel with it to
allow them to get out but I think if necessary, we could provide something right
here to prevent traffic from going into that lane. Your comment about the
entrance too is well taken and there is, because of this parking structure, a little
New jaunt here, or a little turn required here once you enter the property. We are
hoping the directional arrows will assist traffic. As you can see, we have them
up here as well. Again, we hadn't considered a secondary entrance, ingress or
egress, but that is something if it is required, we can consider it, but again, it
was our understanding that second a one wasn't preferred.
Mr. Shane: Is this an Outlot?
Mr. Koch: I guess you could call it an Outlot for lack of a better word. I don't know the
technical requirements of it, but I guess you could call it that.
Mr. Shane: Are you constricted to that?
Mr. Koch: Yes, we are constricted to size and I know in terms of expanding the size of the
site, it is my understanding that the shopping center, or the other two stores are
right at its limit and cannot be cut into without reducing it to under the required
levels.
Mr. Shane: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Traffic and safety problems, in my opinion, ring very loud and clear regarding
this site. What about all the internal traffic within that whole complex? How
�•- are they going to get to that window? Won't there be a battle of people coming
in through the right-of-way and people that have been shopping at Wal-Mart or
F &M and want to go in there?
17535
,os.- Mr. Koch: You mean cutting into the line from up here?
Mr. Piercecchi: What is going to avoid collisions and hassles?
Mr. Koch: You can do one of two things. You could restrict access along here which
would eliminate that hassle and when this has the passing through here you
could have arrows going into that if that is solely in that, if that is a concern.
Mr. Piercecchi: Don't you think it is going to be a potential problem? Most parking lots, I
know I checked one major store last year that wanted to move into town and
wanted to know about the incidents about crime and that it was amazing, most
of the problems that were encountered, were fights over parking.
Mr. Koch: I can see it as a potential dispute.
Mr. Piercecchi: You know about 90% of all the police are out on parking problems. People
say you stole my parking space and then they fight. I can see a real problem.
Whether you block that off or not, I don't know if you can avoid that problem
unless you completely blocked it off and then nobody will ever get through and
you will really need a passing lane in there.
Mr. Koch: I don't mean to be rude, but the gentleman I keep referring to is the architect, I
should introduce you to is Jeffrey Scott who can answer some of those more
specific questions.
Mr. Alanskas: Number one, I like to thank you for this report. We got this Friday and it is
almost 100 pages and to really delve into it you have to be a rocket scientist.
You opened a store last year on Merriman and Five Mile.
Mr. Koch: I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Alanskas: There are no traffic problems. You have a good ingress and egress. Why did
Wendy's pick this site for a restaurant?
Mr. Koch: Unfortunately, I don't think we have anybody from Wendy's that can answer
that.
Mr. Alanskas: I'll tell you why I ask that question, because the lot there is 80% to 90% full at
all times with Wal-Mart and with F & M and with you wanting to go in there, it
is going to be a nightmare for traffic.
Mr. Koch: I think why they want it there is because it is a nice place to put a fast food
restaurant because I think there is a need there. Not only do you have these
large retail establishments, which is always a nice marriage to have fast food by
them, but also you have the industrial concerns down the road that can use it
•- and you also have some other restaurants. This would serve as a separate option
for people who are seeking to do that. I think that is why that site was located.
In terms of the parking lot congestion and traffic in general, which I think we
17536
need to discuss, that is always a difficult one and not being flippant, you say that
all of the traffic reports are the same, and I don't dispute that, but a lot of the
times the traffic concerns are the same in so much whenever a facility wants to
build in an area last, the last one on the developable plot they are always faced
with the prejudice that you are going to cause all this increased traffic and that is
not necessarily the case. Especially with the fast food restaurant, because I
think most people will recognize, and true, it is reflected in the report, but these
are not destination restaurants. What they do is they pick up customers from the
passing traffic. So you are not necessarily increasing traffic which is going to a
location as perhaps some restaurants might, which are more destination, but
they pick off traffic as they come. Really the traffic issue is, you are going to
have people turning off into the restaurant and slowing traffic in that respect.
Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about that and the benefit of this site
is that you are on a very large busy road. It has seven lanes, including the left
turn lane, so there is sufficient flow to allow people to turn off and enter into
this commercial establishment. I know it is in the report. I don't personally
have a good grip on the number of individuals who enter to Wal-Mart from this
site but my understanding based on a couple of times I was out there observing,
most of the traffic using this entranceway uses the oil change store. It doesn't
go up to Wal-Mart. I was only there for a few times. I can't say what I
observed was standard for all but no matter what goes in on this site, you are
going to face the prospect slowing as they turn in. That is the nature of these
commercial developments.
`r"' Mr. Alanskas: You say traffic, are you aware that there were 41 accidents at that corner last
year?
Mr. Koch: On this particular corner?
Mr. Alanskas: On Middlebelt and Schoolcraft. That is without any restaurant being there.
Number two, the congestion is so high. You've got 1400 vehicles per hour
going by that intersection. Putting in a Wendy's or McDonald's does not
belong there, in my opinion, because it is just a congested area that we are just
asking for more trouble.
Mr. LaPine: I've got a number of concerns. One is the same concern about the traffic
coming into that one exit. My big problem is most of these cars are going to be
coming out the exit onto Middlebelt Road. To try to turn left, as one of my
fellow Commissioner's said, you are going to have a tough time. I don't think
you people have taken into consideration the problem we really have at this
corner. You've got across the street Millennium Park which is going to be a big
project, not only the commercial, but the manufacturing in the back, one
building with one million sq. ft. in there. There is going to a lot of semi trucks.
Semi trucks can get into that complex only two ways, they get off at Inkster
Road, come down the service drive and cut across Schoolcraft and come in on
the east exit or they are going to come up Middlebelt, make a turn, come up
Middlebelt and turn left into the complex from Middlebelt. Many of those
complexes are not open yet. If you go back there and see some of the trucks on
a week day that turn off the expressway, two of them get on that bridge and the
17537
traffic does a standstill, an absolute standstill. So I think a restaurant being at
this corner is going to create another problem. Number two, one of the
functions of the Planning Commission is we should try to diversify an area. We
shouldn't have all the same thing there. We've got so many restaurants in that
quarter right now, plus across the street a proposal for four or five more
restaurants. I just think we are going to be over saturated. Number three, I
think this traffic study gave us, I've got a couple of questions on it. Was this
traffic study done just within the last six months or so?
Mr. Koch: I can tell you the date of preparation on it.
Mr. LaPine: It says February 24.
Mr. Koch: Then I would assume that is when it was completed.
Mr. LaPine: Then let me ask you a couple of questions. On page 10, we talk about manual
traffic survey. Manual traffic counts at the intersection of Middlebelt and
Schoolcraft were taken on a typical week day in June 1998. Does that mean
that is when this was taken, in 1998?
Mr. Koch: Unless I can find out an answer to the contrary to see whether or not that is a
typo, I would have to say yes. I can find that out.
Mr. LaPine: On page 12 it says historical traffic volume data was obtained from Wayne
`- County Road Commission for traffic for Middlebelt Road during August and
September of 1996. That was four years ago. Things have changed a lot in four
years. The appendix traffic count source, Wayne County Road Commission,
they are talking about the volume of traffic at different times of the day. The
date on here was September 26, 1996, September 27, 1996, August 1996, here
again four years ago. It doesn't make sense to me. To me you get something
more up to date.
Mr. Koch: The problem with those surveys are that they are not done on a yearly basis so
they have to use the best available information that they have.
Mr. LaPine: Things have changed at that corridor a whole lot since 1996. Then we go
through this on page 45, Land Use 834, Fast Food Restaurants with Drive-Thru
Windows, this is from a Washington publication where they talk about the
statistics for drive-thru windows and they say the site were surveyed from 1980
to 1990. That means 20 years ago for some of this data in this section. When I
went through this, I was amazed at some of the data in here is quite old. I am
just wondering, can we depend on what is in this booklet is up to date?
Mr. Koch: I would say it is up to date with the most current information they can get from
those sources. I think even if you were to hire traffic experts to try and come up
with a contrary conclusions, they would be relying to some extent on some of
the data, although they should factor in some of the newer uses in there as well.
17538
Mr. LaPine: In fact, I think they do. I tried to find the one they did for Millennium Park, but
r..- I couldn't find it because I wanted to compare the two. I am not too happy with
this. I get the impression that some of this data is pretty old.
Mr. McCann: I assume you are negotiating with the landlord or is it with Wal-Mart. Who
owns the property?
Mr. Koch: The landlord.
Mr. McCann: Many of the Commissioners have suggested, you are taking the main entrance
to the shopping center and having the traffic go around Wendy's to get through.
It creates problems for people coming out of the express lane, people trying to
enter/exit the Wendy's, it is poor site development. Have you negotiated to
move to the south at all? That would solve the problem of the entrance and exit.
It would divide the people using the Wendy's so that they could use both the
north and the south entrance to the mall. It would solve all the problems that
you are hearing from us today.
Mr. Koch: Can I refer to Mr. Scott?
Jeff Scott, 7115 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield. You are looking at the potential of
taking this curb cut and sliding it, say in this region right here?
Mr. McCann: That would be a possibility. That would solve some of the issues or moving the
No. site west. The problem is you've got a really poor design for gaining entry and
exit to your facility. It creates traffic problems for Middlebelt Road. It creates
traffic problems for Wal-Mart. All of the concerns raised today suggest that it is
just not suitable there.
Mr. Scott: I do have two questions, getting into the traffic report, I know it was just
published last Friday or that you just received it on Friday.
Mr. McCann: I've been out of town, so I can't answer.
Mr. Scott: Did Engineering staff review the report? It was my understanding, and I'm not
a traffic engineer and I don't know all the technicalities about the times and the
turns and the movements and so forth. Was that part of their report or was that
too late for the Engineering report? They are the ones I would anticipate, you
know if I give the Engineering staff a traffic report,
Mr. McCann; Let's back up here, we're just dealing with common sense here. You are talking
about a restaurant that gets heavy use at 5 o'clock in the evening and we have
traffic that is very heavy in the City.
Mr. Scott: For the Wendy's, their prime time is more in the afternoon and they don't do that
much dinner business.
Mr. McCann; You haven't waited in line at 5:00 p.m. recently. I have, at Five Mile and
Merriman.
17539
Mr. Scott: I understand but that is not typically their peak time. That should be reflected in
the traffic report.
Mr. McCann: But don't you understand that this is an entrance to the mall as well as an
entrance to Wendy's?
Mr. Scott: I understand that. The times that I have been there due to the remoteness of the
entries of where the two stores are, vehicle traffic occurs here and here with
this, from the times that I have been there, is more of a secondary entrance. But
I do understand that potential for movement to occur out and I think naturally
what has happened is that because of where the entries are, this happens to be
the main entry and because of the non-developed area, what is happening out
there we understand that. It is an Outlot that is as a matter of right for the
zoning to house a fast food restaurant.
Mr. McCann: It is a waiver use, as I recall. Besides that, even site plans have to be approved
and control traffic in a proper and prudent method. Those are the questions that
we have for you. You've answered my questions. I am going to go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Ray Tent, 18051 Deering, Livonia, Michigan This is a waiver use which means that if you
grant this waiver it goes on forever. You can't take it back. What I look at here
`'` is this is 10 pounds being put into a 5 pound bag. All the questions you have
asked, I have to agree. I am not going to talk too long, I've got something else I
want to talk about. The letter I heard from Engineering, they covered so many
things in there that should be addressed. The thing that always concerns me
about these places, is the parking. I certainly hope in your plans, which I am
sure you don't have because there are a lot of things that you don't have. You
quoted an ordinance of 1906 This is the year 2000 now.
Mr. McCann: I think that was Section 19.06.
Mr. Tent: Oh well, I was close. The thing is we have an ordinance of a parking base, 10' x
20'. Do you remember that? I hope we are not going back to the 18' x 8'just to
accommodate the parking. Dan brought up the subject about all the traffic and
that they are all going to be fighting for parking areas in that particular location.
You know how parking lots are today. So all in all, unless they come up with a
real good plan that you can approve, and I certainly hope that you don't, because
this is the wrong place for this type of restaurant. We have a lot in the area and
that spot is so busy; 41 accidents we've had, that's a lot. I would hope that you
would consider this very seriously and it is a waiver and with a waiver it is
forever. So let's not make any mistakes on this one. Concerning the
landscaping, the gentleman said: "We are going to have some grass, we are
going to throw some grass in there." I am concerned, will it be sprinkled? Are
we going to have that done? Are we going to have trees there?. Are we going
to have some first class landscaping? There are so many things that have to be
answered here. I would hope that you would look at all these and come up with
17540
an answer. I think my opening remark, 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag is what we
have here. Thank you
Mr. McCann; Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition? Sir, I am
going to give you the last opportunity to speak.
Mr. Koch: In all honesty, when I looked at this plan for the first time too, this struck my
eye and I thought this would be the issue that would draw most of the attention
from the Commission. As it turns out, that is right. What I would request, I was
going to ask that you approve the site plan subject to the conditions being met in
the report, but it seems like that is obviously premature. I would like to have an
opportunity to have the plan tabled so we can go back, talk with some of the
City personnel about some of the other options, talk with perhaps the landowner
although I don't think moving the Outlot is going to be something that satisfies
it and see if there are additional plans that we can come up with. So at this point
I request that you vote on the site plan, table it so that we can work on some of
the issues, come back and address all the letter issues that were set forth by Mr.
Bishop and see if there are any alternate plans we can come up.
Mr. McCann: I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: In my mind I just don't think there is a need for doing a tabling because I don't
think any restaurant belongs there. I am going to deny it.
�.. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved it was
#2-39-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
29, 2000 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-01-02-02 Wendy's
International by Jeffrey A. Scott Architects requesting waiver use approval to
construct a full service restaurant with drive-thru window to be located on the
west side of Middlebelt Road on the south side of Schoolcraft Road in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2000-01-02-02 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements
as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use, due to its location, size and character, would be
detrimental to and would adversely affect the surrounding uses in the area;
3) That the proposed site layout and its relation to streets giving access to it,
particularly with respect to vehicular turning movements in relation to
routes of traffic flow and location and access of off-street parking, will be
hazardous and inconvenient to the neighboring property and the neighboring
area in general;
17541
4) That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Zoning
;,,`, Ordinance which, among other things, are intended to insure compatibility
and appropriateness of uses;
5) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all of the concerns deemed
necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents; and
6) That there is no demonstrated need for the proposed use to be located in the
subject 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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: I haven't had a chance to really study the traffic report, I only glanced through
it Bill, but you explained why one size fits all. Because all the data is old and
everybody uses the old data.
Mr. McCann: I normally would give the opportunity to the petitioner to make changes. I don't
know that he can change this property enough to satisfy me but I am not going
to support the denying just for the one reason, I would give him the opportunity
to come up with something and at least look at it. Call the roll please.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, LaPine, Piercecchi, Hale, Koons
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
You have ten days in which to appeal the Planning Commission decision to the
City Council.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-01-02-03 PUGH SHOWS, INC. (James K. Wegerly)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-02-03 by Pugh
Shows, Inc. (James K. Wegerly) requesting wavier use approval to conduct a
carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of amusement rides,
games and food concessions from April 20 to April 30, 20000, inclusively, on
the north side of Seven mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Purlingbrook
Road in the S.E.1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
17542
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Division of
Police, dated February 7, 2000, and reads as follows: 1I have reviewed the
r..
plans submitted for the operation of the carnival at the Livonia Mall. The
plans direct for the operation of the rides in the south lot, which the Police
Department Traffic Bureau has no objections. The Police Department Traffic
Bureau does have concerns with the location of the storage of the carnival
trucks and trailers. The Plans call for their storage in the furthest west lot west
of Mervyns. The location suggested places the trucks and trailers in close
proximity to a senior center, Ziegler Place, 30001 St. Martins. Ordinarily, the
trucks and tractors associated with the moving of the rides are large trucks.
Additionally, trailer coaches and motor homes are often stored at the locations
of the trailers and trucks. The locations of the vehicles may conflict with
ordinance 8.32.070(9), which addresses the operation of motor vehicles
between the hours of 11 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. when within 150 feet of a
residential area. Ordinance 5.15.060 (location restrictions) states that ...no
amusement...shall be operated or maintained within six hundred feet of the
closest occupied residence.... Ordinance 5.15.110 directs attention to the
hours of operation which the Police Department is authorized to establish.
The hours of operation for the rides, amusement, concessions or any other
activity associates with the carnival should remain between the hours of 4
p.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. Friday and
Saturday, and 12 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Sunday. I have checked with the
Community Service Office of the Police Department. At this time, there has
been no request for their service at this event. Prior obligations may limit
availability of personnel during the course of this 10 day carnival." The letter
is signed by Brian Dewan, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated February 3, 2000, and reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request
to conduct a carnival on property located at the above referenced address. We
have no objections to this proposal, with the following stipulation: • Access
to fire hydrants is provided for the Fire Department.." The letter is signed by
James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from Engineering
Division, dated February 2, 2000, which reads as follows: "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 with this petition: 'That part
of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne
County, Michigan described as beginning at a point distant South
89°52'00" West along the South line of Section 2, 400.00 feet and North,
60.00 feet from the Southeast corner of Section 2 and proceeding thence
North, 330.00 feet;thence South 89°52'00" West, 380.00 feet;South, 330.00
feet; thence North 89°52'00"East, 380.00 feet to the point of beginning.'
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter
is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer The fourth item of
correspondence is a letter from the Inspection Department dated January 31,
2000, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request of January 27, 2000,
the Inspection Department has conducted a review of the above subject
petition. The following is noted. The minimum building setback would be
60' from the property line. Consideration should be given to providing the
17543
minimum setback for this use." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox,
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
James K. Wegerly, 3041 Serenity, Oakland, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us anything additional about the carnival?
Mr. Wegerly: We are here to request permission for what is becoming the annual Rotary
carnival at Livonia Mall. This year it is being sponsored by the former North
Rotary, what is now Rotary AM. We are basically in just about the same area
and from what I understand things went quite well last year. I am not aware
of any complaints or problems. I hope you will look quite favorably upon our
request.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Wegerly, your firm always does a fantastic job in the City. How close on
Seven Mile are those kiddy rides? It doesn't say in footage.
Mr. Wegerly: I realized that we didn't put a set back in.
Mr. Alanskas: We are concerned because of the young kids being that close to Seven Mile.
Mr. Wegerly: I don't have the exact dimensions but there is a sidewalk and a grass strip and
another buffer of landscape. We are in the parking lot of the mall actually.
We are not right up next to the road by any means.
Mr. Alanskas: Could you just make sure the kiddy rides are as far away from Seven Mile as
possible?
Mr. Wegerly: Absolutely. This is going to be laid out in the same fashion as last year and it
seemed to go very well.
Mr. Alanskas: I thought the kiddy rides were not in front last year, I thought they were
towards the back.
Mr. Wegerly: They actually were in the middle and some were towards the back. They were
in both places.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you very much.
Mrs. Koons: The dates, I don't have a calendar with me, but your dates of operation, April
20. What day is that?
Mr. Wegerly: That is a Thursday.
Mrs. Koons: I don't think schools are out on Thursday.
17544
Mr. Wegerly: The first Thursday, we open at 4:00 p.m. and also on Friday, we open at 4:00
p.m.
Mrs. Koons: That answers my question.
Mr. LaPine: Is it necessary to keep these open on Friday and Saturday until midnight?
How much business will you get after 10:00 p.m.? But from 10:00 to
midnight, is that a big time?
Mr. Wegerly: On Friday and Saturday nights the people do tend to stay a tad later. To be
perfectly frank, I don't think we stayed open until midnight last year even
though we were granted permission by the Police Department. These hours
are not cast in stone and we obviously will not stay open if business did not
warrant it. In the past, about 11:30 p.m. has been sufficient. If you folks
would feel better with that, that is fine.
Mr. LaPine: The longer it goes on at night, the more apt there could be some trouble and I
don't particularly like to see it open to midnight but if you were open that late
last year and like you say, if you are not having a good evening you will close
a half hour early, you do that on your own anyway.
MR. Wegerly: Just so you know, whenever possible, we hire the City of Livonia to provide
security police and we actually hire them to remain after our closing to clear
the area.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak
for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was
#2-40-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
29, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-01-02-03 by
Pugh Shows, Inc. (James K. Wegerly) requesting waiver use approval to
conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club consisting of
amusement rides, games and food concessions from April 20 to April 30,
2000, inclusively, on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt
Road and Purlingbrook Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 2 the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
01-02-03 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Pugh Shows,
Inc., which are April 20, 2000 through April 30, 2000, inclusive;
2) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as
illustrated on the site plan submitted with this request;
17545
3) That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and
apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be located at least
60 feet distant from the Seven Mile Road right-of-way line;
4) That all trucks and other transportation equipment shall be parked or
stored within the northwesterly portion of the Livonia Mall parking lot,
but no closer than 100 feet from the west property line abutting the Ziegler
Place site or 250 feet from the south property line abutting Hunters Brook
Condominiums;
5) That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late
hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. including motors on any
refrigeration trucks;
6) That there shall be no living quarters at the location of the stored trucks;
7) That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter
dated January 25, 2000, from James K. Wegerly, President of Pugh
Shows, Inc., which have been approved by the Police Department.
8) That access to fire hydrants is provided for the Fire Department
For the following reasons:
`.• 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not
interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not
impede access to the Livonia Mall; and
4) That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use.
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.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-01-02-04 BILL BROWN FORD, INC.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-02-04 by Bill
Brown Ford, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to provide new vehicle
display, used vehicle display and sales, parts storage, body shop and vehicle
17546
servicing on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road east of
Sears Drive between Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated February 11, 2000, which
reads as follows: "To Whom It May Concern: At the 107th meeting of the
Plymouth Road Development Authority held February 3, 2000, it was:
RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby
unanimously support the proposed use and the site, building and landscape
plans as submitted by Bill Brown Ford for their new facility, which will
include new vehicle display, used vehicle display and sales, parts storage,
body shop and vehicle servicing in the S. W. 1/4 of Section 26, at 30400
Plymouth Road (former Terrace Theater property). The letter is signed by
John J. Nagy, Director, Plymouth Road Development Authority. The second
item is a letter from Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated February 11, 2000, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request for waiver use approval to provide new vehicle
display, used vehicle display, parts storage, body shop and vehicle servicing
on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
`"' this proposal, with the following stipulations: (1) If any of subject buildings
are to be provided with automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be
located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department Connections.
(2) Fire hydrants shall be provided on site with spacing consistent with
commercial use group. (3) Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forth-five feet wall to wall and
a minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet." The letter is signed by James
E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department
dated February 10, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 2, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted: (1) A petition to rezone this property to C-2 (General
Commercial) is in process. This review was made under the C-2 District
Regulations. If the rezoning is not approved, the property will have to be re-
reviewed under M-1 District Regulations. (2) This petition as a waiver use
in C-2 may be permitted by Ord. #543. (3) Pre-existing fences some with
barbed wire; appear to belong to adjoining property. (4) The existing light
standards appear to be 25 to 28 feet in height. (5) The parking lot needs
maintenance and should be resealed and properly double striped (6)
Accessible parking spaces as depicted are incorrect One space must be van
accessible and have an 8 foot space with an adjacent 8 foot aisle. (7)
Section 11.03(G)(2) requires that no vehicles shall be parked within 20 feet
of the front lot line. No vehicle setback is indicated on the plan. This would
require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (8) As the sign
package is not complete, signage has not been reviewed as part of this
petition. (9) The landscaping, as proposed at approximately 8%of the site
17547
area, is deficient of the required 15%. The deficiency may be waived by
..- Council. This Department has no objections to this petition other than as
noted above." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector.
The fourth letter is from Division of Police, dated February 9, 2000, which
reads as follows: "The deceleration lane as indicated on the site plan, should
be extended to the center driveway. This would help ease the traffic flow of
westbound Plymouth Road and reduce the possibility of rear end collisions.
Currently the site plan has 11 lights. The lighting on this property in the past,
has been poor offering concealment for criminal activity. Enhanced lighting
should be considered to assist with crime prevention and also in keeping the
lot secure during nighttime hours when the business is closed. The site plan
requires a total of 102 parking spaces (including four accessible) to comply
with the requirements of the city ordinances. To meet this requirement, an
additional three spaces should be made available for off street parking." The
letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fifth letter is
from the Engineering Division, dated February 7, 2000, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal or the legal description contained therein." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bob Gunnigle, Bill Brown Ford, 32222 Plymouth Road, Livonia. I appreciate the opportunity
to present our project. Just by way of a brief history, I think most of you
recognize what a good corporate citizen we have been with respect to the
appearance of Plymouth Road. This goes back to the buildings that we
purchased to the west of our current facility. You may recall Allude Travel
from the neighborhood. They were from Livonia. There used to be a dry
cleaner along there. There used to be a LaForest Insurance Agency. There
used to be a flower shop there. There used to be a motorist shop there. We
purchased all of those, demolished all the buildings, turned that into a very
attractive display area for vehicles. Of course, three years ago we demolished
our showroom and created a showroom that is certainly worthy of the
community. That is, by way of comment, that is the kind of corporate citizen
we have been. We were looking for another site for display where we
understand we are going to lose the George Burns Theater property some day
soon for displaying and we were looking for another piece of property. The
Terrace Theater property became available. Apparently there weren't many
takers. We were be among one of the few who could handle that and make
uses for it. So the uses we propose and have rezoned for are a new vehicle
display, a new body shop, a used vehicle sales and display and also for parts
storage and for service. I am going to show you this evening our ideas for
this. I think you have had a chance to look at some of these things anyway but
I think I should review the site plan and I have some renderings to give you an
idea what this project will look like. I am going to ask you, if you will, to
.` open your minds to it. I am going to ask you to do something creative for us
but again, we have been a good corporate citizen and I would like you to take
that into consideration, please. Just briefly on the site plan, I know you have
17548
looked at this and what we have here we provided for in the center here a
display roughly 80 used vehicles. This would be our used vehicle display
area. This would be a new vehicle display, up and down here on the sides and
there are approximately 240 display spaces for new vehicles there. Back here
would be off street parking for vehicles getting ready for the body shop
operation. This would be employee parking back here. Here we have spaces
for customer parking along the side. We have been advised by Inspection that
these accessible spaces need to be revised to 8' spaces with 8' aisles and we
will do that. We've also been told that the employee parking and customer
parking needs to be double marked. We will of course do that. Are there any
questions about the basic site plan?
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to keep the existing used car sales lot that you have?
Mr. Gunnigle: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: So you would have two - that one plus the new one.
Mr. Gunnigle: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: We know that you are deficient in landscaping and it is impossible to meet
the 15%that we would like. I question, one person speaking, why do you
need the center driveway? If that center driveway was removed and the apron
removed, you would pick up roughly three to four tenths percent internally
and about a half percent more even if it is not attributable to your property.
So we gain about a one percent landscaping and we would have a nice stream
all along the way there. Is there any reason why that can't be accomplished?
Is that so necessary to have that center?
Mr. Gunnigle: Can I address that one when I get to my drawing with the landscaping on it?
Mr. Piercecchi: Sure.
Mr. LaPine: Your employees parking is going to be at the rear at the 500 feet of the
extremities of the property, is that correct?
Mr. Gunnigle: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Looking at this whole plan, I was curious, I see the emblem down here where
light poles are going to go and going back to what the Police Department was
saying, where is all the lighting for this whole area. I don't know where any
of the poles are. Can you show me where they are?
Mr. Gunnigle: Sure, right here in the middle of this area, there is an existing pole.
Mr. LaPine: There are 11 there right now according to what it says here. Are you putting
more in?
17549
Mr. Gunnigle: We are going to replace the ones in the front here. When I get to the
landscaping plan, I have that on there.
Mr. LaPine: All right.
Mr. Gunnigle: In this back area there is a light here and a light here and right here and one
right here.
Mr. LaPine: It doesn't show on my plan.
Mr. Gunnigle: You may be looking at the landscaping plan.
Mr. LaPine: No, I am looking at this plan right here.
Mr. Gunnigle: That is the landscaping plan. For some reason the back lights didn't get
transferred. I noticed that this evening but they are there. The existing back
lights will be there. I'll address the front lights in just one moment. Any other
questions on this?
Mr. McCann: Not at the moment. Why don't you go to the landscape plan.
Mr. Gunnigle: In the way of landscaping, what we've done here is had this colorized so you
could see where the landscaping is going to be. We would use the existing
landscaping and we would add to it a dense preparation of landscaping. What
we are attempting to do here is, we understand we are deficient in terms of
landscaping area. What we propose to do is to do a very dense and thorough
job of landscaping of what's available. Part of that will be to supply a pillars
and fence arrangement along the front here similar to what the PRDA is doing
up and down the street. With respect to the driveway, this is going to be a
very very busy lot. What is going to happen here is we'll have daily tow truck
wreckers coming in bringing in wrecked vehicles in. Daily, we'll have
transport trucks coming to this property to drop off new vehicles and to haul
away used vehicles. We'll have vendors coming for our used vehicles
operation. We'll have new vehicle customers coming there to look at cars.
We'll have used vehicles customers coming to look at cars, body shop
customers coming to talk about their cars and to make arrangements for them.
The test drives, wholesalers coming to and from, this will be a very busy
location, we hope. That is part of the plan. So we would like to retain those
drives as they are. The lighting in the front here, we would go to a display
type lighting. Take out the existing lights and put in the same kind of nice
canister lights light we have at the new car store now at the Hubbard Road
location. We've got this type here on a nice pole. These would go at the
existing locations where the existing lights are. So there is a light here, here
and here. They all have four cans on them so they light up a nice area. Then
we would also put a light right along the front in the shrubbery area here.
There is a light which has two canisters on it and also lower lights which
would shine on the cars and brighten up the cars that are displayed there.
There is a light here, a light here, a light here and a light here and those are all
the double types, again. So this will be a very bright area up here in the front.
17550
That should respond to the concern of the Police Department with respect to
security. We are very security conscious. We have 24 hour a day security.
r.,. So that is nothing new to us. If you don't, you lose your vehicles. Any
questions on the landscaping?
Mr. McCann: You say heavy traffic the theatre had 400 cars coming and going at one time
when they were showing a movie there. That is why they needed three drives.
K-Mart can exist with two drives and they have maybe 400 customers coming
and going within an hour. I can't see coming to shop. We've all been to our
dealerships. I have been to the dealership on Plymouth Road. Your
dealership that only has ten spots out in front, basically, for new and used car
sales. Talk about severe shortage of parking for customers. But you get away
with an entrance and an exit there. I can't conceive that you would be so busy
that you would have two exits and entrances backed up that you would need to
have a third.
Mr. Gunnigle: I wouldn't propose to tell you that there is going to be people lined up there all
the time but there will be a lot of traffic there.
Mr. McCann: What does the third drive provide, other than for people stacking up to leave?
Mr. Gunnigle: It provides an easier access to the property for everyone. An easier egress if
you will.
Mr. McCann: What makes it easier if you are coming in on east bound traffic to turn into the
entrance. Your farther east entrance takes you right around to the back for
your deliveries, for your pickup and for your vendors. I assume they can enter
and exit from both easterly drives, is that correct?
Mr. Gunnigle: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: So you have to circle around. They come around the building, and would be
able to exit the middle drive without a problem.
Mr. Gunnigle: Most vehicles will be able to do that. The semis will not be able to do that.
Mr. McCann: Why would they not be able to do that?
Mr. Gunnigle: They will not be able to make this turn back through here.
Mr. McCann: Can you please draw that again?
Mr. Gunnigle: If a semi comes in here, we can have him unloading and loading back here but
he will not be able to make that turn to come down through here and come
back out this way here.
Mr. McCann: It's a straight shot, isn't it according to your plan?
17551
Mr. Gunnigle: You are right. Our impression is that he will be a lot better off going down
this way and out this way.
Mr. McCann: That is fine. Then why do you need the center one?
Mr. Gunnigle: This is a 400 feet of property here. I drive up and down the street, I see other
businesses with less property with as many drives. Edward's Glass would be
one. Another would be little restaurant down close to us, Daly's Restaurant,
they have three drives. I am going to have as much traffic as they are going to
have. It just doesn't seem real unusual to me.
Mr. McCann: Part of the problem with Daly's is that has been there a long time. We are
trying to do this Plymouth Road development. We are trying to get as much
greenbelt and the traffic organized so it flows better. If we revitali7e
Plymouth Road, that helps your business.
Mr. Gunnigle: Please understand, we are trying to help revitali7e Plymouth Road too. We've
bitten off a large piece of property here. We would be prepared to do
something here, maybe go back with these parking spaces here and do some
more landscaping back here but we would like to retain those drives if we
could.
Mr. McCann: How many cars are you going to display on this site?
Mr. Gunnigle: There will be about 240 new and about 80 used.
Mr. McCann: How many vehicles do you currently have at the Mai Kai/George Burns
Theater?
Mr. Gunnigle: Under 300. Somewhere between 270 and 300.
Mr. McCann: Is there a temporary use for storing vehicles at the Mai Kai?
Mr. Taormina: Not that I am aware of. I am not sure what the conditions upon which they
are utilizing that site.
Mr. McCann: Do you know if there ever was a waiver use requested to store vehicles on that
site.
Mr. Gunnigle: No, because it was always going to be developed. We appear before the
Zoning Board annually and they renew our request to display vehicles until it
is developed. So there was never a waiver use applied for. Because frankly,
we couldn't afford that piece of property.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions?
Mr. Shane: I have to echo two Commissioner's problem with that driveway. If you were
to remove it, it would allow you to store some additional cars in the among
17552
other things. But the other problem I have is that, are the cars along Plymouth
Road set back 20 feet as required, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: There are some spaces that are within that 20 foot set back.
Mr. Shane: I believe I am correct in my assumption that the waiver use section of the
Zoning Ordinance requires 20 feet, does it not?
Mr. Taormina: For display vehicles, the requirement is that the setback from the right-of-way
be at least 20 feet. Existing stalls that are shown on the site plan vary the
setback of somewhere between 13 feet and 30 feet. I think at the closest point
the parking spaces are about 13 feet from the sidewalk.
Mr. Shane: Are you prepared to meet that 20 foot requirement on your site plan?
Mr. Gunnigle: I would like to that in lieu of giving up the driveway. This center area here is
going to be a used car area. We are going to display used cars in this area
here. We are hopeful that that is where most of our used car traffic will come
to. This is going to be new car display up here and here and all this other day
business that I have to deal with. It is going to be a busy place. One thing
about this is that we understand that this is not a guaranteed success. This is a
tough business and if for some reason this doesn't work, this will become
another project and will probably require three curb cuts.
�.. Mr. Shane: Since the ordinance requires 20 feet, I don't think you have any choice.
Mr. Gunnigle: If that is what the ordinance requires, we will be prepared to do that.
Mr. Shane: I'm still hopeful that you will reconsider your position on that driveway. I
don't think it is needed.
Mr. Gunnigle: The center one?
Mr. Shane: I would want to require you to setback 20 feet because that is what the
ordinance says you have to do.
Mr. LaPine: I am just curious, you've got new vehicle display area, your 12 spaces along
the front, along where the brick wall is going to go up. Why can't we
eliminate that altogether and get more landscaping in there? Why do you
need those 12 spaces? People drive in and there is plenty of space in here for
the used vehicles. Why can't we just get rid of all of all those 12 spaces in
there and get more landscaping in there?
Mr. Gunnigle: I think Mr. Shane just told me I had to do that, didn't he?
Mr. LaPine: He said you had to go back 20 feet. I don't know if that means you are going
to eliminate any parking spaces. I am for eliminating them all.
17553
Mr. Gunnigle: I think there are about 15 feet right now. So five feet deficient roughly, is that
right, Mr. Taormina?
New
Mr. Taormina: That is approximate, right.
Mr. Gunnigle: So to give up five feet you really give up the parking spot there.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. So you are aware....
Mr. Gunnigle: So we would entertain that, yes.
Mr. LaPine: Here again, let me go back to the question most of my fellow Commissioners
are talking about. Give me a good argument why you need that center drive.
I just don't understand. You drive in one way and you can drive out the other
way. Why do you need the center drive? I really don't understand why we
really need that center driveway? We can make that a straight shot with a
brick wall all the way across there and really make it look nice.
Mr. Gunnigle: Let me give you an idea what that would look like. This is a rendering which
the architects put together to give you a sense of what the property will look
like from the street, with the fence here, with the stone pillars, with the
vegetation. They must have thought it was winter time because they didn't put
the flowers in front of the fence, I see. But that calls for that. But that will
give you a good sense of how attractive that property will look with the fence
there and with the vegetation.
Mr. LaPine: I agree. It would look nice if it went all the way across and included the
center driveway. Then you've got the two driveways at each side and the
fence from one driveway to the other driveway and landscaping all across the
front.
Mr. Gunnigle: I agree, that would look very nice. We think it would be more functional to
have the third driveway. Knowing how people are, they don't always hit the
drive. They don't always hit the second drive but we like to give them as
many options as possible to get into that property to give us as great of a
chance for success as possible.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, being that you are 5 feet deficient, if you took those parking spaces, or
those 12 spaces out, if they pull in that center drive; say they want to look at a
used car and they pulled in where would they go to park their vehicle when
they go in to see about buying a new or used car?
Mr. Gunnigle: If I have to give up these spaces, I am going to have to remark this a little bit
because I am going to have to pull cars back.
Mr. Alanskas: So they can park somewhere in here?
i.. Mr. Gunnigle: Yes.
17554
Mr. Alanskas: My thought is, if these spaces are gone for the center drive, they could just
pull in through here or here and then pull into your parking spot. I have to
agree with Mr. LaPine, that if you came across with the entire wall, my
thought is, if say a year from now down the road, if you did take out that
driveway and you found a year later that there was so much traffic that you
had to re-open this, you could always go back to the ZBA and let: "We've got
so much traffic, we need driveway to be re-opened again." That is a thought.
By taking these 12 spaces out, I think the need for this driveway for people to
come in and try to park there, really wouldn't be needed. I know how busy
you are because I am one of your customers. I just went to your service area
two days ago. You are a busy facility. I think that these two drives could
suffice. That is just my opinion.
Mr. Gunnigle: What will happen if we give up this space here and this space through here
for landscaping, then what we'll have to do is run our cars all the way down
there,just follow this display all the way down. Therefore, our customers,
when they come in, will end up parking back here. What it is going to do is
necessitate having customers coming in this way here and going up here to
park to see used cars or coming up this way here to park when all the cars are
up here. I ask you to work with me on this thing because this is not the easiest
business in the world. You are probably familiar with Auto Nation, over here
on Ford Road.
Mr. McCann: They are out of business.
*gm. Mr. Gunnigle: They are out of business. This is a huge corporation that couldn't make one of
these things go. This is not a given that we can make this successful but Mr.
Brown is prepared to try here and we are going to give it our best.
Mr. McCann: Aren't you the number one dealership in the United States?
Mr. Gunnigle: No. We are in the top 10, but we are not number one.
Mr. McCann: Weren't you at one time?
Mr. Gunnigle: We've been fifth or sixth before.
Mr. McCann: You are right up there, you do a great job.
Mr. Gunnigle: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: You are a good corporate citizen, I'll grant you that. Convince me of one
thing. Either I don't want any parking along the road and we will move the
landscaping back or get rid of one drive. Your preference is to get rid of all
the parking along Plymouth Road?
Mr. Gunnigle: That is correct.
17555
Mr. Piercecchi: To get the 20 feet you would have to give up the first storage place, where
you've got your nine foot typical there. That first parking space there for your
,` new or used cars would have to be removed. Twelve feet is what your setback
is right now. If you gave up all those spaces, you could really landscape that.
Mr. Gunnigle: These spaces along here?
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you talking about giving up the 6 spaces right in there? Then you
wouldn't qualify. I think you've got 99 right now and you need 98.
Mr. Gunnigle: What I am proposing to do is close these up here.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then you wouldn't have enough parking. You are only one over now to my
knowledge. Is that right, Al? They have 99 and they need 98.
Mr. Gunnigle: You mean for customers and employees? If I were to do that then I will give
up the display space.
Mr. Nowak: The parking requirement is 98 spaces and they are providing 99. I believe
they are all either to the east or west of the building or directly in front of the
building or at the rear on the north property line. I don't think they would lose
any customer parking spaces in that area that you are referring to.
Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't realize that these are display. I'm sorry, I thought you were going to
parking in there.
Mr. Gunnigle: No, these are for display. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to give those up?
Mr. Gunnigle: Yes, if I can keep that drive.
Mr. Shane: Since we are in such a good mood here, do you need the Terrace sign up
there? This will be known as Terrace Bill Brown Ford?
Mr. Gunnigle: Bill Brown Terrace.
Mr. Shane: Really
Mr. Gunnigle: Yes. Let's talk about the sign a little bit. I recognize the sign as it exists is
ugly. I understand that. The sign is blue. It is yellow and it is ill taken care
of. What we propose to do is to refurbish that sign. I have talked to a sign
manufacturer to have him bronze the sign and to make it an attractive sign.
Replace all the white stuff that has deteriorated and paint this in colors to
compliment the rest of the building and give us a chance to merchandise the
property properly. May I show you some other pictures.
�•. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina, do we know how many square feet that Terrace portion of sign
is.
17556
Mr. Taormina: I do not have calculations on the square footage but I believe Mr. Gunnigle
Nw was able to take some measurements of the sign just today and may have
some additional information.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Gunnigle, do you know how many square feet where it says "Terrace" is?
Mr. Gunnigle: I don't have that number separately. The total square footage is somewhere
around 430 sq. ft.
Mr. Alanskas: With the whole thing.
Mr. Gunnigle: Yes, this area and this area.
Mr. Hale: Do you know how tall is that marquee out there in relation to some of these
other signs? I think it is up there quite a ways.
Mr. Gunnigle: This marquee is somewhere around 25 feet. It is kind of hard to measure
because it is so high. If you look in this literature here, these are pictures of
dealerships up and down Plymouth Road with which this facility is going to
have to compete. The second one in here is the Chrysler dealership across the
street. That sign there towers above this sign here. It is hard to tell from the
perspective here but those are 30 foot light poles he has in that picture there.
This Chrysler logo star has got to start 2 or 3 feet above that light. That is a
very tall sign there. Looking at some of the other signs up and down the
Now street, again with which we have to compete, if you look on the first page, the
Olson Oldsmobile, it is a good dealership. It does a good job and it has a lot
of signage. If you look at the smaller picture on the left hand side, you can
see the big Oldsmobile brand sign. A Nissan brand sign which is also a very
large sign, a used vehicle sign He also has on the building Nissan
Oldsmobile and Service. So this is a well lettered facility. We have already
looked at the Chrysler sign.
Mr. McCann: Did you bring us a picture of the Bill Brown signs at your main headquarters
and a picture of your signs at Wayne Road and Plymouth Road?
Mr. Gunnigle: I did not.
Mr. McCann: How many signs do you have at Wayne and Plymouth?
Mr. Gunnigle: Three.
Mr. McCann: How many do you have at Hubbard?
Mr. Gunnigle: There is the main brand sign and then there are three directional signs there
and two wall signs that say "Bill Brown".
Mr. McCann: So you still out number any other dealer on Plymouth Road, don't you?
17557
Mr. Gunnigle: On no. Just keep looking. If you look at the next piece of literature and that is
Rogin Buick. Again, another good dealership doing a good job. He has there
the big Buick brand sign that says John Rogin and GM beneath it. The service
directional sign, he has a used car sign and it is hard to see in this picture, you
can just see the red top, there is an Isuzu sign there.
Mr. McCann: I also notice there are three Ford Broncos and Expeditions right in the front
there.
Mr. Gunnigle: Everyone is trying to get the Ford business. I checked with Planning today
and we researched this and I think the number is 423 sq. ft. of signs there.
Does that sound right?
Mr. Taormina: You are speaking of the adjacent dealership?
Mr. Gunnigle: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: I believe that number is accurate. I believe that number is about 419 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: You understand that this is nice but the ideal of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority, as we discussed, is not to try to see who can beat the
other, who can be the biggest, who can be the best and who can get the most
signage up on Plymouth Road. The idea has been over the last number of
years, to try and tone down and to try and have a nicer look. We've gone to
monument signs. According to the petition, you are allowed 101 sq. ft. on
your building. You are allowed 30 sq. ft. monument sign at the front, 6' in
height and 10' in length. What is proposed for this sign on the wall that you
are showing there?
Mr. Gunnigle: That is right around the 101 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: I guess what we are saying is that you trying to compare what everybody else
has in town. What we are trying to do is make sure everybody meets the
ordinance. That anybody new coming to town is going to have to compete.
You are going to have to compete under the ordinance as you will have to.
You are going to have 340 cars, the most anybody on Plymouth Road has as
far as showing cars. If they can't see 300 cars driving down the road, they
have got to be blind. You are going to have three entrances to come in and
exit. They are going to know what you are selling there. They are going to
see you at Hubbard. They are going to see at Wayne. Bill Brown's presence
in Livonia has never been missed before. To justify to us and then go on to
the Zoning Board of Appeals, you have to demonstrate a hardship that you
have that you need to go beyond the current signage. Not what Bill and Joe
have, but you have to demonstrate a sincere hardship that you have to
overcome and that is why you need the larger signage. When you are one of
the top 10 dealerships in the United States that is a tough thing to do, I would
think.
Mr. Gunnigle: We would like to stay there.
17558
Mr. McCann: We want you there and we will work with you. Obviously a 30 foot ground
sign isn't sufficient but taking a 40 year old sign and saying it is appropriate,
,` you are going to have to come up with something better.
Mr. Gunnigle: This is a sign that probably most of the people in this room were raised
around. Most of the people in this room probably went to that movie theater
there. What we have is a historic sign here in Livonia and it is not one of
those things that should be thrown in the waste heap. Here is an opportunity
for us to merchandise our business, differentiate this particular from our main
store and from the Wayne location by calling this the Terrace Bill Brown
Theater property. We are going to do that sign up. We are going to refurbish
the sign. It is going to be very attractive when it is done. It is not going to
gaudy yellow and blue. It is going to be a nice bronze color with beige. It is
going to be very useful to us in terms to talking to our customers and telling
customers what we do at that particular location because we tend to put out
there the fact that it is a body shop, it is a used car operation and it is vehicle
storage and service if we start doing off-street servicing there. It could be a
very useful thing to us and it is a wonderful sign that would be a shame to tear
down and replace it with something tiny.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to Mr. Alanskas but before I do, to the staff, does the sign
have a proper setback?
Mr. Taormina: The base of the structure would have to be at least 10 feet off the right-of-way.
The survey should indicate what that setback is. We can check on that.
Mr. McCann: O.K. I am looking at just the monument for the cement foundation is larger
than what is allowed in the ordinance.
Mr. Alanskas: Believe me, I am really for this project. But what does the word Terrace have
to do to relate to a customer? It says Bill Brown Ford. Why do you need the
term Terrace there?
Mr. Gunnigle: To let people know how to find us. Everyone knows where the Terrace is.
Mr. Alanskas: Maybe everyone that lives in Livonia. But if people are coming from Ann
Arbor, they have never been to the Terrance. If they saw the sign that says
Bill Brown Ford, I think it would be easier for them. I don't know what the
word "Terrance" would do to enhance people to come to your facility.
Mr. Gunnigle: The purpose of it would be to let people know to look for the Terrace sign.
Mr. Alanskas: I could see if you have Ford above the sign. That would make sense to me if
you wanted to keep that upper part but for the word "Terrace" it just doesn't
make any sense, in my opinion. I like the Bill Brown Ford and if you wanted
to keep the structure of the sign, but the word "Terrace" has to do with a
theater. It has nothing to do with a Ford dealership, in my thought. I could be
wrong.
17559
Mr. Gunnigle: To us it would be a wonderful tie-in. People would know where it is. It is
easily merchandizeable. I don't have to spend a zillion dollars telling people
where this lot is. Everyone will know where it is instantly.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: Although I don't like the sign in its present condition, and I don't like big
signs, and quaint probably isn't the best word, but the quaintness of continuing
the line of the old building with the curvature and some signage that reflects
that, I think it does give your business a unique look. I also understand why
you want to call it the Terrace location. I just wish there was a way This
is ugly. What is the wordage underneath the Terrace. What does that say?
Mr. Gunnigle: This is the architect's version here. I would do it a little different from that. I
would say Bill Brown Terrace, used cars, new vehicle display and body shop.
We would like to leave room there for changeable signs to use for community
service messages such as announcing the Livonia Spree and such as
announcing the annual blood drive we have at the dealership, community
service announcements like that.
Mrs. Koons: Just a thought. I think it is too big. I am not crazy about changeable signs but
I like the uniqueness of the curvature and I do think people would, if you
would say the Terrace location, many people would know how to differentiate
that. I wish you could just keep the curvature look even on the front some
how. But I really don't like changeable signs. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: You are the only Ford dealership in the City of Livonia, so if people come to
the City of Livonia looking for a Ford dealership there is only one and that is
on Plymouth Road. Aren't you required by the Ford Motor franchise that you
have to use one of their corporate signs, a Ford sign? To have just a plain
Ford sign up there, people driving on Plymouth Road would find your
dealership.
Mr. Gunnigle: These would be the required Ford signs. This would be blue. The architect
and I weren't communicating thoroughly and this is an official Ford sign there.
Mr. LaPine: To me, someone coming up Plymouth Road, and unless you are going to do
all your advertising say Bill Brown Ford formerly the Terrace Theater, is
going to be looking for a Ford sign, in my opinion. There are not going to be
looking for a Terrace sign.
Mr. Gunnigle: That is why I want to say Bill Brown on there, Bill Brown Terrace.
Mr. LaPine: But the biggest thing on that sign is the word Terrace, not the Bill Brown
Ford.
Mr. Gunnigle: Right. That is because everybody knows where the Terrace is.
17560
Mr. McCann: If you know where the Terrace is, you don't need the Terrace sign. You are
going to tell someone on the phone, "You know where the Terrace Theater
was, that is us."
Mr. Gunnigle: Someone said it earlier that not everyone has been to this location. Some of
these people will be coming from wherever, from Ann Arbor even. I would
like to be able to tell me to look for the nice big Terrace sign at Middlebelt
and Plymouth.
Mr. McCann: Don't you think 320 Ford vehicles would do it?
Mr. Gunnigle: Again, when you look at these pictures up and down the street here, there are
a lot of people shopping for people's attention.
Mr. McCann: People know if you are looking for a Ford, I guess I have grown up in
America. We are motor city people. We know Fords. We know Chevys. I
don't need to see the letter or the plate. I can take a look and from 500 yards I
can tell a car going down the street, that is a Ford.
Mr. Gunnigle: Yet everyday, I hear our switchboard operator tell people how to find Bill
Brown Ford, even being one of the larger dealerships.
Mr. McCann: Part of the problem is that you don't have much of a display area on the front
of your main building. You've got a very short setback at Hubbard Road.
That is one of the problems with that dealership. It has been here forever. It
has done a wonderful job but when you came to us to redesign it, there is just
so little setback. There is just so little room to work with and this area you've
got 300 cars, or maybe 250, sitting in front of the building. It is an ocean of
vehicles. You will have the largest vehicle display area in the City, won't
you?
Mr. Gunnigle: I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. LaPine: We could be here all night arguing about this sign. Is it possible that we could
just approve everything but the sign and have him come back with another
sign proposal and talk about it some more. I haven't got anything against your
proposal. The sign is a problem. I think we've all got a problem with the sign
and maybe we can put our heads together and re-think this whole thing.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Any last comments?
Mr. Gunnigle: I appreciate the opportunity to present the proposal to you and we certainly
hope you can look favorably upon this but I kind of like Mr. LaPine's
suggestion here that maybe we should all just think about this and let me re-
group a little bit. If we can approve the rest of the proposal, I do have a lot of
expenses going here and I do need to get going forward. We would like to
start displaying cars here in April and open up that used car operation the first
of May. I need to get some other things done so if we could approve
17561
everything except the sign right now and maybe look at coming back for the
No.. sign.
Mr. McCann: We can exclude the sign specifically from the site plan and have it return as
part of the sign package. Therefore, it is not grandfathered in as part of the
original site plan, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I think that would be a proper way of handling it given the debate that we
have had here this evening. To answer your question earlier, the sign is
located about three feet into the setback.
Mr. McCann: The base is?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. That is as it is identified on the site plan which I am assuming
is the base of the structure. I don't think they would have surveyed the upper
portion of the box which may actually extend closer towards the right-of-
way.
Mr. McCann: So the box itself would extend over the right-of-way?
Mr. Taormina: That I don't know. I am not sure what that distance is between the edge of the
actual sign box.
Mr. McCann: Well we are going to deal with that later anyway.
Mr. Shane: We talked about some changes to the site plan. Are we willing to accept that
on face value?
Mr. McCann: The petitioner is requesting that he give up the parking in the front so that he
can keep the three drives. I think there was some agreement among some of
the Commissioners that that might be a good idea. That is up to somebody to
bring a motion.
Mr. Shane: That is going to change the site plan to some extent.
Mr. McCann: We can approve subject to that change.
Mr. Shane: Whatever it is, I just want to make sure it is in our files.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#2-41-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
29, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-01-02-04 by Bill
Brown Ford, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to provide new vehicle
display, used vehicle display and sales, parts storage, body shop and vehicle
servicing on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road east of
17562
Sears Drive between Middlebelt Road in the S.W.1/4 of Section 26, the
v.. Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2000-01-02-04 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan, marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 9921, prepared by Michael
L. Priest & Associates, Inc., dated January 25, 2000, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscape plan, marked Sheet 2 of Job No. 9921, prepared by
Michael L. Priest & Associates, Inc., dated February 17, 2000, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas adjacent to the Plymouth Road right-of-way;
5) That the exterior building elevation plan, marked Sheet A-2, prepared by
GAV Associates, Inc., dated January 27, 2000, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except that the wall sign shown on the front elevation
is not a part of this approval;
6) That the overhead garage doors serving the body shop shall remain closed
except when vehicles are entering or exiting the building;
7) That all trash dumpsters, if provided, shall be screened by means of a
masonry enclosure with wood gates;
8) That all parking spaces used to satisfy the parking requirement of the
subject facility, as specified in Section 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance,
shall be 10' x 20' and double striped, and all parking spaces, except
handicapped and display spaces, shall be 10' x 20' in size;
9) That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap
material, debris or other similar items generated by the subject use;
10)That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the
following requirements as outlined in a letter from the Fire and Rescue
Division of the Department of Public Safety dated February 11, 2000:
1) If any of the subject buildings are to be provided with
automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located between
50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connections.
2) Fire hydrants shall be provided on site with spacing consistent
with commercial use group.
17563
3) Access around building shall be provided for emergency
,,oft. vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feet wall to wall and a
minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet.
11) That handicapped parking spaces of the required size and number shall be
provided;
12) That the parking lot, where needed, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department;
13) That the 12 parking spaces and concrete, except driveways, within twenty
(20) feet of the Plymouth Road right-of-way line shall be removed, as
required by the special waiver use standards set forth in Section
11.03(g)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, and that area shall be landscaped;
and
14) That no signage is approved in connection with this resolution and the
issue of signage is hereby tabled to May 2, 2000 for further review by the
Planning Commission.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
``r'' Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
4) That the proposed use will provide for the re-use of an existing
building with unique architectural characteristics.
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.
ITEM #7 PETITION 99-12-2-32 PHOENIX LAND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-12-2-32 by Phoenix
Land Development requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned
residential development on the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and
Farmington Road(Ward Evangelical Presbyterian Church) between
Bloomfield Drive and Six Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 15.
17564
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of
the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Inspection Department, dated February 26, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 7, 2000, the above referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This entire site, although
currently zoned RUFC, has been proposed for zoning change and a land split.
The residential portion is proposed to R-8II and the adjacent corner has been
proposed as C-1. Moreover, applications for waiver for Planned Residential
Development and Planned General Development using Article XX have been
submitted. Therefore, the review has been conducted under the proposed
zoning and Article XX of Ord. 543. (2) R8-II could accommodate 147 units
at 8 stores in height on a site of 265,486 square feet covering 53,096 square
feet with open space of 212,390 square feet. Therefore, this petition which
covers approximately 65,449 square feet with open space of 200,037 square
feet does not meet Ord. 543 Sect. 20.04(d). The site, as proposed, is
approximately deficient 12,353 square feet of open space and would need a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The site, as proposed, is
lacking the required fenced and adequately equipped recreation area equal to
at least 25 square feet per unit or 3,100 square feet per Section 27.07(d), and
therefore would need a variance from the Zoning Board of appeals. (4) It
appears that, as proposed, the units are located at deficient front, rear, side
and/or interior yard setbacks (required setbacks for an 8 story building would
be greater) and would therefore not comply with Ord. 543. However, this
condition may be waived at the discretion of the Planning Commission and
the City Council when there is evidence of more efficient use of the land and
that it is non-injurious to surrounding land per Section 20.02(b). (5) The
plan does not adequately detail all exterior construction so it cannot be
determine if all sides of the exterior are of the required "essentially
maintenance free construction" per Section 27.07(a). (6) This plan does not
adequately detail the amount of enclosed parking so it cannot be determine if
the petition meets the 50% requirement per Section 27.10. (7) The plans
provided do not adequately address the type, size and details of the required
protective wall so it cannot be determined if such wall meets all requirements
of Sections 27.12 and 18.45. (8) The plan does not address the required
double striping in the parking area. Also, as proposed, the plan has aisle
width of 20 feet instead of the required 22 feet and would therefore require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (9) We would request that the
landscaping architect provide their figures as to proposed and existing
landscaping amounts. It is noted that Section 27.07(b) requires screening
trees abutting a residential district to be non-deciduous trees while the existing
area at the southeast corner is primarily deciduous trees. (10) The required
`�- parking area lighting, size and type has not been detailed so no determination
could be made as to meeting the Ord. 543 requirements." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The second letter from the
17565
Division of Police, dated February 15, 2000, reads as follows: "This site plan
calls for 310 parking spaces. The plan does not indicate any handicap
parking. Twelve (12) spaces need to be designated as handicap spaces. A
deceleration lane from the Farmington Road driveway north to the driveway
of the proposed Walgreen's is recommended. The site plan does not indicate
any lighting for the complex. Adequate lighting is vital for security and crime
prevention." The letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 15, 2000, and
reads as follows: "This site plan calls for 310 parking spaces. The plan does
not indicate any handicap parking. Twelve (12) spaces need to be designated
as handicap spaces. A deceleration lane from the Farmington Road driveway
north to the driveway of the proposed Walgreen's is recommended. The site
plan does not indicate any lighting for the complex. Adequate lighting is vital
for security and crime prevention." The letter is signed by Wes McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated February 10, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a
town home development on the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and
Farmington Road on property located at the above referenced location. We
have no objections to this proposal. However, our approval is contingent
upon the following stipulations. (1) If any of subject buildings are to be
provided with automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located between
50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department Connections. (2) Adequate
hydrants being provided and located with spacing consistent with residential
areas. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1500 TPM with a residual pressure of
20 PSI. (3) Access around buildings shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall tow all and a minimum
vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Division of Police. dated
December 27, 1999, and reads as follows: "In response to the captioned
petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted."
The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steven Schafer, Phoenix Land Development, 32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite 145,
Farmington Hills, Michigan. The plan that we have before us this evening has
been revised a couple of times. I know originally you saw a conceptual plan
with about 128 units and we had prior submission at about 124 units. After
some discussion and some planning issues on the City's end as well as ours,
we are now before you with a site plan that has 112 units. We have created
two open space areas for the residents in the community. Essentially, these
are the fronts of the units around this area with the taller ends of the buildings
turned in into the inside of each other. I do have some elevations that I will
show you. These two units have been modified from the rear elevations of the
rest of the units and these units also face outward. These are the short ends of
the units. We have also put in a masonry wall on the rear of part of unit 2 and
3 to screen the impact on lots 40 and 39 in the Bell Creek Farms Subdivision.
17566
This plan also shows the street landscaping, the entry landscaping, the park
area and some of the other details that were missing, such as lighting.
Certainly we are prepared to furnish and revise the plan accordingly. These
are the proposed architectural elevations. These are the rears of the majority
of the buildings. These are the fronts of the buildings, all brick, limestone
and the sides of the buildings here. We have a detail which has a bay window
and also is brick up to the roof line. The modified elevations on the rear are
shown here and these would be units 2 and 3, that back up to the Bell Creek
Subdivision. So we have had some modification on those units to lessen the
impact to those homeowners. Once the site plan is approved, if approved, and
if there are further changes we stand ready to make those changes but we will,
once this has stopped moving around, we will finalize our off-sight landscape
plans for three of the homeowners that I believe are here this evening. Those
off-sight landscaping details will be provided at the final site plan approval at
Council. Those would be presented to them for their review as well. If there
are any further questions, I will be happy to address them.
Mr. Alanskas: Where are your electric meters going to be? Not in front of the building?
Mr. Schafer: No. The electrical meters will be split between the sides of the buildings and
they will be kept low with some type of a landscape feature around them.
Mr. Alanskas: So they will be hidden?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. Usually there is some type of evergreen, I don't know if its been fully
addressed on this landscape plan, but that certainly could be a condition that
will be a consideration for landscaping where all electrical meters are
concerned.
Mr. Alanskas: I want to make sure they do not show.
Mr. Schafer: Yes, electrical and gas meters.
Mr. LaPine: The two buildings that abut the Bell Creek Farms, the homes on lots 39 and
40, our understanding from the last time we discussed this that the height of
this building, because of the way the buildings are cantilevered in, is not going
to be any higher than 29 feet. Is that correct?
Mr. Schafer: On the rears?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
Mr. Schafer: No. That is not correct. The mid-point to the roofs is about 36-1/2 feet.
Mr. LaPine: I thought we had an understanding. You talk about a masonry wall across
there, that we were going to have a brick wall. The same brick as on the
units?
17567
Mr. Schafer: It will be a brick wall to match the brick and it will be consistent with what is
also what we will be talking about shortly.
`.416w
Mr. LaPine: I just wanted to make sure everything was clear in my mind. We are
eliminating a 10 unit building and that is where the park is going?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Then we had an 8 unit building and we eliminated two units there and made
that 6 units, right?
Mr. Schafer: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: You say in that plan there back in the southeast corner, up above there, is that
going to be left just the way it is with all the trees that were there? There was
a playing field, so that is all going to say?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. At this point there isn't too much planned there because it does have
quite a substantial canopy over it. We would like to establish some type of
consistent ground cover through there. That will be left more as a natural
walking area. This area we plan on having more open and more options for
recreation or something like that out in that area because of the sun light.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: At study I mentioned something about the colors of the backs of those
buildings and I remember in the automobile industry when we wanted
something to look big, we made it white. When we wanted something to look
smaller we made it a dark color. Wouldn't it, in as much as those are huge
buildings, wouldn't it be more practical if that siding were painted a different
color? Something sort of dark that wouldn't give the impression that it is such
a huge structure? Is it possible to do that?
Mr. Schafer: I think the elevation doesn't accurately reflect the color although it is an
almond color. I guess what I would like to do is I would like to consider that
with my architect. Maybe there is something we could go with more of a
sand. I don't think we want to go with anything too dark or anything that
matches too close to the brick because then it will start to look a little bit more
monolithic. I think that might take on a little different look. I would be
happy to talk to the architect and try to represent something if necessary,
either here or at Council with maybe some alternatives that we feel that we
could live with to address that situation.
Mr. Piercecchi: I do think there would be an advantage for the image because these are big
buildings. They are only 39 feet high but the ones that are abutting the Bell
Creek area are down to 34 feet high, right?
Mr. Schafer: Actually, on the back side of Bell Creek it might be just a couple of feet less
than that.
17568
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
William Fried, 16009 Riverside. I would only ask a couple of questions. This was presented
originally before Council before they sent it to you for writing the proper
zoning. The fact it is going to be tied in with the commercial part and now
those two things seem to be separated and I want to be sure that somehow I
would suggest they be tie-barred so that we don't get the drug store, which I
notice is later on the agenda, without the proper residential in the back.
Number two, this is just a general comment. In relation with the zoning you
are approving on this board, though most of the discussion took place with the
issue as far as the appearance of the building, but that zoning is open up to 6
stories, as finally revised. Also when you take a look at the situation down at
Plymouth and Farmington and also Adzema's property, which is across from
the post office, what I think is crying quite obvious here, is that we may need
to look at our zoning law to create a new classification of where it better
reflects the restrictions that you are talking about rather than giving this type
of blanket zoning. Because once it is given it is very difficult to give back if
the builder decides that is not what he is going to build. That is the comments
I have. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I do want to remind you that as far as separate petitions go, this is a
recommending body. We have the petitions before us and we must make a
recommendation to the City Council. As to the change in the ordinance, that
is something that we should probably take up in a study session. If there are
no further comments, Mr. Schafer has the last word. Mr. Schafer any last
comment before I close the Public Hearing?
Mr. Schafer: No.
Mr. McCann: The Public Hearing is closed. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#2-42-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February
29, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-12-2-32 by
Phoenix Land Development requesting waiver use approval to construct a
planned residential development on the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and
Farmington Road (Ward Evangelical Presbyterian Church) between
Bloomfield Drive and Six Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 15, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 99-12-2-32 be approved subject to the following conditions:
17569
1) That the site plan, marked Sheet 1, Job Number 97-5-23, prepared by
Basney& Smith, Inc., dated February 24, 2000, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscape plan, referenced as Job Number LS 2.00.36A, prepared
by Calvin Hall& Associates, dated February 23, 2000, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3) That all planted material shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition.
4) That the Townhouse/Ranch Unit Elevations Plan(Front, Rear, and Right
and Left Site Elevations), marked Sheet B1-4, prepared by Barton&
associates, dated November 26, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
5) That the 3 Building Elevation sheets for the Modified Townhouse/Ranch
Unit Buildings (Front, Rear and Right and Left Side elevations), prepared
by Barton& Associates, dated January 28, 2000, are herby approved and
shall be adhered to;
6) That all brick used in the construction of the buildings shall be full face 4-
inch brick, no exceptions; and
7) That a plan for identification signage shall be submitted for approval
within 30 days following approval of this petition by the City Council.
8) That the electrical/gas meters shall be shielded with landscaping; and
9) That there shall be a re-evaluation of color of the siding at Council level.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposal is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 20.02 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
4) That the proposal represents a reasonable and logical development plan
for the subject property which adheres to the principles of sound land use
planning.
17570
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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Schafer, it came up about the lighting, the interior light, and I notice on
the plans that it shows nothing. Will you make sure that it shows that on the
plans before it gets to City Council and maybe look at some ornamental type
of lighting instead of some big poles and so forth?
Mr. Schafer: What we have been doing is, we have ornamental lights out on the fronts of
each one of those porches that are all on timers, that are corresponded
together, that go on and off. That is typically what we have done. If there is
some certain amount of light candles that is required, we certainly would take
a look at that.
Mr. LaPine: Where I was thinking about was in the area we now have designated is an area
where people may come out and sit and we may have some picnic tables out
there and some lawn chairs, maybe some lighting there that would light that
area up in the evening time.
Mr. Schafer: O.K. We have used some types in the past that we are happy with and we
would be happy to do that.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to make an amendment to your resolution, if I could. I don't
think it will be sufficient to say they will be screened as far as the meters are
concerned. I want to make sure they are not installed on the front of the
buildings. They have to be on the side or the rear.
Mr. Schafer: The lighting?
Mr. Alanskas: No, the meters. Your electric and gas meters. They cannot be on the front of
the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I know you don't seek praise, but allow me to recognize and
compliment you for your singular contribution to bringing this proposal to
more realistic proposals and for your input in improving the overall aesthetics
of this project. It is much more desirable when compared to the original plan.
This package, as stated, is 16 units less than the original 12 from our second
look with heighten style considerations to the residents east of the
development in Bell Creek and includes much more open space. Thanks to
you, amongst residential units. I am very confident this plan will serve as a
good starting point for the City Council who I am sure will add additional
improvements along the road to final improvement.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further comments, I would like to add a couple. I would like to
thank the petitioner in this matter for working with the City. I thank Mr.
Piercecchi for the praise, however, I think the praise should go to the
17571
petitioner in this matter. He met with the Council, with the Mayor, with
Nearmyself, with the Planning Department and worked out many of these issues
that were brought up at that meeting so that we could come up with something
that would work for the City and work for the petitioner. I am sure there are
numerous things to work out yet with the Council. Thank you for your
support in working with us. I think we've a great project coming.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. It will go
on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-01-07-01 CPC/John Stymelski Veteran's Park
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-07-01 by the
City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Future Land Use Plan to
delete the park land designated at John Stymelski Veteran's Park located west
of Stark Road and north of Schoolcraft Road in Section 21, and to amend Part
VII, to change the designation of subject property from Recreation/Open
Space to Community Service.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter and it is from the Engineering Division, dated January 28,
2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering
Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal
description should be used in connection therewith: That part of the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County,
Michigan, more particularly described as beginning at a point on the North
and South 1/4 line of Section 21 a distant North 00°49'15" West, 1308.82
feet from the South 1/4 corner of Section 21 and proceeding thence North
00°49'15" West, 165.09 feet; thence North 00°03'33" West, 802.16 feet;
thence South 88°55'54"East 1319.80 feet; thence South 00°08'54"East,
614.09 feet; thence North 89°04'15" West, 1233.02 feet; thence South
00°08'54"East, 350.00 feet; thence North 89°104'15" West, 86.00 feet to the
point of beginning." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to give us a short synopsis?
Mr. Taormina: This petition will change the designation of John Stymelski Veteran's Park as
to appears on the Future Land Use Plan from its current designation as a
Recreational Open Space to Community Service. This is to reflect the
pending land swap arrangement between the City of Livonia and the Livonia
Public Schools relative to the Bentley site and this would not bind the
community in any way relative to the use of this parcel. It would merely be a
reflection of the fact that it would be under the ownership of the Livonia
Public Schools for future use as a community service.
17572
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Once this property for all purposes is going to stay a park, will it still be called
John Stymelski Memorial Park?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. My understanding is that the City will be leasing the property back from
the school district for use as a park and with the ability of renewing the lease
periodically.
Mr. McCann: Since this is the Planning Commission's motion to hold a Public Hearing, we
will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for
or against this petition?
Ray Tent, 18051 Deering, Livonia, Michigan. I think what I am going to suggest here would
fall within the realm of this Commission and the only one who would
remember what we are talking about here is probably Bill LaPine, who is
probably the oldest one. I am referring to John Stymelski. I am going to read
this statement. "John Stymelski is our local war hero. He served in the Army
during World War II. He was captured by the Japanese and survived the
bataan march and he escaped and he survived. During his capture he was
severely beaten which cost him his hearing but it did not hamper his fighting
spirit. We were fortunate to have John select Livonia as his home. John
became interested in politics and embraced the Republican party. He ran for
the Livonia School Board and was elected and that was as an outsider and
served well with many accomplishments. He also served on the Livonia
Traffic Commission. He served under two mayors, Moelke and McNamara,
who had the highest respect for his sincerity and dedication. They were both
opposite parties but they thought John did a great job. He was quite a person
out here in Livonia, for those of you who remember John. John Stymelski
Park was named in his honor, our local war hero and John was proud of this
honor. He was really proud that they named the park after him. The park is
being lost now to a property exchange between the Livonia School Board and
the City of Livonia. I am here to petition the City to designate another
location in the City to recognize our local war hero by transferring the
Stymelski name. John and his wife, Helen, now live in Jacksonville, Florida,
and the reason they live in Jacksonville, Florida is their daughter, Valerie, she
served in Desert Storm and she is not too well any more but she was located
near the base. So John and Helen moved to Ft. Lauderdale to be close to their
daughter. Their daughter did marry. She married a doctor and they adopted a
child. That is their home but they kept close ties here in Livonia. John was so
proud of this park in that this was a park named after him and after all he is
our local war hero. He is one of us. I would hope that we could tell our local
war hero that the park he is so proud of will be continued to bear his proud
name. Mark indicated that the name would probably transferred over to
which ever park it is going to be. But then it will die along the way when one
park is developed or the land is developed by the school then what will
happen to the other part? So I would hope that we can go ahead and make this
distinction and I know it can be designated because this is within your
responsibility to go ahead and designate the park sites. So I am just
17573
petitioning in John's name that we remember him and let's not forget him.
Let's not destroy the name John Stymelski Park. We would like to keep him
within our location. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else 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. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved it was
#2-43-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of
Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia having held a Public Hearing on February 29, 2000, for the purpose
of amending Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master
School and Park Plan, so as to delete the park land designated as John
Stymelski Veteran's Park located west of Stark Road and north of Schoolcraft
Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 21, and to amend Part VII of the Future Land
Use Plan, so as to change the designation of the subject property from
Recreation/Open Space to Community Service, for the following reasons:
1) That the Master Plan amendments are necessary to bring about a
successful exchange of the subject property for a land area of equivalent
size from the Bentley Center site; and
2) That the Master Plan amendments are recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by act 285 of
Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does
hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of
Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been
adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments
thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council,
City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be
forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Alanskas, Hale, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. We will now begin
the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience
may speak in support or opposition to these items.
ITEM #9 PETITION 99-12-08-32 WALGREENS (Phoenix Land Dev. Co.)
17574
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-12-08-32 Walgreens
by Phoenix Land Development Company requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 17000
Farmington Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Farmington. The
petitioner is requesting Planning Commission approval to construct a Walgreen
Drug Store on part of the Ward Church property. The petitioner is in the
process of rezoning this site to C-1, Local Business. The petitioner is also going
through the waiver use approval process for a condominium development on the
remaining portion of the church property, which totals 6.1 acres. The proposed
drug store would be located near the intersection of Six Mile Road and
Farmington Road. The area utilized by the commercial building would measure
270 ft. along Six Mile Road and 290 feet along Farmington Road. The new
building would be 15,120 sq. ft. in size. Access to the site would be achieved
by a drive off both Six Mile and Farmington. The site plan does not show a cut-
out of a typical light standard or define where they would be located within the
parking lot. A protective screen wall is required between a commercial zoned
property and residential zoned property. The site plan does not show or note
any type of screen wall along the south or east property lines which would abut
the residential condominiums. The petitioner could request to substitute a
greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall. The elevation plan shows that this
'41w Walgreen's is based on the company's "neighborhood" prototype which would
be more compatible with the surrounding residential development than either of
it's other two prototypes. The building would be brick on all four sides with a 3
ft. high split-face masonry base. The brick illustrated on the elevation plan is
labeled "utility brick" and the brick on the colored rendering is labeled "face
brick". The roofs of the entrance area and the drive-thru canopy on the south
elevation would be covered in "composition" singles. Aluminum siding would
be installed within the peak area of the drive-thru canopy.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: The first letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 17, 2000,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 4, 2000, the
above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1)
Although this site is currently zoned RUFC a request has been made to rezone
this parcel to C-1 and split this from the balance of the site which is proposed to
be rezoned to R-8II. A request has also been made for waiver for a Planned
General Development. This review has been conducted as proposed. (2) As
proposed the partial masonry screen wall and planting do not meet Section
18.45 and would need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. More
detail is required on the screen wall. (3) The accessible parking as depicted is
incorrect. On van accessible space must be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 8 foot
aisle. The balance of accessible spaces must be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 5
foot aisle. (4) Required double striping in parking areas is not indicated and
must be clarified. (5) Required lighting of exterior areas is not detailed as to
17575
size, type and location. (6) Dumpster enclosure does not appear to match the
building and lacks detail - mentions location in question. The proposed needs
clarification. (7) Utility brick as specified should be clarified as to size, type
and durability. (8) Wall signage as proposed is excessive. This site would be
allowed one wall sign on main frontage (Six Mile Road) at up to 112 square
feet. A secondary wall sign on Farmington Road would be allowed of up to 56
square feet. A free standing business sign of up to 30 square feet (not exceeding
6 feet in height or 10 feet in length with a minimum 10 foot setback) would also
be allowed. Ground based directional signage meeting the parameters of Ord.
543 would also be allowed. Any other proposed signage would be excessive
and require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (9) Landscaping
while meeting or surpassing the required minimum 15% does not seem to
provide adequate screening between the C-1 and R-8II areas. It also does not
seem to address the required irrigation of all landscaping." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The second letter is from the
Division of Police, dated February 15, 2000, which reads as follows: "We are
unable to determine whether the barrier wall meets the requirements as
necessary between the commercial property and the proposed townhouses. I
would recommend a deceleration lane for both entrances to the proposed
development. The deceleration lane on Farmington Road should be extended
south to the proposed entrance to the townhouse development. Deceleration
lanes reduce the possibility of rear end collisions and help decrease congestion.
The two handicap spaces do not meet the required 12 feet of width. These two
spaces could be reduced to 8 feet widths if the access aisle was placed between
the two handicapped spaces which are located on either side of the entrance to
the building." The letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The third letter is from the Engineering Division, dated February 9, 2000, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections tot he proposal and detects no traffic safety issues regarding this
proposal. It should be noted that there may be a problem with discharging
storm water to the 24" storm sewer in the Farmington Road right-of-way. This
storm sewer is owned by Wayne County and they have historically denied or
severely limited the size of the connection to their system because the pipe was
designed only to accommodate the storm runoff within the right-of-way." The
letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Steven Schafer, Phoenix Land Development, 32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite 145,
Farmington Hills, Michigan. We have made several revisions. There were
several issues that were brought up that I would like to discuss and review. The
current plan shows a lot more landscaping, a number trees have been added
along the frontage of Six Mile and Farmington. Also, there was a mention of us
having to ask for a variance because of the placement of a portion of the wall.
In this area here where we have units backing into that, it was our desire to
bring in some large transplanted evergreens and we thought we would like to
keep the green over on the residential side but plant the trees on the edge of the
commercial which would necessitate the wall being offset for a small portion of
the property that would run behind building 10 in order to facilitate some more
17576
green on the side of the wall that abuts up to the residential. There will be
',Nowsubstantial green throughout that will be a brick fence that will match the same
brick that we propose to use on the Walgreen's, as well as the residential. We've
tried to create a focal point with some nice landscaping up in the corner of this
site and I think from the standpoint of flow and the way this works, we are fairly
comfortable, and Walgreen's is comfortable with the configuration as it is
proposed. The issues that were raised certainly we are ready to address and
those will be addressed at some point after this meeting. If there are any other
questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Mr. Piercecchi: You've got a continuous masonry wall now that you put in your plan. Is that
brick going to be identical? Is the brick going to be the same as the building?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: On the east side where it says loading zone, is that an enclosed loading zone?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. There is a screen fence. There are no outside dumpsters. They have a
compactor inside so this will be a portion that will be screened.
Mr. LaPine: O.K.
Mr. McCann: What is the material?
Mr. Schafer: It used to be a wood fence but the new criteria is masonry material. It will
have a wood swing door that will close to the dumpster but the sides will be
masonry.
Mr. LaPine: Seeing that Walgreen's is not a 24 hour operation, I would assume that there
would not be any deliveries made in there between midnight and 7:00 a.m.
Mr. Schafer: That is correct. Typically, to address their deliveries, these stores only take one
Walgreen's semi a week. Some of them take two but typically it is one
corporate semi that comes in a week. The milk, some of the prescription items
that are delivered by UPS and all of that are typically brought in in smaller
delivery trucks that are serviced right through the front door so they typically
pull up in front, drop off items and then leave.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Taormina, our notes say we will only be approving conforming signs
tonight. My question is, is the monument sign conforming?
Mr. Taormina: The monument sign, as it is presently proposed, is in excess both in height as
�•- well as the fact it contains a changeable message display, or bulletin board as
defined in the ordinance. The staff recommendation that the ground sign
conform to the ordinance.
17577
Mrs. Koons: I was going to ask you what is an electronic reader board?
Mr. Schafer: They have one at 13 Mile and Woodward if you would like to go and see it but
it is not something that flashes messages like every 20 seconds or every 10
seconds where you are going to be distracted driving. The message changes
very quickly and it stays on for about 30 to 40 seconds or it could be put on
longer and then the script changes. It has temperature and time and items in the
store that they may be having some type of a special. It is something they asked
for in their criteria. Obviously there are other alternatives. We thought the last
exhibit we submitted did comply but certainly we would be happy to come back
and re-examine the signage with you if there are some issues to make sure we
do comply with the City ordinance. Walgreen's is very familiar and understands
the signage in Livonia is not their typical criteria of what they would like to
have on a building and they indicated they would be willing to work with the
City. I just went to a sign seminar with them. If we need to have more
extensive discussions, I do have somebody available that is a contractor for
Walgreen's who does all their signage so we can get a little bit more detail and
talk about the reader board. If there are some more questions, we could provide
you with some more information. We could leave that for some further
discussion if you felt that was appropriate.
Mrs. Koons: For me, it sounds like this is not going to be part of our package tonight but just
as one Commissioner, I am not in favor of the reader board signs.
Mr. Schafer: They do have other alternatives to that. But that is their wish list and nobody is
here from Walgreen's tonight but that is what they would like. They certainly
want to work with the community to give you what is required. They do not
want to foist anything on you that you don't feel is appropriate.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned about the sign. You said it meets the criteria. It meets the size
criteria but when you start advertising, that is a different ball game. The other
Walgreen's stores in Livonia just have Walgreen's on it and I would think that
is what should be one this one also.
Mr. Schafer: I hear you and what is helpful for me is when I get these comments back and
they are on the record, I can share them with Walgreen's and then we can adjust
their criteria appropriately. I am sort of a middle person but I will take that back
to them.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am only speaking for myself, Mr. Schafer, but I know in the past it has been
highly discouraged. It has always been a no-no. You can see the Rite-Aid's and
the Walgreen's, they don't have the advertising. That is what you are doing, you
are actually advertising when you run a board and that is, in our estimation, not
in the best interest of our City.
Mr. Schafer: I understand.
17578
Mr. McCann: Mr. Schafer, we discussed at the last meeting the entrance and access as far as
the residents of the condominiums at the rear and to the side of this.
Mr. Schafer: There will be an exterior sidewalk system. There is currently a sidewalk
system. The more we thought about it, it being such a close proximity we could
have had a penetration through the rear of the building and come around. I
almost feel it is more appropriate to stay out on the regular sidewalk system that
these people will have access to. These sidewalks that we are proposing will
connect into the other sidewalks along Farmington Road as well as along Six
Mile Road, so somebody wouldn't have too long of a walk to get there. I don't
believe ordinance provides for any penetrations. That is something I believe we
would have to ask for by variance. We did talk about possibly putting in some
type of a gate. We don't want to encourage people that are coming into
Walgreen's maybe parking behind to come in and hang our in this park which
could be a bad situation. We want to isolate that.
Mr. McCann: You are missing the point. I agreed with that. I wanted a solid fence. I don't
want traffic in behind the building. It is hard to control. It is the loading zone,
cars are coming and going but we had some concerns. People would be coming
from the south and crossing the main entrance there. It appears that you are
showing on the southwest corner, is there a walkway going across?
Mr. Schafer: There is a walkway.
Mr. McCann; No. Back up and go straight across the building. Is there a walkway across the
west side of the building there?
Mr. Schafer: Here?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
Mr. Schafer: There is a slab of concrete that is probably anywhere from 11 feet to 12 feet,
somewhere around that to walk on.
.Mr. McCann: Is there a sidewalk extending out. You show the green trees Is this the
same plan we had a few weeks ago?
Mr. Schafer: This is a new plan.
Mr. McCann: I didn't get a copy of this new plan and it appears at the southwest corner of the
building. there is a sidewalk going straight across. Where that tree is.
Underneath that tree where your pen is. Is there sidewalk right there crossing
the driveway?
Mr. Schafer: No.
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. McCann: You are saying no, he is saying yes.
17579
Mr. Schafer: Maybe I am
r..
Mr. Taormina: It is on the engineering print over there.
Mr. Schafer: Yes, I can't see it on the landscape plan.
Mr. McCann: There was none on the old plan. I was out of town and did not get a copy of
the new plan.
Mr. Schafer: That certainly could be accommodated if you feel there should be a penetration
or over on parking by one or two spaces, if we can create an opening either
within or as sidewalk underneath this tree into this island.
Mr. McCann: I want to have the traffic flow in some manner to and from the store. I assume
there is going to be a lot of foot traffic considering the number of
condominiums next door to it. It appears again on the northeast corner that you
have a sidewalk going out at least to the end of the parking spots?
Mr. Schafer: It shows a sidewalk and the island here.
Mr. McCann: Your architect is saying yes.
Tom Jetke, Phoenix Land Development. We put in the sidewalks as requested by the Planning
w.. Commission and we also incorporated some sidewalks from the residential
which creates a better traffic pattern as we discussed at the last study.
Mr. McCann: Was there any change to the northwest corner of the site where basically is your
main entrance from Farmington and Six Mile is?
Mr. Jetke: No. We set in a sidewalk where there is a square there and then the Walgreen's
sign.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? If not, I am going to go to the audience. Is there
anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Jeff Sorge, 16745 Farmington Road. I just had a question maybe somebody can help me out
with. Nobody has stated how much these condominiums are going to cost. If I
was going to be a person that was going to buy a relative expensive condo in
this condensed area over here, I would have a lot of concerns if I knew
Walgreen's was going to be going up right in front of it. Are the people that are
going to buy these condos going to know that there is going to be a Walgreen's
right in front here? Which is going up first, the Walgreen's or the condos?
Mr. Schafer: I believe the Walgreen's. Just due to the permitting process, this should all be
approved simultaneously pretty much from a site plan standpoint because the
commercial portion and the residential portion are running currently here.
Although the permitting process is going to be a little bit more extensive and
lengthy for the residential so it would lag. Sewer permits, water permits
17580
extending in for residential use will require some additional state approvals so it
will take some additional time. Ideally, I would like to start everything at once.
I think when we demo and land balance the site, from a staging standpoint, the
whole site will be balanced. The Walgreen's will start. The walls will go up,
the residential will start shortly thereafter. People will be very aware that it is
there. Although I sort of have a different feeling from the type of market we are
catering to that this can bring some type of an enhancement for people, an added
level of convenience. We do cater to empty nesters. We cater to young
professionals. These units don't cater a lot to families with children although
the open space will accommodate them if grandparents live there and they bring
their grandchildren over. They are typically two bedroom units and they range
somewhat from the low$160,000 to over $200,000 for the units.
Mr. Sorge: Can anybody give me a reason why we need a Walgreen's when right across the
street we have a CVS. Not too long ago in the City we used to have a couple of
companies called Home Quarters and Builder's Square. Where are they now?
Now we are getting deluged with a bunch of drug store companies now we are
going to have one smashed on a small little parcel of property at Six Mile and
Farmington and right across the street we have CVS. Danny's was there and
they went out of business. They were trying to put a Farmer Jack's in there. We
got enough people to rally against that. Can somebody tell me why we need a
Walgreen's when we have a CVS right across the street?
Mr. McCann: Let's back up just a little bit. Tonight is the site plan approval. The zoning
°ow issue was a few months ago. Maybe you missed that.
Mr. Sorge: I missed that.
Mr. McCann: When those comments were pretty relevant. We did go through that. We did
look at it. This is a site package. We took this project as what to do with the
whole Ward Church as a unit. What we are trying to do is a little planned
community here. The drug store, the Walgreen's is something that would
associate itself well with the type of housing that is going in there. It seemed
like a good separation from the residential to condominium to commercial.
After it was all evaluated, the Planning Commission and the Council believed it
was a good project as a whole, and the community supported it.
Mr. Swore: I apologize. I am a little late on that question.
Mr. McCann: That is O.K. I hope I answered your question.
Mike Zatirka, 16831 Bell Creek Lane, right over the back fence of this proposal. I know you
said his question was a little late, but I would like to answer it because I have
had four people say the same thing to me in the last two weeks that are planning
to bring that same objection to Council again at the next meeting. So we might
as well get the rebuttal on the record now. I guess I agree. We technically don't
need a Walgreens, but we do need something commercial because nobody is
going to want to live on that corner with the gas stations across the street. We
don't need a video store, a tanning salon, a hardware, another hairdresser,
17581
another gas station and we don't want any fast food with all the trash and rodent
problems they have. What we do need is a company that will build an upscale
`"" building that will improve the neighborhood appearance, particularly for that
whole intersection and a company that is going to be a stable company that is
going to stay around for a long time and we also want a company that is strong
enough to build a building and not have their financing fall through like the last
sale that Ward had. Why we need Walgreen's is because they meet those three
needs. That is all I wanted to add.
Mr. McCann: If there is nobody else wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#2-44-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-12-08-32 Walgreens by Phoenix Land
Development Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial building on property located at 17000 Farmington Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan marked Sheet 1 with a revised date of 2/24/00 prepared by
Basney & Smith, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscape plan with a revised date of 2/23/00 prepared by Calvin
�• Hall& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5) That the exterior building elevation plan with a revised date of 2/23/00
prepared by Wah Yee Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-
inch brick, no exceptions;
7) That all mechanical rooftop equipment shall be screened from view;
8) That the three walls of the trash dumpster or compactor 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;
17582
9) That the protective screen wall along the south and east property lines shall
be continuous and constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
`' of the building;
10)That all light standards shall be shielded form the adjacent properties and
shall not exceed 16 feet in height;
11)That only conforming signage is approved with this petition and any
additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Commission and City Council;
12)That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated
February 17, 2000:
- that all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the
Michigan barrier Free requirements
- that all parking spaces shall be double striped.
- that all standard parking spaces shall be 10' x 20'
- that the Petitioner shall comply with the recommendations of the
Inspection Department as outlined in its letter dated February 17,
2000
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #10 PETITION 99-12-08-33 Walgreen's By Phoenix Land Development
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-12-08-33 Walgreens
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 a commercial building on property located on the
Northeast corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt. The
petitioner is requesting Planning Commission approval to construct a
Walgreen's Drug Store as a satellite building in front of the Office Depot Plaza
shopping Center. The proposed commercial building would be located at the
northeast corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt Road where presently there
is a vacant bank. The existing bank building would be demolished. The
proposed drug store would be 15,000 sq. ft. in size. The Site Plan defines the
area to be utilized as 273 ft. along Plymouth Road and 265.70 ft. along
Middlebelt Road. According to the most recent site plan submitted when the
center was last renovated, the drug store would be consuming a considerably
larger area than what was utilized by the bank. Walgreen's would encroach into
and eliminate some of the existing parking spaces of the shopping center. The
existing shopping center is already deficient in parking. Because the center's
renovation plan conflicts with the proposed Walgreen's plan when overlaid, an
17583
accurate parking calculation can not be determined. Because the entire site is
deficient in parking, the petition would have to be granted a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. A note on the site plan indicates that Walgreen's
would like to acquire 5 spaces from the center. However, because the center is
deficient in parking, there are no additional spaces to give. In the opinion of
staff, the petitioner should provide an overall plan showing the parking layout
for the entire site. The plan should show the circulation pattern of the lot and
calculate the total number of parking spaces available for each building. The
landscape plan shows landscaping along Middlebelt Road and Plymouth Road.
The plan indicate the "Limits of PRDA Streetscape Plan' and seems to show
landscaping compatible to the Plymouth Road Development Authority's
approved plan. The petitioner has been advised to present his plans to the
PRDA. No landscaping is shown within the site other than near the main
entrance. The elevation plans show that the building would be similar in
appearance as what was originally proposed for the northeast corner of Joy
Road and Newburgh Road. The design of that building was eventually changed
to match the look of the Walgreen's at the northeast corner of Six Mile Road
and Middlebelt Road. The proposed building would be constructed out of brick
on all four sides with a 9 ft. band of dryvit along the top. A dryvit and tempered
glass tower would extend out over the main entrance. On the east elevation a
dryvit canopy with brick columns would project out and protect the drive-thru
window. Signage shown on the plans is in excess of what is permitted.
Mr. McCann: We received a letter addressed to Mr. Mark Taonnina dated February 24, 2000,
which reads as follows: "We respectfully request that the above captioned item
be removed from any consideration at the Planning Commission Meeting
scheduled for February 29, 2000. Currently, we are working to resolve some
outstanding issues for that location. We will contact you when we are prepared
to move forward. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me."
The letter is signed by Thomas Jetke, Phoenix Land Development. Do we have
a motion to table this petition indefinitely?
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#2-45-2000 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 99-12-08-33 Walgreens 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 a
commercial building on property located on the Northeast corner of Plymouth
Road and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 be tabled
indefinitely.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #11 PETITION 2000-01-SN-01 UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-SN-01
University of Phoenix requesting approval for signage for the commercial
17584
building located at 17740 Laurel Park Drive North in the Southeast 1/4 of
oma, Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Laurel Park between Six Mile and
University. The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval for a
wall sign for the office building located in the Laurel Park Place Shopping
Center area. The office portion of the center is located toward the northwest
corner of the site, behind the parking structure. The proposed sign would be
internally illuminated. Because the proposed sign identifies a tenant of the
office complex and is in excess of the amount of sign area allowed by the sign
ordinance, the applicant would be required to be granted a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence, a letter from the Inspection Department,
dated February 2, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
January 18, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted: (1) A master sign plan should be submitted to the
Director of Inspection. (2) This signage is not permitted by Ord. 543. The
applicant will need to obtain a variance from the zoning Board of Appeals as
submitted. This Department has no objection to the 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?
Steven Isbister, I represent the University of Phoenix. We are located at 5480 Corporate
Center Drive, Troy, Michigan. In a moment, to be brief, changes from the
Phoenix Land Development and the University of Phoenix, we are currently
the nation's largest private university in the country. We are located in 16
states, also in Canada, Puerto Rico and in the Netherlands. We have been in
the State of Michigan, in the Metro Detroit area since 1995 and in the Livonia
location, in the Laurel Park Office Complex since June of 1997. We have
undergone some expansion in the Laurel Park location. We currently have
44,000 sq. ft. approximately and 31 classrooms. Our students are non-
traditional They are working adults, the average age is about 33 years old.
They attend class in the evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The reason we
are here today is in an effort to identify ourselves in the building. We are
requesting a variance for the size. The previous tenants were the AAA,
automobile club. They had their sign in a compacted AAA and in a 2 ft. by 3
ft. location. Being the University of Phoenix doesn't allow us that opportunity
and that is why we are here today.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, can't you only have 100 sq. ft. instead of 113 sq. ft.?
17585
Mr. Isbister: The way the drawing is from the actual "University of Phoenix", that was our
Nifty rendition by the sign company. If that were to be an overall issue, we could
go back and look at that. I believe his concern was the "y" actually in the
word "University" was causing that to go outside the proposed 100 sq. ft.
Mr. Alanskas: All right, thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, because of the "y" hanging down and the sign is figured from the
bottom of the "y" to the top of the letters, is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: I am not sure what the total area of the sign would be if it were a rectangle that
encompassed the entire sign including the bottom of the "y" Is that what you
are asking? The 106 sq. ft. is exclusive of the "y" and if the envelope were
extended below the "y", what would that area be?
Mr. Isbiste: Looking at it from the text in the logo, I believe that is for the 113 sq. ft. would
come from. That is my understanding. The portion of the "y", we tried to get
it as close to 100 sq. ft. as we could with the "y" in the logo being a portion that
went of the limit.
Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the 113 sq. ft. includes all of the
lettering exclusive of the bottom of the "y", plus the logo which is 7 sq. ft. If in
fact you were to extend that rectangle down to encompass the bottom of the "y"
the sign would exceed 113 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: Has this sign been pre-cast? Do you have a thousand of these signs made up
already or is this something you are going to order special for this building?
Mr. Isbister: We have a vendor, Fast Signs in Farmington, that will work with the order for
this building, yes.
Mr. McCann: So he can adjust it to 106 sq. ft. or 108 sq. ft.?
Mr. Isbister: We can go back and look at that, certainly.
Mr. Alanskas: That logo is so small. Do you need that logo there. Can't you just say
University of Phoenix and not have that logo?
Mr. Isbister: Preferably that would be similar because of the way the sign would have to be
constructed. The logo would be
Mr. Alanskas: What is that logo?
Mr. Isbister: That is our symbol. It is the Phoenix bird.
Mr. Alanskas: It is a bird?
r..
Mr. Isbister: Correct. The Phoenix rising from the ashes.
17586
Mr. Alanskas: All right. 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 no one, a
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#2-46-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-01-SN-01 University of Phoenix
requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 17740
Laurel Park Drive North in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the sign package submitted by Apollo Group, as received by the
Planning Commission on January 10, 2000, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to, except for the fact that the sign shall not exceed 100 sq.
ft.;
2) That this wall 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;
tir..
4) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals for tenant identification and any
conditions related thereto.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution subject to the
exceptions.
ITEM #12 PETITION 2000-01-SN-02 BIG BOY RESTAURANT
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-SN-02 Big
Boy Restaurant requesting approval for signage for the commercial building
located at 37123 Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Miler: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile between Newburgh and
Fitzgerald. On May 19, 1999, this site received site plan approval to renovate
the exterior of the Big Boy Restaurant located in front of the Newburgh Playa
Shopping Center. As part of that approval it was conditions: "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." In compliance with that
requirement, the applicant is requesting approval for two (2) wall signs. One
sign would be located on the west elevation of the building over the main
17587
entrance and one would be located on the north elevation facing Six Mile Road.
Both signs would be internally illuminated. Also on the site is a large pole sign
at 72 sq. ft. in sign area and 28 feet in height. Because the signage as proposed
is in excess of the number of signs allowed by the sign ordinance and is also in
excess of what was recently approved by the Zoning Board, the applicant would
be required to be granted a new variance.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:There is one letter from the Inspection Department, dated February 2, 2000,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 18, 2000, the
above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The
submittal does not address the existing 72 square feet, 28 foot high, pole
mounted ground sign(previously approved by Council September 26, 1972,
CR-9-244-72 and Sign Permit S 2230). (2) This location previously received a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (9905-50) to erect wall sign on the
west facade (side) instead of the north facade (front). (3) As submitted this
petitioner will need to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
second wall sign per Ord. 543. (4) The petitioner has not yet received final
inspection approval for work started under PC 99-3-8-11 and CR-343-99." 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?
Tom Reader, architect with Ledy Design Group, 3135 Pinetree, Lansing. I have with me
Victor Ansara, the owner of the restaurant. We are looking for two things. We
are looking for approval on the signage on the west elevation, which we
received the variance for and the second thing is, we would like to put a wall
sign on the north elevation which faces Six Mile Road. We realize in the
submittal we did not address the pole sign which is existing on the site. We
would like, if we can, to trade the pole sign for the wall sign we are asking for
on Six Mile Road. We have visibility of west bound traffic on Six Mile Road it
is very important to us and right now there is nothing coming down Six Mile
Road. All you have is the back of our building which has no signage and the
side which we would like signage on the building rather than having the pole
sign. It is a preference.
Mr. McCann: O.K. That is interesting. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you saying that big pylon sign with "Big Boy", you want it removed?
Mr. Ansara: Essentially we don't want it removed. But we are aware it is an old design sign.
Mr. Piercecchi: But you can see it a mile away. Putting a sign on the front of that building in
that little area is so redundant. I asked my wife, driving down the road, you
know what she said, "I don't know why they even want one on the west wall".
You can see that place. You have great business, don't you?
17588
Mr. Ansara: We can always do better.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have great business there. You don't really need more signs. If you want
to take that pylon away and just put one in the front, I think you are making a
mistake.
Mr. Ansara: There are a number of issues in regards to that. We do understand that is an old
design sign and as I said, our preference is to have as much signage as we can.
We do understand that there are various issues in regards to a large sign like that
that is almost 30 years old. What we would be willing to do, the variance that
was granted at the Zoning Board of Appeals was essentially to put a wall sign
on the west elevation. That is important for us because of the design of our new
look and to open the entrance way.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is no question of that.
Mr. Ansara: In regards to the signage on the front, we are willing to keep the pylon sign. I
guess what we were concerned about was some of the comments and some of
the issues that were brought by the City about some various things, is that the
issue in regards to our large pole sign was going to be brought up.
Mr. Piercecchi: In my opinion, having a sign on the north elevation, you are not going to see it
from Six Mile Road.
Mr. Ansara: You won't see it as well as our 28 ft. pole sign.
Mr. Piercecchi: You see that half a mile away.
Mr. Ansara: Again, the reason that we talked about putting the sign on the north elevation
was because we thought the issue of removal of that or modification of our large
pole sign was going to be brought up. That is the reason, we wanted to come
prepared, and be able to discuss that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you saying that you will completely eliminate the pylon sign for one on
the front on the north side.
Mr. Ansara: Yes we will.
Mr. McCann: I just wanted to make that clear for somebody who has been trying to get rid of
every pole sign in the City Dan, for you to sit there and try to talk them out of it,
I almost had a heart attack!
Mr. Piercecchi: This is a trade off.
Mr. McCann: I know, this is wonderful.
Mr. Ansara: What we have done in that restaurant, I'm sure you have all seen it, is we have
gone from major remodeling. We've tried to update and modernize the building
17589
as much as we can. We don't have a problem in continuing that and basically
taking it to the next step and removing a sign we had for almost 30 years.
Mr. McCann: That's great.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Taormina, what is the square footage of the pylon sign?
Mr. Reader: 72 sq. ft. It is in the letter from Alex Bishop.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have vandalism in your building?
Mr. Ansara: Vandalism?
Mr. Alanskas: I see you have new sod put in there. It looks like someone ran over it with a
truck or something. It is all smashed in the front.
Mr. Ansara: In the sod? I don't know. I know we did replace all the landscaping.
Mr. Alanskas: It's all replaced. Take a look. Someone took a truck and ran over it. It's got
ruts this deep.
Mr. Ansara: It is quite possible. I will be quite honest with you. I am not the one who is in
charge of that operation at that restaurant so I am not 100% sure.
Mr. Alanskas: Where that pylon sign is that you will be taking down, where the pole is in the
cement, you will be taking the cement out and putting all sod there?
Mr. Ansara: I don't believe we can do that. That is the area where our emergency exit is, out
of the greenhouse area.
Mr. Alanskas: What has that got to do with the sign?
Mr. Ansara: That area is cement right now because there is an exit right near the sign is. So
it is cement now. I am not 100% sure whether all that cement can be removed
or not. Obviously we would be removing the entire pole.
Mr. Alanskas: We wouldn't want to leave it there because that cement is high. It is not flush to
ground, on your pole sign.
Mr. Ansara: I believe it is flush to the ground. I believe the pole sign sits inside the ground,
if I am not mistaken. It is a large metal pedestal on that side.
Mr. Alanskas: You can take a sledgehammer and break the concrete. You can go down about
6" and cover it with sod.
Mr. Ansasra: Again, if that is not a problem as far as the emergency exit and the sidewalk
access out of there, I don't have a problem with that.
17590
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: I am an advocate of wall signs versus pylon signs and I am very happy to hear
the petitioner is willing to get rid of an old pylon sign and for that reason I am
willing to give him this additional wall sign.
Mr. McCann: Are you making a resolution?
Mr. Shane: I will.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was
#2-47-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-01-SN-02 Big Boy Restaurant requesting
approval of two (2) wall signs for the commercial building located at 37123 Six
Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the sign package submitted by Ledy Design Group, as received by the
Planning Commission on December 29, 1999, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That all signage for this restaurant shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after closing;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
4) That the existing pole sign shall be removed prior to the installation of the
wall sign on the north building elevation; and
5) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess number of signs prior to being
presented to the City Council.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: This is for just 58 sq. ft.? Is that right?
Mr. McCann: It is for the sign package that is presented.
Mr. Piercecchi: I see signage proposed is 58 sq. ft. and the other is 79 sq. ft. So in the front is
going to be 58 sq. ft.?
Mr. Ansara: No. The front, the west elevation, is 58.21 sq. ft. which is the front, the main
r- entrance sign. The north elevation which is along Six Mile Road is 58.24 sq.
ft.
17591
Mr. Piercecchi: That is different from what I have here in my notes.
Mr. McCann: We've got 79 sq. ft. for the west elevation.
Mr. Raeder: We have the total calculation of the Big Boy icon, the round sign, the Big Boy
letters and the words "Restaurant and Bakery" at 58 sq. ft.
Mr. Taormina: Make sure it is the same sign.
Mr. Miller: I checked with the Zoning Board. It is the same sign at 79 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: They are approved for 79 sq. ft. by the ZBA and we are approving you for 79
sq. ft.
Mr. Ansara: But the west elevation sign would not be necessary to go back for?
Mr. McCann: No. The west elevation sign up to 79 sq. ft. is approved and the north
elevation, you have to go back to ZBA but it is conditional upon the removal of
the pylon sign and brought down to ground level.
Mr. Raeder: Do we, for the front entrance sign which we do not have to go to ZBA, do we
have to go to Council for that sign?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
Mr. Raeder: Do we have to do them together? I guess the point is, we want to get a sign up
as fast as we can.
Mr. McCann: I would go ahead and apply to ZBA and go to Council. No Council is going to
hold them up until the approval from ZBA, won't they?
Mr. Taormina: That's correct. You must first appear at the Zoning Board of Appeals before
getting the approval by the Council.
Mr. McCann: Can they just on to the one sign that is already approved by the ZBA and then
come back at a later time on the front sign?
Mr. Taormina: If they want to just install the sign on the west elevation and go back to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for approval of the sign on the north elevation and
once that is done, go back to the Council, yes. Although they will still have to
go to the Council.
Mr. McCann: Yes. But they will get it quicker that way.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. You will have to go through the process twice.
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 not
proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda.
17592
ITEM #13 Final Plat Approval - Kenwood Meadows Subdivision (Leo Soave)
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for
Kenwood Meadows Subdivision by Leo Soave to be located on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 24.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional on this one, Mr. Taormina?
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 January 31, 2000, similarly is recommending approval.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joe Taylor,36734 Sunnydale, Livonia. I am here representing Leo Soave should you have any
questions.
Mr. McCann: If there are no questions from the Commissioners, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#2-48-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
Plat for Kenwood Meadows Subdivision by Leo Soave to be located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is substantially in agreement with the Preliminary Plat;
2) That no reporting City department has objected to 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.
Mr. Taylor, 36734 Sunnydale. Mr. Soave is away on vacation and he has asked me, because of
his hold up that he had at Wayne County and because he is only one day away
from getting on the Council agenda, to waive the 7 days.
Mr. McCann: I talked to the Council President and she said that it would benefit the Council
to have this under the 7 day rule.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
17593
#2-49-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
'"" waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of
Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the Final Plat approval for
Kenwood Meadows Subdivision to be located on the south side of Five Mile
Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
24.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #14 Approval of the Minutes of the 799th Public Hearing&Regular Meeting
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of
the 799th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 25, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved, it was
#2-50-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 799th Public Hearing & Regular Meeting
held on January 25, 2000 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
""" AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Alanskas, Hale, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 801st Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on February 29, 2000 was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
7 GLZC j
Michael Hale, Secretary
ATTEST: ,, ' E' z <----
. _s C. McCann, Chairman
/rw ,
V