Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-01-25 17426 MINUTES OF THE 799th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING New HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 25, 2000 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 799th Public Hearing 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 H. G. Shane Members absent: Elaine Koons 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 99-11-01-20 Leo Soave Builders Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-02-20 by Leo Soave Builders requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road in he N.E. 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFA to R-1. 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: We have two items of correspondence. One is a letter from the Engineering Division dated December 13, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your 17427 request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal r a description contained therein. However, as Mr. Soave is aware. the storm sewer outlet for the development will need to be restricted and/or retention of storm water is required." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second item is a letter from Nora Klus, 15900 Auburndale, dated January 20, 2000, and reads as follows: "I am once again making my views known to this council about changes to the property owned by Mr. Leo Soave near Six Mile and Middlebelt. I still do not find the plans of Mr. Soave to be compatible with the existing neighborhood despite the changes he has made. I respectfully ask the Council to reject this proposal. I maintain a strong belief that the remaining RUF-aka large lots in Livonia remain intact. Mr. Soave could build fewer homes on this site and retain the charm, beauty and health of this neighborhood. This is my suggestion for the builder..."come to the City of Livonia with a plan to build on large lots---not to cut up and destroy the large lots." On a related subject, should the Council determine a citizens' task force be developed in order to make recommendations about these large lots, I am willing to assist in this process. Thank you very much for a vote to block this plan." We also received a petition that reads: "We, the undersigned Livonia property owners, oppose the Petition 99-11-1-20 requesting rezoning of property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road the North Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFA (Rural Urban Farm) to R-1 (One Family Residential-60'x 120' minimum lot). The petition is signed by 97 residents. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? William Roskelly. 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia. representing Leo Soave who is also present. At this specific time I believe that you all have a layout of the plan of the land that Mr. Soave has purchased. Just to go back a few years, Mr. Soave had purchased the document you have that shows the five proposed R-1 zoned lots along with lots 6 & 7 which would be half acres lots. At this specific time, we are asking to have the area through lot 5 to be rezoned to R-1. He has owned this parcel of land in excess of two years. Since that time he approached the owners of the office to the east which I believe is a doctor's office. For quite some time, for over a six month period, he was negotiating to purchase the area to the south of the developed existing OS district. At that time he was hoping, it is zoned OS, and at that time he was attempting to purchase it and request that it be zoned R- 1 which would have eliminated the OS section. If the Planning Commission finds this acceptable, I would like to point out to the residents that in view of the fact that you have office to the east and to the west, another 300 or 400 feet, you have Pick-A-Bone Restaurant. By virtue of rezoning this to R-1, it would certainly terminate any future petitions for any office sites to go into this site which I submit if this petition is turned on, certainly at some given time someone may come and ask for an office complex which would be contiguous to the existing one to the east and perhaps this would terminate any future requests for any office sites on that portion of Six Mile between there and Pick- A-Bone. Other than that, myself and Mr. Soave, are open for questions. 17428 Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? If not, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this , petition? Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Chairman, may I interject one more comment? Mr. McCann: Sure. Mr. Roskelly: I just wanted to point out that the three lots facing Six Mile, one is 75 ft. and the two are 65'. Lots 4 & 5 are 60 feet wide but they are somewhat deeper so we are not at the minimum per se of square foot for R-1. Marie McElroy, 30091 Munger. Once again we come before you saying that this type of rezoning does not fit into the neighborhood as it is currently zoned. Council has told the petitioner, in denying their last petition on this property, that the cluster housing does not fit in this area and again we have strong area support against this and I would like you to consider that in denying this petition tonight. Thank you. Lisa Asquini, 29628 Munger. I also ask that you deny this petition for a couple of reasons. One, the RUF lots are insufficient in their width and the right-of-way is also insufficient by 10 feet. This is a bad plan in this respect because the neighborhood suffers because of the insufficiency. If Mr. Soave has an opportunity with that five block area where he wants to rezone to R-1 to put two RUF lots and then perhaps the two insufficient ones that are deeper down to the south but as it stands, there are problems with what he has laid out here already. Also that R-1 is. to my knowledge, there are no R-1 zoning between Merriman. Nliddlebelt and Six Mile south to Puritan. It may be even further south than that but on that south side of Six Mile Road, we have no R-1 and to me that is completely incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It sets a very bad precedent for our area. As many of you well know, we have been fighting hard to protect the RUF size lots in that area. I respectfully ask that you deny the petition. You've got 45 out of almost 55 households in that immediate neighborhood that have signed against it and we hope that you will take that into consideration. Thank you. Hugh Doody, 29860 Munger. I am an engineer for a processing equipment company and I looked at the layout and the first thing that jumped into my mind was the access that was allotted here which was 50 feet and also where he does the turn around, he has 60 feet from the center of the island out which will not allow anything to go ahead and make that turn reasonable. A fire truck or that kind of vehicle could not get in there and make the turn around in there because the 60 feet is only truly 50 feet. It looks good on paper but in reality you are only talking maybe feet of an actual road on a turn. The second thing was changing it to an R-1. Mr. Soave came to this Commission a while back and he tried to go ahead and do this also and at that time the homeowners agreed that as long as we had RUF or a zoning that we do have in the neighborhood, that anything would be fine. But he obviously has gone ahead and decided that what we think doesn't 17429 matter and what the City Council thinks doesn't matter so I am opposed to this layout. r.. Len Boors, 30606 Munger. I am representing the Willow Creek Association. We are totally against it. We are located off of Six Mile. I think it was September or October of last year when we had the same run around with this gentleman, Mr. Soave, on the same piece of property in which he tried to get it zoned for even larger lots than R-1. I believe it was R-2. At the end of the Council meeting he was told specifically that the people in that area would not agree to anything less than a half acre. In fact at the end of the meeting he made a statement that he wanted to revise his proposal and he was told it would be fine if it was a half acre lot. But again we are back here again with an R-1 and it gets to be irritating coming down here all the time on the same lot with the same builder with even smaller lots. I ask that the petition be denied. We are all in agreement in the association. Thank you. Gale Caswell, 29930 Munger. The City Council is quite clear the last time this was brought to you and to us in telling him no, if you can't stay with the zoning that is there now. then this is probably land that probably should not be developed. I just ask that you tell him loud and clear again, "no". Stay with the zoning that is already there. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Any last comments? 'tawMr. Roskelly: Just a couple of items that I would like to address. The one lady indicated that they did not want cluster housing. This would not be cluster housing. The second item regarding the radius of the cul-de-sac, the radius of the paved cul- de-sac is certainly adequate for any tire trucks and as we have done in many cases before. The other lady who indicated that all the lots are half acre. That is not true. Several lots in this immediate half mile are 50 feet by 300 feet deep. Some are much less than half acre. I still would like to impress upon this Commission that these neighbors should perhaps look at this on a little bit lighter side knowing full well that it would never become office. Mr. Soave who builds in excess of$200,000 homes, I believe it would be a benefit to the area and it would not impair health, welfare or safety to the City or the citizens. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to say to the gentleman who spoke that Mr. Soave is trying to give people the run around. I don't think that is the case at all. Mr. Soave has built many homes in Livonia and has done a wonderful job however, in this particular instance, you know a year ago we approved the R-2 and the Council turned it down. I thought that was a pretty good plan but with this R-1 the way the street is, I just think it is not a good plan and therefore, I would like to give a denying resolution. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved #01-13-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2000, on Petition 99-11-1-20 by Leo 17430 Soave Builders requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road in the N.E. 1/4 of 'yew Section 14 from RUFA to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-11-1-20 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the predominate RUF zoning in the area; 2) That the change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are smaller than the prevailing lot sizes in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the general character of the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary for the continued use of the subject property for residential purposes. 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. Mr. McCann. Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #2 PETITION 99-12-1-21 James M. Szkrybalo (Barbara Murphy-McEwen) Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-12-1-21 by James M. Szkrybalo on behalf of Barbara Murphy-McEwen requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Fairfield Avenue between Five Mile Road and Meadowbrook Lane in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22 from R-7 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? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated December 27, 1999, 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 descriptions contained therein. Mr. Sykrybalo has spoken to this office and he is aware of the needed utility extensions required as well as the additional fire hydrant on Brookfield Avenue which will be required as part of the development." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? 17431 James Sykrybalo, home address 14136 Gary, Livonia. My work address is 38777 Six Mile Road, Livonia. We were here approximately a month and a half ago for a `"' change of zoning for the larger parcel subsequent to the Commission's recommendation. I have first reading on the change from R-7 to RC on the larger parcel tomorrow evening at the City Council. Subsequent to that time, we have entered into a purchase agreement for the parcel. We think it would be a great addition to the planned use that we have and the site plan that we have developed on the entire portion. That site plan will be the subject of item number 4 on today's agenda. The reason that we can bring a site plan is that in an R-7 district our use of the property would include condominiums. It is an included use. That is why I have already developed a site plan. It was suggested that for the sake of future generations that we should petition to change this entire parcel now to RC and that is the subject of this petition, getting the small parcel RC like the larger parcel. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners regarding the zoning charge? Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against the petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #01-14-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2000, on Petition 99-12-1-21 by James ti.. M. Szkrybalo on behalf of Barbara Murphy-McEwen requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Fairfield Avenue between Five Mile Road and Meadow brook Lane in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22 from R-7 to RC. the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-12-1-21 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area: 2) That the proposed change of zoning will insure that the subject property is developed for condominium uses as opposed to rental apartment uses; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more of a variety of housing types in the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of medium density residential and use for this area. 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. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 17432 ITEM #3 PETITION 99-12-2-31 BELLACINO'S PIZZA & GRINDERS Num. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-12-2-31 by Bellacino's Pizza and Grinders by John Warren requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant to be located in the Woodland Square shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the S.E. 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: Mark, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated December 13, 1999, 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 approximate legal description is acceptable to this department and should be used for petition purposes only therewith: A Parcel of land being situated in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, T. 15., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the south 1/4 corner of said Section 26, T. 1S.. R. 9E.. City of Livonia. Wayne County, Michigan and proceeding thence along the southerly line of said Section 26, Centerline of Plymouth Road(120'wide) S. 89°58'38"East, 270 ft. and north 00°26'43" west, 244 feet and proceeding thence due north 33 feet: thence due east 68 feet: thence south 09°43'39"east. 35.51 feet: thence due west _4 feet to the point of beginning." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police. dated December 13. 1999, which 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. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 14, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a restaurant to be located in the Woodland Shopping Center 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 letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 17, 1999, reads as follows: "The site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. No problems or deficiencies were noted." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Jerry Stawowy, 180 Elm, Trenton, Michigan. I am here representing Mr. Warren who is also here to answer questions, if you have any. What we are requesting is a special use of an approved site on an existing Woodland Center shopping center. We are going to occupy approximately 2500 sq. ft. It will seat approximately 40 17433 or 49 people. Presently there are 20 Bellacino's restaurants in the state of Michigan. Before the year is out we expect to see 40, This site is one we would like to see a restaurant located in. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, I visited the one you have on Warren Avenue just east of Venoy and they have 70 seats there. I was there twice and it is a very busy place and they do a wonderful job but on our notes it said if we have carry out it takes six to ten minutes and if you are going to eat in the facility. it will take ten to twenty minutes. While I was there both times, we were looking at least a half an hour to get the merchandise to the customers. Is that a normal practice with your stores? Mr. Stawowy: No it is not. Each one is run by a different franchise. The store that you are talking about is a Mancino's. That was part of a chain, but now Bellacino's is the franchise. Joe Mancino is the founder of the Mancino's Company and then as it became a franchise operation, it became Bellacino's. Mr. Alanskas: All those rolls that are on the tables, are they made by you or are they purchased? Mr. Stawowy: They are made on site. �.. Mr. Alanskas: They are made on site everyday? Mr. Stawowy: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, could you tell me how many units in this shopping center are currently vacant? Mr. Taormina: Woodland Center contains two separate buildings. The northerly building on the site which houses the Sports Authority and the Billiards Cafe, is 100% leased. The second building which is the long narrow structure which has the north/south orientation has three vacancies; two of which are at the north end. One is 1,984 sq. ft. The one to the south is just under 8,000 sq. ft. and then there is a central unit which is approximately 1,400 sq. ft. and of course this site, which will be occupied. I believe this will leave an additional space just to the north 2,500 sq. ft. unit which isn't reflected on this plan. Mr. Stawowy: That is correct. Mr. Shane: There are three additional restaurants in the center at this point? Mr. Taormina: There is the Chinese Buffet, Subway and the Billiards Cafe. That is correct. Mr. Shane: Thank you. 17434 Mr. LaPine: Do you have your own dumpster or do you use the dumpster that is supplied by the landlord? Mr. Stawowy: There is a dumpster that is dedicated to that unit. It is provided by the landlord but it is dedicated to that unit. Mr. LaPine: Is going to be enclosed with brick on three sides with a gate on the front? Mr. Stawowy: No it is not. In the back of the site there is an existing area.. Mr. LaPine: There is a chain link fence around it at the present time. Mr. Stawowy: That is correct. There might be 8 or 9 dumpsters in the capacity of that area and this would be one of them. Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of the operation? Mr. Stawowy: They would vary but it would probably be from 10:00 a.rn. to 9:00 p.m. John Warren, 23570 Maple Court, Brownstown, Michigan. Normal hours are 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., weekends until 11:00 p.m. Mr. LaPine: The only signage you are going to have is what you are going to have on the �.. front of the building? Mr. Warren: Yes sir. Mr. LaPine: We've got three restaurants in there now and I've got no objection to your restaurant. I hope you did your homework and I am beginning to wonder if all these restaurants are going to survive in that shopping center at the present time. At least in my opinion, because of the number of vacancies, there has been a pretty good turn over in that shopping center which hasn't been one of our more prosperous shopping centers. I hope you come in. I like your menu. I looked at your background and everything you gave me. I think you will be a good citizen for Livonia. I just hope you have done your homework and hope you will be successful. Mr. Warren: I believe we will. I believe the diversity of the three products that the three restaurants have in that particular site are going to compliment each other. I think each one of us will draw from the other. Mr. LaPine: 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, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order. 17435 On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was #01-15-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2000, on Petition 99-12-2-31 Bellacino's Pizza and Grinders by John Warren requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant to be located in the Woodland Square shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-12-2-31 be approved subject to a limitation on the maximum number of customer seats to be provided of 48 seats, for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the 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. 'rr.. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shane: The reason I brought up the vacancy rate in this shopping center is to make a point that I think that this kind of a facility could very well assist in bringing more people to the center, perhaps alleviating that vacancy rate. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 99-12-2-33 CIVIC PARK WOODS CONDOMINIUMS Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-12-2-33 Civic Park Woods Condominiums by James M. Szkrybalo requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development to be located on property on the west side of Fairfield Avenue between Five Mile Road and Meadowbrook Lane in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22. 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 is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated December 27, 1999,which reads as follows: 17436 "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 descriptions contained therein. Mr. Sykrybalo has spoken to this office and he is aware of the needed utility extensions required as well as the additional fire hydrant on Brookfield Avenue which will be required as part of the development." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second 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 Office, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 3, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 21, 1999, the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This is a double-frontage parcel which requires a front yard building setback on two streets. The requirement is for a 50 foot building setback from each of the two streets. The proposed 30 foot setback is deficient and nonconforming to Ordinance #543, Section 8.03(c) and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) The south side building setback that abuts single-family residential is required to be 75 feet and is proposed at 14'5" and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The north side building setback is required to be a minimum of 25 feet and is proposed at 6 feet and aLso would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (4) No landscape plan was submitted. (5) Surfaced driveway areas account for 44% of the front yard area where a maximum of 25% would be allowed per Ord. 543, Section 8.04(b) (6) All v.. buildings (1 through 8) will have at least one side with siding and a brick wainscoting. Buildings No. 2, 3. 6 and 7 will have both sides in siding and brick wainscoting. All buildings are shown to have brick fronts and rear to the cave line. No brick is proposed for the gable ends of the dwelling units and front-facing gables to the attached garage. The type of brick is not indicated on the plan." The letter is signed by John J. Fegan, Director of Inspection. The fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated January 5, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with requesting waiver use approval for Civic Park Woods Condominiums to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Fairfield and Brookfield Avenues in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22. We have no objections to this proposal. However, our approval is contingent on adequate hydrants being provided and located with spacing consistent with residential area. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,000GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Inspector. The fifth item of correspondence is a letter from John T. Wikentiew, 14856 Brookfield St., Livonia, dated January 23, 2000, reads as follows: "I am the owner of Lot 18, Taylor Gardens Sub which is adjacent to the South of the above parcel of land. Mr. Szkrybalo has met with me and informed me of his plans for development of this parcel. I have recently gone over the site plan, standard features and landscape plan as proposed and I am in favor of this development. It seems to me that this is an ideal use of the land, has a lower density than would be allowed, and serves a real need for single story condos here in Livonia. In looking at the site plan I am satisfied that this project would be an excellent fit. My home sits on the lot approximately 18 feet from the Northerly lot line and 17437 this new project shows a 14.5 foot set back to the South of the unit next door to me. By my calculation there would be over 32 feet of space between my home �.. and the adjacent condo. I hope you can approve this plan and allow this project to proceed." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? James M. Szkrybalo. my home address is 14136 Gary, my work address is 38777 Six Mile, Livonia. Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would like briefly to outline how I am going to proceed here. I would like to proceed in four parts; first with a historical overview of the site and then a presentation of the site plan. Third, address certain questions that I believe came up in the study meeting last week that I have been informed by the Planning Commission employees and then answer any new questions concerning the project that might arise after my presentation. And finally, try to iron out those concerns, if there are any. Mr. McCann: We have somewhat of a good history since most of us have been involved in this particular area, if you would like to highlight that fairly briefly. Mr. Szkrybalo: Initially, we looked at this site in consideration, my associates and partners have owned this site for two years and we had intended, it is zoned R-7, to make a transitional use between the severe use of R-7 to the north, which are the apartment buildings, and to the east which are apartments and to the west we have public land. It was our intention all along to make a use of this land �.. that would be something less dense than would be allowed under the R-7. Under R-7 we could build currently approximately 28 to 29 units if we include the parcel that was up for consideration today. There is 2-1/2 acres and I think the density would come out to be around 28 or 29 units. Under RC: our density would be reduced to 24 - 25 units. Under R-7 it definitely would be two story buildings. Under RC with 24 - 25 units density we have mostly two story and one story units with one car garages. That does not suit our intent. It does not serve the need of the community, in our opinion. Our use, if we are granted permission on the site plan, is to construct 18 units. The total plan would allow us approximately 30% of living space toward the lot size. Our plan calls for only using 22% of living space for the lot size. There have been in this City variances given for some plans that have a greater density or 30%. One that comes to mind is the Villas. Although they are detached, they are very close together. We have a greater commons area. We have a longer front setback than the rest of the houses to the south. We also looked at this site as being one with a lot of mature trees. Our plan calls for the removal of the trees that are going to be either in the driveways or the basements but we are saving a large percentage of the trees and we are very excited about the plan. Our excitement has been contagious. When we went to the landscape architect to develop the landscape plan, I had mentioned to him that I was very satisfied with the pear trees that were at Pinebrook Condominiums, the project we were involved in three or four years on Norfolk just east of Farmington. I also r... mentioned that I lked dogwood trees, too. So what did he do, he developed a plan to not only give a pear but a dogwood. He said, Jim you told me to kick it up a notch. We have kicked this project up a notch. This site plan before the 17438 Commission is a result of two preliminary inary site plans that preceded it. We have been working on this for a month or two, or three months. We have had multiple meetings with the Planning staff and I have enjoyed talking with both Mark and Al concerning how we can develop this. I have spent a lot of time personally with Mr. Hill concerning the setback requirements, concerns about easements we would have to grant to tap the sanitary and storm sewer. Mr. Hill indicated, could we put in a fire hydrant because there was no hydrant on Brookfield servicing both the new apartment house and our project and I don't have any problem with that. All the people in the City have been very cooperative and have been very instructional to me. We have had three meetings with the architect to redraw this project. Our initial plan had called for buildings that were approximately, each unit, one foot to one and a half foot wider. We are having difficulty with the setback requirements on the south and the north. We redesigned the plan to make them a foot and a half shorter, skinnier, but we extended the back of the units by three feet. We gained approximately 40 sq. ft. that way. Initially we had a plan for about 1370 ft. These units are 1,397 - 1,400 ft. It was also brought to our attention, and we knew this, that the other parcel that was up for zoning tonight was available on the market. It was suggested to us that, wouldn't it be nice if we could put this all together and clean up the whole parcel. At great cost to us, we have entered into a purchase agreement with the owner. The land cost is approximately twice as high as what we had paid for the entire parcel on a per foot basis. But we are prepared to go ahead at this point. All along I have tried to ascertain the desire to the adjoining property owners to the south. I have been in contact with Mr. Frank Cannizzaro, who lives on Fairfield just adjacent to the property. We have also had an opportunity to talk to Mr. John Wikentiew and give them each a site plan. a punch list of how we are going to build the buildings. what is included in the building, a landscape plan and they have both indicated that they are very happy with our project. Mr. McCann: Can we get along to the site plan for tonight, please? Mr. Szkrybalo: The site plan that we have is for 18 units. There are six buildings with two units and two buildings with three units. It was my understanding that there were some concerns at the study meeting and I would like to direct those. First of all, for the general public, we have extensive use of brick on these projects. There might be a question about the brick on one end. We are using architectural grade shingles as opposed to standard shingles. We have staggered the buildings by five feet at an added cost instead of having buildings that are straight across like barracks. We have tried to give some architectural detail to the building by staggering them by five feet on each unit. We propose concrete drives, not asphalt. We also propose to wrap the trim in aluminum at a cost to us and vinyl at the peaks. The last project that we did, we had blue spruce trim and we stained it. We used vinyl but some other builders have been using exterior plywood and staining it. We have found that the units after a while started looking seedy and the owners started arguing with one another when were they going to paint the things. We want to make these absolutely maintenance free and that is why we are going with the extra cost. To address the issues of the study meeting, there was a question at the study meeting or it 17439 was indicated by staff that we had no landscaping on the north six feet of the property line. That is true. There is nothing planned there. Unfortunately, the �.� brand new apartment building to the north hasn't been completed yet. They have run their driveway and the parking lot right to the property line and the curbs. There is no greenbelt on their south end adjoining our north end. Given that we have a six foot setback, it would be very impractical for us to in fact propose any type of landscape without encroaching upon their land. If we plant something that grows, it is going to grow or at least overhang their land. I'd love to do it if somebody could suggest what I could plant there. I think there was also mention of possibly doing some side entrance garages. I've talked to the architect and it is not feasible for this site. We are concerned about the width of the site and I think that is the primary concern of the Planning Commission. I don't see how we can very well do that. But as to the issue of the driveways, we show a double driveway coming into the front of the garages. I asked the architect, why a double driveway as opposed to leaving approximately two to three feet in between. He suggested that it has been their experience that the snowplows go horizontal to the road, not perpendicular. They try to do a pull by running north and south in this particular area and that he has designed other projects that have had difficulty with the snowplows coming up and tearing up whatever vegetation is in between. If the Planning Commission and the City Council believes that it would be best for us to have a greenbelt there, I don't think we are going to run into any problem. The rational behind that design was utility of maintenance, maintaining these as easily as possible. If we turn it over to an owners association and the grass gets `'..• torn up, they'll replace it but they are going to be griping about having to do it every year. The front yard setback shows 30 and 35 feet. I have field measured and I have something I can put on the opaque projector. I went to the site and determined exactly where the house adjacent to us sits and all the houses to the south. This zoning is R-1 and the front yard setback for that zoning is 25 feet. When we were designing these units. we decided we would give a greater than 25 ft. setback and our buildings call for a 30 and a 35 foot setbacks. All the other houses along Fairfield and Brookfield are set back 25 feet. This 25 feet happens to be measured from the property line, which is located one foot on the inside of the sidewalk. The houses are actually 40 feet from the curb. Those are the existing R-1 houses. Our condominiums would be 45 ft. and 50 ft. from the curb. That would be the beginning of the garage. The house itself would sit back 15-1/2 ft. As you are coming into the project and you are coming down the street, these units are going to be 30 ft. plus 15 ft. to the front of the garage and 35 ft. plus 15 ft. to the front of the other garage and the house starts 15 feet from there.. Adding it up I get about 60 feet from the curb line to the beginning of the house which would allow us another 45 ft. to the rear of each unit to preserve the woods in back. If you have a commons area, that would be 90 to 95 ft. between houses on the two opposing streets. It was also mentioned that our plan had called for brick to come down and wrap on the interior walls on many units. It would wrap five feet and would be full brick on that side and then come down to 4-1/2 feet above grade, the window y... line going back and then coming back to another five foot wall. I understand there was an objection to that, that there was some difficulty with the brick. I am ready to address that issue. I have full authority of my partners to decide • 17440 how we are going to do the brick and I am more inclined to probably make some large concessions. I think the largest issue that we have come to address r,,,, tonight is the setback here, this 14-1/2 feet. On the other side you know we have a 6 ft. setback. The new apartment is 50 ft. from that property line and has a curb right on the property line, the parking lot. We do not have any windows facing there in the units that we designed for those, for the northerly portion. No one in the condominium itself is going to be looking over at the parking lot to the north but I think the main concern is this 14-1/2 ft. setback. It is my contention that. and I have been out there and made this drawing of the two houses, one on Brookfield and one on Fairfield. they are both setback approximately 19 ft. from the property line. On the other side they have a five foot setback. The R-1 zoning allows a total, I think its a total required 12 ft. setback; five ft. on one side and seven feet on the other. It is five minimum. Our proposal would make our buildings approximately 33-1/2 ft. away from the first building on Fairfield. I have discussed this with Frank and I have discussed this with John. Both have signed a letter indicating that they are in total approval of the site plan. These are the two important property owners, although everybody in the neighborhood is important. These gentlemen are residing right next to us. The site itself, if it is not developed this way, and stays as an R-3, we certainly don't want to develop it into 24 units. We are very enthused about this. We feel that we are going to put a premium product up there. We have made some decisions to spend the extra $10,000 or $15,000 on the finish with the architectural shingles, with the concrete and with the finished interior. I am here to commit to that. I prepared those feature sheets, not as an example. That is the beginning. We will not go down from there. we Nom- will probably do something more fantastic. I am very proud of the project. My partners are very proud of it. I will just say one more thing. In the process of trying to decide who was going to physically build these. I�have talked to Mr. Steven Summers who did Pinebrooke with his dad. I was involved in that. I talked to Mr. Kim Kostic. Both gentlemen are fine builders here in Livonia but it struck me as prophetic the letter I got from Steve Summers. It basically says these multi-residential structures in this entire development are meant to make the owners and the development team proud, a housing showcase right in the City government's backyard. Because of this I know full well the quality will be the utmost importance at Brookfield, as it should be, and to get that quality is always the case, you have to pay for it. Gentlemen we are prepared to pay for it, everything that I had put on the table with this density, 18 units. I tried to address the questions that you had at the study meeting. I am prepared to address any other questions that you may have. I am looking for an approval. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, on the two homeowners, the one on Fairfield and the one on Brookfield,. you said you have a signed letter from them that they approve of this? That was put in the record here? Mr.Szkrybalo: Yes. One letter was delivered two days ago and Mark read it. That is John Wikentiew who resides at 18457 Fairfield. We met with him on Sunday. Frank has been a supporter of this and he is in the audience tonight. His letter was filed three weeks ago and should have been in your package. 17441 Mr. Alanskas: The last question about the letter, and I just find it odd that the one that was from John Wikentiew, is on your stationery, ReMax stationery. He did sign it? Mr. Szkrybalo: The other one is on my letter also. The one from Frank. Mr. Alanskas: You say you will have 18 units. How many units will be in the one story building? Mr. Szkrybalo: They will all be one story buildings. No two story buildings. Mr. Alanskas: No two story buildings? Because you said you would have some one story and some two story buildings. Mr. Szkrybalo: If we develop this parcel with a more intense use, under R-7, we would have two stories. Mr. Alanskas: But 18 units would all be one story. Mr. Szkrybalo: They would all be 1,400 sqft. one story, ranches. Six buildings would be two units and two buildings would be three units. Mr. Alanskas: Did you bring a rendering with you so we could see the rendering? Mr. Szkrybalo: Yes, I did. It was in your package. I have it here. `r.. Mr. Alanskas: That is not a color rendering. O.KThank you very much. Mr. LaPine: I don't have a lot of problems with your proposal but what are you committing to brick? How much brick are you going to put on these buildings? Mr. Szkrybalo: My estimation right now with the plan at 4-1/2 feet on the interior walls, is that we are currently giving the 85% brick, exterior surface. Mr. LaPine: So all of the units will have at least 85% brick? Is that what you are telling me, on all four sides? Mr. Szkrybalo: That is correct. What is going to happen, every unit that faces to the north, there are two units that face to the north, and two units to the south. Those are 100% brick units. It is the walls that face to the interior of the condominium, the interior units of the interior walls, those buildings will have three sides that are 100% brick. The fourth side will have five feet of brick wrap around and five feet on the other side, then drop down to the window level. Mr. LaPine: I want you to clarify one other thing. Why we can't have some side entrance garages? I understand you have a problem with the width of the property. But has your architect looked at all Mr. Szkrybalo: Generally, I think I can make this analogy to some large homes that have gone up in town When you have an 80 ft. lot which is an R-3 lot, it is very difficult 17442 to do a side entrance garage because you don't have the width of the lot. You have to go to 90 ft. of 100 ft. which would be R-4 or R-5. There are very few of those here in town. In this particular case because the need and the desire is ranches, ranches sprawl. they get wide. In order to give somebody 1,400 sq. ft. we have to give them the width. We can't make them really narrow like cigars or bowling alleys that would project back. It would be very impractical in this site and impossible to design a side entry garage. There is a design flaw, I love the Villas, I love what Mr. LaFavre did 10 years ago at the Villas. I think that the design there is impeccable and it is a premium location and it is a premium development. But Mr. LaFavre, when he did the driveways he even did them in a brick paver type of concrete and spent extra money. I have had clients who have owned property in the Villas and their main problem is to get in their garage is impossible. When they come in, especially on the interior units, they have to turn left and then throw it in reverse and back the car up to get into the garage because there was not enough width. That is a problem that we have. Our width is getting close to the residential and I knew all along as we were developing this that that was going to be an objectionable. I could build up but that is not the need here. We are close to the Senior Citizens Center and I am kind of designing it for people that are my age, who have been in Livonia a long time, and the single urban professional. everything I would want. Mr. LaPine: I can't argue the point with you because I am not an architect but let me ask you this other question. What are these units going to sell for? Now Mr. Szkrybalo: They will be in excess of$200,000. The exact price is going to be difficult to ascertain until we final the model. Mr. LaPine: All through your presentation, in which I must say you did an excellent job of your presentation, you kept saying how much money you will be spending. Unfortunately, the buyer of the units are going to pay for it whatever improvements we do on this building. It's all in the cost of the development. Mr. Szkrybalo: That is correct but I have personally' taken people through $500,000 homes where the builder has refused to spend the last $10,000 on the finish and you go in and you see what is a $29 stainless steel sink in a $500,000 house. What we are doing is we are going with cast iron sinks, china closets. china sinks, premium fixtures and an exterior that is truly maintenance free. All of those costs are determined by the density and the density is standing at 18 units. Without the density, we have some difficulty. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I just want to compliment you on proposing 18 units rather than the limit which would be about 26 or 27 units. I personally appreciate it. I'm sure everybody on this board does too. To make low use of the density of the areas is always beneficial to our residents. The one thing we had discussed, as briefly mentioned, was the amount of brick. We generally have a policy on single story that we have at least 80% and you tell me that it will be 85% brick? 17443 Mr. Szkrybalo: That is my calculation. 'Nur Mr. Piercecchi: The motion, hopefully, will include 85% brick. IV1r. Szkrybalo: I can live with 85% brick, if you want me to calculate absolutely, I will have that done. Mr. Piercecchi: We generally request 80% brick minimum on single story structures. Mr. Szkrybalo: I think it will be in excess of that with this plan. Mr. Piercecchi: It is unfortunate that you have an inability to landscape on the north side of that piece of property that abuts the R-7 zone. I realize that you only have 6 feet there and you would have to give up two units to get anymore space in there. The south side, apparently, everybody is happy with that. You implied that you have their approval. Mr. Szkrybalo: Both homeowners are happy with the plan. 1 understand there was some concern about the sewer easement that the Commission had with the lack of some type of tree. It is not in the plan. It is my intention that if the Commission wants us to add or move some of the trees around, I will amend the landscape plan accordingly before it gets to Council. The gentleman who designed the landscape plan did a beautiful job. I just said we are adding like 16 or 18 oaks to the rear and we've got a whole forest back there and he said, "Well Jim, you told me to kick it up a notch." As far as some pines or something. I don't think we are going to have any difficulty. Mr. Piercecchi: I find no problems with your plan. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I have a couple of questions. One of the things we talked about was the setback and you compared it to the houses that are to the south of you. One of the concerns I have, and we have other projects like this, is that you are building nine individual family homes, although three of them are connected and the others are in pairs. You are building them 30 feet from the edge of the street, is that about right? Mr. Szkrybalo: No, we are building them 45 feet from the edge of the street. Mr. McCann: And 30 ft. from the edge of the sidewalk, even though you don't show any sidewalks? Mr. Szkrybalo: Thirty one feet from where the sidewalk will be because the property line is one foot inside the sidewalk line, currently. That is where the subdivision line is. Mr. McCann: Question for you, I don't see sidewalks. Do you have sidewalks? 17444 Mr. Szkrybalo: Yes. Mr. McCann: Oh. I see it right there. I guess where I am going with this is that you have, the way I figured garages are about 45% of the frontage. Your property is driveway and garage doors. If you take a look at the single family homes down the street, they range anywhere from, the driveways are a little narrower on those, anywhere from 23% to 28% of the frontage is driveway and the garages are in the rear. When we look at yours you are going to have approximately, looking at the plans, 40 ft., 40 ft., 20 ft. and 40 ft. which works out to be about 45%. It makes a big block fronting right upon the street. That is why in our discussions we said if we could set back the buildings a little bit, it would soften the look. What is the major problem with bringing the buildings back another 10 feet because you say you can't get rid of the garages so 45% of what the people are going to see from the street is going to be garage doors. You can't go side entrances and put windows along the side of the garage to give it a softer look, then we need to move it back so that we are not driving up and down an industrial road of garage doors. Mr. Szkrybalo: I think that is a very good question. I think that I might perhaps have an answer. Historically, we have had in Livonia a transition. Things progressed, designs changed. When the subdivision to the south was erected in the late 50's, it used a plan that was probably initially drafted in the late 40's. It was a plan that could fit, in fact there were probably 30,000 homes built in the western suburbs that are almost all identical to the 1,050 sq. ft. ranch. They were built on 50 ft. and 60 ft. lots. In fact, the design right after WWII, we were not as mobile of a society. We did not have as many cars. Maybe we had one car in the family. I know a lot of people, like my wife's parents, didn't have a car until my wife was well into her 20's. They use to take buses everywhere. As we evolved into the 60's and this City evolved, we got larger lots. We got R-2 zoning. We got R-3 zoning. You will notice that all of the colonials and all of the ranches that were built, let's say at Five Mile and Levan, north and south, some of them south of Five Mile don't have garages but some of them do. But certainly everything north of Five Mile has now evolved into a ranch that has a two car attached garage. I personally like the style where the garage could be in the alley and in the back of the house. It is something that leads of a certain charm. It is something that when I was a kid we used to sit on the porch and all the neighbors knew us. That is not a design that people want. People want to have a garage. They want a two car garage and they want it attached. From an aesthetic view point, one of the reasons that we did place this, instead of placing the units 25 ft. which would actually be 40 ft. from the curb, and extending them back 5 ft. and then saw toothing them, is that we did not have these garages, they do not have a united front, they are staggered by 5 ft. and they are in fact an additional 5 ft. to 10 ft. in back of where the houses begin. All the houses are 25 ft. from the lot line and 40 ft. from the road. We are going to be 45 ft. and 50 ft. from either Brookfield or Fairfield. If I kick them back 10 ft., Mr. McCann, I will end up destroying the natural beauty of the backyard which this site is a very special site. That is why I am going PRD, to get some type of relief, to give something on the �``�' density, to give away the density, to give quality, to increase the quality. But I 17445 need this type of density that I had planned in order to make it economically feasible to myself and my partners and all the other subcontractors that are involved, and the builder. I wish I had an extra 20 ft. of land but unfortunately I don't and this is how the City was laid out, 270 feet. They took actually, we have, 270 and 60, the legal description of this parcel is 330 ft. but we only have 270 ft. useful because 30 ft. on each end is taken for the street, Brookfield and Fairfield. It wasn't all used, but it is taken. We have 15 ft. there, that was originally part of the land when this was all subdivided. That is a greenbelt. We are going to have street trees and we are going to have sidewalks and we are going to have grass on the City land. I really think that when these things get built and they are 30 ft. and 35 ft. away from the property line, it would not be that great of a concern. 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? David Atsinger, 14834 Fairfield. This is my third time here on this project. I am not too far away from where it is going to take place. I am showing my approval for the project but Mr. McCann did bring up some valid points. I agree now because I don't really want to see a line of garages either but I don't know how to get around that. I don't know if windows on the sides of the garages, something to that effect. I like this. I hate to say the worst of two evils but I would rather see condos like this than see low housing apartments or tearing down all the trees, different things like that. Thanks for your time. `rr Frank Cannizzaro. 14857 Fairfield, Livonia. I definitely am in agreement with the petition. The distance between my home and the single level condos is tine with me. up to 32 ft. I have maintained part of that property for years, cutting grass and putting maintenance in there. I just like to express my views that I agree with the petition and I certainly don't want to see multiply level dwellings or apartments or a parking lot next to my home. Thank you very much. Mr. McCann: Seeing no one else, do you have any last comments? Mr. Szkrybalo: Only that I hope that I can get an approving resolution and discuss certain concerns that you may have. I am willing to make concessions on the landscape and I might be able to make concessions on the brick but I need this density. I think the project is one that we are all going to be proud of after it is complete. I would like this to be sent on to Council so that we can further discuss it along that process. I have been very cooperative with staff and I am sure Mr. Taormina and Mr. Nowak are going to inform the Council what your concerns are. But I would appreciate an approving resolution tonight. Mr. Piercecchi: What about that idea of putting a window in the garage. What is your opinion on the aesthetics on that and the breaking up of that wall? `''m- Mr. Szkrybalo: Instead of a brick wall? Coming around the front of the house when you are doing a walkway and entering. 17446 Mr. Piercecchi: You know, on the side. Mr. Szkrybalo: It is funny that you ask. We have done that in the past on things we didn't have to do it, like the lot splits on Norfolk and when Steve is building them, we are looking at them and saying, you know maybe we ought to get some light in this garage and break up this wall. If we do have a suggestion from the Planning Commission that that be done, I don't think that will be any difficulty, to put a window in so that you are not looking at a total garage wall. Mr. Piercecchi: I think that sounds like a good idea, especially when it comes from a resident. Mr. Szkrybalo: I am amenable to that. Mr. Piercecchi: Will you ask the Planning Commission, Jim, how they feel about that? Mr. McCann: You can ask through the Chair to the Planning Commission. Mr. Taormina do you have any comments? Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding that you are looking at adding. a window to the side of the garage. not to the front of the garage? Mr. McCann: I was hoping for a side entry. Let's go to the question first. Did the staff look at the possibility of side entry garages on this during the week. `"` Mr. Taormina: Yes. we did sit down and have a meeting with Mr. Szkrybalo. The difficulty you run into. if you were to combine driveways in the center of these units with side entry garages, is having a sufficient turning radius. That radius if permitted, you have to now use a portion of the other driveway. If there is a car parked in the 16 ft. drive that is really dedicated to the unit adjacent to it, it becomes very difficult to maneuver your vehicle. Mr. McCann: Even with 40 ft. drives, if you were between the units, as I look at the units, between the two building units, if you put two 40 ft. drives, they've got 40 ft. drives anyway, it would go between them. I don't think you would gain anything on driveways. You would still have about a 45% driveway but you would be able to take the two inner units and combine those, then have two 20 ft. drives. Mr. Taormina: You would have to look at a combination of court entry garages and side entry garages. So, for example, I am looking at this southerly unit on building 5 where it is adjacent to the northerly unit on building 6. You might be able to bring in a side entry of what would be considered a side entry garage into the unit of building 5 along with a court entrance into the northerly unit of building 6. There you would have a distance between the garages, the sides that are facing one another of about 45 ft. I would not recommend anything less than 22 ft. for the distance between the garage and the driveway to make that swing. You can see where it would be difficult, for example, on the next two units on building 5, the two northerly units. If it were designed with a court entrance on 17447 the north unit or a shared driveway, then you really only have about 38 ft. between those sides of the garages that are facing one another, That really is not a sufficient distance to make those turns there. So where it might be �.► possible is where you have a relationship between two adjacent buildings like building 5 and building 6 with a court entrance on one and a side entrance on the other. I don't know that it would be possible for the other two units of building to provide a side entry. You might have to go with a combination of side and front. Mr. McCann: That was my original thought, side and front is all right. At least it wouldn't just break up the view going down the street. If building 5 and building 6 shared side entry between them and building 6 and building 7 which would have a shared drive between those two buildings and actually you could almost do it again between building 7 and building 8 and then the end unit on number 8 would have to have its separate drive. So you would have a combination of separate drives for the first two drives on building 5. You would have to have two separate drives and then the combined units. My thought was that you would have a different pattern as you go down the street. Whether you would have sufficient room to do that, I don't know. The space between the buildings gives you an additional 10 ft. Mr. Taormina: Yes. That is correct and that is where you can mix and match between the different driveways to make it work, possibly. But it wouldn't be a consistent approach for each of the buildings. Mr. McCann No but it would break up what you are seeing from the road. Mr. Taormina: If that could be accomplished without having the driveway, let's say, extend beyond the building line on the adjoining unit. I think that would be an awkward arrangement. For example, for the middle unit on building 5, if you provide a court entry garage, that would force that northern edge of the driveway out in front of the unit to the north which would be an awkward arrangement. That might be a situation where you would want to maintain a front entrance on the middle unit. Mr. McCann: I see. The middle unit would have to take a front entrance there. Mr. Szkrybalo: I think with this modification we would create narrow bands of landscaping and I don't think that would look any better than what I had proposed. If you look at building 5 and we try to make the side entrance garage in the middle unit we are going to have to give at least 22 ft. of driveway to make the turn, the radius and we are going to reduce the landscape area by approximately 22 ft. We are going to increase this area because we don't have a driveway there only by 18 ft. so we are actually paving over more of the greenbelt if we do a side entrance. I think what we are trying to solve is to try to get as much of the greenbelt as we can. For sake of discussion with the architect, it is feasible coming off the garage. We have the driveway a little wider, it is as wide as the garage so that it meets the other driveway. But it is feasible that we have 2 ft. or 3 ft. greenbelt in between both driveways to break them up. His concern, 17448 when he designed it, because he lives in a condo that is like that. He had designed it as a matter of fact and he said the criticism he gets isn't worth it because the owners are constantly complaining that the guy came and plowed Now and he ripped up whatever was there, which is just sod. And also the sod, because we have underground sprinklers, when you are that close to the concrete, two or three feet of sod kind of burns out. That was his main concern but if we need modification for putting the greenbelt in between, I am amenable to that. But side entrance garages I do not think are the answer only because we will be paving over more of greenbelt. I certainly don't want to do that if we are putting in a couple of flowering trees in front of each unit, putting in street trees, I am a green person. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else? Mr. Shane: Would you have an objection to taking a unit with a 30 ft. setback and making it 40 ft. setback and leaving the 35 ft. setback where it is. Instead of doing this, you would do this. This might help Mr. McCann a little bit more with this problem. Mr. Szkrybalo: A 40 ft. setback.... Mr. Shane: In other words, you have a 30 ft. setback and a 35 ft. setback. Mr. Szkrybalo: That is correct. 'New Mr. Shane: The 30 ft. setback is in front of the 35 ft. setback.just reverse that and put the 35 ft. setback in front of the 40 ft. and leave the 35 ft. setback where it is. All you would be doing is .... Mr. Szkrybalo: Moving it back 10 ft. What that in effect would do would be adding 5 ft. of wall in front and 5 ft. of wall in back, if that is my understanding. Because we right now have a 5 ft. saw tooth pattern and you are asking me to make a 10 ft. saw tooth pattern. Mr. Shane: No. I am asking that the 5 ft. would stay the same except that it would be in reverse. Mr. Szkrybalo: In effect, what would happen, that unit would be 15 ft. in back of the existing buildings that front that street. The driveway of that building by my calculation would be 18 ft. wide, 40 ft. plus the approach of 15 ft., the driveway would be 55 ft. long. That is a lot of driveway to put in front of a house. If our concern is concrete in front of the buildings, I don't see how that is solving the difficulty that we have. I think one solution might be to put the greenbelt in between the units and then I am going to have to deal with the owners probably two years from now. One suggestion we did have from the owners of Pinebrooke, one of them just sold, I just happen to sell it to someone new and we are going to close on the 31'. One of the reasons that they are *law moving is that they are having some difficulty,there are only 7 units and everybody is on the board, all 7 units because we have 7 board directors and 17449 their difficulty is spending money. I will just give you an example, spend money to paint the trim that is spruce and there is just a little bit of trim and it v... is only like $800 or $900 but to get them to spend money is tooth and nail for 18 months. If we start having more exterior maintenance, I can see the owners gripping amongst themselves about this. We have very restrictive covenants in the Master Deed and Bylaws and we are going to make them do what they have to do. It is going to survive us so that future generations can enforce these bylaws. Mr. McCann: If there is nothing else, I will call for a motion. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved it was #01-16-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 25, 2000, on Petition 99-12-2-33 Civic Park Woods Condominiums by James M. Szkrybalo requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development to be located on property on the west side of Fairfield Avenue between Five Mile Road and Meadowbrook Lane in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-12-2-33 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan, marked Sheet 1, prepared by R. G. Myers & Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the three (3) building elevations sheets, prepared by R. G. Myers & Associates. Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on December 21, 1999, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that brick shall constitute not less than 85% of the exterior wall material, on all four sides, on each condominium building; 3) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium building shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 4) 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 January 5, 2000; • That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with residential areas. • That the most remote hydrant shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. 5) That the landscape plan prepared by R. G. Myers and Associates, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2000; is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 17450 6) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; r.. 7) That all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 8) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas; and 9) That a window shall be installed on the sides of the garages. 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 Section 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 well designed land use solution at a density that is considerably less than the maximum density allowed under the RC district regulations. Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a friendly amendment that there be an addition providing for driveway separation, the greenbelt that we have been referring to, between each of these units. Mr. McCann: Is that all right with you Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: No. I have to agree with the petitioner. I think that is just going to cause more problems than it is going to help. Mr. Shane: I don't agree with it either. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I have a comment. I can't send this on the way it is. I see that it has potential to make a nice addition to the community. There are a lot of things I really like about it but over 45% of the front is cement and garage doors and I don't think we have done enough to buffer it from the street way and I think it can be done without hurting the development, therefore, I am going to vote against it. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to make one comment that we also have a subdivision lice this next to Corsi's restaurant and when you look at it on a site plan and when it actually is built, when you go there all you see are these garages and I have been there quite a few times because of the petitioner not doing what he is suppose to be 17451 doing in regard to the landscaping and I will be voting against this also because I don't think the plan is correct. New Mr. McCann: Will the secretary please call the roll. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Hale, Piercecchi NAYS: Alanskas, McCann ABSENT: Koons 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. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Public Hearing portion of our 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 #5 PETITION 98-5-8-18 FOX CREEK ESTATES SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION AND LANDSCAPE PLAN Mr. Hale, Secretary. announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8-18 Fox Creek N"" Estates Sign Permit Application and Landscape Plan in connection with site plan which received approval to construct a site condominium development on property located at 36700 Seven Mile Road in the South 1/2 of Section 5. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Seven Mile between Newburgh and Bicentennial Drive. On July 20, 1998, Petition 98-5-8-18 received site plan approval to construct a site condominium development on the subject site. As part of that approval it was conditioned: That an entrance marker application and fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. In compliance with that requirement, a landscape plan for a 30 ft. wide easement along Seven Mile Road and a 20 ft. wide easement along the east property line has been submitted. The plan has been reviewed and has been found to be in compliance with all applicable standards and requirements. The plan is well done and would provide a good landscape treatment for the development and surrounding neighborhood. The petitioner is also requesting approval for an entrance marker for the development. The submitted site plan shows that the proposed sign would be located within the entrance boulevard's landscaped island. Because the proposed sign is to be located within the median of the entrance drive, the applicant would be required to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 17452 Mr. McCann: I did talk to the petitioner. He had another meeting tonight and that there are no questions from the Commissioners that I am aware of. Is there anybody in the audience that has any comments they would like to make for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #01-17-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Petition 98-5-8-18 Fox Creek Estates Sign Permit Application and Landscape Plan in connection with site plan which received approval to construct a site condominium development on property located at 36700 Seven Mile Road in the South 1/2 of Section 5 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the landscape plan marked LS-1 dated January 29, 1999, prepared by Unique Homes, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the entrance marker and its location, as shown on the approved �.� plan. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign erected within the right-of- way and any conditions related thereto. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 PETITION 99-11-8-31 SUNOCO Gas Station Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-11-8-31 Sunoco by Ali Bazzy requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and renovate the exterior building elevations of the gas station located at 33234 Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Farmington Roads. The petitioner is requesting approval to enlarge the existing gas station on the subject site. Presently the existing building is 420 sq. ft. in size (12 ft. x 35 ft.). The petitioner is proposing to double the size of the structure to a total of 846 sq. ft. (18 ft. x 47 ft.). To achieve the desired dimensions, additions would be constructed onto the south(front) and east elevations of the btulding. A note on the elevation plan points out that east, west and south elevations 17453 would be constructed out of new brick. The color of the brick would be "as recommended by City". The building material of the north elevation is not identified but the drawing seems to indicate that it would be block. Running along the top of all four elevations would be a 3 ft. band of metal siding, similar to what is on the existing building. Because the existing building is nonconforming, based on deficient setback from Farmington Road (req. = 75 ft./prop. = 27 ft.), the petitioner would have to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A new pump island canopy would also be erected as part of the overall renovation of the site. The new canopy would be 63 ft. x 40 ft. in size and would overhand slightly over the front of new station. A note on the site plan indicates that number of pumps would be decreased from 6 to 4. The height of the canopy is not noted or shown on the plan. Per the ordinance, a pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 ft. in height. The site plan does show that a new trash dumpster enclosure area would be located at the northeast corner of the site. Presently there is no percentage of landscaping on the site. The plan shows that new landscaping would be planted along all four property lines. The landscaping required is not less than 15% of the total site. The landscaping provided is 5% of the site. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the Division of Police, dated November 29, 1999, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the site plan submitted for the proposed Sunoco Gas Station. I am recommending the following: (1) Elimination of the 21' driveway connection Now to Farmington Road and immediately north of west bound Schoolcraft. (2) Widen the 24' driveway to better accommodate traffic entering or leaving the site via Farmington Road. The recommendation of the elimination of the driveway immediately north of Schoolcraft will help to eliminate conflicts with traffic for those intending to access the site after crossing west bound Schoolcraft while north bound on Farmington. Driveways too close to intersections, especially one as busy as the site location, often create problems during heavy traffic. Using only one larger driveway further north of the intersection could help in eliminating this previous problem." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from the Engineering Division, dated November 29, 1999, and 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 letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 10, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition and renovate the existing gas station 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 letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 20, 1999, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 18, 1999, the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site was reviewed as an abandoned valid non-conforming use and will require approval 17454 of the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to re-occupancy. All existing deficiencies were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals Case #7904-36. saw. (2) Signage was not reviewed as part of this proposal. (3) No building section was provided depicting the types of materials to be used. (4) The existing restroom does not comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Requirements. (5) The route from the parking area to the building must also comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Requirements (ramps, doors, etc.) (6) All parking spaces are required to be identified, double striped and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Requirements. Four parking spaces are required for this site. One space must be a barrier free van accessible space. (7) Dumpster enclosure does not indicate if gates are provided. (8) Canopy height is not depicted on the plan. (9) The site plan does not indicate if the landscaping is irrigated. (10) The required landscaping (15%) is 1620 sq. ft. Proposed landscaping is 531 sq. ft." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Ahmad Ali. Metro Environmental Contracting Inc., 524 Centralia, Dearborn Heights, MI 48127. I did the site plan for Mr. Bazzy. We submit the plan based on the existing location because Mr. Bazzy purchased the property just a couple of months after the Total station decided to comply with the requirement of the State to clean up the site and take the tanks out. In response to the one item of the Building Department letter, it is not an abandoned site. The State required to clean the site. I believe the deadline was December 1998 to comply with the new rule and regulation. That is the reason why the station was closed at that time. Mr. Ba77y owns another station down the street on Plymouth and Farmington Roads. He preferred to at least make this property look the same or better. That is why we propose to renovate the front and the side of that building. The existing building is too small and there is nothing he can do about it except maybe add six feet to the front and about 10 to 12 feet on the side in order to install a small walk-in cooler similar to the one he had down the street. As far as the canopy is concerned, everybody that looked at that site, that site is very old and very rusted and we want to take it down and put in a new one. Along with that is going to be the pavement underneath and the four pumps that are going to be replacing the old six pumps that were there. Originally there were 6 islands there and now we are proposing 4. As far as the other items in the letters, the signage, yes, it wasn't proposed there because we are finding it difficult to find a location to comply with the requirement that they require a five foot offset from the property line. One on both corners and if you look at the Schoolcraft corner, we propose to reduce the driveway to make up for an island so that we can fit our sign in there. That is why we put a note that if we get approval there will be a sign detail submitted to the City for approval on that particular location. As far as the other items, the parking lot and the Michigan Barrier Free Requirement, we didn't do a detail on this site plan. We just did a preliminary site plan and we are willing to comply with all of these items. As far as the recommendation by the Police Department, I agree with them 100% as far as the west driveway on 17455 Farmington Road. It is too close to the corner. The reason we kept it the same was because to avoid going to the State probably and to Wayne County r..• because any time you do any work in the right-of-way, you have to submit a site plan. If the Police Department requests us to do that, we will submit those to Wayne County and maybe eliminate that driveway on the west side and move the one on the north side a little bit to the center of the property. I think I can put in a 35 foot driveway in the location on the middle. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that this is just a preliminary plan. This isn't the final one that we are approving? Mr. Ali: Well, it is like what the Building Department needs a cross section for the wall, which will need to be done for that purpose. Mr. LaPine: The canopy, what is holding up the canopy? Mr. Ali: There will be four columns. Mr. LaPine: Steel columns? Mr. Ali: Steel columns. _ter_ Mr. LaPine: How about making those columns brick? Mr. Mi: They have done that before. They'll look nice. Mr. LaPine: They look better than that piece of big steel sticking out there. Mr. Ali: I believe Mr. Bazzy is going with Sunoco Oil and now they use a round steel tube. They don't use the square ones anymore. Mr. Ba77y is here with me to answer any questions. Ali Bazzy, 38888 Cheshire, Northville, Michigan 48167. Your question about the brick for the columns; it is possible to do that but with the image, my intention right now is to be a Sunoco station, which, as you know, every franchise has their own image. A franchise for Sunoco, their image is to have the round columns which are steel which most likely will be red. The columns at the present site right now, at the old site you see right now are square, and as you know things are going obsolete and people are going to the circular one. The brick is very nice. I would prefer that too but it is up to the image of the oil company. Mr. LaPine: So the oil company dictates what you can put up? Mr. Bazzy: They don't dictate but that is the recommendation. The Sunoco on Middlebelt and I-96, is basically the image on the outside would be basically the same image as this location would be. 17456 Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. �.. Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to go a step further with Bill's suggestion about brick. I think it would even be an improvement, you could still have your round only if you went up 4 or 5 feet with brick and put the post on top of that, from the ground level it would add a lot more to your structure. Is that possible? Mr. Ba77y: It is possible. It could be done. It shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Piercecchi: Can you incorporate that? Mr. Bazzy: Yes, I can possibly do that and we could probably have it done. Mr. Ali: That should be no problem with that. We will probably put the same grade matching the building. Mr. Piercecchi: Right but I don't know high you want to go, 3, 4 or 5 feet. Mr. Ali: Probably up to the top of the pumps. Mr. Piercecchi: That way we can compromise instead of the whole works, we get a piece of it. Are you going to keep the current light standards or are you going to replace them? ,,` Mr. Bazzy: No. All the light standards will be replaced. Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Shane: Do you have a color rendering? Mr. Ali: We didn't prepare one but normally they go with blue on top and striped, similar to this. As far as the brick, it will be 4-inch brick. The color we didn't put on the plan because we like to hear from the Building Department what color they prefer to see there. We'll submit that to the Building Department prior to the construction. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, where is your other station? Mr. Bazzy: My other location is on Plymouth and Farmington, the Mobil station. Mr. Alanskas: Do you, at the Mobil station sell pop and other articles on the outside of your building? Mr. Bazzy: No I don't. Mr. Alanskas: You understand that you can only sell something that is petroleum based on the outside of the building, lice motor oil and washer solvent and not pop or something else there? 17457 Mr. Bazzy: Correct Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I would like to ask Mr. Piercecchi a question. Are you talking about the brick up so far and the circular steel the rest of the way? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bazzy, do you understand that? Mr. Bazzy: Yes. Mr. McCann: We did this up at 7 Mile and Newburgh. We went with the brick columns all the way up. We tried to put some accents on it to make it look a little nicer. If one of the resolutions is brick columns all the way up, you are not upset with that are you? Mr. Bazzy: No, I'm not upset at all. Mr. McCann: The company is going to have to live with whatever the City says. Mr. Bazzy: That is fine. Mr. McCann: We've dealt with other filling stations before and that was not a problem. A `1.0, question to the staff. There are a lot of concerns, I know the entranceway and I was looking at the approval recommendation and there are a number of requirements. Is the staff satisfied that we can send this on with the current plans we have to the City Council or do we need to take a look at this again and then send it on after we can get some of these issues resolved with regard to colors and brick? Mr. Taormina: I would certainly advise that the applicant make the changes to the plan consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendations before forwarding that to Council. I would want the Council to see the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission in light of the fact that he has agreed to make those changes. I don't think they are significant enough necessarily to warrant a tabling motion on your part to review them once again, unless there are additional items that have yet to be discussed. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else at this point? Mr. Alanskas: In all resolutions we ask that the mechanical unit on the roof be screened. Through the Chair, how would you like that done? Some do it in wood. Some do it in brick. What would you recommend Mark? Mr. Taormina: We would want a solid screen material. One of things we've noticed recently as we were driving around looking at different stations throughout the community was that the screening looked like a fabric material that just isn't 17458 durable enough. We would want to see something permanent in this case, probably a metal or something that would be matching. Something that would Now. look as a continuation as a parapet in this case or the fascia. Mr. Ali: Any particular height you prefer to see on that? Mr. Taormina: The requirement of the ordinance is that it be screened from view from the public. Mr. Ali: It will be a small mechanical unit. We would probably put it on the northeast corner where it would be pretty much out of the way. Probably 50 feet above the roof. Mr. McCann: Did you review the landscape plan that was provided here and are you satisfied with it Mark or do you have any suggestions? Mr. Taormina: The plan I think is going to change with the suggestion that was made this evening with the elimination of the southerly drive on Farmington Road. I guess there is some concern that the plant material on this particular plan is not spelled out to any degree of specificity. So that is something the Commission might like as a call back item. Mr. McCann: I guess if we are going to substantially change the site plan with that corner and if we can make some adjustments to improve that corner quite a bit `lowespecially with the sign location. I'll leave that up to the Commission. Mr. Ali: I sketched a little bit on the original drawing that you all have, if you will allow me to show it to you. Mr. Taormina: The conceptual layout that he has just handed me will increase the area of landscaping from the corner at Schoolcraft and Farmington north to where the new singular entrance drive would be located and that would provide probably another, at least 100 to possibly 150 sq. ft. of landscaping. It does show the sign for which we have no details at this point so certainly those items in combination could be referred back to the Commission for review. Mr. Ali: That just reminded me, the original site plan did not have one single square foot of landscaping and it had 6 pumps. We have eliminated a couple of pumps and will try to fit as much landscaping as possible. Mr. McCann: Oh, that's not true. There was a crack in the concrete over in the corner and weeds were growing there. Mr. Ali: Well then we will improve the landscaping so we can eliminate those weeds. Mr. McCann: What kind of time frame are you looking at? `"' Mr. Ali: To make the changes? 17459 Mr. McCann: I take it you want to start building in February? NMI Mr. Ali: We can actually start doing the underground tanks. Mr. McCann: You are in a hurry in other words? Mr. Ali: Pretty much. Mr. McCann: If there are no more questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was #01-18-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-11-8-31 Sunoco by Ali Bazzy requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and renovate the exterior building elevations of the gas station located at 33234 Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan marked Sheet C-1 dated 9/9/99 prepared by Metro Environmental Contracting Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; except that the landscape plan shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That the underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet C-2 dated 11/8/99 prepared by Metro Environmental Contracting Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be100% full face 4-inch brick, no exception, either beige or brown in color; 6) That all mechanical rooftop equipment shall be screened form public view, as approved by the Planning Director; 7) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 17460 8) That gas pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 ft. in height and its support columns shall be covered with the same brick used in the construction of the station/convenience store; 9) That all light standards shall be replaced and shielded form the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 feet in height; 10) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated December 20, 1999: that all restrooms shall comply with the Michigan Barrier Free requirements that the route from the parking lot shall also comply with the Michigan Barrier Free requirements (ramps, doors, etc.) all parking spaces shall be identified, double striped and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free requirements 11) That the petitioner shall correct to the Traffic Bureau and Engineering Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated November 29, 1999: - that the driveway connecting to Farmington Road and immediately north of west bound Schoolcraft Road shall be eliminated - that the remaining driveway connecting Farmington Road shall be widened as required 12) That additional landscapin(2. similar to what is approved for the rest of the site, shall be installed in the area of the eliminated driveway; 13) No outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site, however the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil based products as permitted in Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; 14) That window signage for the station shall be limited to what is permitted by Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subheading (g) "Window Signage"; 15) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 16) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient yard setback and any conditions related thereto. Mr. McCann: Are we talking 60%, 80% or 100% brick? 17461 Mr. Alanskas: I have a question too. In our notes it says that the color of the brick will be recommended as by the City. Who will make that determination? Mr. McCann: Mark, do you know what that means? Mr. Taormina: I think that is something the petitioner has left open for discussion this evening. If the Commission would like a particular range of colors, you may wish to specify the color. Mr. Ali: Is beige acceptable? Mr. McCann: Earth tones is fine as long as the staff approves it. Mr. Alanskas: Just so we don't have an orange or purple brick. Mr. Ali: Sunoco recommends beige. Mr. Taormina: That is an issue that will be addressed at the Council as well. They will have to provide a sample of the brick that they intend to use or a colored rendering. That is something that will have to be reviewed more thoroughly when it reaches the Council. Mr. Ali: O.K. r., Mr. McCann. Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with those recommendations. ITEM #7 PETITION 99-6-PL-1 Kenwood Meadows Subdivision Sign Permit Application and Landscape Plan Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Kenwood Meadows Subdivision Sign Permit Application and Landscape Plan which received preliminary plat approval. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell. On July 13, 1999, the Kenwood Meadows Subdivision received preliminary plat approval. As part of that approval it was conditions: That a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to Final Plat Approval. That a plan for the entrance marker shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of the final plat. In compliance with these requirements, a landscape plan for the cul-de-sac islands of Kenwood Court West and Kenwood Court East has been submitted. The plan has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with all applicable 17462 standards and requirements. The petitioner is also requesting approval for a conforming entrance marker for the development. The submitted site plan r., shows that the proposed sign would be located on the east side of the entrance drive. Low spreading junipers would be planted around the base of the sign. The framework of the sign would be constructed out of brick with the sign itself being rough sawn red cedar board. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is only one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated December 20, 1999, which reads as follows: "Per your request of November 16, 1999, the entrance marker and landscaping for the above subject site has been reviewed. No problems or deficiencies were found." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. New On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine. and unanimously approved it was #01-19-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-6-PL-1 Kenwood Meadows Subdivision Sign Permit Application and Landscape Plan which received preliminary plat approval on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the landscape plan dated 11/29/99, as revised, prepared by Soave Building Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the entrance marker and its location, as shown on the approved plan, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5) That the brick used in the construction of the sign shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions. 17463 Mt. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #8 PETITION 99-11-SN-15 Suburban Eye Care Mr. McCann, Chairman, passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, as he is an adjoining property owner. Someone in Mr. McCann's office has written a letter regarding this petition. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-SN-15 requesting approval for signage for the property located at 32415 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southwest corner of Five Mile and Hubbard. On July 7, 1999, Petition 99-3-8-13 received site plan approval to alter the building elevations of the existing building on the subject site. As part of that approval it was conditioned: That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. In compliance with that requirement, the applicant is requesting approval for a ,r, ground sign. According to the submitted site plan the proposed sign would sit out toward the intersection of Five Mile Road and Hubbard Avenue. This sign would be internally illuminated. Because the proposed sign is in excess of sign area allowed by the sign ordinance, the applicant first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. A variance (case #9910-140) was granted at the Board's November 9, 1999 Regular Meeting. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: No, there is none. Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening? Frank Tarwacky, 31330 Schoolcraft. I am here representing Suburban Eye Care and Dr. Jacoby and Dr. Beecher. We are here this evening to get approval for our signage. We had approached the Zoning Board and requested a little more sign than this and they did approve the 30 sq. ft. in the monument sign and an entrance sign at one of the back driveways. We are here this evening to get your approval. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them for you. *lawMr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Hale: Why can't you live with 20 sq. ft. in the sign? 17464 Mr. Tarwacky: It is a large building. It is 100 feet long and it is 50 ft. wide and a small sign on that large of a building or lot would just seem to get lost. We are moving our business there for the location and we would like people to be able to identify who we are and what we are doing. We feel that we do need some signage, at least 30 sq. ft. Mr. Hale: What size sign do you have at your current location? Mr. Tarwacky: It is right on Schoolcraft and I believe it is probably about 30 sq. ft. Mr. Hale: How many customers are there approximately that you have for Suburban Eye Care? Mr. Tarwachy: Per day? Mr. Hale: No. How many customers do you have, 1,000? 2,000? Mr. Tarwachy: We have a base of 8,000 patients. Mr. Hale: Are they primarily from the Livonia area? Mr. Tarwacky: There are from all areas. We attract people from Troy and all outlying areas. Mr. Hale: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned a sign. Where you referring to a wall sign that you have on the other building? IVir. Tarwacky: No. The one we have now is an existing monument sign that is located on Schoolcraft on our property. Mr. Piercecchi: Is there more than one occupier of that building? Mr. Tarwacky: There are four doctors working in that building but they all own the practice so their names are on it. Mr. Piercecchi: So they are separate? Mr. Tarwacky: No. It is not separate. It is one entity, one business. Mr. Piercecchi: The sign is permitted on a ground sign for an operation like for yours is really only 10 sq. ft. and you wanted 30 sq. ft. and so we thought we were going to compromise like Mr. Hale says, and say 20 sq. ft. Mr. Tarwacky: Originally when we went to the Zoning Board we were requesting 60 sq. ft. of signage, realizing that we were allowed only 10 sq. ft. but that is why we were `� there to get an appeal on that. They approved the 30 sq. ft. We compromised 17465 at that point. They said that they would approve 30 sq. ft. and it would only be a monument sign, no signs on the building itself. Mr. Piercecchi: Some of the concerns that were discussed at our study meeting was the safety aspect. It is going to take up a lot of visual room. Mr. Tarwacky: The sign is going to be located as required by the laws where it is set back by 10 feet I believe from the sidewalk each way. It is out of the line of vision of people approaching the corner and it is only four feet high. It is not a real high sign. It is a low to the ground monument sign. I don't think it would really impair any vision of oncoming traffic. Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't measure the distance from the sidewalk to that building. What is that distance? Mr. Tarwacky: It is not shown on the plan I would say it is about 45 feet, maybe 40 feet. It is quite a ways back from the sidewalk. Mr. Miller: It is 27 feet so you would take 10 feet so it would be 17 feet from Five Mile Road. Mr. Piercecchi: How many feet behind the sidewalk? Mr. Miller: From the sidewalk to the building is 27 feet and the sign sits back 10 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Piercecchi: I still think 20 feet is more than enough. Mr. LaPine: Did I understand Mr. McCann stepped down because there was a letter? Mr. Alanskas: Because he is right next door. Mr. LaPine: But didn't he say someone from his firm sent a letter. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. McCann would you like to clarify that please? Mr. McCann: A gentleman from the LLC originally sent a letter to the ZBA regarding the issue. I felt that since it was coming from a member of my office that I should step down. Mr. Alanskas: The building is gorgeous and I think that you have a big plus because you are right on the corner where you have a light so cars have to stop there. When they stop there they are going to see that building and they would see a smaller sign. I really don't think a 30 ft., if you've got an 8,000 customer base already, for that building, I don't think if you had a smaller sign, first of all they know you are going to be there because you are going to send them notification of your new building, your address, where it is located. People can read addresses on buildings and for new clientele that possibly you want to get from that sign, I really think if you were set back a lot, I would say 17466 maybe you do need a bigger sign but right on the corner and so close to Five Mile, I think if you had a smaller sign than 10 feet, they would see it. That building, what you have done, is gorgeous. I think all you need is a small sign just to say where you are. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you planning on doing any additional landscaping behind that building? It seems to me that there is practically nothing back there. Mr. Tarwacky: We did submit a landscape plan that was approved and it is mostly parking lot. There is a small greenbelt area that is sodded back there. The front is going to be re-landscaped. Those plans were approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. If I could just say one thing about the signage. one of the reasons that we are moving and that we have invested all this time and money in this building is that at our present location it was very hard for patients and customers to find us being on a busy service drive there at Schoolcraft and Merriman. We had poor signage there. We had bad access coming off the service drive. That is way we chose the location that we did and we have invested a lot time and money in there and we feel that if we don't get at least 30 sq. ft. of signage we are going to defeat our purpose and once again we are going to have people not being able to find us. We would hate to run into a situation like that where just because again, there is not proper signage that we can't attract the customer base or patient base that we should. Mr. Alanskas: In your answer, because you are on Schoolcraft, the expressway is down much lower and that would be hard for people to see your building. Mr. Tarwackv: But even from the service drive.... Mr. Alanskas: But you don't have that many cars on the service drive. Where you are going now, you have great access. You've got a light. You've got two offices off the street, one off Five Mile so I don't think you will have that problem. Would anybody in the audience like to speak for or against this petition? Pauline Wohlford, Brookfield Condominiums, 32679 Five Mile and I agree with Mr. Alanskas. I don't think you need a 30 sq. ft. sign. I think you set dangerous precedents when you let people have bigger and bigger signs. Pretty soon it looks very congested. I am very pleased to see that someone is occupying or going to be occupying that building because it has been vacant a long time but I really think that even a compromise of a 20 sq. ft. sign would be plenty. Mr. Alanskas: Just for clarification, it is a 30 sq. ft. sign, not a 30 foot sign. Thank you. Ms. Wohlford: Thank you. Mr. Taormina: If I may ask a question of the petitioner? Is this board internally illuminated? `"" Mr. Tarwacky: Yes it is. 17467 Mr. Taormina: Does that include the entire sign area or just the lettering that will be illuminated? Near Mr. Tarwacky: The whole structure of the sign is 7'6" x 48" tall. Mr. Taormina: Where is the four feet measured from? Mr. Tarwacky: This is from the ground up. It sits basically on the ground. So it is from the ground up 48". There is no pedestal under that. Mr. Taormina: So you are including the sign area all the way down to the base? Mr. Tarwacky: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Would it be illuminated all the way down to the base? Mr. Tarwacky: No. The part where our name is, is illuminated. Where is says Suburban Eye Care and phone number. Just the letters are illuminated. Mr. Taormina: It looks to me that the sign is divided into two sections. Mr. Tarwacky: The bottom portion is the base or the pedestal and that is where our address will be. That is not illuminated. Mr. Taormina: Did you include that in your sign area? Mr. Tarwacky Yes. Didn't we? Mr. Alanskas: I don't believe that address is part of the sign. Mr. Tarwacky: You are correct. That is not part of the sign. Mr. Taormina: So the four feet is measured so that is why the sign is 6 feet. It is measured from the top of the peak down to the base below the address. Mr. Tarwacky: Right. Mr. Alanskas: Anything else, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No. Mr. Alanskas: If there are no further questions from the audience, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved it was #01-20-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-11-SN-15 by Suburban Eye Care requesting approval for signage for the property located at 32415 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 be approved subject to the following conditions: 17468 1) That the Sign Package submitted by Suburban Eye Care, as received by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, provided that the area of the sign shall not exceed 20 sq. ft.; 2) That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after midnight; 3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Hale, Shane, Piercecchi, LaPine, Alanskas NAYS: None ABSENT: Koons ABSTAIN: McCann Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas passed the gavel back to Mr. McCann at 9:45 p.m. Mr. McCann: This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited r.. discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. ITEM #9 PETITION 99-9-8-23 Buckingham Plaza (Canvasser Brothers) Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-8-23 Buckingham Plaza by Canvasser Brothers requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the shopping center located at 27462 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Frank Klaetke, Klaetke & Marino, Architects, representing the Canvasser Brothers. Mr. McCann: Why don't we, if we have a rendering, show what improvements you have made since the last time. Mr. Klaetke: I guess there were no improvements suggested at the last meeting except there were certain items that you wanted answers to and that was the letter given to Mark from Mr. Canvasser to answer those questions. r.. Mr. McCann: Mark, do you have that letter? 17469 Mr. Taormina: If you would like. I will read that into the record. The letter from the Canvasser Brothers Building Company, dated January 20, 2000, addressed to Now the Planning Commission regarding the Buckingham Shopping Plaza and reads as follows: "In regard to the above referenced shopping center, the following is an outline of the improvements intended upon approval. (I) We will agree to paint existing metal siding facade of vacant AAA building to match color of proposed facade of adjacent stores, if the future of that building is not resolved when work on the stores is started. (II) The existing box signs will be replaced with channel letters and signs that meet City of Livonia sign ordinance, etc. (III) The sunken catch basins have been raised and repaired and objectionable parking bumpers have been removed. (IV) We intend to address the problem of broken pavement in the service drive (caused by water main breaks experienced over the years) and will have this problem remedied in the next year and a half Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter." The letter is signed by Robert N. Canvasser. Mr. Klaetke: It seems to me that those were the specific items that the Commission had concerns about and Mr. Canvasser addressed those concerns. MR. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: What Mr. Taormina just said, it sounds like possibly you may have a tenant for the AAA building? Mr. Klaetke: I'm really not sure what the status of the AAA building is. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of this whole end of the property being redeveloped. It was my understanding that that had been discussed with the City already. But that is still in limbo and if that in fact doesn't happen at the time that we reface this building, then the middle existing building will be painted. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: This is a big improvement from when we started. I am very pleased to see it. You only show us frontal views other than a perspective view. Do any of these sections come out or are they all flush? Mr. Klaetke: Pretty much all flush. This is suppose to represent that perspective view but there is certain material that would be flush and then we just added the decorations at the various control joints and played around with the parapet. Mr. Piercecchi: The new dryvit is going to sit then on top of what is currently there? Mr. Klaetke: No. All the existing metal will be removed to the new surface and then some recesses will be provided to create shadow lines but basically the surface is flush with the exception of where the recess is which is that heavy line that you see just above the glass line. Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. Thank you. 17470 Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was #01-21-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-9-8-23 Buckingham Plaza by Canvasser Brothers requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the shopping center located at 27462 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet 1 dated 1/18/00, as revised, prepared by Klaetke & Marino Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated September 29. 1999: - that the service drive behind the building (north side) be repaired - that all cracked and broken curbs and approaches shall be repaired - that the large parking blocks in from of the AAA space shall be removed New - that the R.O.W. landscaped areas in front of the entire center shall be restored to grass (not weeds) and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition - that the parking block in the R.O.W. shall be removed - that the rear (north side of the building shall be painted to match the colors of the new facade - that the portions of the existing protective all that were previously painted shall be repainted 3) That the easterly most unit of the center, formerly occupied by AAA, shall be painted to match the colors of the new facade; 4) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #10 PETITION 99-10-8-25 Big Lots (Redford Oak Plaza) Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-8-25 Big Lots by Redford Oak Plaza requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 ``' of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of • 17471 the exterior building elevation of the commercial building located at 30000 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. ti.. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Ed Schrecongost, Consolidated Stores, 300 Phillipi Road, Columbus, Ohio 43228. Unfortunately I was thrown on this. The guy who presented this plan the last time broke his foot so I am hoping I can answer your questions. What he told me was I guess there was some question as far as the dryvit, how far the dryvit was going to go down. By the looks of it, we are going to go all the way down to the end of our space with the dryvit. We have four diamonds. The one you can't see because the trees are in the way. They are going to be ceramic. We asked our architect about additional diamonds but he felt that it would be too offsetting so that is why we just stayed with four diamonds. The red line is going to come down to the kick outs and then start again at the other kick out. Of course, these red lines are going to match. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir. do you work for Big Lot? Mr. Schrecongost: Yes. I work for Consolidated Stores which owns Big Lots. Mr. Alanskas: Are you involved in regards as to how the stores are maintained inside besides the outside? Mr. Schrecongost: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask this question is because I have visited two of your stores and I talked to your managers. At both locations that I went to, inside there was merchandise all over the floors and inside the building was not clean. I asked them if this was a common occurrence? He said that because of the type of business we have, this is the way it is. I have nothing against Big Lots but I do have a problem putting any business in this City that tells me if our store is going to be this way and this is what we do and this is the way it is going to be. Mr. Schrecongost: Sir, which locations did you go to? Mr. Alanskas: I went to the one on Wayne Road and Cherry Hill. I went to the one on Ecorse Road and Michigan Avenue which is a newer store. Mr. Schrecongost: We've gone through a total renovation in the last two years which we have changed our color theme. We have more of an egg shell color. It is Sherwin Williams, #1662, which is more of a beige type color. We have changed the format of our floors and I will admit that some of our stores really look bad. Mr. Alanskas: I'm not talking about looking bad. I'm talking about how you take care of the public with your product. 17472 Mr. Schrecongost: Unfortunately, I didn't get the pictures developed I needed to of one of our stores in Owosso which we put together last year. It is in excellent shape. We have one in Saginaw that is in excellent shape. Unfortunately, it is the managers in the stores and what their standards are. We do have a new district manager in this area. I think he took over the end of last year and I believe his standards are a lot higher. Mr. Alanskas: Don't you have corporate people come by to these different locations and say this has to be changed? Mr. Schrecongost: Yes we do. Mr. Alanskas: I can see that is not being done. The gentleman that came in before you said that you put in used shelving, inside the building for your merchandise. It can be anything, it is not new. Mr. Schrecongost: It is a mixture of both. It depends on what is available. At the end of last year we were putting in practically all new shelves in because we didn't have the available shelves that were needed. Everything is repainted and I really wish you would have an opportunity to go to Congress, Michigan. It is the one that is still in the process of being merchandised and see the shelving that has been repainted and it looks extremely well. Mr. Alanskas: I just wonder if one of your problems could be that the fact the manager told me that the biggest percentage of your employees are part time, not full time, `'"' so when you get part time help you don't always get the better help. Mr. Schrecongost: What I noticed when I came up here to do Congress. I went over to Taco Bell, it was 7:45 and they were closing the doors. I asked them why and they said they can't hire people. The problem is everybody is hiring. If someone gets mad at that store, they are going to go some place else. It is very hard to keep people. Mr. Alanskas: So you have a fast turn over of people all the time. Mr. Schrecongost: We do a survey on the other retailers. We try to match theirs. For instance. in Congress, the K-Mart salary was $6.50, we went to $8.50 to try to get better people. Mr. Alanskas: It doesn't work, does it? Mr. Schrecongost: No it doesn't. Mr. Alanskas: I think you answered my questions. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I visited a store in Detroit, at Greenfield and Ten Mile, terrible. On this sign, you see this arrow on the sign that says "adjacent tenant". That's not going on it, is it? 17473 Mr. Schrecongost: No. That is just showing you where Media Play is. New Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I, too, visited one of your stores, on Ford Road and Wayne Road in Westland. Mr. Schrecongost: Unfortunately, I know store numbers, not the addresses. Mr. Piercecchi: I observed that the shelving was very antique. Very poorly organized. I didn't even recognize any of the products. I got the impression I was walking into a surplus operation and the store was messy. Mr. Schrecongost: Keep in mind sir that our older stores, whatever shelving they had they used. Now we are going with strictly Lozier so it is one type of fixture only and we have, trust me I was a store manager before this, and I have a real thing about public safety and my associate's safety. If the shelving is bent up, then it doesn't go up. If it looks bad to me, then I don't want someone looking at it. It is a standard that we are now going forward with all of our new stores that I don't know if you have ever heard of McFruggle's and Pick and Save out in California. well we own them and we have adopted their format as ours now. Our layouts are totally different. The standard of our shelving has, and I have been with the company for 15 years, come a long way. We are dealing with Lozier only. Right now I would say on an average 50 to 70 percent is new shelving,. r.. Mr. Piercecchi: We don't know that. We can only go by what the three of us looked at, we did not think was upscale. Mr. Schrecongost: Unfortunately, I am not proud of it. I am very ashamed of some of these stores. I wish I could tell you something better than that. All I can tell you is that since I have been doing this for the last 2-1/2 years, we have definitely upgraded our stores tremendously. Mr. McCann: Thank you. If there are no further questions, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and approved, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-10-8-25 Big Lots by Redford Oak Plaza requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the commercial building located at 30000 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance; 17474 2) That the proposed use and exterior renovations are not in harmony with the character oft he surrounding area; 3) That the proposed use for this portion of the building is contrary to the type of use that was anticipated when the City approved the site plan for Media Play; and 4) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I agree with everything Mr. Alanskas says but I can't vote for the motion and I'll tell you why. I think that this type of a store is not what Livonia wants. The merchandise that you sell there I don't think it is what the people of Livonia will buy. I don't really like a store going in and in three to five years it may be out of business. Putting that aside, I don't think I am in a position to tell who should go in that store or who should not go in that store. The owner of that property has the right to lease that store. I might not agree with who he is leasing it to. The only thing we have a question here is that we either like or don't like the exterior renovation. I think we've got the best we can get. I don't see how I can turn it down just because I don't like this type of store and I don't. I don't like their operation. I don't like the way they look. I don't think that is in our prerogative to pick and chose who we want to go in that store. 'y" Mr. Piercecchi: To date, we have spent a significant amount of emphasis around the site plan submitted by Big Lots, and in part, on their observed operating practices. In regards to the site plan. you must admit the proposed building changes are, at best, minimal and of little consequence to improving the site nor distinguishing its operation from those of Media Play which was one of the flags that we threw up at the onset of this program. This reluctance to change in an area very easily accomplished, brings to the forefront warranted questions as to whether this petitioner, if approved, would fully comply with the standards and requirements set forth in Section 18.58 and 19.06 of our Zoning Ordinance. I refer in particular to those portions dealing with character and harmony with its surroundings. Impairing the value of neighboring properties. Nuisance considerations and for the Planning Commission. whether its inclusion in this commercial is good planning. I may add, the request for signage is currently in violation of our sign ordinance as are those standards that are prescribed in Section 2.10.18 regarding site plans. I am also troubled, Mr. Chairman, that Redford Oak Plaza, who leased space to this petitioner has as yet failed to comply with its commitment agreed upon in December of 1995 to repair, reseal and double stripe the parking lot. These concerns and omissions, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, dictate supporting a denying resolution. Mr. McCann: I guess I am the last one to comment and I think what we are here to do is to look at the Big Lots. One of the conditions that we can put in there if there is an '` approving condition later on, is that as part of the opening permit, the parking lot has to be restriped and resealed as per it was supposed to be. If there is a 17475 deficiency that could be something the landlord could be required to do. Anyway it will benefit you and benefit the City if that is done as a condition of him starting to get rent from you. We talked earlier about the Woodland Square having a problem with occupancy, that there has been a problem in this area with occupancy. I think that the Big Lots has done something to improve the outside of the building. They have answered my concerns to me, at least satisfactorily, at this point and I think it would be good to have a tenant down there and I am going to take the petitioner's word that they are going to clean up the inside of the store That they are going to make shelving and the interior of the store much more presentable than their older operations. Therefore, I cannot agree with the denying resolution. Will the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale NAYS: Shane, LaPine, McCann ABSENT: Koons Mr. McCann: The motion fails. Is there an alternative motion? Mr. LaPine: I will make the alternative motion. A motion to approve. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved it was \` RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-10-8-25 Big Lots by Redford Oak Plaza requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the commercial building located at 30000 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the exterior building elevation plan dated 1/5/99, as revised, prepared by Consolidated Stores, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the red painted accent band, as illustrated on the submitted color rendering dated 9/23/99, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated November 8, 1999; - that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped - that the dumpsters shall be enclosed at the rear of the building - that the graffiti on the building shall be removed - that the pallets and debris behind the building shall be removed 17476 4) That only the 111 sq. ft. "Big Lots" wall sign, as shown on the approved elevation plan and in the sign packet by All Star Signs, is hereby approved r.. and shall be adhered to; 5) That no part of the awning shall be illuminated; 6) That the panels of the ground sign shall be equally divided between the two tenants at 15 sq. ft. each or no additional graphics shall be permitted; 7) That any additional signage for this site shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: You know Bill, I have a very high respect for you. It seems rather comical here to put in the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped. We have been waiting for four years for the owner of this property to do that. Maybe you have more faith in this operation. You know if that parking lot were at least put in shape and come back, I would have a little more confidence in the owners of this piece of property. Basically, you know the proof is in the pudding and the proof is that we have waited since December 1995 for any work to be done on it. Mr. Schrecongost: Sir, if you put that in that you want it done, we'll make it happen. `•• Mr. Piercecchi: We've heard that song before. You don't own that property. Mr. McCann: The landlord wants to get his rent too. Mr. Piercecchi: Then why didn't he fix that parking lot? Mr. McCann: Will the secretary please call the roll. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Shane, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale ABSENT: Koons Mr. McCann: The motion fails. Is there an alternation motion? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was #01-22-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-10-8-25 Big Lots by Redford Oak Plaza requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior ... building elevation of the commercial building located at 30000 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26 be tabled to February 8, 2000. 17477 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 'glow I can't tell you that you shouldn't have a representative here. I would recommend that you do. Mr. Schrecongost: Definitely. It is in our standards that the parking lot be to our satisfaction. Mr. McCann: I suggest you talk to the landlord. Maybe have a landlord's representative here as well. Mr. Schrecongost: I can't guarantee it but I will do everything I can to get it. If he wants us to pay rent, he is going to have to meet with you all and answer your questions. I can only do so much and only answer so many questions for you. Mr. McCann; That is what we want. We'll try and solve the issue then. Mr. Schrecongost: Yes, there will be one here. That's what this was. Mr. McCann: You'll have the pictures developed and bring them in? Mr. Schrecongost: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: Could you give me the address to that one in Commerce. Mr. Schrecongost: Yes sir. It is on Union Lake Road. The store is not open yet. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have that is open that is done the way that you said you think it should be done? Mr. Schrecongost: Have you checked the one in Taylor? Mr. Alanskas: Yes, that is the one on Ecorse Road, off of Michigan Avenue. I have been there. Mr. Schrecongost: It is a brand new store. Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Schrecongost: And it looks bad? Mr. Alanskas: The store doesn't look bad. It is how the merchandise is laying all over the floors. Mr. Schrecongost: I have a problem with that. Thank you. ITEM #11 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING John Stymelski Veteran's Park 17478 Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion to hold a Public Hearing on the question of whether or not to amend the Master School and Park Plan and the Future Land Use Plan relative to the City owned park site known as •41.. John Stymelski Veteran's Park, located west of Stark Road and north of Schoolcraft Road in Section 21. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #01-23-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held in the City Hall of the City of Livonia in order to determine whether or not to amend 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 Section 21, and to amend Part VII, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the designation of the subject property from Recreation/Open Space to Community Service. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #12 Approval of the Minutes of the 796th Public Hearings & Regular Meeting Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the Minutes of the 796th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held November 23, 1999. `•► On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved, it was #01-24-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 796th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 23, 1999, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result • AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Shane, Hale NAYS: None ABSENT: Koons ABSTAIN: McCann Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 799th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 25, 2000 was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. CITA PLANNING CO N 'chael Hale, Secretary ATTEST: L / ‘," �.. : es C. M Cann, Chairman /rw ' ,