HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-07-11 16028
MINUTES OF THE 383rd SPECIAL MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 11, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
383`d Special Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the Special Meeting to order at 9:11 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Elaine Koons
Dan Piercecchi William LaPine H. G. Shane
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner
II, were also present.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it was
#7-55-2000 RESOLVED that, in accordance with the provisions of Sectionl of Article II
of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, the following officers were
elected to the Planning Commission for the period commencing July 2000 to
June 2001.
Chairman: James McCann
Vice Chairman: Robert Alanskas
Secretary: Dan Piercecchi
McCann, Chairman, declared each of the officers duly elected to the Planning Commission
for the period July 2000 to June 2001.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 383rd Special Meeting held
on July 11, 2000 was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
('\9
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTES . L
Jo les C. cCann, Chairman
/rw
Now.
17846
MINUTES OF THE 808th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 11, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 808th
Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Dan Piercecchi
William LaPine Elaine Koons H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II
were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn,
will hold its own public hearing, and will make the final determination as to whether a petition
is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in
``" which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City
Planning Commission become effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning
Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the
Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. We
will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-06-08-09 Wintergarden Tavern
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-
08-09 Wintergarden Tavern requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a parking lot on property located at 33326 Seven Mile Road in the
S.W. 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a parking lot on property
located between Westmore Avenue and the alley behind the commercial
r\ building that is just to the east of the Wintergarden Tavern. On March 29,
2000, the Planning Commission denied the petitioner's request to expand the
use of their existing Class C liquor license to include the vacant portion of the
building, formerly occupied by Dalley Carpet. One of the reasons for denial
`�- was the site's deficient off-street parking. In 1996, the City approved the
17847
rezoning of Lot 88 of Westmore Subdivision from R-1, One Family
Residential to P, Parking. This lot makes up part of the property that was sold
to the new owners of the Wintergarden Tavern. Lot 88 presently contains a
single-family home that is being rented. At the March 29th Planning
`.
Commission public hearing, the petitioner indicated that the terms of his land
contract would not permit the removal of this home for the purpose of
constructing a parking lot. However, at the appeal hearing before the City
Council, the petitioner informed the members that he would like to develop the
area in question into a parking lot. With this new information, the Council
referred the item back to the Planning Commission for its report and
recommendation. A separate site plan petition has been filed for the parking
lot, which the City Council and Planning Commission can act on independent
of the waiver use. Initially the applicant submitted four (4) different parking
schemes for the area. In a letter that was attached to the site plan, the
Petitioner explains: "Although we have presented four, we believe that it is in
the best interest of the City to choose the site plan that maximizes the number
of parking spots available while keeping the community in mind".
Parking is summarized as follows:
• required parking(assuming full use of the building as currently proposed) =43
spaces
• existing parking= 25 spaces
• proposed parking (scheme 1) = 36 spaces
• proposed parking (scheme 2) = 35 spaces
• proposed parking (scheme 3) =43 spaces
• proposed parking (scheme 4) = 38 spaces
Under Scheme 1, the proposed parking is achieved with a combination
parallel, perpendicular and angle parking spaces. The plan shows a six(6) ft.
high protective screen wall between the new parking lot and the residential
district to the north. Four(4) parallel parking spaces would be provided
immediately adjacent to the wall. Access would be provided from Westmore
Avenue via a one-way aisle that would exit to the public alley. Ten(10)
angled spaces would be provided on the south side of the aisle. The remaining
22 spaces would be located similar to where they exist today, which is on the
north and east sides of the building and on the west half of Lot 87 located on
the north side of the alley. The east half of Lot 87 contains seven(7) additional
parking spaces that are used by the Hellenic Grocery. The owners of
Wintergarden Tavern have a shared parking agreement with the owner of the
Hellenic Grocery for the use of these seven(7) spaces.
Although Scheme 2 provides one (1) less parking space, it allows for an eight
(8) ft. wide greenbelt adjacent to the protective wall on the north side of Lot
88. This is achieved by providing two (2) way circulation and 90 degree
parking on the south side of the lot, which is more efficient than the angled
parking shown under Scheme 1.
17848
Scheme 3 is based on a plan that was developed several years ago by the
Planning Department as part of a study to improve the parking and circulation
for the business on this corner. Under this scheme, Westmore Avenue would
be closed to through-traffic. The new parking lot would encompass Lots 87
and 88 and have two rows of perpendicular parking spaces separated by a two-
way aisle. The southerly portion of Westmore would become an aisle between
this site's parking lot and the business across the street. Scheme 3 shows a
protective wall and eight (8) ft. wide greenbelt area, similar to Scheme 2. The
feasibility of implementing a plan similar to this is unknown. It would require
the cooperation of various City Departments, business owners, and the
homeowners of the adjacent subdivision.
Scheme 4 for is laid out similar to Scheme 1, except the angle and parallel
parking spaces have been reversed and traffic would exit onto Westmore
Avenue. The angled spaces would up against the protective wall and no type
of greenbelt is proposed. The wall in this scheme is only noted as 5 ft. high.
Scheme 5 was suggested by the Planning Commission. Here is what he is
proposing to do. This is the parcel he is talking about. This is the protective
wall. You would have thirteen 90 degrees parking spaces along the wall.
Across the isle way you would have six parallel parking spaces. On the site
you have the existing parking spaces which went along here, along the building
and here, you would be able to achieve, for a total, 41 parking spaces. Traffic
would enter one way off of Westmore Avenue into the new parking lot and exit
into the alley.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Division of
Police, dated June 30, 2000, and reads as follows: "Parking space 14 has a set
of stairs. It appears the stairs are an emergency exit The stairs take up part
of the parking space. This causes vehicles to use space 15 also. We would
recommend these two spaces be combined to one space. Parking space 10
requires parallel parking next to an enter/exit door. We would be extremely
concerned about people who have been drinking pulling in and out of this
parking space that abuts this door. Part two of the plans submitted would be
the best in our opinion, taking note of spaces 14 and 10. The letter is signed
by Brian Dewan, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated July 6, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of June 14, 2000, the above referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The calculations for parking required
for the bar are unclear. Are there 25 seats or 50 seats? Calculations are for
a 50-seat bar. This should be clarified (2) Plan one will require a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)for deficient width of 4 parking
spaces at 9 feet 6 inches instead of 10 feet (3) Plan two will require a
variance from the ZBA for a deficiency of 8 parking spaces. (4) Plan three
was not reviewed as it requires a street closing. (5) Plan four will require a
variance from the ZBA for deficient width of 6 parking spaces at 9 feet 6
`r•� inches instead of 10 feet. Other than as noted above this Department has no
17849
object to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Do you have anything additional you
400. would like to tell us before we begin?
Dave Hood, 33320 West Seven Mile Road, Livonia. No. Nothing.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: Mark, on this new plan, #5, what are those parking places the Police
Department is talking about. They are not numbered here so I don't know
which one he is talking about. Is it the one on the west side of the building or
the east side of the building, by the back door there?
Mr. Miller: If you look on the plan, they are marked. I think#10, which shows a car in it,
has a door here, #14 is where he is talking about the stairs. You've got two
parking spaces the Police Department are concerned about.
Mr. Taormina: If I could point out, these are areas where cars presently park on the site.
Mr. McCann: So it is an existing condition.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: So, Mark, is it your opinion that what is being proposed does not create the
%%NW problem the Police Department feels it might create?
Mr. Taormina: They are not proposing any change except for the fact that those areas would
be re-striped. I think they would provide for better delineation of the parking
spaces. Possibly, if there is a way to provide a greater separation between
these spaces that abut the entry doors, that is something we should consider.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Where do you and your employees'park?
Mr. Hood: Currently, I park right in spot #10 and my partner will park anywhere behind
here.
Mr. Shane: If they park in the spots we are talking about, it probably won't cause a
problem, will it?
Mr. Hood: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mark, in our write-up it says that parking is summarized and what we need is
43 spaces. These 43 spaces are based on the addition of going over and putting
in a table adjacent to this Wintergarden. Correct? That is the 15 spaces.
17850
Mr. Taormina: The 43 parking spaces assumes full use of the building as it is currently being
proposed and that is for the use of the remaining area of the building for a
billiards and game room. There would be no additional customer seating
Mr. Piercecchi: Tonight is not to be decided on a waiver use. This is just to accept the parking
lot the way it is designed?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. You are considering the plan for the parking lot which is a separate
matter, although related to the petition for the waiver use. It can be acted upon
separately by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Mr. Piercecchi: But tonight it is strictly the parking lot?
Mr. Taormina: Correct.
Mr. McCann: That is the only thing before us tonight.
Mr. Taormina: The issue of the waiver use is currently being appealed and that item was
referred back to the Planning Commission to consider a proposal that was
submitted by the applicant dealing with the parking lot. So when this item
goes back to the City Council they will have two issues to consider. One is the
appeal of the waiver use for the expanded liquor license and two, the site plan
for the parking lot.
Mr. Piercecchi: In as much as they have 41, the 28, if I remember correctly, were strictly for
the bar use and 15 was three for five tables. If they went to four tables, then
they would be right in line. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is my understanding. That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Is it your intention to have the parking lot a one-way drive west?
Mr. Hood: Yes. We came up with this after consulting with some of the neighbors and
their concerns and we decided that would probably be best to accommodate
everybody.
Mr. Shane: On the west side of it, as you enter the public alley, is it your intention to sign
that area so that it becomes abundantly clear to anyone looking at that parking
lot that they have to honor that one way drive?
Mr. Hood: Yes.
Mr. Shane: What I am thinking, if you are in the public alley and you see that parking lot
and the natural thing to do would be to turn east and if you did that and you
parked in one of those six parallel parking spaces, when you came out to leave
and there was no way to turn around you would have to go back out to the
`.•- street. Do you see what I am saying?
17851
Mr. Hood: Yes.
�.. Mr. Shane: I think we somehow need to sign that so everybody is well aware that it is a
one way drive. I think you are going to have some of those problems but
perhaps once they return to the bar in later days you probably would know that.
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?
Nancy Heath, 19114 Westmore. Our property is Lot 155 and 156. We are directly across
Westmore where the parking lot will be expanded if this house is torn down.
They were nice and came over and talked to me a couple of weeks ago and
asked our concerns. We had a big discussion. Tonight we are here just to
discuss the parking lot?
Mr. McCann: That is the only issue before us.
Ms. Heath: We told them what we would like to see done. In some of their drawings they
had the driveway moved over to where the house is now which would be
aiming right at our house and that was a concern for us. There is a driveway
there now to the south of us and they wanted to have, I believe, two driveways.
That was a concern for us having traffic and after people had been drinking
coming out directly straight at our house.
Mr. McCann: Did you hear that last comment. There was a request to have it be a one-way
street so that no one would be going towards your home.
Ms. Heath: I am still concerned. Is there going to be one driveway or two driveways?
Mr. McCann: One.
Ms. Heath: Where it is at now?
Mr. LaPine: The alley is still there.
Ms. Heath: That is the driveway they use now and they were proposing in some of their
drawings to have another driveway over further.
Mr. McCann: There would be a driveway created where the house is now.
Ms. Heath: That is what we are opposed to. He asked for our ideas and what we came up
with, we would like to see not only a wall against the north side of that
property but we would like to see one from the driveway over.
Mr. McCann: We keep talking driveway. Let's clear that up.
Ms. Heath: There is an alleyway where it is at now which everybody uses as a driveway.
17852
Mr. Alanskas: But it is an alley.
Ms. Heath: Right.
Mr. McCann: The home that is there now has its own driveway?
Ms. Heath: Right.
Mr. McCann: The home's driveway would be removed and a new one would be established
near where the house would be, I believe.
Ms. Heath: That is what we are objecting to.
Mr. McCann: O.K., as long as we understand.
Ms. Heath: We don't want a driveway where the house is now. We would like to see a
brick wall across the front of the parking lot on the east side and as an example,
right across the street here at Five and Farmington, I believe it is Michigan
National Bank, they have a nice brick wall and they have some pine trees in
front of it. There is no upkeep. There is no grass there but you have the brick
wall there for protection and privacy but the pine trees in front of it would be
eye appealing. Once they tear this house down, all the businesses in that area
are old buildings. They are not kept up well. It will be an eye sore to us as
neighbors. I know our property values will go down. It will be an eye sore to
look out across the parking lot and see all these cinder block buildings with
paint. They get painted every now and then but in between then the paint chips
` ' off. It is really an eye sore and once that house is torn down I think it will
make it much more visible to everybody in the area. We would like to see just
a brick wall across the front of it and with the pine trees in front of it and with
the pine trees in front of it so there would be no upkeep as far as landscaping
and things like that.
Mr. McCann: Let me speak to the staff. One of the problems with that, Mr. Taormina, is that
the property behind the alley, that is shared parking or is that property of the
other businesses?
Mr. Hood: Correct.
Mr. Taormina: Are you referring to the 13 or 14 parking spaces that are on the south half of
Lot 7?
Mr. McCann: It would be the north end of the driveway, the parking spaces along the north
end of the driveway.
Mr. Taormina: Are you referring to the alley way there?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
17853
Mr. Taormina: Actually that is half of a lot. The westerly half is owned by the petitioners
which is where they maintain six or seven parking spaces. The easterly half,
which also contains six or seven spaces is owned by Hellenic Bakery and I
`r., believe the adjoining business.
Mr. Alanskas: We are going to have a wall running east and west and you asked about trees
behind the wall. There is no room. If you had trees, you wouldn't even be able
to park there.
Ms. Heath: I am speaking of one running north and south to sort of box the parking lot in,
because at nighttime, we are going to have headlights.
Mr. Alanskas: No you are not because they are going to go one way.
Ms. Heath: But they are going to be turning around in that parking lot.
Mr. Alanskas: You have lights right now when people go down Westmore, don't you?
Ms. Heath: We do have lights but if they are going to be directly at our house and if they
are going to be turning around.
Mr. Alanskas: You are going to have that wall facing the north across there where you won't
see those lights.
Ms. Heath: My property is on the east side.
Mr. Alanskas: I know where your property is.
Ms. Heath: You have me lost.
Mr. Alanskas: That will only be one way. If they were going both ways, I would see where
you would have lights.
Ms. Heath: But at 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. do you think everybody is going to obey that?
Also, it would be more appealing rather than looking at those buildings over
there. You've got headlights. You've got noise.
Mr. Alanskas: How much traffic do you actually have there at 2:00 a.m.?
Ms. Heath: We have quite a bit. In the past, we have had cars come from where the
driveway is now, come up over our property and have property damage. If this
driveway is directly across from our house, when I hear tires screeching at
night, I sit there at night hoping they are not coming through my front window.
Mr. Alanskas: I have been there five different times from midnight until 2:00 a.m. myself and
I didn't see all these cars going onto Westmore.
Ms. Heath: But now they are talking about expanding the bar and there is going to be much
more traffic. So compared to what there is now compared to what there is
17854
going to be, we don't know. I have no objection as a business owner, myself,
in the City of Livonia,to the parking lot or the expansion but we've got to do
something to improve the neighborhood, not make it look worse and put a
parking lot there.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I just want to understand exactly what it is you want. Number one, you prefer
not to have the driveway there. You prefer that they have a brick wall starting
from the north end of the property starting to where the alley is and have a
brick wall there.
Ms. Heath: Exactly.
Mr. LaPine: The only problem with that is how would the people get into that parking lot?
Ms. Heath: They would get in off the alley way the way they get into it now and it would
be open on the other side. They are just boxing off the two sides that would
face the neighbors.
Mr. LaPine: I understand what you are saying. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mark, isn't there landscaping being planned for that north/south route for that
new area?
Mr. Taormina: I am not sure what you mean by the north/south road.
Mr. Piercecchi: From the proposed wall, running along the north of the property, going south
from there along Westmore. Isn't there landscaping planned for there?
Mr. Taormina: I think the plan does show portions of the right-of-way being maintained with
landscaping. But on the lot itself where the parking lot would be constructed,
utilizing the 90 degree parking to the north and the parallel parking to the south
and only having 50 feet available, there really isn't any opportunity for any
landscaping unless parking spaces are removed from the plan.
Mr. Piercecchi: Between the sidewalk and the curb?
Mr. Taormina: Between the sidewalk and the curb there is some opportunity for landscaping.
That area is within the right-of-way of Westmore Avenue and I believe this
plan does show some trees in that area. If I could, Mr. Chairman,just respond
to Ms. Heath's issues. There are two items that the Commission should be
aware of in reviewing the proposal as she as outlined it. Number one, a wall
along the right-of-way may cause some sight line issues. This petitioner does
not have any control over the southerly portion of lot 87. If the Commission
were to consider prohibiting access from Westmore onto this lot, we could look
to have some type of landscaping done there as opposed to the construction of
the masonry wall.
17855
Mr. McCann: What we have done is like a two foot high wall
Mr. Taormina: Something that might be decorative that would not block the sight line.
ti.. Mr. McCann: That was my thought, if there was a way of doing it.
Mr. Taormina: The only way that could be done is if one or more of the parking spaces on the
lot itself would be restricted from parking in order to allow cars to be able to
turn around. If you are going to have parallel parking on one side and the cars
are going to be facing in an easterly direction, they have to be able to exit and
the only way they are going to be able to exit is to pull forward and turn
around in a space that is devoted to nothing more than turning around. The
other concern is that we would be requiring sole access to this lot from an
alley which is usually considered a secondary mean of access and not as a
primary means of access. So the benefit this plan provides is that it has dual
access both from a public street and from a public alleyway.
Mr. Shane: We might be able to do partially what she asks and that would be to leave the
driveway entry but maybe extend the wall to the areas on either side of it. This
isn't going to solve her problem completely. Know what I am saying?
Mr. Taormina: No.
Mr. Shane: Do you have the plan in front of you?
Mr. Taormina: I don't have the most recent plan.
Mr. Shane: Along the east side of the last parking space adjacent to Westmore Avenue,
number 41 and number 28. If you extend the wall down to the point where it
meets the drive, at least that would give her some protection but still would
allow the use of the drive.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Shane: That may not answer her concern but that may be a partial answer.
Mr. Piercecchi: Or, Mr. Chairman, if that lot was negated, that could be landscaped and serve
as a shield too, right? If that lot #41 were landscaped, would that resolve the
problem?
Mr. McCann: No.
Mr. Taormina: Again, her main concern is that there be no access on to Westmore.
Mr. McCann: We are talking about 23 spaces within that confined area. We are going to start
moving on. I am going to open up the floor to other people in the audience.
O.K.?
`N•- Ms. Heath: O.K.
17856
June Rose 19125 Westmore, lots 89 and 90. I am directly north of the bar on the west side of
Westmore. I have never spoken to the gentleman, either one of them, and he
has never approached me. This wall they are talking about building, my drive
s`` comes right up to that house. If they build a wall, from what I am trying to
understand along that way, I cannot use my driveway. In 1968 when this was
put before the Council, the owner of Wintergarden, at that time, petitioned for
a parking lot also. Of course he was turned down but the fact remains we
were trying to negotiate if they did o.k. it and if there was a parking lot there,
it would allow additional footage next to my drive. Now as it stands, I am
trying to understand because I have nothing to look at while the Commission
is talking to him and naming parking spaces, #10 and#11, I have no idea
where that is. We have nothing back here to look at. The fact remains I am
very concerned about that wall coming right up next to my drive.
Mr. McCann: That is a good point.
Ms. Rose: On the other side of that wall, whatever kind of wall whether it is a solid wall
or whatever, my kitchen window faces that side and two of the bedrooms
windows face that side. Up to this point, even though they have wood on the
cyclone fence that is on the alleyway, the lights that come in there through,
light up my kitchen at night. Anywhere from 7:00 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. I have
learned to live with that. I am really concerned now we have the parking lot
right up to eight feet from my bedroom window and my kitchen. It is a little
scary.
Mr. McCann: I was going to inform you that the petition to rezone this to parking was
approved over a year ago. That issue is not before us. The issue before us
today is best how to use that parcel for parking. They have proposed four
different layouts and we are trying to use the layout that would be least
intrusive to yourself and other neighbors. We do appreciate your ideas.
Ms. Rose: Do the neighbors have access to these pictures, drawings and diagrams? I
haven't seen any of them.
Mr. McCann: My understanding was that he was going to go around to the neighbors and talk
to them. He did, in fact, talk to at least one of the neighbors as they have
testified.
Ms. Rose: I understand he spoke with two. Ken went over to see him. That is the man
across the street and Nancy and Ron Heath. That was the only two on
Westmore that I know of
Mr. LaPine: I was just looking at the minutes back in 1996 when you were here and spoke
on this. The wall that would go up there would be a solid masonry wall. You
wouldn't have any lights coming through there. They would have to put that on
the property line. If that was up against the property line, that would abut right
up against your driveway, is that what you are telling us?
17857
Ms. Rose: About 14 inches, that is a guesstimate from my cement and my drive.
Mr. LaPine: If that happened, you wouldn't be able to drive up your drive?
Ms. Rose: I could drive up it but I couldn't open my doors. If I was to move more to the
right ....
Mr. LaPine: Do you have a detached garage or do you have a garage at all?
Ms. Rose: Yes. I have a garage. It sits in the back of the house. If I came up that drive,
if I centered myself coming up the drive, I wouldn't be able to open it. It would
hit the house and on the left side, I would hit the wall.
Mr. LaPine: What is the width of your driveway? Twenty feet?
Ms. Rose: I'm not sure. I just had a new drive put in and an extension to it so I could open
my door.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Who generated this?
Mr. Taormina: The Planning Department drew this up and this plan kind of runs along the
lines of discussion we had just a few minutes earlier prohibiting access onto
Westmore. To make it clear to the resident that the plan she is looking at is not
the one that was reviewed at the onset of the meeting. It is similar to the
skim. discussion we had about what would be the most efficient design for a parking
lot on this lot without having any access onto Westmore Avenue. That is what
we tried to achieve with this design. You can see how one of the spaces is
"X'd" out and that was done because you have to have some way for the cars
that would be parallel parked on the north side of the lot to be able to turn
around. You can also see there is a little offset, or opening in the actual
parking area within the right-of-way to allow room for the rear of the cars to be
able to maneuver properly. This design provides a total of 17 parking spaces.
It maybe 16 depending on whether or not you can get five cars to parallel park
along the north property line. The other consideration here is that this plan
could be reversed so that you could have the parallel spaces on the south side
and the 90 degree parking on the north side. There are a lot of different ways
to cut this up. There are many different schemes that you can generate from
this site and I think we have to consider what is most efficient layout and what
provides the most parking and also achieve some of these side objectives as far
as access, circulation and proper lighting and impact to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mr. Piercecchi: Part of this plan, Mark, that the#14 row, isn't that part of the Greek operation,
Hellenic?
Mr. Taormina: I would also like to point out, and you should have this in your packet, that the
petitioner has approached the operator of the bakery and has, in fact, secured
17858
what would be termed a reciprocal parking agreement with the owner of that
business for use of those seven parking spaces during the evening hours.
Similarly, they would have the right to use his five or six parking spaces during
the daytime hours since their peak hours of operation don't overlap.
Mr. Alanskas: Mark, in your estimation with that north wall, how close do you think it would
be to that lady's property to her driveway? It wouldn't be as close as she is
saying with a side yard setback.
Mr. Taormina: I really don't know the answer to that. I am not sure where here driveway
exists in relationship to that north property line.
Mr. Alanskas: I can't believe it would only be within 14 inches. We might need to re-visit.
Thank you.
Ron Pyle, 19323 Shadyside. This is the first I have heard of this. Is this is a done deal? Are
you just trying to find out how to design it?
Mr. McCann: It was approved in 1998 or 1999.
Mr. Pyle: This is the first, I don't know how it works in Livonia, I have only been here 2-
1/2 years. This is the first notice that I've ever received and I live on
Shadyside. The letter I received says that you are just talking about it right
now so if this is a done deal I would like to throw in a couple of other things.
Has anybody given any consideration to the amount of traffic that is going to
be increased on Shadyside? We have no parks within walking distance for any
of the kids. We already get a tremendous amount of traffic from Joe's, cars
trying to turn and cut the corner at Farmington and Seven Mile. If we close off
Westmore, how much more traffic are we going to get on Shadyside?
Mr. McCann: We are not closing off Westmore.
Mr. Pyle: We won't be closing off Westmore?
Mr. Alanskas: No.
Mr. Pyle: The information I have here says that you will be closing off Westmore.
Mr. McCann: There is no consideration this evening to close off Westmore.
Mr. Pyle: I don't know if my neighbors got this but this is about closing off Westmore.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to forward that around so we can see what you are referring to.
Mr. Pyle: The front cover letter is what says it.
Mr. Shane: That is not from the City of Livonia.
17859
Mr. Pyle: Can I ask then what this is all about then? Westmore is not on the agenda. It is
going to stay open. According to that it looks like you are putting in a parking
structure and shutting off Westmore just north of Seven Mile, from the way
L. that is laid out. That is what we all received in the mail.
Mr. Taormina: If I may, I think the resident here is referring to one of the options that were
discussed only from a very conceptual standpoint, when the Council addressed
the appeal of this item. The Council asked the Planning Department to provide
a report relative to the parking in this area. One of the attachments to that
report included the fact that this area was studied some years in the past. One
of the options considered at that time was information on the fact that the
closure of Westmore Avenue that was something to consider as we proceeded
through the view of this project and the improvement of the parking in this
area. I think that the Planning Commission, after reviewing the first four
schemes that were generated by the petitioner, quickly discounted that
particular option. These residents were not made aware of the fact that
although it was something that was being discussed only very generally, didn't
really get beyond the conceptual stage at the first study meeting.
Mr. McCann: That would have to be brought by a separate petition in order to close off the
street. That has been done. There has been no motion made to do that. There
would have to be publication to all the neighbors from the City. It would have
to go through Planning, the Council and there would be notification to every
neighbor that it would affect. There is nothing this evening in regards to that.
The only issue before us tonight is that the property would be the one home,
which has been on the drawings tonight at the southwest corner of Westmore
N" and Seven Mile Road there is going to be removed and they want to turn it into
a parking lot and it is a question of how best to design it.
Mr. Pyle: We were completely misinformed on the proceedings for tonight.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Jody Giles, 19324 Westmore. First of all I would like to address this article. We all received
gross misinformation.
Mr. McCann: Not from the City.
Ms. Giles: This is what we received. This is from a neighbor. What I would like to know
is, you are just planning on putting in some parking right towards the street on
Westmore but right towards Seven Mile? You are not planning on closing off
Westmore, right?
Mr. McCann: Correct. We are not discussing that. We are not planning that. There is no
intention by any person that I know of to do that.
Ms. Giles: Why did we receive this and not anything from the City? If this was going to
affect us why didn't we receive any notice?
17860
Mr. McCann: What is going to affect you?
Ms. Giles: We got all this information that they are going to close off Westmore.
Mr. McCann: You would have to talk to the person who sent that to you.
Ms. Giles: This was in my mailbox.
Mr. McCann: Who gave it to you. We didn't.
Ms. Giles: I assumed it was from the City.
Mr. McCann: We are going to move on then. That is not an issue tonight. We do have a lot
of issues we have to deal with. If you want to contact the staff on Monday, you
can. Mr. Taormina said that they came up with a number of different
possibilities and what to do there. They reviewed it. That one was thrown out
and discarded. No one is intending to close Westmore. There is nothing
before the City and before they could do that, they would notify you.
Ms. Giles: O.K. That is all we needed to know.
Ms. Heath: I can explain what they received in their mailboxes, if that would be of any
help?
Mr. McCann: I think it is pretty clear we are not going to deal with that issue.
'N'"' Ms. Heath: Apparently, one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing. When we
were at the City Council meeting, none of these plans or drawings was shown
to us. The City made a statement that they came up with an idea that would
make the petitioners happy. It would make the neighbors happy and it would
make everybody happy. Then we had to go into the office a couple of days
later to see the plans. That is the plan that they showed us. That they were
going to try to close off Westmore. One of the other neighbors made copies of
the letter he had written. I hadn't seen it because I hadn't gotten one and he
said he was going to put it in the neighbors'mailboxes so if they were going to
close off Westmore, everybody would be aware of what was going on. That
was the last we heard at the City Council meeting.
Mr. McCann: That wasn't relayed to us. The Council hasn't sent any resolutions that they
would like to consider that.
Ms. Heath: I just wanted to let you know that is how those letters came about.
Louis Koharic, 19220 Shadyside. We've got so much traffic off Gable. We've got semi-trucks
coming down Shadyside all from Joe's Produce, the meat market and all the
way through there. We've got semi-trucks turning around in our driveways. I
cannot make a left hand turn onto Seven Mile from 2:00 until about 6:30.
Then the traffic is backing up on Seven Mile they will make a right-hand turn
ti.. onto Shadyside and they will make a turn on Westmore. There are too many
17861
accidents there right now. I am sick of traffic. Last year was nothing but semi-
trucks, City buses and so on and so forth.
Mr. McCann: That is something that you might want to take up with the City Traffic
Commission.
Mr. Koharic: I have already been in touch with the Traffic Bureau. Do you know what they
told me? That is a public street. It is not a public street. It is a residential
street. As far as they want parking, why don't they tear the three old buildings
down? They are about ready to fall down anyway. Then they will have all
kinds of parking.
Mr. McCann: Sir, if you could afford to buy them, I think that would be wonderful. If there
is nobody else wishing to speak, I am closing the public section. Are there any
more questions?
Mr. Piercecchi: This plan that we see here tonight, it looks like it is an improvement over
number two, but requires a little bit of thinking. In as much as we had some
input from the people tonight, I would like to make a motion that we table this
to our next meeting and we can take a look at this at our study meeting on July
18. I move to table this to the July 25, 2000 meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-127-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 2000-06-08-09 Wintergarden Tavern requesting approval of all plans
`'41 required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a parking lot on property located at 33326 Seven Mile
Road in the S.W.1/4 of Section 3 be tabled to July 25, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-05-08-08 Grenuik-Wioncek Dentistry
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-
08-08 Greniuk-Wionceck Dentistry requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to renovate the existing building located at 33044 Five
Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington and
Woodring. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a new vestibule
and renovate parts of the exterior of the existing building on the subject site.
This building is located right across the street from City Hall and was recently
occupied by the Griffin's-McGowan Sport Shop. The new vestibule would be
attached to the east elevation and would offer protection of the doorway that
would become the main entrance of the dentist office. The vestibule would be
'"'' constructed out of glass panels fitted together with aluminum brackets. New
17862
concrete sidewalk pads would be installed next to the doors of the vestibule.
The large picture windows and existing doorway on the south elevation would
be replaced by a 4 ft. high brick wall and tinted glass windows. The Elevation
Plan states that the color of the new brick used in the renovation would "co-
ordinate" with the existing brick of the building. The sloped roof would be re-
shingled and a new dryvit material would replace the existing wood seam panels
that run along the overhang's outer edge on the north, south and east elevations.
The existing building is deficient in front yard setback, therefore the petitioner
would be required to be granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals in
order to add on to a nonconforming building.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Livonia Fire
& Rescue, dated May 30, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a request approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to and renovate the existing building on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated
Mary 30, 2000, and reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the
Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted" The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated June 8, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. We have no objection to the proposal or the legal description
contained there. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The fourth
letter is form the Inspection Department, dated June 21, 2000, and reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 22, 2000, the above referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This petition will need
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for an expansion of a valid pre-
existing non-conforming building. (2) The sidewalk is in disrepair. (3) The
fence at the rear is in disrepair. (4) The parking lot needs maintenance,
repair and double striping. (5) The barrier free parking space must be located
closest to the entrance. (6) There is no detail on the "decorative trash
container"in the northeast corner and, therefore, should be clarified (7) The
entry vestibule, as designed, does not meet the barrier free code Other than as
noted above this Department has no further objections to this petition. I trust
this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Senior Building Inspector.
Mr. McCann: Before we go farther, the fact that it does not meet the barrier free code. Has that
been addressed at all? The entrance.
Mr. Taormina: I am not aware of the specifics relative to what portions of the addition do not
meet the barrier free code. Maybe that is something Mr. Miller can address, or
the petitioner.
17863
Mr. Miller: They have submitted a new plan and it was submitted back to the Inspection
Department. It does now meet the barrier free code.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dr. Kristal Greniuk-Wioncek, 34092 Angeline, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about what you are doing
and why you are doing it?
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: The main reason for the vestibule was to protect anyone, especially the
children and families that are going to be in the waiting room waiting, from
inclement weather. Currently I am leasing a building that doesn't have this
vestibule and air lock. In the winter when we open the door we get a big draft
through there, especially if you've got little ones in there waiting for treatment.
We wanted to update the windows. We plan on utilizing that view of the City
park as an opertory area and for privacy. We wanted to bring that wall up a little
bit. The windows are pretty old and we are going to do a smoke glass. I have a
copy of the letter I submitted regarding the issues that Alex Bishop had
addressed and we are pretty well in compliance. We fixed the fence. That was a
Detroit Edison issue because they were doing some utility pole work. I can pass
this to you but I think you would have received it.
Mr. McCann: We did receive it.
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: That would be it on the site plan. My second issue is the signage which
will be next.
Mr. Alanskas: I have one question. You said you want to have smoke glass. How dark will
that glass be?
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: I think at this point, they were saying like 20%.
Mr. Alanskas: Just a block down the street we have a brand new building called Suburban Eye
Care. If you drive by there, they have a real dark green glass. It is so dark you
can't even tell if they are open. That is why I asked how dark that glass would
be.
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: Exactly. We are going to have something that will be more of a smoke
glass. Not a mirror finish. I think the way the glass company was referring to it
was 20%.
Mr. Shane: You letter also states that you are going to eliminate the trash container.
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: Yes.
Mr. Shane: What are you going to do in place of it?
17864
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: We have a full basement. It measures 2000 sq. ft. We are going to
store it down there. We generally generate about five bags a week and there is
curbside pickup on Tuesdays.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#7-128-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-05-08-08 Greniuk-Wioncek Dentistry
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to renovate the
existing building located at 33044 Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the site and landscape plan marked Sheet 1 dated 6/23/00, as revised,
prepared by Anthony Pucci Architect, 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 exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet 4 dated 6/23/00, as
revised, prepared by Anthony Pucci Architect, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4-inch brick, no
exceptions;
6. That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and
shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
7. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated June
21, 2000:
- that the sidewalk shall be repaired
- that the fence at the rear shall be repaired
- that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed
and double striped
- that all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code
17865
- that the entry vestibule shall comply with the Michigan
Barrier Free Code
8. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on to a nonconforming building and
any conditions related thereto;
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are
applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-06-SN-07 Greniuk-Wioncek Dentistry
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-
SN-07 Greniuk-Wioncek Dentistry requesting approval for signage for the
commercial building located at 33044 Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of
Section 15.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington and
Woodring. The applicant is requesting approval for two (2) wall signs for a
dentist office that is planning on occupying the building located on the site.
This building is located right across the street from City Hall and was recently
occupied by the Griffin's-McGowan Sport Shop. Signage permitted for this
site under Section 18.50H - 1 wall sign- south elevation=not to exceed 38 sq.
ft. in sign area. Signage proposed - 2 wall signs: (1) south elevation=
"Family and Cosmetic Dentistry"=28 sq. ft. in sign area and (2) east elevation
= "Dentistry"= 10 sq. ft. in sign area. Excess signage - 1 wall sign on the east
elevation. Because the proposed signage is in excess of the number of signs
permitted by the sign ordinance, the applicant would be required to be granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter and it is from the Inspection Department, dated June 16,
2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 7, 2000, the
above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This
petition would be allowed one wall sign with one square foot of signage for
each frontage foot of the building. The building appears to be 36 feet so;
therefore, the sign at 33 square feet would be permitted (2) This petition as
proposed will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the east
elevation sign in regard to excess signs and excessive signage footage. (3)
The type of signage-materials, color,style,fastening, etc. need to be clarified.
Other than as noted above, this Department has no objections to the petition. I
trust this provides the requested information. The letter is signed by Alex
,` Bishop, Senior Building Inspector.
17866
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dr. Kristen Greniuk-Wioncek,34092 Angeline, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us?
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: I have pictures of the previous owner's second wall sign and it would be
similar to what I am proposing. We would just change the word to "dentistry"
rather than "Griffins". It would be white lettering,just like you see in the
picture.
Mr. McCann: If you were just replacing both signs, but you've got a new one going up on the
front. So you are still going to have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: I've got a meeting date set for that in August.
Mr. Alanskas: On the picture of the tooth, that tooth does not move or waiver any, does it?
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: No. It is stationary. The way they describe it, it is going to be like a
vinyl sticky that will go on a white Plexiglas. I had given a colored sample of
what we are using.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have your practice in Livonia now?
Dr. Greniuk-Wioncek: Yes, for the last five years.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-129-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-06-SN-07 Greniuk-Wioncek Dentistry
requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 33044
Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Kristal Greniuk-Wioncek, as received
by the Planning Commission on June 30, 2000, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this
business closes;
3. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
ti
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related
thereto.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-06-SN-08 Wards Auto Express
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-
SN-08 Wards Auto Express requesting approval for signage for the
commercial building located at 29501 Plymouth Road in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 35.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads.
The applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign for the Wards auto facility
that sits out in front of the Wonderland Mall. This building already has an
existing wall sign on it's north elevation and the rest of the mall, including the
Wards Store, is in excess of wall signage. Inspection Department does not
have any records pertaining to this existing wall sign on the auto facility.
Signage Permitted for this site under Section 18.5011
• wall signage
- only Wit identifies a principal tenant, building name or regional center
- no more than 1 wall sign per building facade
- total of all wall signs shall not to exceed 500 sq. ft. in sign area
Signage Proposed:
• 1 wall sign
- east elevation="Wards Auto Express" = 138 sq. ft. in sign area
Excess Signage:
• mall is already in excess of signs and sign area
Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is permitted by the sign
ordinance, the applicant would be required to be granted a variance by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter and it is from the Inspection Department, dated June 22,
2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 13, 2000, the
above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) As
proposed the petition will need to obtain variances form the Zoning Board of
Appeals for excess wall signage and excess wall sign square footage. Other
than as noted above, this Department has no objection to this petition. I trust
this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
�,. Senior Building Inspector.
17868
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Deters, 23544 Hoover, Warren, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your need for this sign?
Mr. Deters: The company is asking for this signage because of a lack of identification on
Middlebelt and really because even though this is a part of Ward's, it is in a
totally separate building and I would say somewhat removed from the main
Wards building. Wards is asking for approval for this signage of 138 sq. ft. on a
building that has on that facade 220 feet and I think the facade is 2300 or 2350
sq. ft. It is about 7% of the total square footage on that side of the building.
The building is in an "L" shape. There is nothing on the south side of the
building to indicate what it is nor on the west side to indicate what that building
on the corner of that intersection is. Just for what it is worth, our competitor on
the west end of the mall, Penske, currently has two signs, one on the north
elevation and one on the east elevation, reading basically the same as what this
request is.
Mr. Alanskas: Is it your intention to put that sign at the very south end of the building?
Mr. Deters: That is correct, on the east elevation on the south side of it.
Mr. Alanskas: I go by there all the time. Where you want to that sign, there are two huge trees.
41410' Mr. Deters: There are some trees that will have to be removed.
Mr. Alanskas: To be removed?
Mr. Deters: Let me put it this way. They will have to be removed to see the signs very well.
Mr. Alanskas: Exactly. If you put a sign there, it is defunct because those trees block its view.
If it is going to be contingent on those trees being taken down, with me, you
may have a big problem. We want all the trees we can have in the City and
those are two huge trees. They have been there for quite a while.
Mr. Deters: Of the three, one could probably be moved. The other two are too big to be
moved.
Mr. Alanskas: I just wanted to be sure where you wanted to it. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: My notes refer to the Inspection Department. They visited the site and they
measured the existing sign on the building to be 66 sq. ft. That is the sign that
would face Plymouth. Correct? Why one twice as big down on the other end
when the one facing Plymouth Road is only 66 sq. ft.?
Mr. Deters: I guess that is the area where they wanted to put it. As opposed to the existing
`oar sign on Plymouth Road, it is a much larger sign area.
17869
Mr. Piercecchi: But that sign is much farther away from the people than the one you are
proposing, is it not?
Mr. Deters: Further away from the people?
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. The 66 sq. ft. sign.
Mr. Deters: No. What do you mean by further away from the people?
Mr. McCann: The traffic.
Mr. Piercecchi: Further away from Plymouth Road. That sign faces Plymouth Road, right?
Mr. Deters: Yes it is. The existing one does, yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: The one that is 66 sq. ft. and now you want one that is going to be facing east
and it is going to 138 sq. ft.
Mr. Deters: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't see how we can even consider this proposal in as much as they are way
in excess of what is required right now and how can we grant a regional center
which is 500 max and it has to be decided by the ZBA. I don't see how we can
even consider approving this.
sow Mr. Deters: What is way in excess now? The 66 sq. ft.?
Mr. Piercecchi: The whole mall, the center, is way over in signage right now. Here you are
going to just compound it additionally.
Mr. LaPine: That center has been there for 39 years or longer and that particular building
has always been a free standing building and for years and years they sold tires
and did service there with only one sign. Why all of a sudden do they have to
have the additional sign? What has changed that makes it necessary for them
to need another sign? I agree with my fellow Commissioners, Wonderland has
gotten out of hand as far as signs. There are so many signs at Wonderland
center I think there are more signs at that center than any other center in the
City. I am just concerned why at this point and time they need an additional
sign.
Mr. Deters: First of all for identification purposes on both sides.
Mr. LaPine: But the point I am making, they have operated there for many years with one
sign and now all of a sudden they've got to have two signs. The next day I'll
hear if we are going to have one on the south side coming from the east from
the south going north, why don't we have one on the west side. Where do we
end? Somewhere along the line we have to draw a line
17870
Mr. Deters: The way the building is constructed with entrance to those bays on both the
east elevation and the north elevation, it is one building but it is really two.
That is about what it amounts to. I don't know why the company is asking for
this except, as I mentioned the additional identification, that is probably it too.
Wards has struggled over the years and they want to make a concerted effort to
come back and I am sure that they think this is one way that in this particular
case it is going to help them.
Mr. LaPine: We all remember when Wards came in and did an upgrade on the building. At
that time, we tried to get some upgrading on that building that was out there
and they didn't want to move one iota on the building that was free standing.
But that being aside, I still don't understand why they need additional signage.
You are right out there. You stick out there and like anything else, your
advertising can do wonders, Wonderland Center/Wards. Anybody that is
driving up there coming up Plymouth from the east or the west or going north
to south, or south to north, you can't miss the place.
Mr. McCann: We've gone over this time and time again. Before we go to the audience, do
you represent the sign company or do you work for Ward's?
Mr. Deters: I represent the sign manufacturer. We would be the installer.
Mr. McCann: I guess I have an issue whether or not they would consider doing something
smaller in the 30 to 40 ft. range on the east side, more towards the north so we
wouldn't lose trees but you are not even in a position to speak to that. Are you?
Mr. Deters: All I can do is just pass the message along to them of what the Commission's
wishes are.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: When we start talking about tearing down trees so that you can see the sign, I
think that is a big mistake so therefore I would like to give the denying
resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-130-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-06-SN-08 Wards Auto Express requesting
approval for signage for the commercial building located at 29501 Plymouth
Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 35 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements outlined in
Section 18.5011 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has not justified the need for any additional signage for
this location;
17871
3. That because of the location of this building out near the intersection and
the wide visibility of the business itself, there is no need for a sign on this
elevation;
'O"" 4. That approving this sign request would set an undesirable precedent for the
area;
5. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best
interest.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition has been denied. You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision
in writing to the City Council.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-06-SN-09 Linens-N-Things
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-
SN-09 Linens-N-Things requesting approval for signage for the commercial
building located at 13250 Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt Roads.
The applicant is requesting approval for a conforming wall sign for one of the
buildings that make up part of the Millennium Park development. This building
is located to the south of the Home Depot Store and to the northeast of the
Meijer's Store. Linens-N-Things would be occupying the northern most unit,
identified as "Building E".
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence and it is from the Inspection Department,
dated July 7, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 20,
2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no
objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the Petitioner here this evening?
Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Anything special you would like to tell us about the sign?
Mr. Drane: I am just happy that it is under the allowable area.
Mr. McCann: So are we. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, is
there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing none, a motion is in order.
`go.' On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
17872
#7-131-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-06-SN-09 Linens-N-Things requesting
approval for signage for the commercial building located at 13250 Middlebelt
Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Rogvoy Architects, as received by the
Planning Commission on June 20, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That this wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this
business closes;
3) That window signage for this store shall be limited to 20% of all glass area as
permitted by Section 18.50D (g) of Zoning Ordinance#543;
4) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann: I just want to let the audience know, yes, we did go very quickly on this but it is
a completely conforming sign. As a matter of fact, it is smaller than they are
allowed for that location.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-06-SN-10 Marshalls
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-
SN-10 Marshalls requesting approval for signage for the commercial building
located at 13200 Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt Roads.
The applicant is requesting approval for a conforming wall sign for one of the
buildings that make up part of the Millennium Park development. This building
is located to the south of the Home Depot Store and to the northeast of the
Meijer's Store. Marshalls would be occupying the middle unit, identified as
"Building D". Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is one wall
sign not to exceed 182 sq. ft. in sign area. The sign proposed is one wall sign-
west elevation- "Marshalls" - 175 sq. ft. in sign area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter and it is from the Inspection Department, dated July 7, 2000,
and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 20, 2000, the above
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) If this
petition proposes an east sign also, then a variance from the Zoning Board of
'New Appeals would be needed for(a) excess signage and(b) excess signage square
17873
footage. This Department has no other objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
Mr. McCann: Anything additional on this one?
Mr. Drane: 25 sq. ft. under.
Mr. McCann: If they are no questions from the Commissioners I will go to the audience. Is
there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-132-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-06-SN-10 Marshalls requesting approval for
signage for the commercial building located at 13200 Middlebelt Road in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 25 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Rogvoy Architects, as received by the
Planning Commission on June 20, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be
'tow adhered to;
2) That this wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this
business closes;
3) That window signage for this store shall be limited to 20% of all glass area
as permitted by Section 18.50D (g) of Zoning Ordinance #543;
4) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2000-06-SN-11 PetsMart
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-
SN-11 PetsMart requesting approval for signage for the commercial building
located at 13150 Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt Roads.
The applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign for one of the buildings that
make up part of the Millennium Park development. This building is located to
the south of the Home Depot Store and to the northeast of the Meijer's Store.
17874
PetsMart would be occupying the southern most unit, identified as"Building
C". Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is one wall sign not to
exceed 123 sq. ft. in sign area. The signage proposed is one wall sign, west
�.• elevation, "PetsMart" - 180 sq. ft. in sign area. Because the proposed signage
is in excess of what is permitted by the sign ordinance, the applicant would be
required to be granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter from the Inspection Department, dated July 7, 2000, and
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 20, 2000, the above
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) With the
limited detail provided with this petition, a liberal interpretation of signage
square footage would be 222 square feet. As depicted this petition would
require a variance from the zoning Board of Appeals for excessive square
footage(123 square feet allowed, 222 square feet proposed, 99 excess square
feet). This Department has no other objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Mr.
LaPine had a question concerning the word "grooming". It wasn't part of this
proposal as presented to the Planning Commission. "Grooming", in my
'tLr graphics package that you have there is a section that had "grooming" but that is
gone. If the petitioner wants that, he can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and
discuss it with you. If you look at the second page of how the "PetsMart" sign
was calculated, it is very difficult to interpret a serpentine sign with a bounding
ball. I think the interpretation that the staff has taken is that I am going to take
the lowest part of the sign and the highest part of the ball and that is the area. If
you will take a look at how the sign company calculated the sign area, you will
see that we think the actual square footage is 107 sq. ft. If you take a look at it
proportionally on the face of the building, you will see that if Linen N Things is
150 sq. ft. and Marshall's is 156 sq. ft., that PetsMart, to me, doesn't look like
220 sq. ft., or 180 sq. ft. So I think it is the interpretation of how you box in the
area is what is in question.
Mr. McCann: Don't you think that we should have one interpretation for all the businesses in
the area and not a special interpretation for your business?
Mr. Drane: I would agree with that if everybody didn't have a bouncing ball on top of their
sign.
Mr. Alanskas: Mark, is this building a little smaller than the other two?
Mr. Drane: Yes. It is 123 feet wide, 19,000 sq. ft. building.
Mr. Alanskas: So it is smaller and yet they are asking for a bigger sign on a smaller building.
17875
Mr. Drane: Again, it is the interpretation on how we calculate the sign.
Mr. Alanskas: In our interpretation we think it is way too large. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: We have you down at 108 sq. ft. That puts you way and above. That is 50%
Mr. Drane: I wasn't aware of the correspondence. I didn't receive the correspondence.
Mr. Piercecchi: 123 sq. ft. is all you are entitled to and I don't see why that can't be met. You
just make the letters a little bit smaller.
Mr. Drane: I would agree. I would have no problem with putting 123 sq. ft. on this
building.
Mr. LaPine: I don't think they should object to 123 sq. ft. They got the big sign they wanted
out there on the highway. You guys didn't want to back down one inch on that
one. I think it would be nice for you to compromise. 123 sq. ft. is fine with me.
Mr. Drane: I understand.
k Mr. McCann: I understand the swishes and the little bouncing ball. I am not sure what the
bouncing ball has to do with pets, but it is cute. How big would the City
calculate the sign without the bouncing ball? Would we still box it all in or
would we follow the form of the sign.
Mr. Miller: That was my calculation. That is why I was a little lower. What I did was I
boxed in from the "P" to the end of the "t". That is 157 sq. ft. The Inspection
Department boxed in the bouncing ball. That is where they got the 200 sq. ft.
That is the difference.
Mr. McCann: That is the difference between the two?
Mr. Miller: That is why my interpretation is a little bit smaller.
Mr. McCann: So even with the 157 sq. ft. we are still beyond what they are entitled to?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Mr. Drane: If there is a big question about this, I would gladly withdraw it, go back and
calculate it and gladly work with your staff.
Mr. McCann: Would you want it withdrawn or would you rather us table it and maybe come
up with a better solution?
Mr. Drane: I would accept a tabling if that is the appropriate way of doing it.
17876
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to just give an approving resolution with what they are entitled to,
the 123 sq. ft., and you don't have to table it and you are all done.
Mr. Drane: If the Commission would like to approve it at 123 sq. ft. I will go back to staff
and figure what is the appropriate height and width.
Mr. Piercecchi: Give them what they are entitled to, if the gentleman is willing to accept that at
123 sq. ft.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to give an approving resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-133-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-06-SN-11 PetsMart requesting approval for
signage for the commercial building located at 13150 Middlebelt Road in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 25 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the sign package submitted by Rogvoy Architects, as received by the
Planning Commission on June 20, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except for the fact that the sign shall not exceed 123 sq. ft. in
sign area, and also, that the word "grooming" shall not appear on the sign;
2) That this wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)hour after this
business closes;
3) That window signage for this store shall be limited to 20% of all glass area
as permitted by Section 18.50D (g) of Zoning Ordinance#543;
4) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of 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
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from
the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the first item?
ITEM # 8 PETITION 2000-04-01-08 Leo Soave (South side of Morlock)
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
01-08 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property
located on the South side of Morlock Road between Parkville Avenue and
Maplewood Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to R-2.
17877
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-134-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 2000-04-01-08 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to
rezone property located on the South side of Morlock Road between Parkville
avenue and Maplewood Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to R-2
be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: Can you up date us, Mr. Soave?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. We had a meeting with the neighbors at the adjacent
property to the west. Some of the neighbors, we tried to ease their concerns.
We just came from a ZBA meeting upstairs. As far as the building plans that
we proposed for the lot to the west, those plans have been approved by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. I'll answer your questions.
Mr. McCann: One of the concerns was how the home in the center would be facing the side
of another home. Have you come with any resolution of that issue?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir we have. There is a house on Lyndon and Levan. We went by it and
saw it. We are going to mirror after that house. We are going to put a wrap
around porch on it. We are going to put a two car garage on the east side of the
house. That is going to be fronting Morlock and I hope that will address the
problem.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none,
is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Marcella Felton, 20357 Maplewood. I have talked to Mr. Soave and he has assured me that he
is going to leave a greenbelt and I would like this in writing, if possible, a berm
and some kind of drainage to catch the water. He also said that he would be
willing to put money in escrow in case any flooding occurs to our property. I
also request the attached garage on the west side of the house, if you are
approving it.
Mr. McCann: I believe it would have to be on the east side, would it not?
Mr. Soave: On the east side of the house because we are only about six feet from the
property line.
Mr. McCann: It would have to be on the east side.
Mr. Soave: That is not correct. There is no problem. We can put the garage on the west
side.
L
Mrs. Felton: As long as it is all stipulated.
17878
Mr. Soave: We are talking about Parcel C.
.... Mr. McCann: Mr. Soave, were there any conditions on the approval from the Zoning Board
of Appeals?
Mr. Soave: Only that I build within one year and I don't remember any other conditions.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, regarding the concerns of drainage, since we are rezoning, we
can't condition anything other than zoning at this point, correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. I don't think that it would be appropriate, at this time, to
consider some of the items that the neighbor has brought forward this evening
as part of a rezoning petition. These are items that, although have merit,
cannot be attached to a rezoning petition. That is the first item. The second
item is that I think the Planning Commission has to consider whether or not
they want to include Lot 395b within this rezoning petition in light of the fact,
this evening, the petitioner has received a variance in order to build on Lot
395b. The question is whether or not that that property should be part of this
petition to rezone to R-2.
Mr. McCann: Since we are reducing the amount of rezoning, we could do that this evening
without going through another Public Hearing. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: It is your position since he does have a variance to build on that, it is not
necessary to rezone?
Mr. Taormina: That is my understanding. Unless there is something that we are not aware of
that occurred at the Zoning Board of Appeals this evening. He is allowed to
being immediately on the construction on Lot 395b.
Mrs. Felton: That is the one with the variance?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. That is a question to the petitioner, Mr. Soave.
Mrs. Felton: I am on the lot on the opposite side of the existing house.
Mr. McCann: What we are trying to do is if there is no need to rezone certain property
because he has a variance to build on it as it is, we don't want to rezone it. Mr.
Soave, it is your understanding that they approved your variance to build on
that that there is no need to go forward with the rezoning as to that lot?
Mr. Soave: I will amend my rezoning petition.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else wishing to speak. Is there a concern you would like to
make to the Planning Commission, sir?
17879
Brian Wilson, 28979 Morlock. I was at the meeting upstairs. This lady and I are at the ends of
the property in question. One of the people upstairs was concerned with the
variance being. Not the variance itself but the concerns was that the more
variances there were the more likely it would be for future variances down the
road. My impression was, the committee upstairs was hoping that this group
would grant a rezoning to the whole kit-n-caboodle, so it would reduce the
number of variances. Either way, the property is going to be built on and I have
no problem with that. I am right next to it.
Mr. McCann: What we would like to do is take a look at the subject area as a whole rather
than each individual lot. At this time, if it is not necessary to rezone it, we
would rather take a look at the whole section.
Mr. Wilson: I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. Taormina: If I can understand this correctly, the lady lives to the east of the proposed
Parcel b, is that correct?
Mrs. Felton: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: The reason why I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that in considering the rezoning petition
this evening and if we are going to amend the petition to eliminate Lot 395b and
proceed with the rezoning of Lots 395c, that would be done with the
`, understanding that in order for Mr. Soave to construct a house on the east half
of that parcel, which is identified on the plan as proposed Parcel b, he would
have to do one of three things. He would have to either vacate the plat, re-plat
the area, or propose the development of that lot under a site condominium. It
would be at that time that the City would have the ability to review some of the
concerns that were expressed relative to drainage and landscaping.
Mr. McCann: Because it would have to be re-platted and he would have to do that with the
consent of all the neighbors to go to court or he would have to come in under a
condominium. Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Taormina: That is our assessment in looking at this and based on the fact that Lot 395 as
originally platted has already been divided into four separate legal descriptions.
Mr. McCann: I think your concerns regarding drainage and landscaping, will all be
addressed.... He is going to have to come back before us most likely under a
site condominium. We call it that, although it is traditional home ownership,
but that way we will be able to put those restrictions in to make sure that they
are done. You will be notified as a neighbor. If you leave your name with the
Planning Department, they will make sure you get notified. A motion is in
order.
,iew Mr. Alanskas: So we are going to rezone everything except Lot 395b, correct?
17880
Mr. Taormina: I believe the petitioner is amending his petition.
Mr. Alanskas: To exclude 395b?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-135-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-04-01-08 by Leo
Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located on the
South side of Morlock Road between Parkville Avenue and Maplewood
Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to R-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
04-01-08, as amended by the petitioner with respect to Lot 395c only, be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area;
2) That the proposed zoning district will allow a reasonable development of
the subject property into single family residential lots comparable in size to
existing lots in the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development that will
`, be consistent and in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan
recommendation of low density residential land use for this area.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, Koons, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
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: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I would like to thank the neighbors and
Mr. Soave for working together to come up with an amicable resolution to all
parties.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2000-05-02-19 Jeffery A. Scott Architects (Wendy's)
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-
02-19 by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, on behalf of Wendy's International
17881
requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant with drive-
up window facilities on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Schoolcraft Road and Industrial Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 26.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-136-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 2000-05-02-19 by Jeffery A. Scott Architects, on behalf of Wendy's
International requesting wavier use approval to construct a full service
restaurant with drive-up window facilities on property located on the west side
of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Industrial Road in the
N.E.1/4 of Section 26 be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is
the petitioner here this evening?
Timothy A. Stoepker, 300 River Place, Suite 3000, Detroit, Michigan. The matter was tabled at
the request of the Planning Commission regarding two specific items. Number
one, would the current owner of the center consider the removal of the F&M
sign. If you have driven by the site, I think the owners have given you the
answer. The sign has been removed. The second question had to do with
landscaping of the current site owned by the shopping center, not the Wendy's
site specifically but the balance of the shopping center. It is our understanding,
I have inspected this site, the owner has completed the landscaping as pursuant
to the approved site plan. I think the query made by the Planning Commission,
would the owner consider landscaping to mirror that being proposed by
Wendy's? When we discussed that with the owner the concern that the owner
had and saying "no, they could not" would be the result of additional parking
spaces and it was out understanding based upon the last hearing that in fact the
center is short spaces at this time and that would result in the loss of all the
parking spaces that front the road at that location. So the position of the owner
was that they would not want to lose those additional spaces but, in fact, that
they completed the landscaping pursuant to the Planning Commission and City
Council's approval of the most recent site plan of that area. If the concern was
to send a message to that owner to finish their work, they did finish their work
and they did remove the sign.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: I want to make a comment on the sign. The sign was mentioned but that sign,
the F &M sign, as stated in a Council resolution as soon as F&M's current
lease expired. That was to speed up the process. That was already dictated to
us December 8, 1997, that that sign was to go. I just wanted to bring that up.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? I don't see anybody in the audience wishing to
speak. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and approved, it was
17882
#7-137-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-05-02-19 by Jeffery
A. Scott Architects, on behalf of Wendy's International requesting waiver use
r.. approval to construct a full service restaurant with drive-up window facilities
on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft
Road and Industrial Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 26 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the proposed use, due to its location, size and character, would be
detrimental to and would adversely affect the surrounding uses in the area;
3) That the proposed site layout and its relation to streets giving access to it,
particularly with respect to vehicular turning movements in relation to
routes of traffic flow and location and access of off-street parking, will be
hazardous and inconvenient to the neighboring property and the
neighboring area in general;
4) That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance which, among other things, are intended to insure compatibility
and appropriateness of uses; and
5) That the petition has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed
necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Koons, Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition has been denied. You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision
in writing to the City Council.
ITEM #10 REVISION TO PETITION 76-12-8-30 Dr. Sivertson
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision to Petition
76-12-08-30 by Dr. Sivertson to amend plans approved by the City on
February 2, 1977, for the construction of an office complex on property located
at 31636 Schoolcraft Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 22.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
rr..
17883
#7-138-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Revision to Petition 76-12-08-30 by Dr. Sivertson to amend plans approved by
the City on February 2, 1977 for the construction of an office complex on
property located at 31636 Schoolcraft Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 22 be
removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller: This was tabled at the May 9, 2000, Regular meeting. The Planning
Commission saw no reason to continue the temporary variance process The
petitioner requested it be tabled so they could draw up a fully detailed
landscape plan of the area. On June 16, 2000, he submitted a landscape plan
along the north property line. It shows existing trees on the site. It also shows
picnic tables and concrete paths. He is also proposing arborvitae across the
middle of the greenbelt area to help screen the facility from the neighborhood.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dr. John Sivertson, 31636 Schoolcraft, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us?
Dr. Sivertson: I would hope that the Commission would look favorably upon proposal to
make our greenbelt permanent so that we can maintain it as an asset to our
neighborhood.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, a motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-139-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Revision to Petition 76-12-08-30 submitted by Dr. Sivertson to amend the site
plan that was approved by the City on February 2, 1977, for the construction of
an office complex on property located at 31636 Schoolcraft Road in the S.E.
1/4 of Section 22 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property line, as shown on
the plan received by the Planning Commission on June 16, 2000, shall be
substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2) That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt
resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective
barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the
r.w
protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45;
17884
3) That the request for the permanent substitution of the
protective wall with a landscaped greenbelt along the west
property line is hereby denied;
4) That because the revised plan, referenced in condition#1,
does not show a wall along the west property line the
petitioner shall have the option of going before the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a temporary variance waiving the wall
or installing the wall immediately.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #11 Approval of the Minutes 806th Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes of the 806th Regular Meeting held on May 25, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#7-140-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 806th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission of May 25, 2000, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
°... AYES: LaPine, Koons, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 808th Regular Meeting held on
July 11, 2000, was adjourned at 9:11 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
CD.6Lja
Dan Piercecchi, Acting Secretary
ATTEST: �^
ame. C. McCann, Chairman
/rw