HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-08-27 15129
MINUTES OF THE 730th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
Now
On Tuesday, August 27, 1996, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 730th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Alanskas, LaPine, Engebretson, Piercecchi, Morrow, McCann
Members absent: Blomberg
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott
Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The
rr.• Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating
petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-8-8-13 by
Cohen& Moricz, PC, on behalf of Root Canal Specialty Associates, requesting
approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office building located
at 31620 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Schoolcraft between
Merriman Road and Berwick Avenue. It is part of the Willow Wood
Professional Village office complex. They are proposing to construct a
small addition on the rear elevation of their building. The new addition
will be 1,090 sq. ft. in size. The existing building is 3,384 sq. ft. in size.
Once the new structure is completed the new structure would be 4,474
sq. ft. in size. The new addition would provide additional office space,
new bathrooms and staff areas. Parking for this new addition, including
the existing building, and this has changed since the study meeting, not
15130
because there is a change in the size but what parking is required will
be based on something else, and we are told by the Inspection
`44.. Department that it is only based on one parking space for each 200 sq.
ft. of floor space. So now the parking requirement is 22 spaces. The
site has 30 spaces so they meet the requirement of parking and
therefore they do not have to go to the Zoning Board for parking. The
new addition would be constructed out of brick with an asphalt
shingled roof, and that would match the existing building. The
petitioner has stated they will use materials that will match the existing
building so once the addition is completed it will look like the building
was done at one time.
Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience. Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dr. Philip Cohen, 31620 Schoolcraft, Livonia. We would be happy to answer any
questions but I don't have any other information to share with you.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-153-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 96-8-8-13 by Cohen& Moricz, PC, on behalf of Root Canal
Specialty Associates, requesting approval for all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct
441.' an addition to the office building located at 31620 Schoolcraft Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 22, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked sheet A-1 dated 7/31/96 prepared by David
Lubin, Architect, is hereby approved an shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 3/14/96 prepared by
Lubin/Tringali & Associates, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-8-8-14 by
DiComo Associates, on behalf of V.I.P. Floor Covering, requesting approval
for all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the
commercial building located at 29155 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 36.
15131
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt and Garden. To the east you have John's Cleaners and to
;,` the west you have the Moose Lodge. The proposal is to construct a
warehouse addition to the rear of the existing store. This would double
the size of the building. The new addition would be 3,360 sq. ft. in
size, and the existing building is the exact same size, so once completed
the building would be 6,720 sq. ft. in size. The existing building is non-
conforming because of the front yard setback. It only sets back ten feet
from Plymouth Road. The required setback for this zoning district is
60 feet so they had to go to the Zoning Board prior to being presented
to the Planning Commission, which they have, and they do have a
variance for the front yard setback. Parking for this site; the petitioner
shares parking with the dry cleaners next door. We do have a letter in
the file for the shared parking. Both uses require 18 parking spaces.
The site shows 24 parking spaces so together they are conforming in
parking. The new addition would be constructed out of brick and
painted to match the existing building. Also, when they went to the
Zoning Board, the Zoning Board required that the front elevation,
which is the north elevation, that the overhead door be taken out, and
petitioner has submitted new elevation plans showing that the overhead
door would be removed and the opening would be blocked in. They
are conforming with the Zoning Board conditions.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. Any questions for the
%or petitioner?
Mr. Morrow: At any time was the wall to the rear of the site ever brought up as it
abuts residential?
Dan DiComo: Yes, as a matter of fact there are six conditions from the Zoning Board
of Appeals that we have negotiated with them. There is actually a
seventh item which is that there is a requirement for that rear wall.
What we are planning on doing is working with the Engineering
Department because there is also a water retention problem between
the neighbors and the sites to the north, which are the commercial sites.
We are planning on constructing a wall but we want to make sure we
know what the water problem is, whether we may be worsening a
problem by constructing a wall and thereby affecting the neighbors
negatively. But we will be addressing both issues with the Engineering
Department and then either constructing a wall if it does not create
more of a hardship to the neighbors, or coming back if the neighbors do
not want one and asking for a variance.
Mr. Morrow: Thanks for making that a part of the record.
15132
Mr. DiComo: No problem at all.
,` Mr. LaPine: The letter that we have from John's Cleaners for the parking and the
drive, does that go with the property?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: In other words, if that building is changed and somebody else comes in
there, they don't have to worry about any agreements?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: It says you are going to block in that front door, and according to the
site plan I can't really tell. What kind of materials are you going to use
to block in that front door?
Mr. DiComo: The existing building right now is just masonry. It is block and painted
block. We are planning on just filling it in because we are talking that
actually we would like to put a window in but the Zoning Board stated
to block it in. At this point in time, on the elevation I showed it
blocked in, and we will paint the front of the building so it all matches.
I was going to talk to the Administration to see if we could put a
window in, in the location where that door is also.
*'"" Mr. McCann: My concern is it would leave just a solid block front to that building,
and what we are trying to do is improve the look along that area, and
either some type of glass treatment or some type of ornate treatment.
Mr. DiComo: We would like to put a window in.
Mr. Nagy: I think you could put a window in. I think the Zoning Board merely
sets the minimum requirements.
Mr. McCann: They just want the door removed.
Mr. Nagy: Exactly, and a window would even enhance the appearance of that, so I
certainly think we are going beyond their minimum requirements to
upgrade by a window, and I don't think there is any conflict. You are
meeting their requirement plus.
Mr. DiComo: We were planning on addressing that today because we would rather
not just completely enclose it but it says completely enclosed.
Mr. McCann: Do you have any alternate drawings of what you would like to do?
15133
Mr. DiComo: No we don't. Actually we would like to put a window in close to the
width of the opening.
Mr. McCann: If we can just attach that as part of our recommendation, that way by
the time you get to Council you can have the plans.
Mr. Morrow: It would be nice. I concur with you. I think we would be upgrading it.
Perhaps he can have it in place before our approval in seven days.
Mr. Nagy: We will get a copy of the approved elevation down to the Zoning
Board to let them know what you approved, and why we did it.
Mr. Morrow: I am sure Mr. DiComo will come up with something architecturally
pleasing.
Mr. DiComo: We will try. We were hoping to do that. We just were afraid to do it
to be honest with you.
Mr. Morrow: We think it is a good idea.
Mr. DiComo: Then we will do it.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to follow up on this just to make sure that we have
agreement on what is going to happen there. During the study meeting
`'r" Dan you indicated that your real preference is to just leave it the way it
is, and that you had been caught somewhat by surprise by the Zoning
Board that they put the condition of bricking that in, whereas you had
hoped to leave it the way it is. Now I am hearing it was always your
desire to put in glass. I think Mr. McCann is right. It would be more
appropriate to have a window there but I don't know enough about the
aesthetics of these kinds of issues to understand whether or not the
complete replacement of an overhead door with glass is appropriate. It
would seem to be, at a very minimum, that we should require Mr.
DiComo to run all this past the staff to make sure that there is
agreement as to what this window treatment is going to be because we
go from leave it the way it is, to brick it in, to replace the whole
opening with glass, and I don't think any of those things are the right
solution. I think a proper solution is to brick it in and cut in a proper
window to give some improved visibility of that building on Plymouth
Road. So it would be my desire that nothing be put to rest on this issue
without staff involvement to make sure we'll have the opportunity
before approving the minutes to get a briefing as to how it was all
resolved. I am sure you don't have any problem with that.
15134
Mr. DiComo: Not at all. Hopefully to clarify what had happened, we were working
on elevations that would utilize that door as an architectural element,
not as an usable element.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand that. You made that clear. The point is you didn't
want to leave it basically the way it is as an architectural part of your
presentation here. You see where I am coming from, it has changed
twice. We have three different situations, and I think we are going to
end up with a fourth, which is going to be the best of all for all
concerned, and most particularly for your client.
Mr. Alanskas: Dan, coming out of the back of the building there is a hose and
electrical wire that runs down the whole east line past the trailers and it
turns west and goes all the way past the trailers into a drain. What is
that for?
Mr. DiComo: I am not sure I can answer that.
Ron Mays: There is a sump pump in the well out there, or drywell, and that is
temporarily pumping it. This building was built in 1958, as memory
serves, and before I paved the parking lot in the back there, doing
something with the water was one of the stipulations, and at best we
couldn't determine through engineering or anybody else, what to do
with the water. So they approved a drywell, although it is not very
``""" functional. So when there are big rains, in an effort to get rid of it, that
building originally was used for automotive mufflers, and it has a trench
that goes right down through, in between and center between the two
overhead doors, one at the front and one at the back. God knows
where it goes. I don't know where it goes. Engineering doesn't know
where it goes, but it drains, and that is where we are pumping the water
from the outside to the inside of the building, to wherever it goes.
Mr. Alanskas: When you have that problem solved, you won't need that anymore,
correct?
Mr. Mays: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: I wasn't at the study sessions. Are there any other renovations being
done to the front of the building, except for the overhead door being
removed and now we are talking about putting a window in, which I
think is a good idea. Anything else being done to the front?
Mr. DiComo: No.
15135
Mr. LaPine: I would assume once the overhead door is removed, the approach will
be removed, and we won't have that out in front any more. Is that
correct?
Mr. DiComo: That is one of the stipulations also of the Zoning Board that the curb
cut that does not serve any purpose be replaced with a curb.
Mr. Engebretson: Fine. Now I would assume that when we talked about replacing the
overhead door with glass, you probably are going to brick up 10, 12,
14 inches up and down and the glass would go in there. Is that what
you are talking about?
Mr. DiComo: We would work out some sort of sill depending upon what is behind
there right now and what the use is going to be but there would be a sill
off the ground level and then we will put some openings in it.
Mr. LaPine: The one thing I am worried about, when you get a big window you
have a tendency to slap up a sign "Carpets 50% Off'. You are not
going to use this as a big sign area?
Mr. DiComo: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I noticed here that the required wall on the southerly lot
line has not been resolved, whether that will or will not be an actuality,
1"' and I noticed a note here from the Zoning Board that the neighbors
may prefer fencing and landscaping in lieu of the wall. How will we
know whether this type of arrangement has been made between the
neighbors and this particular individual?
Mr. McCann: We addressed this earlier. They have to come back for a variance if
they don't build the wall. Right now the plans show a wall. If they
would like to do something else, they have to go back to the ZBA
Mr. Piercecchi: Then I suggest Mr. Chairman that the approving motion, with the
variances that have been put in effect by the Zoning Board of Appeals,
include then the wall, and if it is to be removed, that is another ball
game, but I think it should be included.
Mr. McCann: I think it is in the site plan now, isn't it John, the wall?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it is.
Mr. McCann: The wall is in the site plan we are approving.
15136
Mr. Piercecchi: My compliments too to the Zoning Board. They really were thorough
on this one. All the questions I had, they answered here.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. DiComo, I presume it is safe to assume that upon completion of
this new construction, that the entire building will be painted all at the
same time.
Mr. DiComo: Yes it will.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that part of any plan we have?
Mr. DiComo: It will be painted to match the existing color scheme. I am not sure if
this body saw the pictures at the last meeting.
Mr. Engebretson: Yes we did. We have seen the site too and there is some peeling paint
on the existing building, and I am not concerned about painting the new
construction to match. I want it all painted at the same time. There is
a difference.
Mr. DiComo: That is the intent. We are not changing the look.
Mr. Engebretson: That is fine, but what is presently painted will be repainted at the same
time that the new construction is painted?
Sew Mr. DiComo: If that is not duly noted, we will make sure it is on the drawing and that
will be a stipulation.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Engebretson, and
unanimously approved, it was
#8-154-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 96-8-8-14 by DiComo Associates, on behalf of
V.I.P. Floor Covering, requesting approval for all plans required by Section
18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a
warehouse addition to the commercial building located at 29155 Plymouth
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 8/26/96 prepared by DiComo
Associates, Inc., Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plan as received by the Planning Commission
on August 27, 1996 marked Sheet A-2 prepared by DiComo Associates, Inc.,
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; except that the
15137
overhead door fronting on Plymouth Road is to be enclosed and replaced with
a window arrangement in consultation with the Planning Staff
"%B. 3) That the conditions set forth in the Zoning Board of Appeals Resolution
#9609-121 dated August 23, 1996, shall be adhered to.
4) That there will be no neon displays included in the new window.
5) That the entire building shall be painted upon completion of the new
construction.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Elevation Plans
in connection with Petition 92-10-2-39 by J. Alexander Kirk, on behalf of Rio
Bravo Cantina, for the restaurant located at 19265 Victor Parkway in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven
and Eight Mile Roads. It is the former site of the Cantina del Rio
Restaurant. The new restaurant would be located in the building.
Basically what they are doing is changing two of the elevations of the
building. What they would be doing on the south elevation facing
°ow Seven Mile Road is adding a new cookie cutter type parapet wall to the
existing elevation. On the west elevation that faces I-275, they would
be adding a new parapet wall to that side, and a flat canopy type of
structure over the front entrance, which would be held on by cables.
They would be adding new window treatments and new doors. They
would be painting the structure. Basically it would be just the parapet
wall. The east and west elevations basically remain untouched. It
might be painted differently but it would not be changed. (Mr. Scott
presented a new landscaping plan) The original Cantina del Rio had
300 seats. This restaurant will have 277, so they are cutting the
seating. Based on that and the number of employees, they are required
to have 164 spaces, and the site shows 281 so they meet the parking
requirement. The west elevation also shows a sign on the new parapet.
They are allowed to have a 73 sq. ft. wall sign on this elevation. This
sign calculates out to be 27 sq. ft. so they are conforming in signage.
(Mr. Miller presented color renderings)
Mr. McCann: Is there any additional information Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: I have nothing to add.
15138
Mr. David Gilbert:I am with Applebee's International, the parent company. I have a
polarized elevation that has been adapted to incorporate some of the
changes. The primary change is we had exposed part of the structure
on the front patio. Right now there is somewhat of a brightly colored
awning material over the structural roof, and we are going to do the
asphalt shingle in that area. This plan reflects the change of the
material in this front patio area. The other thing, speaking of color, this
rendering is a computerized production of our paint color. So this is an
actual image of the color. As you may be aware, the color of the
building now is a kind of a washed-out tan. That would be the best
description of it. (He further presented the elevation plans)
Mr. Engebretson: I was interested in that patio issue, which I thought that Scott had
mentioned and didn't give any details on, but it all came out well in Mr.
Gilbert's presentation.
Mr. Piercecchi: When we discussed this before, I haven't seen anything to change it in
the write-ups here, we talked about the neon lighting of this facility.
We all must admit that del Rio was the most honky tonk in the City of
Livonia. It was not an asset coming down I-275. It was suggested that
all the neon tubing around that building be removed. Have you given
any thought to that?
Mr. Gilbert: I heard the comment and obviously we gave it thought. I don't
`tow understand this body but I presume it is made up of business
volunteers. I don't know the nature of this body but what you are
doing is to protect the community and you understand the nature of the
business. All we want to do is have a fair-playing field from a
competitive standpoint with respect to the utilization of an element that
was already on the building that is part of our concept, and when we
acquired these assets we didn't really do any research on what was
already there. We recognized we wouldn't change things and therefore
we assumed they had been through whatever levels of approval that
were required to get where they were, and we didn't change anything.
Mr. Piercecchi: As far as that approval is concerned, I think Jack pointed out that neon
kind of snuck through on us. Is that right Jack?
Mr. Engebretson: The degree and the intensity and the magnitude.
Mr. Gilbert: Can you elaborate on that for me? If you ask me what we do
prototypically, this different color and jagged treatment is kind of shock
value, the two colors and the unique pattern. Is that part of it more
offensive than neon itself? Because I have seen neon in Livonia, and I
15139
am here to learn and I certainly want to cooperate and comply, and
above all else I would like to get approval so I can move on.
' or
Mr. Piercecchi: I personally can't see how neon lighting running around the tops of
buildings brings in customers. If you said you need a sign advertising, I
can understand that. Otherwise why not do the whole building in neon,
but it is a honky tonk look and none of us like it. Nobody likes it, and
obviously it wasn't that successful for business or del Rio, the
corporation, would not be going out.
Mr. Gilbert: Well you brought up a lot of points. Actually it was quite successful
initially and they had many other restaurants that were quite successful
in their first year of operation. Bob Evans, that company is a very good
Bob Evans Restaurant operator but they are not very good at operating
the type of restaurants that we operate, and that is why they have
failed. I have looked at their sales records and by anybody's standards
it was a very, very, successful restaurant. Part of the thing about
bringing guests into the restaurant is not about, our concept is not
honky tonk, per se. It is a fun restaurant, and we want to be festive.
Again, we have never done this type of neon but we have neon in the
majority of our restaurants, and seek it out at every opportunity that we
can because we believe it creates some identity, again red and yellow
are not in our identity. We use a turquoise or some other colors that
are much more pleasing or subtle than this. Again, I didn't want to
',ter open a can of worms. I franldy have never sought out to get neon with
a chainsaw look with different colors. We have never tried that, and
from the sound of things I don't think we will begin.
Mr. Piercecchi: We have a record here of sorts about discouraging a lot of neon, and as
a rule the Council has supported us when we removed it. I would like
to request that you remove it.
Mr. Gilbert: Can I ask the question if we proposed a limited version of this or a
different version, again the colors that are red and yellow, the jagged
pattern rather than some other pattern that is acceptable, would that be
kind of a compromise that I could seek.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can only speak for myself. In my personal opinion I don't think neon
lighting on the outside is ever in good taste. That is how I feel about it.
The board basically shares that with me but if you are interested in
presenting something that may eliminate what I call the honky-tonk
look, perhaps we should table this and I so move Mr. Chairman. Can
we table this?
Mr. McCann: No, there are several people that have asked for the floor.
15140
Mr. Morrow: I think I know where you are coming from as having the building
visible. Personally I like the new treatment as opposed to what we
have currently there. I think that is a leg up and I think you are trying
to make sure you are seen. We do have an aversion to neon but I am
surprised because with that pond there you probably have one of the
prettiest sites in Livonia, and I am just surprised you haven't used some
type of lightscaping to highlight that pond and highlight the building
with lights as opposed to this gaudy neon that goes around the
building. We certainly are not trying to hide you from view. We are
just saying there is a softer, more-pleasing way to architecturally bring
out your building and the landscaping around it, at least in my view,
and we are not here to detract from your ability to have a successful
operation.
Mr. Gilbert: One of the things from a time standpoint, one of my requests was not
only to hopefully gain approval to go to the City Council but a waiver
to accelerate the process. May I request that if there is a motion to
table or deny that I be allowed to address whatever other open items
you may have before the door is closed. I have come a long ways
specifically to meet with you and I would just like the opportunity to
try and figure it out. To be quite honest with you, if I have to take the
neon off the building in order to get your approval, we can and will. It
is all a matter of judgment and business decisions because using
incandescent or mercury vapor or other optional lighting sources on the
building, presents a completely different challenge, particularly when
you try and use natural light inside the restaurant as we do. When you
light the building up, you throw light inside the restaurant through the
windows. When you light it down, you have fixtures to do that. We
are very good at it, and we have restaurants without neon and we light
them. Again, if that is what it took to gain approval, we are going to
figure it out and succeed. My thing was trying to blend all of that. We
are spending money where we don't need to spend money for
landscaping, and we will light the landscaping.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think Mr. Morrow really put it very nicely in reference to your facility
about the lake area and that. That has not been utilized. That would
be the greatest attraction you could have. If a motion is in order, I can
make it.
Mr. McCann: There are two other people ahead of you.
Mr. Alanskas: I just don't want you to go over it again but the building as it now
stands, and what you propose to do now is a dramatic and wonderful
change with your color scheme and the way the building is; however, I
15141
know you are trying to get the west elevation so it can be seen from I-
275, and I, as one Commissioner, have no problem with you keeping
- the neon just in the window at the front entrance. Just so you know we
are not picking on you, we had a petitioner about four months ago that
wanted to put a building on Plymouth Road, a gorgeous building, and
he said you cannot see my building. They wanted to put the entire roof
line with neon, and we said definitely not, you don't need it, and to this
day you drive by there that place is always full. It is seen very well. He
gets customers by two things, service and good food. If you have
them, I am sure you will get customers. Believe me you don't need
neon there but say a year from now if you think you have a hardship,
you can always come back to ZBA and try to get some neon.
Mr. Gilbert: The Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes. I think we should say try this the way it is, see how it works out
for you, then if you have a problem, go from there because I really
don't think you need it. It is a nice looking building.
Mr. Gilbert: One of the things we are going to try, this whole pond issue, I met with
the general contractor today and though I know that is a functioning
detention facility or whatever, one of my questions is, is there any way
that we could increase the consistent volume of it because right now it
.. is slow. It doesn't look as good as if it were up a little bit. I don't
No
know if that can be done but I could see us doing a fountain there. I
can see us lighting that and doing things of that nature.
Mr. Alanskas: John, am I correct in that assessment if they want to come back for
different changes on the building a year from now, they can do so?
Mr. Nagy: They always have the right to come back for changes.
Mr. Gilbert: In that process if we went forward without neon on the building and
along with whatever other issues we have to address to gain approval,
if we did that and then we were dissatisfied with our results and
thought that the change would make a difference, would we start at the
Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. McCann: It depends on what you want. If you wanted to come back with the
site plan, you would have to come back to us.
Mr. LaPine: I have a number of questions. Can I assume the color I see there is
basically going to be the color I am going to see when the building is
finished?
15142
Mr. Gilbert: Yes sir, absolutely.
No , Mr. LaPine: It is a real approval over what we had. The second question I have,
seeing I wasn't here at the last meeting. Is this still a Mexican
restaurant. What is Rio Bravo? I have never been in one.
Mr. Gilbert: Rio Bravo is Tex-Mex restaurant. Cantina del Rio actually tried to
copy our company and our concept with our restaurant. They tried to
buy our company at one time, five or six or seven years ago, so there
are a lot of things similar from the standpoint of food and what not. As
far as the big exception, there are all kinds of varieties of quality and
service and we are the best in the business, bar none. Atmosphere, we
are extremely concerned about high quality. We electively overspend
anybody. We have never had to meet anybody's landscape criteria.
We have always exceeded it. We take special care and really are
concerned about what we are doing and how we are doing it but that
shows in our food and service as well.
Mr. LaPine: Well I certainly am glad to hear that. Your other restaurants, how
many of these types of restaurants do you have around the country?
Mr. Gilbert: This will be our twentieth.
.. Mr. LaPine: Out of those 19 other ones, do they have neon on them? When you
Ne
build from scratch, a brand new building, do you always include a
certain amount of neon?
Mr. Gilbert: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: In what color?
Mr. Gilbert: The primary colors are rose and turquoise.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any renderings or any pictures where we can see that?
Mr. Gilbert: I don't have the rose. I have the turquoise. The blue on the outside of
your folder is the turquoise.
Mr. LaPine: That neon there, it doesn't look like it is over all the building, not
around the cookie cutter or anything like that?
Mr. Gilbert: No. Prototypically from a neon standpoint on this building, we would
use some accents. We don't border the whole building. We don't
want it to look like a fast-food restaurant, and we really just add that to
add some festivity.
15143
Mr. LaPine: At one time when this development was gong to be there, I was always
Now under the impression that that pond out there was a pond that would be
filled with water all the time, and I agree with you, it goes up and down
according to the rainfall, etc. I think, as Mr. Morrow brought up, I
always visualized a pond in there with colored lights shooting through,
which I think would really accent the restaurant and drive people to
that location. I think that is something you should look at in the future.
I think it would be a great asset to your building and also to that whole
area. It would be like a focal point. The next question I have, from a
marketing standpoint, is this location, being off the beaten track, down
off Seven Mile Road, is that a hard restaurant to market?
Mr. Gilbert: Yes sir, it is. You have to be very, very good. Anyone using neon
actually uses it as a hook, and some people it will offend but others
have curiosity, interest, whatever. The deal is if you have guests go
through all the shenanigans to get there, all that time, you have to
reward them with outstanding service and outstanding food, and that
just doesn't happen.
Mr. LaPine: I can understand all your problems and I think some of the other
Commissioners brought up some good points here as far as neon. I am
not totally against neon but some of the other restaurants where we
`, thought we agreed to certain things, they went overboard and it makes
us now kind of back off because we are worried about what might
happen. I think the solution here is what Mr. Morrow brought up,
maybe we can take off the neon, see what happens, and then if you feel
you may need some accents on the building to draw in the crowds, we
will help you. I, for one, want you to take over the building. I don't
want another empty restaurant building in Livonia. We have enough
problems with new restaurants coming in, and if we can't keep the old
restaurants open, why bring in new ones. I am here to help you as
much as I can, and I think your plan is very good, and I hope you are
successful.
Mr. Gilbert: We have never closed a restaurant, and we have converted nine
restaurants.
Mr. LaPine: I am glad to hear that.
Mr. Engebretson: When do you plan to open Mr. Gilbert?
Mr. Gilbert: October 22. Is there any way, we would like that not be published.
Mr. McCann: You just told our whole audience.
15144
Mr. Gilbert: We like to open slow. We don't like to hype our restaurants. We
�., know we are going to do the business. We like to do an exceptional
job of handling it.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you will do all of those things. I was interested for a couple of
reasons. Number one, to see what our real options are in terms of
trying to work out the more linear, more subtle, type of use of neon
that you referred to earlier and/or lightscaping like you are doing at the
Dearborn store versus disconnecting it and reconsidering and rethinking
the whole process somewhere down the road. I think you have done a
great job. I think what you have done with that building is substantial
in improvement, and I share Mr. LaPine's opinion that it is in
everyone's best interest to see that building occupied as soon as
possible. I have no interest in delaying you. I am interested though, in
making sure we get the job done right. I, for one, would be willing to
support this proposal as presented tonight, and to also support the
waiver of the seven days to accelerate your move to the City Council if
you were to modify the exterior plan to remove that neon and agree to
a condition of approval that the addition of any exterior neon in the
future would require site plan approval of both the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Then I think you have a green light
and we have done our job from the standpoint of things we are
genuinely concerned about. We have no interest in interfering with
your business plan, with your strategy or with your success. We want
you to be successful at this location. I happen to live fairly close to this
location and my wife and I love this kind of food that you will be
serving, and we will be regular patrons with or without the neon but I
am really anxious to do all of this in a proper manner from both points
of view. So I hope you understand that none of this is intended to be
harassment toward you or to be inconsiderate. We just want to get it
done right so that we will all be happy with it because let me tell you
every time I drive down Seven Mile Road and look over there, to use
Dan's words, I would be more harsh, to use his honky tonk term is
putting it politely, I think. It really upsets me, and I don't want
anything to do with a repeat of that process.
Mr. Gilbert: May I ask a question? Did I understand that we have not requested the
approved amount of square footage of signage on the building?
Mr. Miller: You are allowed 73 sq. ft.
Mr. Gilbert: And we are using?
Mr. Miller: 27 sq. ft.
15145
Mr. Gilbert: Is there any possibility, again when I ask this question if I am
encumbering the timeliness of this, then please let me know.
Mr. McCann: What you could do is have your sign package come back later. You
could get your building elevation plans approved tonight and
forwarded, and then come back with your sign applications whenever
we could get you on the agenda. We could do that. I have a couple of
questions myself. According to the prints, you are not planning on
putting little flags along the top or back like the Alamo?
Mr. Gilbert: No.
Mr. McCann: I have seen it before. That is what we try to do. The more questions
we ask, we try to avoid conflict. I don't have quite as much problem
with the neon probably because I own a restaurant. I think what I
would like to see is see it get modified and just some accents. In order
to do that, we need to table it, as Mr. Piercecchi stated, to better look
at it. What you can do now is make a decision and let us know
whether you want us to go forward without the neon lighting tonight
and send it to the City Council. I don't think anyone would have an
objection to waiving the seven days but we need to get feedback from
you if that is what you want.
Mr. Gilbert: That is what I want. Again I would concede the neon to accelerate the
process because we are also trying to do this on a timely basis for us.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, assuming that we move forward with this in the manner that
we have been discussing in the last few minutes, is there any way that
we can find ourselves looking back on this in the future with regret? Is
there any way this can, I am not questioning Mr. Gilbert's integrity, but
you know people come and go, businesses change hands, etc. Is there
any way we can make this commitment more solid than it is or is it
adequate in your opinion?
Mr. Nagy: I think it is adequate. Just like where Cantina del Rio left off, they are
coming in trying to alter the previous approved plan. They are back
before you. Whether they come or go or whoever follows, they must
come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval
to modify elevation plans or any other previously approved plans.
Mr. McCann: We also have a very competent Council which you will get to know
very well in the coming weeks and they will discuss very many of these
same items with you, and I think whatever resolution comes of it, you
15146
are doing a wonderful job here. At this point we will look for a
motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-155-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the Revised Elevation Plans in connection with Petition
92-10-2-39 by J. Alexander Kirk, on behalf of Rio Bravo Cantina, for the
restaurant located at 19265 Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Cl dated May 24, 1993, as revised,
prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlag Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A6 & A7 dated 8/20/96
prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlag Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the Landscape& Irrigation Plan marked Sheet L1 dated July 31, 1996
prepared by Manley Land Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
't.. 4. That the 27 sq. ft. sign, as shown on the approved Building Elevation Plan
Sheet A6, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That all exterior neon on the building will be removed;
6. That the addition of any exterior neon at any time in the future shall require
the approval of both the City Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-156-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
Revised Elevation Plans in connection with Petition 92-10-2-39 by J.
Alexander Kirk, on behalf of Rio Bravo Cantina, for the restaurant located
at 19265 Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
15147
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
rr..
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by First Federal of Michigan requesting approval for a ground sign
for the bank located at 37077 Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
17.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Newburgh and Fitzgerald Avenue. It is located next to a Big Boy
Restaurant and the Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center. The site is
zoned OS so the site is permitted one 10 sq. ft. identification sign either
to be used as a wall sign or a ground sign. They are proposing a 28 sq.
ft. ground sign and there also are two existing wall signs on the
building so therefore they are over the permitted signage. They had to
go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance to go forward
with this. They have; therefore what is before you is what was granted
by the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are proposing a 28 sq. ft.
ground sign to be located on the northeast corner of the site. Also on
the site there is an existing 80 sq. ft. 25 foot high pole sign, which will
be removed and this will take its place. So they are taking down a non-
conforming sign and they are also putting up a non-conforming sign but
it is not as large as the previous sign.
Mr. Morrow: At the Zoning Board level, was any landscaping removed such as trees
or anything like that for the visibility of the sign?
Mr. Miller: It wasn't on the Zoning Board case.
Mr. Morrow: Because when I site checked it, I wasn't sure if they were going to be
able to see it with some of the existing landscaping, and they didn't
cover that?
Mr. Miller: No.
Mr. Morrow: Then I guess we make the assumption that things will remain the same.
On a motion duly made by Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-157-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by First Federal of
Michigan requesting approval for a ground sign for the bank located at
37077 Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, be approved
subject to the following condition:
15148
1) That the Sign Plan dated 6/6/96 prepared by Brilliant Electric Sign Co.,
Ne.. Ltd., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Metro Detroit Signs, on behalf of Office Depot Plaza, requesting
approval for two business center ground signs for the commercial center located at
29290 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt
Roads. It is kitty corner from the Wonderland Mall. They are
proposing two business center signs at 40 sq. ft., and one would be on
the Middlebelt side and one would be on the Plymouth Road side. This
site because it has at least 200 feet of frontage along two major
thoroughfares, Middlebelt and Plymouth, they are allowed two business
center signs so these signs are conforming. They are 40 sq. ft. in size,
and they will set back 11 feet from Middlebelt and 11 feet from
Plymouth Road. The one off Middlebelt will be on the south side of
the drive off Middlebelt, and the one off Plymouth will be
approximately in the middle of the berm area between the drive of the
bank and the drive into the shopping center. It is a conforming sign
package.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? We also need to address the base. I didn't see
anything in our notes.
Paul Deters: The manufacturer, I had a chance to speak to him after the study
meeting. I did want to reiterate that they have agreed to a brick base
and just couldn't get a prototypical drawing set up for that yet but we
will definitely be doing that prior to the next meeting.
Mr. McCann: Do you know what color the brick will be?
Mr. Deters: They would like to have it close to the same colors as the existing
fascia of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a question in reference to the setback. It says 11 feet from
Plymouth Road. Don't you mean 11 feet from the sidewalk?
Mr. Miller: Yes it is from the sidewalk. They are required to have 10 but they are
going 11.
15149
Mr. Morrow: It just kind of goes along with what I said in the prior one, do you
know if you are going to remove any of the trees or plantings along the
*ow berm there?
Mr. Deters: At this time I think on the elevation along Plymouth Road it may be
necessary but along Middlebelt there is adequate visibility at that point.
Mr. Morrow: What I would like to do is make it a part of the conditions that if it is
required to remove some of the larger trees, that something be put in at
a lower profile to augment the berm but I can understand you don't
want to put up a new sign and they can't see it. Also, at least from my
checking, it looks like the landscaped area should be reiterated to keep
it in a good condition. I know we talked about the parking lot last
time, that the management company was going to do that, and I want
to make sure that we keep the landscape area in a healthy condition
also as a part of this package.
Mr. Deters: In fact Office Depot is taking it upon themselves to pay for the
repaving of the entire lot.
Mr. Morrow: I know they are trying to put their best foot forward so I just want to
be sure that if trees are removed that something goes in to augment it
at a lower profile because I know it is irrigated, so if you would convey
that to the people at Office Depot.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to understand the location of the second sign on
Middlebelt. Is that being located in the first parking space there?
Mr. Deters: No there is about a 4 1/2 foot wide strip that goes in just beyond the
length of where the first parking space would be, and it is an existing
greenbelt.
Mr. Engebretson: It is adequate to locate the sign?
Mr. Deters: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: I took notice of that but I thought you might probably take out part of
that first parking space to give the sign a little better protection.
Mr. Deters: When we looked at that, that was one of the things that is a possibility
but upon reviewing the site we feel there is adequate room to put that
in there. If there is some concern the Commission may have as to the
safety of that or the proximity that sign may have to some cars entering
and exiting the shopping center, we felt it would probably be okay, but
if necessary they would be willing to move it into that first parking
15150
space that is there. I think we mentioned at the study meeting parking
for that site is really not an issue.
Mr. Engebretson: How does the staff feel about that? What would you prefer?
Mr. Nagy: I would prefer to see the parking space removed and the sign centered
in the expanded area and additional base landscaping around that area.
I think it would really complement the center better and the sign and
make a better statement for identification.
Mr. LaPine: John, does Samuels still own that property?
Mr. Nagy: Yes he does.
Mr. LaPine: I am glad to hear tonight about the parking lot because when I was out
there that was one of the problems. I was under the impression that
when we approved Office Depot they were to repave all that parking
lot and fix it up so I am glad to hear they are going to do it, and let me
also say I have been in that Office Depot three times now and bought
some items and they need all the help they can get. I don't even know
how they are going to stay in business to be honest with you. They are
in bad shape. Every time I have been in there, there has been no one in
there. There certainly is no action in that corner any more and
hopefully it is going to help Office Depot. I hope it does. I have my
doubts but I hope it does help.
Mr. McCann: I do agree completely with Mr. Engeretson. I can just see that sign will
block someone's view of a car coming in and create accidents. It has
to have some setback at that intersection so when you pull up you can
see who is coming and going. Can we just amend that and have the
plans filed before the seven days?
Mr. Nagy: Sure.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-158-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Metro Detroit Signs, on
behalf of Office Depot Plaza, requesting approval for two business center
ground signs for the commercial center located at 29290 Plymouth Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
15151
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Metro Detroit Signs, as revised, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, provided that the base of the sign
shall be constructed using brick to match the building color.
2) That the sign along Middlebelt Road shall be set back 11 feet from
sidewalk, eliminating one parking space, with the existing berm widened.
3) That any landscaping or trees that may be removed, shall be replaced by
low profile material.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Landscape Plan in
connection with Petition 96-2-8-2, which received Planning Commission and
City Council approval to construct an office building on property located at
19575 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven
and Eight Mile Roads. It is the site of Valassis Communications new
office building that is going up at this time. As a condition of the site
plan approval it was conditioned by the Planning Commission and City
Council that the landscape plan come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval, and that
is what is before you this evening. A large portion of this site is
heavily wooded and a large portion of the site will remain untouched
and they will leave the existing vegetation alone. The parking lot will
have new landscaping within it and in some areas around it to screen
it. Near the building they will have a combination of canopy trees,
evergreens, flowering trees and shrubs to landscape the area around
the building. There is also a patio in the rear that will be landscaped.
There are also 15 type of canopy trees to screen this site from I-275.
It is a pretty detailed landscape plan.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy is there any other information?
Mr. Nagy: No except to say they have done a good job to provide for adequate
landscaping.
Mr. McCann: Does the petitioner have anything additional to say?
Deb Cruz: I am with Harley Ellington Design, and we are here representing
Valassis. We are trying to put in landscaping for an office building.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything in addition to Mr. Miller's comments?
15152
Ms. Cruz: We have also done a blowup of what the landscaping would be like
`,,,., right up by the building. We put in shrubs all around the building,
canopy trees coming up to the drop off area, and a box of flowering
trees in the center. Also shrubs and trees in the back and the existing
vegetation you can see in the back of the proposed building.
Mr. LaPine: Not being a landscape person, what is a canopy tree?
Ms. Cruz: A canopy tree would be a large tree like a maple or ash.
Mr. Nagy: It is another way of saying a shade tree.
Mr. Alanskas: How is your schedule coming? I was there Sunday and that building
looks like it is coming along pretty well.
Ms. Cruz: I think we are right on schedule as far as I know.
Mr. Alanskas: It is going to be a fantastic building.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-159-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 96-2-8-2,
which received Planning Commission and City Council approval to construct
an office building on property located at 19575 Victor Parkway in the North
1/2 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets SP-1, SP-2 & SP-3 dated 8/27/96
prepared by Harley Ellington Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new landscaped and
seeded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
15153
#8-160-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
`, Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness
of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the Landscape Plan in
connection with Petition 96-2-8-2, which received Planning Commission and
City Council approval to construct an office building on property located at
19575 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2 of Section 6
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 730th Regular Meeting
held on August 27, 1996 was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
fee144:
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
ATTEST: _ (I)/� {�w
i
.Jmes C. McCann, Chairman
Jg