Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-04-03MINUTES OF THE 942ntl REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 3, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 942n° Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:30 p.m. Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a pefition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has len 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. Since I was not able to be here at the last meeting, I would like to welcome Ms. Vartoogian to the Commission as its newest member. ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-02-08-06 S & K INVESTMENTS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-02- 08-06 submitted by S & K Investments, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a general office park consisting of three separate buildings on properties at 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Apel 3, 2007 23967 Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast % of Section 21. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a three -building office complex on properties located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road. The subject site consists of two adjoining parcels, 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road. The combined size of the two parcels is 1.78 acres with a total frontage of 132 feel on Farmington Road by a depth of approximately 584 feel. Immediately south of the subject properly is the parking lot of the Bright House Networks building. Bordering the subject site along its west property line is the Silver Village senior citizen housing community, which is zoned R-9, Housing for the Elderly. Directly north of and adjacent to the subject properly are two adjoining parcels zoned OS, Office Services. These properties recently received site plan approval for the construction of a three -building office complex. Further north is a private road (Luther Lane) that provides access to the nursing facility known as the Livonia Woods Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (formerly Lutheran Heritage Village). This nursing home sits behind the properties that front along Farmington Road. The properly immediately north of Luther Lane contains the Centennial Plaza North office development consisting of two office buildings. Directly east of the subject properly, across Farmington Road, is the Heritage Commons office complex. The subject site is in the process of being rezoned (Petition 2006-07-01-06) from R-2 (One Family Residential) to OS (Office Services). The Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing on October 3, 2006, recommended approving the requested rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning at its December 4, 2006, Regular Meeting. Second Reading and a Roll Call Vole are scheduled at the time the site plan is presented to City Council for action. Review of this petition is based on the assumption that the subject properties will be rezoned to OS. The submitted site plan shows that the three proposed office buildings would be positioned behind one another back from Farmington Road. The front building, identified on the plans as "Building 100,' would sit 40 feel back from Farmington Road. Forty feel is the minimum required front yard setback for buildings in an OS zoning district. This building would be one story in height and the smallest of the three buildings at a total of 5,218 square feel in size. The next building, identified as "Building 200," would be situated directly behind 'Building 100" The two buildings would be separated by a distance of approximately 82 feel. Building 200 would be one story in height and the largest of the three buildings at a total of Apel 3, 2007 23968 7,051 square feel in size. The third building, idenfified as 'Building 300,' would be located at the rear of the property. Between this building and the west or rear lot line would be a 45 foot greenbelt. Building 300 would be one story in height and just slightly smaller than Building 200 at a total of 7,040 square feet in size. According to the site plan, all three buildings would be occupied by general office type uses. Parking for the development would be situated along the north properly line and within the areas between the buildings. Seventy-seven parking spaces are required, and they are providing 86 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance allows office centers that contain over 15,000 square feel of gross floor area up to 90% of the required parking spaces striped at 9 feel in width by 20 feel in length. Subsequently, in order to provide an adequate number of visitor and customer spaces, no less than 10% of the total parking has to be 10 feet in width. This development qualifies for 9 fool spaces because the combined gross floor area of the three proposed office buildings would be 19,309 square feet. The site plan notes that 56 or 65% of the provided parking spaces would be striped at 9 feel wide. Access to the site would be by a single two-way drive off Farmington Road. Slone water runoff for this development would be handled underground. The plan illustrates and notes an underground storm water detention easement along the northern section of the property. Proposed landscaping equals 20% of the site, which exceeds the required 15%. Because this site abuts residential (Silver Village) along the west property line, a screening wall or greenbelt would be required along this area. The petitioner is requesting approval to substitute a permanent greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall along the rear lot line. The proposed greenbelt between Building 300 and the west property line would be 45 feet in width. A note on the landscape plan indicates that 35 feet of the greenbelt would be classified a "preservation area,' meaning the existing trees and undergrowth would be left undisturbed. The architecture of all three proposed buildings would be basically the same. All three proposed buildings would be constructed out of a combination of brick and cast stone. The cast stone would have the appearance of limestone. Design elements would include flat roof construction with step parapets and face wall variations. All three one-story structures would have a maximum height, measured from the finished grade to the highest peak, of approximately 18 feet. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 21, 2007, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering April 3, 2007 23969 Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time, and the legal description is comect. No additional right of way is required. The detention facilities will require the approval of Wayne County under their Storm Water Management Ordinance. The drive approach to Farmington Road will also require County approval." The eller is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 12, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a general office park consisting of three separate buildings on property located at the above -referenced addresses. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (2) Any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (3) This Division requests that 'Fire Lane - No Parking' be posted on the south side of the two buildings on the entrance drive. (4) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (5) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of 53 feet wall- to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane. (6) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words 'Fire Lane - No Parking' painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 2, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Kzirian Office Park. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 22, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 27, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The number of parking spaces shown appears to be sufficient for this use. However, the 9 -foot wide parking spaces are prohibited for medical offices and may be used as designated employee parking if approved by both Planning and Council. The Commission and/or Council may wish to further specify how the 9 foot wide spaces are controlled and marked for employee use or that the 10 foot wide spaces April 3, 2007 23970 are designated for customer use only. All spaces that are 10 feet wide must be in close proximity to the entrances. This will require spaces to be redesigned as the cument plan is not in compliance. (2) This plan does not make provision for a dumpster(s) ordumpsterenclosure(s). The Commission and/or Council may wish to determine how trash disposal will be maintained at this site. (3) Any rooftop mechanical equipment must be property screened and meet all codes. (4) Signage has not been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Wilshaw: One question regarding the letter from the Fire Department. Item 3 in their letter states 'that 'Fire Lane - No Parking' be posted on the south side of the two buildings on the entrance drive." The south side of the two buildings is basically right on the properly line. Is that a typo? Mr. Taormina: I think it is intended to be along the north side of the buildings, which would be the south side of the drive. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Vartoogian: With regard to the trash dumpster, this new site plan we received shows a trash enclosure on it. Is that accurate on this plan? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I'm going to refer that to the architect. They do show an enclosure. I'll note that it shows scored block as being the exterior material. We would prefer that to be a material that would match the building. Also, instead of a wood fmme gate, we would prefer that steel gates be provided. I believe the approving resolution that has been presented to you this evening does include those changes. Ms. Vartoogian: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Mark, looking at the plan, I really can't follow this parking. They have some nines, some tens. I dont know what it all means. Anyways, the main question I have, the Inspection Department is talking about these 9 -fool wide spaces designated for medical. Now, it is my understanding that the front building is going to be for real estate. I don't know what the other two buildings are going to be. My question is, the 10 -fool wide spaces, which are supposed to be in close proximity to the entrance, will they have a sign out there that this is for customer Apel 3, 2007 23971 parking only? Will the 9 -fool spaces have signs on them saying employees parking? How do we control that? Mr. Taormina: I would suggest that if there are fewer visitor spaces than there are employee parking spaces, i.e., a fewer number of 10 -fool spaces as opposed to 9 -fool spaces, that those would be marked for visitor parking. Those do have to be in close proximity to the entrances. That is not the case in a couple of areas on the site, and that's what Mr. Bishop was referring to - that there would have to be some changes to relocate or adjust those visitor parking spaces. Mr. La Pine: Will that be taken care of before the final plan is approved? Mr. Taormina: Yes. It is a condition that is included in your resolution, and that is something that should be modified prior to going to Council. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Richard Zischke, Richard Zischke Associates, 18324 Middlebelt Road, Livonia. I'm the architect for the petitioner. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Zischke: No. I'm just here to answer any questions that you might have. I do notice that the dumpster is, and I will say it's mislabeled. That should be the same material as the building, which would be a red brick. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: I wonder if Mark could show us exactly where the dumpster is located. Mr. Taormina: It would be located between the two westerly buildings, closer to the center building on the south side of the site. Mr. Morrow: Is there site lighting shown on this plan? Mr. Taormina: It is not shown on this plan. That is something that was requested of the applicant - to provide a detail for that site lighting. Maybe he has new information this evening. Mr. Zischke: Yes. That's the correct location. That's where we plan to provide the dumpster. We removed a parking space so we Apel 3, 2007 23972 could provide that dumpsler. So this plan that you are showing now is a new plan from the original submitted. Mr. Morrow: The question was, do you have site lighting indicated on the plan? Mr. Zischke: Yes, we have. In fad, I brought with me tonight a revised site plan indicating site lighting. I can review it. There will be a pole light at the entrance along Farmington Road. There will be a pole light in the large island between Building 200 and 300. The remaining lighting will be from the building itself by using wall packs with a short throw so that we don't throw light off the properly. There will be no lighting, other than security lighting, behind Building 300. There will be very small lights beside each door, which is required by the Building Department. There will be no major lighting behind that third building. Mr. Morrow: Thirdly, will the 10-foot wide parking spaces be double striped? Mr. Zischke: Yes. Mr. Morrow: A question for Mark. Mark, do the 9-fool spaces require double striping? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Morrow: So all parking spaces will be double striped? Mr. Zischke: Yes. And we will work with the Building Department to iron out any discrepancies there might be between the 9-fool and the 10-fool spaces. It seems to me the 9-foot is not to be used or it sounds like it's not to be used in the medical condition. This is basically right now general office. Mr. Morrow: That's what I had picked up from the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Vartoogian: I just noticed on the site plan that there's a note that the titre work hasn't been provided; therefore, any possible easements or encumbrances that affect the property might not be shown on this. Has title work been done? Mr. Zischke: Just second. Lel me ask the structural engineer. Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 SchoolcraR, Livonia. This titre work note is in regard to a boundary survey. It's just a standard note that when we did the boundary, we didn't have title work. There were no easements evident on the property by inspections, and Apel 3, 2007 23973 there were none that we knew of record that would affect the use of the property. Ms. Vartoogian: So the title work has been done? Mr. Donnan: We haven't got it yet. No. Ms. Vartoogian: So it hasn't been done? Mr. Donnan: I don't know if it's been done or not, but we don't have it. There is absolutely no evidence of easements on the property. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Ms. Vartoogian, that would be covered thoroughly at the Council level. Its good to mention it, but they will catch that. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Mr. La Pine: Are these buildings going to have sprinkler systems in them? Mr. Zischke: No. They are small enough buildings that they are not required, and this type of use group is not required. So we're not providing automatic fire suppression. Mr. LaPine: The next question I have, and Mark can answer this for me - the farthest western building, that's the 7,000 square foot one. If fire apparatus had to get behind the building, is there a road that goes behind it? Mr. Taormina: There would be no road. Those would be landscaped areas. No, that is not unique in terms of access to the buildings. While they may not have complete perimeter coverage with their vehicles, they could still gel access. Mr. LaPine: Would each one of these buildings have a fire hook up on them, or would the fire apparatus have to come in all the way from Farmington Road, or is there one in the middle of the project? How is that handled? Mr. Taormina: I can't answer that specifically. That is something that would take place at the time of plan review with the Inspection Department in terms of precisely where all the hydrants would be located. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Apel 3, 2007 23974 Mr. Wilshaw: I just wanted to ask the petitioner if he had brought material samples with him. Mr. Zischke: No, I did not. I do apologize for that but like I say, we're using a red brick, which is on the top of the building. The bottom is a manmade limestone and it is exactly the same color of Indiana limestone. The coping and the canopy over the front door are bronze anodized aluminum. Those are basically the three materials that are being used. The windows are aluminum. They are anodized. As of now, we're looking at what is called a redwood, which is a brownish red color which accents very nicely with the red brick and the limestone. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And the color rendering that's on the screen up here is pretty closely representative of what we'll see? Mr. Zischke: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #0432-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-08-06 submitted by S & K Investments, Inc. L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a general office park consisting of three separate buildings on properties at 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 21, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated March 26, 2007, as revised, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked LP-1 dated February 20, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to supplemental plantings along the rear of the property, where necessary, to be determined by the Planning Staff, to effectively screen the building from the adjacent senior residential complex; April 3, 2007 23975 3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. 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; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet Number PRE -1, PRE -2 and PRES-3 prepared by R.A. Zischke Architect, as received by the Planning Commission on February 27, 2007, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; Apel 3, 2007 23976 12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated March 12, 2007; 13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 15. 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; and, 16. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina: If I could request the maker of the motion to consider a slight change to Condition #2 related to the Landscape Plan, and that is that supplemental plantings be provided where necessary along the rear of the property, or the westerly end of the properly, to screen that area from the adjacent residential structure. That is something that would be determined in the field by staff upon completion of the clearing and grading in that area. Ms. Smiley: Excellent. It is acceptable. Mrs. McDermott: Yes. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. April 3, 2007 23977 ITEM #2 PETITION 2007 -03 -SN -05 BAR LOUIE TAVERN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 03SN-05 submitted by Tischco Signs, on behalf of Bar Louie Tavern, requesting approval for awning signage for the restaurant at 37716 Six Mile Road in the Laurel Park Place shopping center, on property located on the northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast I/ of Section 7. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for awning signage for the Bar Louie Tavern, which would occupy one of the tenant spaces of the Laurel Park Place shopping center. This shopping center is located on the northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road. Laurel Park Place falls under the classification of a Regional Shopping Center. A Regional Center is a planned complex of buildings containing a total gross leaseable area of 500,000 square feel or more and shared common parking area. The total retail space of Laurel Park Place exceeds 500,000 square feet. Bar Louie's exterior entrance would front on Six Mile Road. The most recent occupant of this unit was Tony Roma's restaurant. The petitioner is proposing to install a fabric -type awning over the outdoor eating area in front of the restaurant. Presently the area contains a wooden trellis. This trellis would be removed and replaced with an awning that would exle nd out from the building approximately 10 feet. The fabric color of the awning would be black and the lettering of the sign would be white. According to documentation submitted in the sign package, the maximum readable distance of the proposed sign on the awning would be 200 feet. The restaurant has already been issued a permit for a 67 square fool wall sign. This wall sign was considered a replacement sign by the Inspection Department because the previous tenant, Tony Roma's, had a similar size wall sign when it was in operation. Bar Louie's wall sign would be attached to the wall over the awning. Wall or awning signage for each building in a Regional Center is based on the length of the building's storefront but cannot exceed 500 square feet. There is no limit on the number of signs or any specifications as to where the signs have to be located on the building. The amount of existing exterior wall signage on Laurel Park Place already exceeds the 500 square feet of allowable sign area. They are proposing five awning signs at a total of 23 square feel in area. The wording of the signs is "Lunch, Dinner, Cocktail Lounge, Late Night Dining and Open Daily." Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Apel 3, 2007 23978 Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated March 26, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request received March 14, 2007, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This site is part of a Regional Shopping Center, Laurel Park Place. The only signage permitted would be a direct replacement of existing previously approved signage. Therefore, any changes or additions will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (as this Regional Center has no signage availability) and approval from the Commission and/or Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Terry Hancock, Tischco Signs, 2107 Henry Sl., Muskegon, Michigan 49441. I'm representing Bar Louie. I'm a signage contractor, Tischco Signs. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Mr. Hancock: Well, you know, basically what we're doing here is replacing a wooden trellis awning that is approximately the same dimensions. I believe it's 8 foot wide. What we're looking at now is extending it another couple feet, but essentially it's around the same size. The wooden trellis awning really is not only out of dale, but it doesn't really represent the best image that Bar Louie wishes to project with their corporate image. Awnings play a very big part in their corporate image, and I believe that these aluminum awnings look great. I mean they look fantastic. As far as the actual signage on there, I understand that originally Tony Roma's had approval for a 90 square fool sign. What we have here with the oval sign is 67 square fool. We have the 1 by 15 sign underneath it, which is 15 square feel. So we're looking at 82 square feet there, which leaves a little bit. We're a little bit under what was previously approved. Obviously, what we've got there, as Mark pointed out, is now 103 square feet. So we're talking a 13 square fool increase. I guess my client is opening in four weeks time. Its important. It really is very important I have that awning. Obviously by now it's unlikely, even if we do get approval, that we're going to be able to have the outdoor patio awning up there for the opening of the store. And of course this is an outdoor eating area so people will be able to sit down under Apel 3, 2007 23979 cover. So I'm here to answer any questions you might have, and I'm hoping that you might look upon this favorably. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: Is Bar Louie a chain? Is there another Bar Louie around? Mr. Hancock: Yes, ma'am, it is. In fad, what I should have done . . I'm happy to pass this around. We recently did a store for them. They are a national store. They have 28 stores around the Slates now. They've only recently started here in Michigan. We did their first store in Grand Rapids Iasi year and another store in Flint, at the Genessee Center in Flint. Here there are a couple photographs of a very similar type of awning installation that we did for Bar Louie with all these similar type of graphics, which is part of their slogan that they use. This is not something that they dreamt up yesterday or something that I dreamt up. This is something that "the eat, drink, be happy, late night dining,' so on and so forth, is something that they use at every store. As you'll see by these photos, this is exactly what we did in Flint for them. Mr. Wilshaw: Are these ancillary signs that are on the awning, the "Late Night Dining' and 'Cocktail Lounge," those types of things, are those necessary to the business or are those just something that they prefer? Mr. Hancock: Well, sir, like I said, they are part of their slogan. They use this wording with most of their advertising. Mr. Wilshaw: It seems like a long slogan because you're saying the slogan is basically, eat, drink, be merry, late night dining ... Mr. Hancock: Eat, drink, be happy, yes. Mr. Wilshaw: That's pretty long. Mr. Hancock: Well, okay. Wrong terminology. Its part of their corporate image. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Hancock: This is what they have on all of their stores if they can. Of course, they can't always do that. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Do you have other locations where Bar Louie put up awnings without these signs on them - the open daily, lunch, dinner, those types of things? Apel 3, 2007 23980 Mr. Hancock: Yes. In Grand Rapids we weren't allowed to do that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Hanock: It was actually the shopping center management would not allow any graphics on any exterior awnings at all. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. The history of Laurel Park is such that when it was designed, there wasn't suppose to be any exterior signage on any part of Laurel Park originally, and over the years, various tenants have bended that rule somewhat. We've been flexible in allowing some of these tenants, such as Tony Roma's and Max & Ira's and now Bar Louie, to have exterior signage because they feel it's necessary to draw people into their establishments. I don't have any problem with your primary sign. I don't have any problem with the "eat, drink and be merry" corporate slogan sign that's below it, and I think the awnings are very attractive. My only problem at this point would be the "lunch, dinner, cocktail lounge, open daily" those types of signs, which are quite redundant. It's sort of a given that this is a restaurant and its going to be open for lunch and dinner. It's going to be open daily, that type of thing. So those are my comments aphis point. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: I'm curious. When you mention late nighldining, whaldoes that mean? Mr. Hancock: Well, they're open for dinner at night, you know, supper. You can eat until midnight. Mr. Morrow: It doesn't specify any hours. Late night means maybe you get something to eat at 11:00 at night, midnight I assume you close at 2:00 a.m.? Mr. Hancock: Yes, l would think so. Mr. Morrow: Yes. I agree with the other commissioner. The reason I ask about Tale night dining, that's about the only thing that isn't implied on your other signage. I mean you have a martini glass there. It says Bar Louie, tavern and grill, and eat, drink and be happy. It seems to be redundant. Most places pretty much have Tale night dining at all the bistros or grills or taverns. So I juslview it as redundant as well. Thank you. Mrs. McDermott: I just wanted to add that I agree with the two gentlemen. I think, in this case, less is more. I think it actually would look classier Mr. Morrow: I don't want to make you feel like we've singled you out because we see this quite often. Some of the latitude we've given people on awnings is some form of artwork, but as far as letters and words, we try to refrain from doing that. So you're not unique in what we're seeing here tonight. Livonia has fairy strict sign ordinances, and we try to comply with them wherever we possible can. There will be extenuating circumstances where the Zoning Board has to gel involved, but in this case, as we've used the well worn word redundant, that's kind of where we're coming from that this lettering doesn't add anything to it that your other sign doesn't say. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, I think this is going to be an attractive awring that's going to be added to this building, which will upgrade it. I do agree with the commissioners comment that less is more in this situation. So therefore, I'm going to offer a resolution that the awning shall be allowed without the requested signage. Apel 3, 2007 23981 without that on the awning. The lettering on the awning just kind of disturbs me. Mr. LaPine: Could you give us a little run down on what type of a restaurant Bar Louie is? What kind of food do they serve? Is it Italian? Is it Mexican or what is it? What type of food do they serve there? Mr. Hancock: American, traditional American dishes. Mr. LaPine: And you're open for lunch and dinner. That's all. You're dont have any breakfast or anything like that. Mr. Hancock: No. Mr. LaPine: I have to agree with the other commissioners. I just don't understand. Everything down here on the awning is redundant. Eat, drink and be happy pretty much tells you everything is inside there. You have a bar, you eat, you drink and be happy. As Mr. Wilshaw pointed out, when this center was first built, we were opposed to having any signage on the exterior of the building, but over the years, we've allowed it. To get lessees into the building, they wanted the outside signage. We wanted the center to be successful and we went along with it, but I think we're going a little bit overboard here unless there's some overriding reason that we haven't heard at this point that could convince me otherwise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: I don't want to make you feel like we've singled you out because we see this quite often. Some of the latitude we've given people on awnings is some form of artwork, but as far as letters and words, we try to refrain from doing that. So you're not unique in what we're seeing here tonight. Livonia has fairy strict sign ordinances, and we try to comply with them wherever we possible can. There will be extenuating circumstances where the Zoning Board has to gel involved, but in this case, as we've used the well worn word redundant, that's kind of where we're coming from that this lettering doesn't add anything to it that your other sign doesn't say. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, I think this is going to be an attractive awring that's going to be added to this building, which will upgrade it. I do agree with the commissioners comment that less is more in this situation. So therefore, I'm going to offer a resolution that the awning shall be allowed without the requested signage. Apel 3, 2007 23982 On a motion by Wilshaw, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefition 2007 -03 -SN -05 submitted by Tischce Signs, on behalf of Bar Louie Tavern, requesting approval for awning signage for the restaurant at 37716 Six Mile Road in the Laurel Park Place shopping center, on properly located on the northwest comer of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 7, that the awning shall be allowed without the requested signage br the following reasons: 1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the applicant has not justified the need for the proposed awning signage; 3. That the requested signage is deemed redundant and not necessary; 4. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best interest. Mr. Wilshaw: So this will be a denying of the signage but allowing the awning. Mr. Walsh: Is there support? Mr. La Pine: No, I can't support it because I think Mr. Wilshaw made the wrong motion. He made the denying motion, and we should make the approving resolution. On Item #1, we should add: is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the applicant has not justified the need for the proposed awning signage and that the request for signage is deemed redundant and not necessary ... and then go on with the rest of that motion. Do you follow me? There's an approving resoluton on page three. Mr. Wilshaw: That's fine. Mr. Walsh: I think that's advisable. I understand why you made the denying resolution, but it doesn't pick up the entire sign package. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Apel 3, 2007 23983 Mr. Walsh: So if you were to proceed as Mr. La Pine, suggested, I think it reaches your goals. Mr. Wilshaw: Thalsounds reasonable. Mr. Walsh: So it stands as amended. Is there support? On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #0433-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petifion 2007 -03 -SN -05 submitted by Tischce Signs, on behalf of Bar Louie Tavern, requesting approval for awning signage for the restaurant at 37716 Six Mile Road in the Laurel Park Place shopping center, on property located on the northwest comer of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southeast I/ of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the plan for the awning, submitted by Tischco Signs, as received by the Planning Commission on March 13, 2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the wording on the awning shall be eliminated; 2. That the awning shall not be illuminated; 3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building, the awning or around the windows; and 4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hancock, what's occurred is we've approved your sign package, including the awning, with the exception of the printing on the awning. So the wall sign, the 1 by 15 strip, has been approved. Your awning has been approved, but it would be a solid black awning, no printing would be on there. And that will go on to the City Council in that fashion. Apel 3, 2007 23984 ITEM #3 PETITION 2007-03-08-07 BYBLOS CONTRACTING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 03-08-07 submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas station (Mobil) at 29401 Five Mile Road, on property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast % of Section 23. Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to demolish and reconstruct the existing Mobil gas station located on the southwest comer of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road. The location of the existing island canopy and gas pumps would not change. The subject site was recently denied a similar request for demolition and reconstruction. The Planning Commission, at their Regular Meeting on September 19, 2006, recommended approving a convenience store/gas station with a second story office. City Council denied the petition (Council Resolution #17-07) at its January 7, 2007, Regular Meeting. One of the reasons for denial was that it was determined that a two-story gas station would have a detrimental effect on the neighboring commercial properties. The new proposal is for a similar looking structure but the station would be only one-story with a clear floor. The subject property is square in shape, measuring 150 feet along Five Mile Road and 150 feet along Middlebelt Road. Encompassing the property to the south and west is the Mid - Five Shopping Center. To the east, across Middlebelt Road, are a number of commercial establishments including a Precision Tune and the Szechuan Empire Restaurant. Directly to the north, across Five Mile Road, is Thrifty Florist and a McDonald's Restaurant. Diagonally across on the northeast corner of Five Mile Road and Newburgh Road is another gas station. The subject property is zoned G2, General Business. The existing building is approximately 900 square feet in size and is situated near the middle of the site, halfway under the existing pump island canopy. It sits back approximately 80 feet from Five Mile Road and 46 feet from Middlebelt Road. The existing gas pumps and overhead canopy extend along the Middlebelt Road frontage of the property. The proposed one- story convenience store/gas station would be located in the southwest comer of the site with its main entrance facing east in the direction of Middlebelt Road. The footprint of the new structure would measure 42 feel by 85 feel or 3,545 square feet. The previous denied request was for a slightly smaller building with 2,775 square feet with a partial second story of 888 square feel. The new proposed structure would have a clear floor in Apel 3, 2007 23985 place of the second story. From the outside, the buildings would look similar, but on the inside, the second floor has been removed and replaced with a vaulted ceiling. The majority of the interior space of the new station would be utilized for the sale and display of convenience items. The remainder of the floor area would consist of a utility room, his and her bathrooms, a cashier space, and the owners main office. Nineteen parking spaces are required, and they are providing only 11 spaces. Because of the deficient parking, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The site's enclosed trash dumpster area would be located along the edge of the parking lot next to the northwest corner of the building. Vehicles could enter or exit using the two exisfing driveways off Five Mile Road or the two existing driveways off Middlebell Road. Required building setbacks for gas stations are 75 feel from the right-of- way. The station only sits back 66 feel from Five Mile Road and 107 feel from Farmington Road. Because the proposed building would be deficient in front yard setback from Five Mile Road, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. A single existing overhead canopy structure, which measures approximately 120 feel in length, covers the existing gas pumps. Proposed landscaping equals 13% of the site, which does not meet the required 15%. The rebuilt station would be constructed out of brick on all four sides. Limestone would decorate the corners and define the clear floor section of the building. To help lighten up and defuse solid walls of brick, a limestone band would also run along the top portion of the building. The east elevation facing Middlebell would present itself as the front of the station. A slack window treatment would cover a large part of this facade and surround the main entrance. The north elevation facing Five Mile would maintain and continue the same stack window treatments as the station's storefront. The west and south elevations would only include the window design on the upper level of the clear floor. A metal seam peak roof would crown the lop of the clear floor portion, with the rest of the building having a flat rooffine. The one-story station would have a maximum height, measured from the finished grade to the highest peak, of approximately 28 feet. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four ile ms of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 16, 2007, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. Detention will be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. No legal description was shown on April 3, 2007 23986 the plans at this time. Our records indicate that the collect address is 29401 Five Mile Road." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 20, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: Access throughout parking areas shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 23, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal by Byblos General Contracting Company for the Mobil Gas Station located at 29401 Five Mile Road. The intersection of Mlddlebeft and 5 Mile is one of the highest traffic crash intersections in the City of Livonia. One third of all crashes at this intersection are driveway related. In an attempt to make our roads safer for our citizens, we recommend the following. (1) Eliminate the eastern most driveway on 5 Mile. (2) Eliminate the northern most driveway on Mlddlebelt. (3) Add 10 feet in width to the remaining two driveways. This would eliminate two points of traffic conFlfct — one on each major roadway, and extend the buffer for the unavoidable conFlfcts. (4) Add 7 more parking spots in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 26, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 15, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site requires 19 parking spaces where 11 are provided. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required for this deficiency. (2) A front setback of 75 feet is required where 65' 9" is provided. This setback deficiency will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The calculation of required and provided landscaping does not appear collect and is in conflict on page SP02. The Commission ander Council may wish to have the Petitioner provide the correct information or may waive the minimum 15% landscaping requirement altogether. (4) All landscaping should be irrigated and designed to the Commission's and/or Council's satisfaction. (5) All regular parking is to be 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep and double striped. Barrier free parking is to be 8 feet wide with an access aisle 8 feet wide property signed and marked. As down this plan is incoffect. (6) This building requires two exits that meet all code requirements and located Apel 3, 2007 23987 remotely from each other. It currently is deficient as drawn and will require changes. (7) This entire building must be fully barrier free including any service and/or cashier counters. (Although #8 and # 7 are not zoning issues, they are design issues that would not be addressed until our plan review, which is much later in process. We felt it prudent to make the applicant aware of these issues as early as possible.) (8) No mention is made of providing free air at this service station. If the Commission and/or Council wish this practice to continue, we recommend its inclusion in the resolution as follows: That free air shall be provided at all times this station is open for business, the free air shall be dispensed at the point -0f -service without having to enter the station or the performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air without charge. (9) Signage has not been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Morrow: Does the ordinance allow them 20% of window signage? Mr. Taormina: Yes, and that is included with the 100 square feel of total signage allowed for the site. Mr. Morrow: So that would be the maximum? Mr. Taormina: If the petitioner opted to have the maximum amount of window signage at 20%, it could easily exceed 100 square feel. So we work backwards. We take a look at what he is proposing under this plan when he provides all those dimensions to us, and then whatever is left over is what he might be permitted in terms of window signage. Mr. Morrow: I guess where I'm coming from is the stacked windows on the, for lack of a better term, the second floor. I would like to have those excluded from the formula. Mr. Taormina: That would be a condition that should be added. Mr. LaPine: I'm just curious. The Police Department talked about dosing off two of the driveways, one on Five Mile and one on Middlebell, because of accidents. Has that been discussed with the petitioner? Has anything been done? Has it been changed? Apel 3, 2007 23988 Mr. Taormina: The petitioner has been made aware of the Police Division's recommendations, and they have not made changes at this point. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I guess for the record, I guess those driveways are existing now. Is that correct? Mr. Walsh: That is correct. They are existing driveways. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. Nasser Choucair, Byblos General Contracting Company, 5693 Hubbell Street, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. Good evening. Scott explained enough about this site. The other day I got this letter of recommendation from the Police Chief about closing these two approaches. Actually, none of the approaches were touching on this project, you know, when we start doing even the canopy, the pumps. We are only moving the building from under the canopy and selling it in that corner. Plus, eliminating these approaches is going to give us a hard time for the patrons to pump the gas into the tanks. That's the only two approaches that we have that we can unload the gas from the trucks. The approach on Middlebell that they want to eliminate, the truck would go in from Middlebell, go over to the tank and unload the gas. The truck comes in here and parks over here, and he unloads the gas into the tank, and then he comes out from here. There is no way we can eliminate that approach. From here, okay, he can cross over and come in. If it's really necessary to close that one out, maybe its fine with the owner. I haven't discussed that with the owner. But this one, this is the approach that we get all our customers in. That's from the owner. He's telling me this is the most important approach he has. All the customers come in from here, most of them. To let the customers come from here, this is going to create a major conflict in this gas station, and now, we have six pumps. If you eliminate this, the cars cannot maneuver. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Morrow had another question for you. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Other than the building, what changes were made from the plan we saw before? Were those four approaches on the plan we saw before? Mr. Choucair: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: How about the pump isles? Has anything changed? Apel 3, 2007 23989 Mr. Choucair: Everything is the same except the building. The second story has been eliminated because I don't know why they didn't like it at the Council meeting. They didn't like the second story in the gas station, so we eliminated that. And we did a metal roof, like a little dome, and it's an open ceiling gas station. So when you go in there, it will be really bright and nice. It's covering almost 25 percent of the area inside the gas station. It's like a skylight but in a different way. It looks nice even with these windows because they grab light in from here and there. If you put brick here, this is going to look really useless. So why don't we chop this building from here and leave it as a box? Mr. Morrow: I guess the point I was trying to make, we had approved the plan with the building before this rendition. The Council didn't like the second floor concept. So apparently that was their only problem with the site plan at that time was the architecture of the actual station building, but as far as pump islands, the entrances and exits, that has not changed. Mr. Choucair: They mentioned something about one of the approaches. They were thinking why do you need that approach on Five Mile dyou need this one? And we were discussing that, but they turned it down because of the second story, but they didn't turn it down because ofthalapproach in particular. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Nasser, the comment I wanted to make was in regard to the approaches. As Mr. LaPine mentioned, I'm sensitive to traffic safety issues. I have been for a number of years. And this is certainly an issue we talked about at the previous site plan approval process. As I recall, the site plan we had approved at one point did have the eliminafion of one of the approaches on Five Mile. It was put bade in in the Council approving process. So this Commission, as I recall, did approve a plan with one of the drives eliminated. I would very much like to see one or both of those drives that were mentioned eliminated, the ones doses( to the intersection. Clearly there is a traffic safety issue at this intersection just because of the volume of cars, particularly on Middlebelt, and there's a number of gas stations throughout the city that I've seen go to a two wide drive approach. Remember that the proposed recommendation from the Police Department would be to widen the remaining drives an additional 10 feel to make the accessibility easier. So you're correct that the bulk of your traffic probably does come in on Middlebelt. They will continue to be able to come in on Middlebelt even if that drive is closed, and I think there's probably adequate space on the Apel 3, 2007 23990 property - you can correct me if I'm wrong - for a truck to be able to maneuver from that drive, either back out that same drive or to the one on Five Mile past the pump islands. So that's my question to you. Let's talk about these two drives and see if we can decide if we can eliminate these at this point. What do you think? Mr. Walsh: Can I interrupt before you answer? Mr. Taormina, do you know? Did we in fad pass the site plan? Mr. Taormina: Let me clarify that. The original plan that was presented to the Commission voluntarily offered the elimination of the westerly drive approach on Five Mile Road. That plan was approved by the Planning Commission with the elimination of the driveway. Shortly thereafter, he came back to the Commission requesting that it be added back to the plan after considerable debate regarding discussion as to the traffic circulation on the side. It was approved to add that drive back in, and that's the plan that was presented to the Council. It was ulfimately rejected for the reasons stated previously. Mr. Walsh: I appreciate that background. Mr. Wilshaw, your quesfion still stands. Mr. Wilshaw: I would like to explore that. Mr. Choucair: I was going to say the same thing that we submitted at the beginning with the approach closed. And then the owner told me, no, we need all the approaches. Then I had to resubmit it and you guys approved it for me. Then when we went to the Council, they rejected that. But the quesfion is, why Police Division is now saying that we have to close this and they have an objection about this? We submitted this twice before and they never mentioned the approaches. That's my main concern now. If they close these approaches, the owners thinks he's going to lose business. They're enhancing the site and their enhancing the area there, plus they want to do good in that business when they spend that kind of money to enhance the site. Its really clear to have the trucks come in, park here, unload the gas into the tanks, and come out. If you put a 40 foot approach here, I think really, even if the approach is 40 feet, this is going to be a disaster right here for cars to come out. This area is going to be really tough. So that's why we'd like to have these two approaches, and this one I don't mind. It goes back to the owner, not to me really about this one, but that's fine, if on Five Mile, like the original first plan we blocked this one off. That's fine, but this one, the other three, we would like to have them if it's possible because I don't think this one April 3, 2007 23991 would cause any traffic crashes, this approach here. This one it might, but this one I don't see it. I can't picture how it's going to do so on Middlebelt. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything else, Mr. Wilshaw? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. I do have a comment to say very quickly in response to that. Certainly, if you did close approaches, that gives you an opportunity to add landscaping which would allow you to come up to the 15 percent requirement. Perhaps also to add a few additional parking spaces where those drives were, which would bring you closer to being in conformance with that as well. So I think there are some benefits. I think it is an enhancement. But the owner is standing behind you, I believe, so he may have some additional comments. Mr. Choucair: The landscaping in the back here ... Mr.Wilshaw: That's substantial. Mr. Choucair: This is way more than enough, and this is not included with our landscaping. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. Mr. Choucair: That's why we figured that the 2 percent that we are short, I mean it's not going to be any detriment to the city. That's why we left it, but we can come up with the 2 percent somewhere Mr. Walsh: Sir, did you wish to speak? Could we have your name and address please? Alex Ali, 29401 Five Mile Road. The reasons for the investments - to attract more traffic, to improve the business. These days it's very hard for us to gel customers in. The first driveway on Middlebell, almost 75 percent of the business comes through that driveway. Really. I've been there since 1990. I've never seen an accident happen when I'm at the station, and I spend about 12 to 14 hours a day there. There is no accident that happened because of the driveway, somebody is pulling in or slowing down to get into the station and something happened. The County did the right turns on Five Mile a few years back and it's fine. I don't see why it's going to be a traffic problem now. We've never had any problem with this driveway. And whe n we came in the first time, we didn't have an issue with the driveways. We had an issue with the way the building looked. We agreed to change that. See, if you look where the tanks are right here right now. Okay. They're going to have to move up front because the way Apel 3, 2007 23992 the building is going to go right now. If you're familiar with the trucks and how they come in, they come through this driveway to unload the gas right here and get out through this driveway. To unload, it has to be on the passenger side. So he has to come through here to unload and gel out on Middlebelt. Mr. Choucair: The pipes that go underground should be on the passenger side so when he goes in ... Mr. Ali: Right. If he comes through here, the only way he's going to get out has to come out of this driveway. He cannot maneuver under the canopy because the size of the island. Now, the way the truck comes in, it comes through here to the back and gets out this driveway. That's the way its going right now. Or he comes through here and has to come out of this driveway, the first one on Middlebell. The reason for this investment is to improve the business. If you look at the first driveway, the north one on Middlebell, its very convenient after the light. People slow down and there's no problem. Now if he's going to go to the second driveway, you've got to slow down. He's holding traffic up. I think traffic -wise, its not going to be wise to close it. I'm there for almost 15 years, and I see it. Mr. Choucair: Now the trucks go from Middlebell, they go to the back, they park here, they unload, they go out but they come from here, they unload, they come out from here. Now, our plan changed completely, we cannot get the trucks from this approach. Mr. Ali: There's not enough room for the big truck to get out of the east driveway on Five Mile Road. There's not enough room to make a right tum onto Five Mile. To answer your question why we voluntarily on the first driveway on the westbound on Five Mile, really I didn't even gel to see the plan, to tell you the truth. He did it and I didn't even look at it. I don't know why they were going to close the driveway. I didn't gel to see it until we went outside in the parking lot. Mr. Walsh: All right. I'm going to stop you there. Mr. Ali, thank you for giving me the reminder of what we did cover. I appreciate your answers today. I suggest since we spent considerable time on this in the past, we will be visiting the situation that's existing with the exception of the second story. I'd like to tum the discussion to any items that are unrelated to the passage. Mr. Morrow: I would like to make one comment. Ms. Smiley: I wanted the history and you answered it Apel 3, 2007 23993 Mr. Morrow: A very brief comment. Most of the gas stations I frequent in Livonia, I'm trying to think of any of them that do not have the four drives. I can't think of any. Most of them I pull into have two drives on the corner on each street. It's not that I'm against public safety, but sometimes if you're trying to take an existing station and upgrade it, sometimes it gels a little tight, particularly if you've been there a while to upgrade it and then perhaps get rid of driveways. Like I say, most of the stations I frequent pretty much look like this as far as the drives. Dimensionally they may be different, but that's all I had. Mr. LaPine: This is not unique that we close off an exit in a gas station. I can recall within the last couple years, the BP gas station on the corner of Merriman and Five Mile Road. We made them close off the one entrance into the gas station because we thought it was loo close to the intersection. So it's not unique. But my question is, up here where you have this loading and unloading area, I assume that's for trucks to come in to service the mini - mart. Is that correct? Mr. Ali: Yes. The dumpsler is right here and we moved it right there. The only way the truck is going to come, it has to come through this driveway. Right here. This is where the dumpster is going to be. Mr. LaPine: I understand. Down there where you have the crosshatch, that's where the trucks are going to park to unload to take their produce or whatever you've got. Right? Mr. Ali: Yes. Mr. LaPine: You've got large double tandem trucks, Pepsi Cola trucks. I don't know how long they are. When they leave, how do they gel out? Do they back out and go out that way? Do they come around the building? What's the difference between that and down al this end? I don't understand what the difference is. Mr. Choucair: There is a difference between ... Mr. LaPine: The size of the trucks? Mr. Choucair: Yes. For the beverage trucks, we can call them to the site and look at it. We can put a restriction on the site for the loading and unloading zones. Mr. LaPine: Lel me just say that I voted for this to let you put back the other drive when you came back the second time. But at that time, I don't remember seeing any report from the Police Department Apel 3, 2007 23994 complaining about this as a high accident area. Mr. Wlshaw was chairman of the Traffic Commission for many, many years and he knows more about the traffic problems than I do. But I'm just curious. Are you telling me that if a truck comes in here off of the farthest driveway, goes in here, pulls in and gets gas, he can't come out and go out the other drive out onto is it Five Mile or Middlebell? Mr. Choucair: Delivery trucks ... Mr. LaPine: I'm talking about the gasoline trucks. Mr. Choucair: Gasoline trucks? Mr. LaPine: Now, go down. Go over to the other entrance on the other side, the farthest one down here. Mr. Choucair: Here? Mr. LaPine: No, over here. Is this Middlebell? Okay. Go to the next exit. Right there. Okay, now he comes in there. He pulls in and unloads. Can't he just pull out here? Mr. Choucair: No. He can't. Mr. LaPine: Why? Mr. Choucair: There is not enough room. This is 60 feet. It comes from 50 to 60 feet. Mr. LaPine: Can't the building be moved into this area here? I guess it's a landscape area. Mr. Choucair: That landscaping is not ours. We are zero setback here. This is for the mall next door. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Choucair: This landscaping you mean? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Choucair: Then we're short on landscaping. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Apel 3, 2007 23995 Mr. Walsh: I'm going to leave the remainder of the questions to non- driveway issues. Are there any additional questions or comments? Mr. Wilshaw: I'd just like to make a beef comment. We haven't talked much about the building. I think it's a very attractive building and I think its very similar to what we saw before with the exception of the upstairs office. I've been very impressed with Nasser's previous site plans that he's presented to the City and I'm very happy with this one as well, notwithstanding the driveways. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0434-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-03-08-07 submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas station (Mobil) at 29401 Five Mile Road, on property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Middlebell Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 23, be approved subject to the following conditions 1. That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Sheet SP-02 dated July 17, 2006, prepared by Byblos General Contracting Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid-point ofthe top leader; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated July 17, 2006, prepared by Byblos General Contracting Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; April 3, 2007 23996 6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick; 7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 9. That the gas pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and its support columns shall be covered with the same brick used in the construction of the building; 10. That the leading edge of the pump island canopy shall not be any closer than 10 feet from the properly line; 11. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination is decreased; 12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 13. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 14. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated March 26, 2007; 15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated March 20, 2007; 16. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building setback and parking spaces and any conditions related thereto; April 3, 2007 23997 17. No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site; however, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil based products as permitted in Section 11.04(a) ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 18. That free air shall be provided at all times this station is open for business. The free air shall be dispensed at the point -0f -service without having to enter the station or the performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air without charge; 19. That no vehicle vacuum equipment or the outdoor placement of propane cylinder storage units shall be permitted on the site; 20. That the sale of ice shall be restricted to the inside of the building; 21. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition. The placement and display of window signage above a point of len (10') feel as measured above grade shall not be permitted, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and approval; 22. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the exception of the embossed logos, shall be illuminated; 23. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island canopy, building or around the windows; 24. 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; and, 25. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh: I'm going to support this. I do appreciate the investment that you've made. Its been a long haul, and I appreciate your patience in this. I recognize the safety situation, but we did discuss this previously. We discussed it, I think, thoroughly tonight, at least to my satisfaction. I do note in the Police letter, and I respect the officer who wrote it, but it does not attribute the one-third to these driveways in particular, installed driveways at the corners, so it's difficult for me to judge. The other problem, I have the owner here who's telling me over 15 years you haven't had a problem with your four driveways. So its an existing situation. I'm glad to have the investment and hopefully the vole will be in your favor. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Apel 3, 2007 23998 Mr. Morrow: As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to delete the original Condition #5 regarding items from the Engineering Division and Police Department. I'd like the site plan approved as it's shown. Mr. Wilshaw: Was there a clause we were going to add in regards to window signage on the upper story of the building? Mr. Morrow: Yes. I requested that the vaulted glass not be counted as part of the window area, or words to that effect. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. LaPine: I'm going to vote for the proposal, but to be honest with you, I'm very unhappy about not closing off the driveway. Basically because when we get a letter from the Police Department stating this is a very high accident area, I think we should adhere to and give it a lot of consideration because we don't want any accidents. They're just doing their job and they feel this is a bad location. But seeing that the petitioner has been trying to gel this station, and I want to gel a new station there. I think it will enhance that neighborhood, but still, I really feel reluctant about not closing off at lead one of those entrances on the station. Mr. Walsh: I'm going to support this. I do appreciate the investment that you've made. Its been a long haul, and I appreciate your patience in this. I recognize the safety situation, but we did discuss this previously. We discussed it, I think, thoroughly tonight, at least to my satisfaction. I do note in the Police letter, and I respect the officer who wrote it, but it does not attribute the one-third to these driveways in particular, installed driveways at the corners, so it's difficult for me to judge. The other problem, I have the owner here who's telling me over 15 years you haven't had a problem with your four driveways. So its an existing situation. I'm glad to have the investment and hopefully the vole will be in your favor. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. April 3, 2007 23999 ITEM #4 PETITION 2007-02-02-04 PLYMOUTH FOOD STORE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 25. Mr. Walsh: This item was tabled at our meeting of March 20. 1 need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #0435-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2007-02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast % of Section 25, be removed from the table. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Walsh: This item was discussed at public hearing held by the Planning Commission on March 20. A draft of the minutes is already available. It had to be tabled because there were two resolutions that were proposed and both ended up in a three - three tie. I was traveling on business during my day job. I'd like to tell you that the Planning Commission pays me enough to not travel when told to, but unfortunately it does not. In any event, all kidding aside, it is here tonight because we had a three -three be on an approving resolution and a three -three be on a denying resolution. Because there was public testimony taken at the last meeting, my suggestion for tonight is simply this: the petitioner is welcome to speak again, and those members of the audience who did come out tonight that were not able to attend the last meeting, I will take testimony. But we've all had a chance to hear from people who were here the last time. I've watched the video and I've read the minutes. So tonight's testimony is going to be restricted only to new information. Does the petitioner wish to add anything? Apel 3, 2007 24000 Patrick Howe: Good evening, members of the commission. I will be very brief as I'm sure you read the minutes and watched the video. As you know, we're looking to renovate this space completely and add the SDD license. I'd just briefly like to respond to the comments of last week regarding the 400 fool space requirement with the church, which really I think is the issue at hand here within the confines of the other ordinance requirements. Mr. Yono and myself, a religious man, deeply respect the views of the neighboring church, and I respect that they are not desirous of liquor use in this location, a liquor use that currently exists and that will exist regardless of the decision that's made tonight. However, they did admittedly state that Mr. Yono is a great neighbor, and you also heard that from the neighbors in the neighborhood two weeks ago. And the distance requirement in question with the 400 feet is intended to put a buffer between that use and a church use. Now it was admitted to the Commission that you couldn't ask for a better neighbor, you couldn't ask for a better licensee. With all due respect to their views on liquor use which currently is in existence, Mr. Yono wants to completely renovate the building, go from beer and wine to beer, wine and liquor, improve the neighborhood, and you really couldn't ask for a better neighbor. With that said, we request a recommendation to the City Council, and thank you for your consideration. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe he included his name and address for the record. Mr. Walsh: I'm sorry. If you could just add that for the record. Patrick Howe, Carlin, Edwards, Brown & Howe, PLLC, 2855 Coolidge, Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. Sure. Mr. Walsh: I do have a list of the individuals from the minutes who spoke the last time this item was before us. Is there anybody in the audience that was not here two weeks ago that would like to address the Planning Commission? If so, would you please come forward? Michael Goettlicher, 11894 Cavell. I just wanted to say that I agree with the approval of it. I live on that street, and that's pretty much all I have to say. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Paul McCartney, 27726 Plymouth Road. I have a store next to Brian and I support his request for the license. Apel 3, 2007 24001 Jack Holmes, 11637 Cavell. I've lived in this neighborhood for 37 years. I've watched a lot of development in Livonia. I was born and raised in Livonia. I will back his project 100 percent myself because the Plymouth Road corridor looks good. It needs a lot of improvement, and I think it would benefit the City of Livonia lam wise and any other wise for our city. Thank you. Nancy Secord, 11564 Cavell. I would like to say that this proposal has been turned down many limes already, and there's a reason that you have turned it down before. There is a church within 400 feel. You shouldn't allow a waiver. You haven't before and you shouldn't again. There's a laloo parlor right next door. Packaged liquor should not be allowed because there are young adults that are getting taloos and they're getting piercings and it's literally just a hangout. I think if you allow it, it would be a bad decision. Thank you. Mary Hoefler, 12010 Arcola. I support Brian enlarging the store. You don't see kids hanging out around there. You don't see a bunch of teenagers. It is kept clean. It a dose place for all the kids in the neighborhood. Theyre safe just to walk that block to go to the store because Brian keeps things that the kids can gel. I think it would improve that comer of Plymouth Road very much to have him enlarge it and for the kids and the people in the neighborhood. Carolyn Buffer, 18492 Wakenden, Redford, Michigan. I don't see how the alcohol will improve their building, and it has destroyed lives. My brother almost died of alcohol. When he went to the hospital, they told him if he didn't quit drinking he would die. And my neighbor had died of cirrhosis of the liver from drinking. I'm against the alcohol in the neighborhood because it does cause people to gel out there and drink and drive and cause accidents. My brother was in an accident and almost died in an accident because of drinking and driving. I just dont approve of alcohol. Patrick J. Higgins, 11736 Cardwell. I spoke last week. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Higgins, we're only permitting people who didn't speak last week. We do have your testimony. Thank you. Mr. Higgins: Okay. Mr. Walsh: If there is nobody in the audience coming forward, then we'll take no further testimony at this point. If there are any questions or comments from my colleagues or a motion. Apel 3, 2007 24002 On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Vartoogi an, and adopted, it was #0436-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 20, 2007, on Petition 2007-02-02-04 submitted by Plymouth Food Store, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand an SDM liquor license and add an SDD liquor license to the existing business at 27600 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast ''/ of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-02-02- 04 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That this approval to expand the SDM license and add an SDD license shall be contingent upon the completion of all building addition and exterior renovation work approved under Petition 2006-08-08-17; 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #534- 06, which granted site plan approval to construct an addition and renovate the exterior of the subject building under Petition 2006-08-08-17, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the conditions of this approval; 3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 4. That the use of LED lighthands or exposed neon, such as to ou0ine windows or building features, shall not be permitted on the site; 5. That the expansion of the SDM license and use of an SDD license shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the requirement for a 400 fool separation distance between SDM and SDD licensed establishments and an existing church building is waived by the City Council by means of a separate resolution in which two-thirds of the members of the City Council concur; Conditions pertaining specifically to the use of an SDD license at this location are as follows: 6. That all liquor products allowed to be sold in connection with the use of an SDD license at this location shall be displayed behind a counter with no direct public access in Apel 3, 2007 24003 accordance with the Floor Plan marked Sheet 2 dated August4, 2006, prepared by Scope Data, L.L.C.; and 7. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Reasons to approve the request to expand the SDM license and to add an SDD license are as follows: 1. That the proposal complies 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 proposal complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirement that there be at least a 500 fool separation between SDM licensed establishments and the requirement that there be at least a 1,000 foot separation between SDD licensed establishments, as set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance; 3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposal; 4. That the proposal is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; Additional reasons pertaining specifically to the use of an SDD license at this location are as follows: 5. That the use of an SDD license will complement the existing use of the subject property and will provide an additional service to customers; 6. That approval of this petition will enable the owner to expand and upgrade his store and to remain competitive, which might not otherwise be possible given the small size of the building and the limits this places on his existing operation; 7. That the approved plans for the addition and renovation to the petitioner's building represents a plan of action to substantially upgrade the facility and to accommodate the increased spatial needs of an SDD licensed business; and 8. That the petitioner has a proven track record of compliance with the regulations of the Michigan Liquor Control Apel 3, 2007 24004 Commission with respect to the sale of alcoholic beverages. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I voted against it originally and I'm going vote to against it again. I have no problem with the operation. It is apparent that the neighbors think this gentleman does a terrific job. He spends long hours there. The bottom line is, this is not a popularity contest. This is an issue and we're talking about a waiver use. This gentleman, five years from now, ten years from now, two weeks from now, who knows, he may sell that business if he gets the liquor license and the next individual that buys that store, a waiver use goes with the property. Therefore, if the new owner that buys the property can pass all the background checks, he may come in there and be an awful guy to do to business with, an awful type of person. We have an ordinance that says it has to be 500 feel from a church. If the ordinance is wrong, then we should change the ordinance. Otherwise, we should adhere to what's been going on all these years. We've had two different pastors of that church speak against this. One pastor claims the church has been there for 50 years. I do not know how long the store has been there. I have no idea. I think its been there probably 25-30 years, and it's been operating all these years, maybe not by this owner, but previous owners. They've all survived. Al this time, to put another SDD license on Plymouth Road I think is wrong. People in the area over the years have been able to gel their liquor at other locations along Plymouth Road. We're not depriving them of going there and getting their liquor. I just don't think it's right to approve it that close to the church and therefore I will vole against it. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to vole in favor of the motion for a couple reasons. First, his SDM license has coexisted with the church for a number of years, and as the record indicates with the State and with the City, he's never had a violation. Secondly, he wants to improve his business. I'm sure if you go to some of these mega stores, the supermarkets, the Costcos, they all sell beer and wine. So I've got to feel that impacts his sales because they can't go to his place for a supermarket item. So he wants to improve this business, make the place look nice, so I think this is the main reason he wants to expand his business through the SDD license. And his testimony last week, he is a small entrepreneur. Well, he's kind of from the old school. From the Apel 3, 2007 24005 testimony last week, if someone is a litlle short of money, they need bread and milk and whatever, he gives it to them and says pay me when you can. It's a dying breed out there with these mega stores coming in. So going back to what I said originally, he coexisted with no problems, and as one commissioner, I have no problem with this petition. Mr. LaPine: I agree with probably 90 percent of what Mr. Morrow said. He and I normally agree on everything. The bottom line here is, its a waiver use, and because its a waiver use, in my opinion, it's a different situation because that waiver use goes with that land and we dont know what's going to happen in the future. Thais one of my big hang-ups in not voting for it. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Vartoogian, Morrow, Walsh NAYES: LaPine, McDermott, Wilshaw ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 940"' Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 940"' Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on March 6, 2007. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was #04-37-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 940" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, LaPine, McDermott, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Vartoogian April 3, 2007 24006 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 942n0 Regular Meeting held on April 3, 2007, was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman