HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2011-07-19MINUTES OF THE 1,012TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 19, 2011, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 1,012 1h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Scott Bahr Ashley Krueger R. Lee Morrow
Lynda Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor
Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs 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 pefifion 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 pefifions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2011-06-01-07 19055 FARMINGTON RD.
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2011-06-
01-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission at the
request of the Livonia Housing Commission, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended, requesting to rezone vacant City -owned properly
adjacent to the existing Newburgh Village senior citizen housing
community, located on the west side of Newburgh Road
between Plymouth Road and Gmntland Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to
R-9 (Housing for the Elderly).
July 19, 2011
25728
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Taormina: This petition is on behalf of the Livonia Housing Commission. It
is a request to rezone vacant City -owned property from RUF,
Rural Urban Farm, to R-9, Housing for the Elderly. This is the
first step in the process of developing the land into what would
be the second phase of the Newburgh Village retirement
community, which lies immediately to the north of the properly in
question. The site is made up of portions of len contiguous lots
that are all part of the Supervisors Livonia Plat #6. The
property is roughly 8.81 acres in area. It has about 200 feel of
frontage on Newburgh Road and extends in an east to west
direction for a distance of about 1,400 feet. All these properties
are owned by the City of Livonia and are vacant and
undeveloped. The current zoning is a combination of RUF,
Rural Urban Farm, and PL, Public Lands. Newburgh Village is
zoned R-9 and is located immediately to the north. To the south
are the rear yards of some deep acreage lots with residential
homes that front along Plymouth Road. To the west is Hunter's
Point Subdivision which is zoned R-1. To the east across
Newburgh Road are a number of industrial buildings. The R-9
district regulations would permit varying density. In general,
though, what is required is about 2,500 square feet of land area
for every one bedroom unit, and 3,000 square feet of land area
for every two bedroom unit. Given the total size of this property,
it could accommodate either 153 one bedroom units or 128 two
bedroom dwelling units. Again, the zoning proposed for this site
is the same as Newburgh Village Phase I to the north. In that
complex, there are currently about 120 units. You can see it's a
smaller site than what we're looking at here. There was a
preliminary conceptual plan that was submitted with the
application. It by no means represents what will finally be
submitted for your review. It could be very similar, but again,
this is strictly preliminary or conceptual. This shows both
phases of the development. They are showing a total of 128
units, consisting of 76 one bedroom units and 52 two bedroom
units. There are 13 buildings in total, six of which would have
12 units each and then 7 buildings would have 8 units each.
Parking would include a combination of both on -street and off-
street spaces, very similar to the design that was utilized in
Phase I. There are no new driveways proposed to Newburgh
Road as part of this development. Everything would be
interconnected with Phase I, which presently has two access
points onto Newburgh Road. You will also notice that this dark
shaded area on the bottom represents an easement that was
dedicated to Consumers Energy. This easement is about 45
feet in width. It cannot contain any buildings or structures.
However, it can be improved with landscaping or earth berms or
July 19, 2011
25729
a limited amount of pavement such as a driveway crossing. The
second phase also will incorporate the rear 220 feel of Fire
Station #6 properly. This area is presently maintained in a
grassy, undeveloped stale. The lower portion of the drawing
represents the existing Fire Station and then directly to the north
of that is the lower structure that was used for training purposes.
The rear portion of the site, about 220 feel, is an undeveloped
grassy area. This plan is showing how that area may be utilized
as part of the development. Its not yet determined whether or
not it will contain any structures or possibly used for stonnwaler
management. This plan shows the circulation system with
nothing connecting to the existing subdivision to the west. This
would be a completely contained development. Mr. Chairman, I
can answer any questions or read the one item of
correspondence before we proceed.
Mr. Morrow: Please read the correspondence
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated July 7, 2011, which reads as follows: 7n
accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. As requested in your
memorandum dated June 16, 2011, the Engineering Division
prepared a legal description of the parcel to be rezoned. It is
attached along with a copy of the original plat map on which the
area under consideration is indicated. The entire area under
consideration for rezoning has multiple existing addresses
fronting both Plymouth and Newburgh Roads. If development of
the parcel occurs, the issue of site address should be revisited
at that time. As regards utilities, when developing plans for the
site be advised that storm water management design must meet
Wayne County standards. There is an existing storm sewer
system along the southerly property line of 11999 Newburgh
Road (Newburgh Village) that may be a suitable outlet. There is
also a storm sewer within the Newburgh Road right-of-way.
There is an existing sanitary sewer system along the south
property line of 11999 Newburgh Road which may prove
suitable for sanitary sewage discharge. There is also a sanitary
sewer within the right-of-way of Newburgh Road. There is
public water main in Newburgh Road that can be utilized for
service to this parcel. Another possibility may be the extension
of the existing water supply system in Newburgh Village. 1 trust
this provides you with the requested information." The letter is
signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff?
July 19, 2011
25730
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, I want to make sure that everyone knows that all we're
talking about this evening is R-9 zoning. We have no idea of
what its going to look like. I don't believe that the Housing
Commission has any idea of what's going to go there. It looks
like a suitable zoning because we have R-9 there with
Newburgh Village. I
just want to make sure that people know
that there is no plan. We have no plans. We're not approving x
number of houses or units or whatever. Its strictly R-9 zoning.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct. As I indicated, this is the first step in the
process that will also include a detailed review of the plans for
the development. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Our future land use, this is R5, is it not?
Mr. Taormina:
It is residential that would support the proposed medium
density.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Any other questions? Mark, in your presentation I may have
missed it. R-9 cannot exceed two stories in height. Did you
mention that?
Mr. Taormina:
This particular classification that is being requested is two
stories or less.
Mr. Morrow:
Maximum. Nothing higher.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you. If there are no other questions, this
particular petition was brought by the Planning Commission, but
it was prompted by the Director of the Livonia Housing
Commission, Mr. Jim Inglis. I am going to call him forward at
this time to share his thoughts that prompted this particular
request. We will need your name and address for the record.
James M. Inglis,
Director, Livonia Housing Commission, Patrick V. McNamara
Towers, 19300 Pudingbrook, Livonia, Michigan 48152. The City
acquired this property quite a few years ago for the possible
expansion of the existing Newburgh Village housing facility. If
the Commission remembers, back in 1978 we developed our
first properly, which was Silver Village near Ford Field. We
used the local bonding authority of the City. This is the first time
that the City had ever used its full faith and credit through the
Municipal Building Authority to build something. In the past, we
had always used Federal funds or State funds. But they look it
upon themselves to develop that land back in 1978. It was a
July 19, 2011
25731
very successful development. We refired the bonds already, so
that property is free and clear. We have great occupancy. Its
in great shape. In 1992, we acquired the first 10 acres of land
of the current Newburgh Village. It is loo very successful. It's
very popular. We have a good wailing list. It was always
envisioned that the City needs to continue to move forward to
provide affordable housing for senior citizens. That's been part
of the mission statement of the Housing Commission for many,
many years. This expansion of our existing village is just
fulfilling that mission. I think one of the important things to point
out is that the Housing Commission has always felt that
developing affordable housing is not to compete with the private
sector. Our job in developing affordable housing is to provide
housing that the private sector can no longer provide in terms of
affordability. If you look a look at our rents at Silver Village and
Newburgh Village, we are about $250 to $300 below the private
rental market. So we are not competing with the private rental
market. We are filling a niche for those individuals who have
lived in our community a long time that want to slay in our
community and no longer want to live in a single family home.
They have no other option to stay in our community and live in
our village. So with Newburgh Village, we are looking at a
different design. People always have different needs. As we've
gone through developing McNamara Towers back in the 1960's
to where we are today, people want more amenities. They want
more space and they want to stay in our communities. We think
that developing this land for senior citizen housing, which will be
very similar to what we currently have at Newburgh Village, is
good for the area. The Housing Commission has been prodding
me, along with the Mayor, to move this forward. Now is the time
to do it. We do have a very strong wailing list. We dont believe
occupancy is going to be a problem. Now we just need to
rezone the property and then come back to the Planning
Commission with a more definite site plan for you, how we're
going to finance it, and a construction schedule and when we
think we're going to move forward with this.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of Mr.
Inglis?
Mr. Wilshaw: During the preliminary meeting we had last week, I asked you
the same question. I'll ask it again because I think it bears
being on record. Obviously, this is still at a very preliminary
stage, but how do you plan on funding this development
because I think a lot of people look at the City's budget situation
and say, where's the money coming from? So if you could
explain that, I would appreciate it.
July 19, 2011
25732
Mr. Inglis:
That's a very good question, Commissioner. Silver Village,
Newburgh Village, or any of the housing that we have in the City
of Livonia is not supported at all by the City's General Fund. All
of our senior citizen housing and family housing is self-
supporting. The rents that we collect pay for the principal and
interest on the debt, along with all the operational costs. There
is no General Fund dollars whatsoever in the operations of any
of the villages or properties that we have in the City. The City
does have a Municipal Building Authority. That Building
Authority is strictly created to issue bonds to finance additions to
the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Court, Library,
things that support municipal activities and supportive services
for people in our community. We plan to use the Municipal
Building Authority of the City. The Housing Commission's
pledge has always been to the City is that no General Fund
dollars will be used whatsoever, or taxpayers dollars. This will
be a self-supporting operation.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you. Because we are talking about a zoning
issue, we don't want to talk site plan because there is no site
plan yet, but is it safe to say that the character of the
development, should this zoning be approved, will be similar to
the character of the existing Newburgh Village property?
Mr. Inglis:
The ranch style facilities that we have are very, very popular.
We have high rises as you know, McNamara Towers 1 and 2,
and the William Brashear Towers, but Silver Village and
Newburgh Village have been very, very popular in terms of
people wanting more of a ranch style, with a patio outside, and
more independent living. We do plan to keep the majority of the
units within the new village as one-story ranch style but we are
laking a look at possibly a two-story, multi-family building that
would be located further east on the property on the Newburgh
Road side. So as you enter the development, there may be a
two-story facility there with one and two bedrooms. At the back
portion of the village there will probably be ranch style, one-
story, one bedroom units.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. From what you looked at so far, it appears that the
utilities that are in this area, the sanitary sewer, water, things
like that, are adequate to serve this type of development should
it be developed.
Mr. Inglis:
That's correct. The only issue that we really need to work out
with the County would be slonnwater retention. If the existing
Newburgh Road storm sewer can handle that, that would be
outstanding. If it can't, we are prepared to adhere to what
stonnwaler management we need to do on site, but it does
July 19, 2011
25733
appear from water and the sanitary sewer that we're going to be
okay.
Ms. Krueger:
I just have a couple questions. One, this seems like an ideal
location for this type of development given that its so close to
another one and just the general surrounding area. It seems to
be compatible with that, but have you considered any other sites
for this type of development?
Mr. Inglis:
No. I think the nice thing about this site is that we already own
it. By already owning the land, when we go about developing
the properly, that's going to help a long way in keeping the rents
affordable. If we were to go out and purchase another piece of
property and then also have to do construction and then not
knowing the utilities situation, that could drive up the costs of
rents and that's certainly not something we want to do. So I
think the reason that this is so beneficial for us is that we
already own the land. Secondly, we already have a
maintenance facility at Newburgh Village so we do not propose
any additional maintenance space. In addition to that, we
already have a community building at this site so we do not plan
to construct an additional community space. That's going to be
very beneficial because we have enough square footage with
the community building that we have and maintenance area at
the existing village, and I already have staff there. So that staff
will be able to service the new village. So from an economic
standpoint, it really makes good sense for us to look at this site.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. And you mentioned that this would be senior housing.
Would it be limited to senior citizens or would you consider other
low income residents?
Mr. Inglis:
Fifty seven years of age and older is the current admission
standards for Silver Village and Newburgh Village. They must
be Livonia residents. We do also assist parents of Livonia
residents. So if you're a Livonia resident and you have a parent
that may not be in Livonia, as part of family unification, we'd like
to have you bring your family member closer to you. These
admissions standards were established by the City Council.
The Housing Commission makes a recommendation. But right
now, our admission standards say the minimum age is 57 years
of age and we do have a residency requirement.
Mr. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you. And one final question: Do you plan on
having any kind of access road adjoining Birch Run?
Mr. Inglis:
No, we do not. There is no plan to have any extension off of the
west portion of the properly onto Birch Run whatsoever. If
anything, we would like to have some sort of egress onto
July 19, 2011
25734
Plymouth Road. It doesn't look like the Fire Station property is
going to be able to accommodate that way, but there may be
some way along with one of the property owners on Plymouth
Road that we could have some ingress onto Plymouth Road,
but we do not plan to have any opening onto Birch Run
whatsoever.
Ms. Kruger.
Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions? I'm going to go to the audience
now. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against the granting of this petition? If you would come
forward to the podium and give us your name and address for
the record.
Andrew Gurka,
37930 Birch Run, Livionia, Michigan 48150. Yes. Good
afternoon. Commission, thank you for this opportunity to speak
on this issue. I just wanted to say I'm definitely in support of
safe and economical senior housing. The idea of this zoning
going to an R-9 is something that I would personally support.
However, I think it would be remiss for you not to lel me speak
on a few points that are concerns to myself, my family and to
our neighborhood. The concerns would be things like a high
rise development. I understand that one of the current plans is
calling for a single story or a maximum two-story development. I
just want it to be perfectly clear that from my perspective, I am
against a high rise structure for a variety of reasons that I won't
get into too many details right now. The other is, I'm against
Birch Run being made a through street. Again, I know this was
a speaking point that it wasn't going to be made a through
street. We moved into our house for a reason. One of the
reasons was a no outlet street, a dead end. We have a
handicap son, and it would be very difficult to have a through
street situation where we're at. Again, I could go on and on
about the issues if you live on a dead end street and its made
into a through street, all the changes and things the
neighborhood would have to go through. The other comment I
want to make is about the training lower. I believe its
scheduled to be demolished. Anyone who has a home in our
neighborhood there, and if you gel your home appraised, the
training lower is always brought up as kind of a negative and it
will go against the value of your home. Now with the new
training facility that's been developed in Livonia, I'm hoping that
this lower will come down in a very timely fashion prior to the
construction of the new Newburgh Village. Also, the final thing I
want to speak about is, when you come in with a new
development, trees and some wildlife use that area as an island
area. I really believe that a professional landscape architect
would really need to look at this plan and develop kind of a
July 19, 2011
25735
greenbelt separation between our neighborhood and this new
facility. When I look at some of these preliminary drawings, I
just see asphalt parking lots. I really don't see any type of a
buffer for us in our neighborhood. For years we have endured
kind of an unmaintained border there with kind of an overgrown
fence and trees and trash that accumulates that our neighbors
have kind of taken care of that issue. So I would really like to
see that also looked upon in this plan that something be
developed to take into account a little buffer for our
neighborhood. Thank you very much for allowing me to air my
concerns.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Gurka, I think as far as the zoning, it would not allow for any
type of high rise development, a maximum of two stories would
be the maximum the zoning would permit. As it relates to all of
these other concerns, it would come at the time of site plan
review. This will be forwarded to the City Council where they
will have their own public hearing before they act on the actual
rezoning. Should you care to, because a lot of your concerns
are relative to the site plan when it ultimately comes back, if
you'll leave your name and address with our secretary, we'll
make sure you're aware of when the site plan does come and at
that time, you'll actually see the plan and see how your
concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Gurka: Yes. Very good. Thank you
Dave VanderWeg, 37914 Birch Run, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1 just wrote a
letter to the Planning Commission which I could pass around.
Andy had referenced the end of the street, the foundation, the
appearance of that site. I look the liberty of taking some
pictures. Maybe if you guys could lake a look at that. You have
probably already seen it. If you haven't, it kind of sheds lighton
some of the discussion points that we have. First of all, I
appreciate the prompt notice of this petition. I'm optimistic that
something will be created here. We've got what some might
view as an eyesore at the end of the street. I'm optimistic that
maybe something could be built there that would help the resale
value of our homes and it might be a little bit easier on the eyes.
At first glance, I was a little concerned about the development,
but after thinking about it, I think that probably something could
be created that would fit your needs and some of our concerns
possibly, create an environment that might help the looks of our
neighborhood loo. The first concerned I had, and you've hit on it
and Andy elaborated on it loo, is not running a through street
from Birch Run. I'm not going to dwell on that, but it's the first
point that I put in this letter to you, basically for privacy, safety
and house resale values. That was my main concern. Like
Andy, I have children. I have five and seven year old daughters.
July 19, 2011
25736
I very much chose this location based on privacy based on my
employment. I kind of have a need for solitude. I'm not going to
gel to a lot of detail, but its nice to be in an environment where
you know everybody's coming and going all the time. If there is
a change in this plan, I would of course like to elaborate more
on that at a later dale. The next bullet I put, if you look at the
pictures that I look. With the addition of senior housing, I have
several concerns with my family's and neighbors privacy.
Would the Planning Commission take into consideration
removing the current chain link fence and installing a more
decorative, sound proof barrier fence? In addition, if trees are
removed from the border, can some sort of landscaping be put
in that's a little bit more decorative and maybe take into
consideration some sound proofing as well. You can see by the
pictures, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to me it's kind
of an eyesore. I never really had any concern with it because I
don't have a neighbor on one side of me, but if you're taking
away this barrier of trees, I potentially could be looking down
from my kitchen window and looking into a senior housing
development, depending how the plan lays out. A lot of these
concerns are by the plan which I saw before the meeting, just
kind of focused on that particular preliminary plan. Most
noteworthy, I put, is the barrier at the end of Birch Run. A
couple of the pictures show what the end of that street looks
like. Its got an end cap at the end of the street. Its kind of sore
on the eyes. Can there be anything done to clean that up a little
bit? If we're going to go through and do some construction at
the end of that property, and make that a little bit more pleasant
for a residential setting. If not, that barrier fence there, then I'd
like to have the opportunity if the City would work with me to
maybe put my own fence up on my property just as a sound
barrier and a privacy barrier, but I would hope that the plan, with
the money going forth with the project, that maybe something
could be done to promote more of a residential environment on
our side. The next bullet I just put in, I started thinking about
what this particular project could look like. I kind of envision
looking at some other similar housing projects, not only in
Livonia, and what type of lighting you may have here. Can you
accommodate whatever lighting fodures that you may have so
that we don't have neon lights shining in the neighborhood or in
the houses? That was kind of a concern. The next two bullets
that I put down were parking and garbage disposal. Again, I'm
going on this preliminary plat I reviewed before the meeting. I'd
like some consideration taken into place, that maybe when
we're looking out our side window we're not looking at a parking
lot right there. It looks like a great place for garbage disposal
because that particular area is tucked in at the end of the
property and is adjacent to my property, which is at the very end
of Birch Run. Just some concerns as to what that's going to
July 19, 2011
25737
look like when I look out my window. That kind of leads into the
next bullet that I had, was the interior housing roads. That
preliminary plan kind of calls for a road to go right along that
fence line which would bull up right against my property and
also the neighbor across the street from me on Birch Run. Is
there anything that could be done with the plan to create more
of a sense of privacy between the neighborhood and the new
development? I just wanted to put that on the record, just some
general concerns. I haven't gone through a meeting process
like this so I wasn't aware that this is still in the preliminary
stages of planning. The second to Iasi bullet I put, can the
residents of the subdivision be advised of the timetable, and I
think you went over this beforehand, of when this project will be
approved, unapproved, and if it is approved, when it goes to
City Council in case we have any additional concerns? It
sounds like you touched on this before earlier. I'd like to have
access to the final site plan just in the event we have any
additional concerns at that point with the way the properly is
going to lay out. The last one is, will the residents of the
Hunters Point Subdivision be notified if there are any major
changes made with the site plan? Having a small background
in construction, its great to put sluff down on a plan. You gel
halfway through it and its not code, it's not zoned. So if you're
going to be making any big updates on the plan that could affect
our neighborhood, would we be advised of that beforehand and
have the opportunity to voice our opinion on that? That's all I
had.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Just a comment. The Planning Commission on a routine
basis shares a lot of the concerns you've listed here tonight as it
relates to how a particular site is developed. That will be
addressed at the site plan review. As far as the liming, we have
no insight to that. That will be forthcoming as the thing moves
along. Should there be a major development as to a change in
the site plan, they would have to bring it back. Minor changes
which do not adversely affect the site plan can be made in the
field, but anything major would have to come back and go
through the same process.
Mr. VandenNeg: Okay.
Mr. Morrow: So this will become part of the record. The Director is here
tonight, a man who is absorbing everything you're saying, and
will be part of the criterion in developing this site. As I told the
prior gentlemen, at the time that the site plan comes back, if you
leave your name and address we will be sure that you will be
invited to know when the Planning Commission takes a look at
the finalized site plan.
July 19, 2011
25738
Mr. VanderWeg:
Okay. Very Good.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you very much.
Mr. VanderWeg:
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? I see no
one else. Mr. Inglis, before I close the public hearing, IT give
you an opportunity if there is anything you want to add or
subtract.
Mr. Inglis:
Just a couple points. We are working with the Fire Chief relative
to the training lower. It is obsolete. They've taken the ladders
off of it. They would love to gel rid of it. We would love to get
rid of it. We would like to work with them to see how we can go
about removing most, if not all, of that structure. The bottom
portion of it, they still have some use for it, but the second and
the third story of it, they have no use for it. So we're going to
work closely with them to see if we can eliminate that.
Currently, within Newburgh Village, that is a dedicated city
streets, North Capital Court and South Capital Court. Refuse
pickup is all curbside, so there are no dumpslers on our site.
We would love to do that again. We propose to do that again on
the new site. In terms of landscaping, we definitely would be
able to work with the residents around Birch Run along that
western border of our property to make sure that it looks good.
That is something that we would respect in our final site plan
that we put together and bring to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Morrow:
We appreciate that further input and your concerns as you've
taken them from the residents. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
If I may to the gentleman who said he was not familiar with the
procedure. Any zoning change lakes at least three months. It
has to go through the Planning Commission. It has a study
meeting and then comes before this Board at a regular meeting.
It is then shipped on to the Council. The Council has a study or
a public hearing on it. It's going to be a good three months or
four months just to change the zoning. In the meantime, I'm
sure the Housing Commission will be working on the site plan to
where it will also come back here. If this project goes this year,
I'll be surprised, but according to Jim, and Jim knows his
business, they want to gel going this year and sell bonds and
get it going. They're ready to go. But there is a certain process
it has to go through, and you will all be notified as to what's
going on.
July 19, 2011
25739
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Are there any other comments or
questions before I close the public hearing? I will close the
public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0740-2011
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on July 19, 2011, on
Petition 2011-06-01-02 submitted by the City Planning
Commission at the request of the Livonia Housing Commission,
and pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone vacant City -
owned property adjacent to the existing Newburgh Village
senior citizen housing community, located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and Gmntland
Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R-9,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2011-06-01-02 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land
uses in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning would provide
opportunities for a greater variety of uses to serve the area
as well as the City as a whole;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for the
development of the subject property in a manner that is
consistent with its size and location; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the
Future Land Use Plan which recommends medium density
residential use in this area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw
Just to make a brief comment along the lines of what Mr. Taylor
said. This is the beginning of a process that is going to take
several months. I really appreciate the comments that the
residents have made so far and I have made notes of their
July 19, 2011
25740
concerns, some of which were already addressed at this
meeting, or at least outlined for Mr. Inglis to incorporate as he
goes into the site planning process. But I keep those notes with
me; they don't go away. As this process proceeds on and we
get to the site plan portion of this, I'm going to go back and look
at those notes and see the same concerns again that the
residents have already staled at this meeting. I'm going to
make sure that those particular items are addressed as best we
can. We appreciate the residents staying involved in this, and
we want them to come back and continue to be part of the
process. I just wanted to let them know that we also lake that
information, and we will make sure to be an advocate for you as
well. Thankyou.
Ms. Scheel: Can we also make sure Mr. Inglis gels a copy of the letter that
we all received this evening? I just want to make sure he gets a
copy so he knows everything that's in writing.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2011-07-08-06 McDONALD'S
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2011-
07-08-06 submitted by L+A Architects, Inc., on behalf of
McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 19311
Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to remodel the exterior of an existing
McDonald's restaurant located on the west side of Farmington
just north of Seven Mile Road. The properly is zoned C-2,
General Business. To the south is the site of the Seven -
Farmington Shopping Center containing a Kmart store. To the
north, there are office buildings. Further to the north is an
apartment complex, Deerfield Woods Apartments, and then to
the east across the street are residential homes. The waiver
use was originally approved in 1983 allowing for a total of 106
customer seats. In 1991, there were changes to the drive-thru
that was extended and a freezer and a cooler unit was added to
the rear of the restaurant. Changes were made a few years
later in 1994 with the playscape addition to the front of the
July 19, 2011
25741
building. Through all these changes and other interior
modifications, they've lowered the seating count to about 94
where it sits today. The building itself really reflects the
architecture from when it was originally constructed in 1983. It
has the typical McDonald's red double mansard roof with yellow
accent beams. What McDonald's would like to do is make a
number of exterior changes to the building to make it more
contemporary looking to bring it to the standards of its current
corporate image. This kind of gives you an idea of what the
new restaurant will look like when it's completed. This is not
exactly the prototype, but it is very similar. The rooflines are
completely different. They are squared off. They will extend the
parapet with a panel brick system that will raise and flatted the
roofline. The materials used in the construction are a
combination of brick, stone and aluminum. The stone elements
would accent and define the main entrance and provide the
building with some architectural relief. Aluminum trellises would
be installed over the windows and entrances. There is a
modern aluminum louver feature that is illustrated in this plan
that is going to be covering a portion of the windows that extend
high on the building on the front facade facing Farmington
Road. This is where the playscape feature is located. You can
see the banding that they use as well as additional signage and
logos. In terms of site modifications, one thing they do propose
is to split the drive-thm lane. It would contain a second menu
board and order station. The revised plan includes not only the
new additional drive-thru lane but also the added landscaping.
They detailed the landscape plan for the Commission as was
requested at the study session. It does require modification of
the existing landscaping and parking directly behind building, a
portion of which would be removed. In terms of parking, the
restaurant requires 59 parking spaces. The Site Plan shows 59
spaces, including 4 that would be banked. These are spaces
that are adjacent to and just west of the order boards. These
would be maintained as landscaping. They have the option of
building these four spaces, but in discussions with the architect,
it was felt that it would be more appropriate to define this area
with additional landscaping, since some of the landscaping is
being removed from this site. It can be replaced in this location.
It has been indicated to us that from a practical standpoint,
those four spaces are not really needed. This plan does reflect
the suggestions that were made at the study session and shows
how addifional plantings would be provided within that defined
landscape island immediately adjacent to the order windows.
The plan also shows the addition of a drive island in front of the
building that would connect the north and south parking areas
and drives. This would allow cars to circle around the site
without re-entering Farmington Road. That driveway is located
between the existing pylon sign and the sidewalk along
July 19, 2011
25742
Farmington Road. What is shown here very lightly is the
addition of a one-way drive aisle that would conned the south
driveway with the north driveway, so vehicles can circulate the
site in a counterclockwise direction. If vehicles coming all the
way around decide they want to come back and park or use the
drive-lhm facility, they will have the opportunity to make that
loop on the driveway without going back onto Farmington Road
and making similar turning movements. That driveway would be
about 15 feel in width. It would be about 12 feel from the
sidewalk to the east and a few feel from the existing pylon sign.
They would be allowed one wall sign not to exceed 35 square
feet in area. The signage indicated on the plan is going to
require the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals, at least
that was illustrated, although I don't know that there has been
any detailed reviewed of exactly what they propose in terms of
signage at this point. Mr. Chairman, if you would like, I could
read out the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Yes. Let's go to the correspondence before we go to questions
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated July 8, 2011, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal
description contained on the plan is correct, except that the
word 'East' should be inserted in the legal description where
referring to the east section line of Section 4. As regards the
legal description on file with the City, the description is correct,
except that it should say the parcel contains 1.52 Acres, not
1.40 Acres. The work proposed under this petition includes
minor site work only, primarily related to adding a second drive-
thm ordering station. For this reason, it is not anticipated that
any permits from Engineering will be required for this work. The
address is confirmed to be 19311 Farmington Road. 1 trust this
provides you with the requested information." The letter is
signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
July 11, 2011, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel
the exterior of the existing restaurant on property located at the
above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fesler, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 11,
2011, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in
connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated July 18, 2011, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
July 19, 2011
25743
following is noted. The petitioner shows three barrier free
parking spaces provided. One of these barrier free spaces is
required to be van accessible. This requires a minimum of a 5
foot wide hashed access aisle alongside of an 11 foot wide
parking space or an 8 foot wide hashed access aisle alongside
an 8 foot wide parking space. This space must be property
signed and striped. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The next item is a letter from
Sheppard Engineering, P.C., addressed to Mr. Greg
Lautzenheiser of L+A Architects, Inc., dated July 19, 2011,
which reads as follows: /1t your request, we reviewed your
proposed framing plan and architectural sections for the exterior
remodel of the above referenced project. In particular, we
reviewed the option of adding full depth masonry veneer at the
locations where thin panel masonry veneer was specified. The
playplace arcade element and the non -drive thru side hearth
element are already specified to be faced with full depth
masonry veneer as part of the proposed exterior remodel. The
remainder of the playplace and the typical parapet wall
extensions are the areas specified on the drawings as having
thin panel masonry veneer. The 4" Rockcast stone veneer
proposed to be used on this project has a product weight of 50
pounds per square foot. The Brtckwal thin panel masonry
veneer proposed for this project has a product weight of 8
pounds per square foot. Due to the large difference in weight
between the two products, the structural requirements of
supporting the two products also differ greatly. The thin panel
veneer has been proposed, on this project, to be used in the
areas where existing framing must be used to support such
veneer. If the 4"stone veneer was used in these areas instead,
it would not be feasible for the existing framing to support this
heavier veneer. The existing framing would have to be removed
and replaced with heavier, higher capacity sections. If you have
any questions or need any additional information please contact
this office." The letter is signed by John J. Graber, P.E., S.E.,
Sheppard Engineering, P.C. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, I think at the study session they were talking about one
window. Has a second window been added?
Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding that the operation of the drive-thru will
involve two windows. One will be the cash booth, as it's labeled
on the plan, which will require a very small addition to the
southwest corner of the building. Additionally, there is the
existing pickup window which is located immediately to the east.
In fact, the addition as it was described to us was needed to
separate the two windows so that they could park a vehicle in
July 19, 2011
25744
between. So you could have a vehicle that is at the cash
window, one vehicle in wail, and then another vehicle located at
the pickup window. All three could be lined up without any
interference with one another or the operations.
Mr. Morrow:
So those are the only two windows we have. There has not
been a third one introduced?
Mr. Taormina:
Not to my knowledge. I'll let Mr. Lautzenheiser address that.
Mr. Morrow:
Sir, before we get to you, I'm going to ask if the Commission if
they have any questions of Mr. Taormina. Does the
Commission have anyquestons of Mr. Taormina?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In front of the building, you added
another driveway. That wasn't added before Kevin Roney or
anybody else looked at.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct. I do not believe the departments have reviewed
the changes to the plan showing this additional driveway.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyone else? Now, sir, you may come forward. We will need
your name and address for the record.
Greg Lautzenheiser,
A.I.A., President, L+A Architects, Inc., 2430 Rochester
Court, Suite 200, Troy, Michigan 48083 1 represent the
McDonald's Corporation. With me tonight is Theresa and
Michelle, representing the owner/operator, Paul Hammer.
Thank you, Mark, for a good presentation and overview of what
we're proposing here tonight. I brought some other stuff but
you've already seen the site plan so on and so forth. Maybe we
could walk through that again, if you will. We were at the study
meeting last week, and a couple comments did come up. We
satisfied the parking requirement with the addition of these four
spaces we had proposed back here originally. The comment
was, well, if we really don't need all of these spaces, maybe
these can get Iandbanked and we can create a landscape
island. That's what we've done here. Another thing that we
introduced new to the site plan at the study meeting was the
pass-through lane. The purpose of that is, when McDonald's is
doing a remodel of this nature and they have this kind of room
and space to do it, it's only to allow the customer who either
forgot an item and wants to go back through the drive-lhm,
pulled in and decided, well, maybe he got his order confused.
Rather than go back out, it's just purely for safety of not only the
customer but for people on Farmington Road as well. If one
wanted to go back through the drive-thm lane or circle and find
July 19, 2011
25745
a space to park, if you didn't have the pass-through lane, one
has to go back out onto Farmington, make a left, and then make
another left back in the site. It's just purely for customer ease
and it's not something that is going to cause any traffic issues.
McDonald's is very big on traffic circulation and so on and so
forth. That being said, when we did add the pass-through lane,
currently there exists just some shrubs right in front of the site.
McDonald's has proposed additional landscaping around the
existing road sign to embellish it because currently there's only
grass in the area. To address the second window, they
currently have another drive-lhm window, a pay window here
and a pickup window here. When we do this type of
configuration in these remodels, the purpose of extending the
window ... there's like between 42 and 45 feet between the
pickup car and the pay car and that allows for a car in between.
Again, it's a thing that they developed over the years. It works
very well for them, and it makes sense. All these things that
McDonald's does, it's not something that somebody woke up
one day and said, let's do this. They have reasons for what
they'd like to do and how they'd like to go about doing it. What
we didn't have with us last time at the study meeting, it was kind
of indicated in the rendering proposed, in the elevations that are
shown here, this is the actual color of the base brick which will
be throughout the building, on the sides. This is the accent
color. It's kind of dark here, but between the two drive-lhru
windows, this would be the color proposed here. The rest of the
brick would be the lighter color. I believe it's Aztec. I can't
remember the exact color, but that's by Benjamin Moore. The
other elements on the building are the stone hearth and the
arcade on the side as well as near the entrance. The rest is
brick. There was conversation about the brick being the thin
brick above the existing brick. What McDonald's does when
they do this type of remodel, and its a re-image for them. Its a
whole program that they've embarked on and have been going
through for a couple years now, and they plan to do most of
their stores around the country where they can. What they've
done is, the double mansard, which is about in this area here,
they actually cut off the first part of the mansard, and then they
come up with a brick system. It's a thin brick panel system
above and the existing brick remains below. There was a
comment at the study meeting that, why not use conventional
brick above. Rather than me try to address it, I also asked our
structural engineer to look at it too, and that's the letter Mark
referred to today. For instance, above the front, this is a full
depth brick veneer, the stone is at the arcade and the hearth in
these areas. The brick below is also a full depth brick. For
instance, in the playscape in front, there is a large beam here
and glass above. Should this become a full depth brick, that
beam is not able to support that system. For the same reason,
July 19, 2011
25746
when we takeoff part of the mansard on the rest of the building,
that thin brick system is designed so there does not have to be
major, major structural modifications as indicated in the letter to
support that brick, because the wall below, the backup, doesn't
have the proper reinforcing. Yes, it's a brick and block system,
but one just can't add to it without major expense. Basically, I
think I've covered everything. I'm here to answer any questions
you might have.
Mr. Morrow:
Before I go to the rest of the Commission, we've seen this thin
brick before and it's the old Williams type of structure, Williams
Brick. Is that the type you're using?
Mr Lautzenneiser
This type is brick wall.
Mr. Morrow:
I want to make sure what the process is. Is it similar to what
we've used in the past around the City?
Mr Lautzenheiser
I'm not sure exactly what systems you've been using.
Mr. Morrow:
Itwas the old Williams Brick system.
Mr Lautzenheiser
No, this is not that. It's a thin wall brick system. Its not a type
of system that has maintenance issues. McDonald's has tested
this and used this in hundreds of locations around the country
with success.
Mr. Morrow:
Does it come with any kind of guarantee?
Mr Lautzenheiser
Yes. Off the lop of my head, I cannot recall what the
manufacturer's guarantee is and part of any guarantee is also
the installation. It is a panel brick system and the brick is
adhered to the panel. Its like a dryvit system or anything like a
synthetic plaster as well.
Mr. Morrow:
All right. We won't dwell on that. Maybe the Commission will
have some other questions. Are there any questions of the
petitioner?
Mr. Taylor:
First of all, I took your recommendation and went out to the Ann
Arbor Road store. It's a very nice looking store. You did a great
job on it, I think. My question was, I like the front of it. You
have a yellow band here on this picture that we have.
Mr Lautzenheiser
Correct.
Mr. Taylor:
It looks like cement, like the cement you're using on the side
here. What is the yellow band here? What does that indicate?
Mr Lauoenheiser That I do not. I'm here on behalf of McDonald's and I have the
authority and authorization to do a lot of things, make a lot of
decisions, but when it comes to big ticket money items or
something of that nature when it comes to signage, unless
July 19, 2011
25747
Mr. Lautzenheiser
That's an aluminum type of material.
Mr. Taylor:
They don't have that on the front of the Ann Arbor store. It's
very neat looking with the while cement along there. Is there
any way we can do that to this building?
Mr Lauoenheiser
We could probably look at something along that line, yes.
Mr. Taylor:
Like I say, the building looks nice.
Mr Lautzenheiser
Thankyou.
Mr. Taylor:
Its kind of proven to me through Sheppard Engineering that
you're going to have to use a panel back. I'd like to know what
the extended life of it is. The one that we have that we're talking
about, that our Chairman is talking about, there is a 20 year life
on that particular brick. That gives us a little bit of comfort
because the original panel brick that came out, we had on City
Hall out in front, and it fell off. We have since Teamed that
there's a different way of doing it. That's one of my things. The
other thing was about the drive-thru out in front. How tall is your
sign out there now?
Mr Lauoenneiser
The sign, I didn't physically measure it, but looking at it as best I
could when I was out there last week, I believe the sign is about
35 feel overall in height and that's a 10 fool sign, 10 by 10, if
you square it off. So the bottom of the sign is about 25 feet
above grade.
Mr. Taylor:
That was the other thing that I was impressed with out on Ann
Arbor Road. They have more of what we call a low profile sign
with the "M". It looked very nice. You could actually see it
better that way than if its 35 feel in the air, I think. There's
always a little give and lake on everything that we do. I see the
drive way. I guess I dont have a big problem with it, but in lieu
of that, I'd like to see you bring the sign down if there is any
possible way of doing that. I don't know whether I have the
backing of the rest of this committee or not, but I think we try
throughout the City to more or less bring down and have what
we call a low profile sign. I don't know how big the one is in
Plymouth, but it's a nice looking sign. Its neat. It goes along
with the building and I
just think it would be nice if you could do
something like that. I don't
know whether you have the ability to
make that comment or not.
Mr Lauoenheiser That I do not. I'm here on behalf of McDonald's and I have the
authority and authorization to do a lot of things, make a lot of
decisions, but when it comes to big ticket money items or
something of that nature when it comes to signage, unless
July 19, 2011
25748
Theresa you have anything you'd like to add? Sorry, Theresa, I
didn't mean to put you on the spot.
Theresa Brown, 19311 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan. With the sign, with
the pass through, I think, Paul, the owner, is definitely willing to
look at that to gel the lower, more updated signs because as
you can tell what we're doing is, we look dated. We're updating.
I think you have a point maybe with the sign. If we're going to
update, lets go for it.
Mr. Taylor: I think you're absolutely right. I think it does go along with the
building out there on Ann Arbor Road.
Ms. Brown: It will look nice on the other side of the pass-through if we put it
through the sidewalk. You know, I'm just visualizing this after
you said that. Maybe even he can put it on our side of the
sidewalk and have the pass-through closer to the building.
Mr. Taylor: Obviously, you can't put it in the right-of-way. I don't know what
you're talking about.
Ms. Brown: No, no, no. I'm explaining it wrong. I'll let him do it.
Mr. Lauoenheker I think if you put the site plan back up, we can address it, Mark.
Mr. Taylor: If we made a resolution to give you the drive-thru and brought
the sign down, let's say with a 10 fool height maximum.
Ms. Brown:
Oh. Bring it down, not replace it?
Mr. Taylor:
Yes. Bring it down. Because now, 35 feel in the air, like I say,
the one on Ann Arbor Road, the McDonald's, is a nice looking
sign, and it goes along with the building.
Ms. Brown:
Right. I don't know if we would want to lower it or replace it. I
think he'd be more apt to replace it and that would be a lower
sign that you're talking about. He's been looking at that, but he
hasn't made any decision. He makes the final call, but that is
something he's been looking at.
Mr. Taylor:
Is that Mr. Hammer?
Ms. Brown:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor:
He still owns it?
Ms. Brown:
He still does.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay.
July 19, 2011
25749
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taylor, I was out there checking the site myself. It just so
happened that I was making a left tum off of Farmington Road
into this site, and there had to be a pedestrian. A car came in,
pulled up and picked up that one. There is a car or two behind
R, and it actually backed up onto Farmington Road. If at all
possible, I would like to see that flipped, where you bring the
pass-through lane closer to the building and move the
landscaping and the sign closer to Farmington Road.
Mr. Baur enneiser
I think that would be a definite possibility.
Mr. Morrow:
Not only today, but if you have a car making the circle to get
back in and a car coming off of Farmington Road, there is a
possibility of conflict. If it doesn't greatly affect your plan, I think
for moving the traffic it would work better, plus you'd gel the
landscaping closer to Farmington Road and your sign.
Mr Lauoenneiser
That would make good sense. I don't think we'd have a
problem with moving the pass-through lane closer to the
building. That being said, instead of having it here, we could
have it back here in a position that would work.
Mr. Morrow:
And move the landscaping and sign.
Mr Lauoenneiser
And move the landscaping that is currently around the sign
towards the front. I know that Theresa said the owner/operator,
Paul Hammer, would be willing to work on the sign thing. I'm
not sure what that means and what we can walk away with
tonight as far as a resolution to that, but you've heard it that
we're willing to work with the Planning Commission and the City.
We're good neighbors. McDonald's always has been.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, that is something that you could work with them on? We
could word it but you could look at it when it goes to the City
Council.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. We will prepare the resolution, and then those details
would have to be provided to the City Council. The resolution
will probably have to be refined at that time to really lock in the
height of the sign and its setback and those sorts of details as
part of a revised plan.
Mr. Morrow:
This would keep the petton moving.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm sorry for jumping in there. I want to go to the Commission
and see if there are any questions.
July 19, 2011
25750
Ms. Smiley:
I was not a big fan of the pass-through lane, but after thinking of
R as a safety issue, with the tum lane, there are five lanes of
traffic on Farmington, and Farmington is a busy road. And the
time of day they're driving through would probably be lunch and
dinner which can be a little crazy. I live in that area. So I'm now
in favor of that, and I'm very glad to see you do something about
the landscaping in front if you're going to put in a pass-through
lane, because that really didn't knock me out. We needed to do
some work with the landscaping. So you're now talking about
doing the pass-through lane in front closer to the building and
then we would have landscaping on the other side.
Mr. Lauoenheiser
In front of the pass-through lane, right. Then what we'll work on
with Mark is the sign. There's talk of a lower height. I don't
know if the owner/operator's intent was to move it forward or
rebuild it.
Ms. Brown:
The sign?
Mr Lauoenheiser
Correct.
Ms. Brown:
He is definitely willing to look at a newer, updated sign. I was
trying to explain earlier, which you said it much better than I did,
that a lower sign and a newer sign would be really nice if the
pass-through is closer to the building and then on the other side
of the pass-through would be a nicer sign, more updated to go
with the decor.
Mr. Morrow:
Plus those trees have grown up since the sign was put in.
Ms. Brown:
Those trees are crazy. You can't even see the sign with the
trees.
Mr. Morrow:
A lower profile would be much better.
Ms. Brown:
Yes. That would just look a little silly with our new building
because we are looking dated.
Mr. Morrow:
You might want to stay there just in case there's another
question.
Mr Lauoenheiser
We do realize that the existing sign is an existing nonconforming
sign. Once anybody touches it, unless it's maintenance, that
something would probably have to happen. That's not
uncommon.
Ms. Scheel: That's what I'm trying to see.
Mr Laupenheker There's a canopy back here with what we call a COD, customer
order display in it, which is at the speaker post. Then there's a
menu board right here, and then there's another order point
right here, and the other menu board is right there.
Ms. Brown: Then at the turn they merge.
Ms. Scheel: You merge them together.
Ms. Brown: Then you become one.
Mr Lauoenheker One enters the lane at the same place, and there's a sign right
here that says, "Any lane, any time" You can go either way.
You can see automatically the drive-thm lane has the capability
of additional cars, which helps with congestion and traffic flow.
They both can order. They both merge. I don't understand
operationally how it works, but they don't have confusion inside
the restaurant. They've got cameras either on the light post or
the building so they know who's ordering what and when. When
July 19, 2011
25751
Mr. Taylor:
The one that I saw in Plymouth, it had two drive -up windows,
and they had them numbered, number 1 and number 2. Is that
what you're planning on doing?
Ms. Brown:
On the overhang and the drive-lhrus, it does designate the first
window is number 1, the second is window 2. It's just like,
please pull up to window 1. Somefimes we have to close the
first window and then we'll say, pull up to window 2. It's just
directional signage.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel:
There are going to be two order windows where you drive up to
order.
Mr. Lauoenheker
One order window, one pickup window.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay.
Mr Lauoenheker
I'm sorry. It's not even an order window. The first window is the
pay window.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Where do you order the food at?
Ms. Brown:
There are two order stations.
Mr Laupenheker
Right back here.
Ms. Scheel: That's what I'm trying to see.
Mr Laupenheker There's a canopy back here with what we call a COD, customer
order display in it, which is at the speaker post. Then there's a
menu board right here, and then there's another order point
right here, and the other menu board is right there.
Ms. Brown: Then at the turn they merge.
Ms. Scheel: You merge them together.
Ms. Brown: Then you become one.
Mr Lauoenheker One enters the lane at the same place, and there's a sign right
here that says, "Any lane, any time" You can go either way.
You can see automatically the drive-thm lane has the capability
of additional cars, which helps with congestion and traffic flow.
They both can order. They both merge. I don't understand
operationally how it works, but they don't have confusion inside
the restaurant. They've got cameras either on the light post or
the building so they know who's ordering what and when. When
July 19, 2011
25752
they come up, they gel the order right, so on and so forth. At
the end of the day, what all that does is expedite the process
through the drive-thru. I've heard it increases 15 - 20 percent
sometimes.
Ms. Brown:
Sometimes, yes. And then what it does, it allows us to slack
more cars and gel them out more efficiently, because the
reason we wanted the car in the middle of the two windows is it
gave the kitchen time to gel your food ready. We can gel you
through in ten seconds, but you won't gel your food. We need
time to make it. So that allows a little bit more time and you're
moving. You're going through and you're feeling like you're
going somewhere. So slacking the cars, makes for us,
operationally, we can get you out better.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you. Are the hours of operation changing at all?
Ms. Brown:
No. We're still 24 hours.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. So all that is staying the same.
Ms. Brown:
Yes.
Ms. Scheel:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Al the study session I know there was some concern about
using the thin brick versus the four inch brick. Ms. Krueger, do
you have any concerns about structural problems going to the
thin brick?
Ms. Krueger:
Given that it seems to be a structural issue and that's why
you're going with the thin brick application, I guess I'm okay with
R. I would appreciate a little bit more information on the
application process.
Mr. Laupenheker
We can do that and also the warranty that comes with it, as you
mentioned.
Ms. Krueger:
I would suggest that if this proceeds to the City Council that you
have that information available for them.
Mr Laupenheker
Okay. Certainly.
Mr. Morrow:
Do architects have a rating guide on that particular system?
Mr Lauoenheker
Kind of yes and no. We all do our research and our homework,
but I kind of go back to the installation part of it too because you
can have a panel brick that when it comes from the factory and
the panel, it's adhered well. Its gone through the curing
July 19, 2011
25753
process; everything is secure. But at the end of the day, if it
hasn't been stored properly on site or its out in the elements
and it gets min, snow and exposure when it shouldn't be before
it's installed, it can have inherent problems, or if the contractor is
not an approved contractor, you can have problems loo in the
installation. That's where a lot of the problems happen.
Mr. Morrow:
This is kind of going along with what Ms. Krueger said. This is
the first time this particular one is being introduced. We've seen
several others that I referred to as the Williams Brick system.
We'd like to know more about it because this may not be the
last time we see it.
Mr. Laupenneiser
Certainly. We'd be happy to provide you with that information.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr Lauoenneiser
We understand its a sensitive issue.
Mr. Morrow:
As Mr. Taylor said, our first go round with thin brick was a
disaster. So thin brick kind of rings a bell with us. Is there
anything else?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I also look a look at the facility in Plymouth on Ann Arbor Road.
Its very nice looking. I was impressed that the drive-thm flowed
as well as it did with the two lanes. I was a Iitfle concerned that
it wouldn't work as well as it does, but it amazingly seems to
keep cars moving through there extremely fast. There wasn't a
lot of waiting. While I was there, there was one car that sort of
tanked up the whole operation. It was sort of confused as to
what they were doing. They sort of gummed up the works for
everybody else, but as soon as they got out of there, the rest of
the people were able to blast through and it worked well. The
only thing I noticed was, you mentioned at the study meeting,
it's worth putting on the record, that you're going to put in a brick
system and then you're going to paint it. Correct?
Mr Laupenneiser
That is correct.
Mr. W Ishaw:
What kind of paint are you going to use? What kind of finish is it
going to have as far as durability goes?
Mr Lauoenneiser
Its a matte finish. Its a Benjamin Moore paint made specifically
for this type of application, for an exterior use. Obviously, again,
going back to preparation and installation, the existing brick
would be properly prepared to receive the paint. The intent is,
really because a lot of these old buildings, even if we were to
find some of the old brick that matched the existing brick that's
there, because of the age of the building, its faded and it
July 19, 2011
25754
wouldn't match. Its virtually impossible to do it. McDonald's
has several different color schemes for these types of re -images
depending on the location and so on and so forth.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The colors that you're proposing here appear to be the same or
similar to the ones that we see on the store on Ann Arbor Road.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lauoenheker
I believe they are exactly the same. Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
They seem very attractive. Is it safe to assume though that this
paint is going to hold up for 10, 15, 20 years, or is it going to be
something that needs to be touched up every couple years?
Mr Lauoenheker
If it does need a touchup or some type of maintenance,
McDonald's will address that. When they do these kinds of
things, they spend an awful lot of money and the last thing they
want to do is have any kind of an issue and have it not look
good. In the long time that I've worked with them, that's been
one of their fortes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. I do think as far as comments on some of the
other things that have been mentioned, I do think the change of
the main sign is a really good suggestion. I think it would go
along with the whole re-imaging of the building to have a more
up -lo -dale modem sign as well.
Ms. Brown:
I do too.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I like that. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else before I go to the audience? I don't see anyone
in the audience to come forward on this particular petition. So if
there are no further questions or comments, I'm going to ask for
a motion.
Mr. Taylor:
I would ask for an approving resolution with a connecting lane.
On a motion by
Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0741-2011
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-07-08-06
submitted by L+A Architects, Inc., on behalf of McDonald's
Corporation, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 19.06 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior
of the existing restaurant at 19311 Farmington Road, located on
the west side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road
July 19, 2011
25755
and Eight Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, be
approved subjectlolhe following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. C-2 dated July 14,
2011, as revised, prepared by L+A Arohilects Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the
pass-through lane shall be moved closer to the building
and the pylon sign shall be removed and replaced with a
new monument sign that shall have a maximum height of
len (10) feet and a minimum setback from the right-of-way
of twelve (12) feet;
2. That in accordance with Section 18.370) of the Zoning
Ordinance, the petitioner shall be allowed to bank the four
(4) parking spaces between the new drive-lhru
configuration and the parking spaces along the back edge
of the parking lot;
3. That the banked parking area shall be maintained as green
space and that a future parking plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department, which shall be arranged and
designed so that the subject parking spaces can be
installed at a later date if the need arises;
4. That the owner shall agree in writing to install such
landbanked parking within 180 days of a City Council
resolution in which it is determined that such additional
parking is needed;
5. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet No. C-4 prepared
by L+A Arohilects Inc. as received by the Planning
Commission on July 19, 2011, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, subject to modifications as may be
approved by the Planning Department;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet
No. A2.0 and A2.1 prepared by L+A Arohitects Inc., as
received by the Planning Commission on July 5, 2011, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the
yellow band on the front elevation shall be replaced with
stone;
7. That any disturbed landscaping and/or sod shall be
replaced and fully irrigated;
8. That the maximum area of each wall -mounted sign and the
approximate location of all exterior signage shall be
consistent with the previous approved sign package for this
site, and that any additional signage shall be separately
July 19, 2011
25756
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
9. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
10. 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
11. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is
valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval
by the City Council, and unless a building permit is
obtained and construction is commenced, this approval
shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taylor:
On Condifion #5, Mark, can you take a look al the drive-lhru, the
pass-through lane. We're going to change that. I didn't know
how else to put that in. Will that work?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. We will fox R.
Mr. Taylor:
A new Condition #12, that the existing pole sign be lowered to a
height to be determined by the Planning Department.
Mr. Taormina:
I will wait for the support and then I will make a suggestion.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
If the maker of the motion would accept a little bit different
language with respect to the signage. What I was thinking, Mr.
Taylor, is that Condition #1 could read: That the Site Plan
marked Sheet No. C-2 dated July 14, 2011, as revised,
prepared by L+A Architects Inc., is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to, except that the pass-through lane shall be
moved closer to the building and the pylon sign shall be
removed and replaced with a new monument sign that shall
have a maximum height often (10) feel and a minimum setback
from the right -0f --way of twelve (12) feel.
Mr. Taylor:
That's why you gel the big bucks.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, you might also want to throw in the landscape plan is
being changed.
July 19, 2011
25757
Mr.
Taormina:
Right. Okay.
Mr.
Morrow:
The landscape plan looks very nice but its being flipped. Mr.
Taylor?
Mr.
Taylor:
I have no problem with that.
Mr.
Morrow:
Ms. Smiley?
Ms.
Smiley:
Its great. Thank you.
Mr.
Morrow:
Mr. Taylor, I don't know how strong you feel about your
recommendation about the cement panel as opposed to the
yellow band.
Mr.
Taylor:
I was going to ask that question. He gave me kind of a vague
answer when I asked him about it, that he would take a look at
it. I don't know what that means.
Mr.
Lauoenneker
We could do what we did at the Ann Arbor Road Plymouth
store.
Mr.
Taylor:
I think it would look much better.
Mr
Lauoenneker
I don't see that as being a problem. Its the yellow band that
he's talking about here in front. I think that was probably an
earlier design, prototype, because these things change very
often as they evolve.
Mr.
Taylor:
Its so classy looking there on Ann Arbor Road with that being
cement.
Mr
Lauoenneker
So be d. It will be done.
Mr.
Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr.
Morrow:
So we can add that to the motion.
Mr.
Taormina:
Can you just paraphrase what you're looking for? I'mnolsure.
Mr.
Taylor:
The yellow band will be the same material as the white concrete
down along the left hand side.
Ms.
Scheel:
That can be added just onto Condition #1, can't it?
Mr.
Morrow:
In other words, it used to have the canopy effect.
Mr.
Taormina:
I'm going to go to the front elevation.
July 19, 2011
25758
Mr. Taylor:
See to the left over there?
Mr. Taormina:
This is how the building will look from the front. This band right
here is what he is suggesting be the same masonry that is used
in the construction here?
Mr. Taylor:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Greg, is that possible?
Mr. Laupenheker
Yes, I believe we can. This is the louver system above. I don't
see a problem with it, Mark, at this point and time. From
speaking out of hand, I'll lel you know, but we'll do our best to
make it look like the Plymouth facility.
Mr. Taylor:
Ian was out there. Don't you agree that 9 looked better in the
front?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. It looked very nice.
Ms. Smiley:
I saw that.
Mr. Morrow:
I think we have agreement. So if it can be pulled off, that would
be appreciated.
Mr Lautenheker
If we did it there, we can certainly do it here.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Anything else? I guess we amended that. The maker
and the supporter agree. Is there anything else?
Ms. Krueger:
I would like to suggest one addition, and that would be that in
moving the driveway closer to the building, if any landscaping is
disturbed, such as trees or bushes, that that be replaced.
Mr. Morrow:
All right. That will be fine. Does the maker agree?
Mr. Taylor:
I'm sorry. I didn't get that.
Mr. Morrow:
Ms. Krueger said if any landscaping such as trees or shrubs is
disturbed, that they be replaced when they shift the driveway.
Mr. Taylor:
Oh, yes. No problem.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
July 19, 2011
25759
ITEM#3 PETITION 2011 -07 -LS -09 SALE OF CITY -OWNED
PROPERTY
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Consideration of
Real Property Disposal submitted by Michael and Donna
Chapman, pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Code of
Ordinances, City Properly Disposition, requesting to purchase
City -owned properly at 18885 Harrison Avenue, located on the
west side of Harrison, between Pickford Avenue and Seven Mile
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Taormina: Pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Code of Ordinances, before
the City can sell any City -owned property to a private entity, it
must first have a determination from the Planning Commission
that there are no plausible alternative uses of the property. So
we're looking for a recommendation in this case for the sale of a
City -owned parcel that is located on Harrison Avenue between
Pickford Avenue and Seven Mile Road. This is actually a
portion of Harrison Avenue that is not improved at the present.
While it exists on paper, there is no road in this particular area.
The City owns this property which is about 90 feel by 170 feet or
0.32 acres, and it is zoned RUF. The owners of the property
immediately to the west, Michael and Donna Chapman would
like to acquire the site. They live at 18886 Brentwood Avenue
and their house backs up to this property. They explain in their
letter to the City that they have lived in this house for some time
and they have been maintaining the City -own property. We see
no need for the City to retain ownership of this property and
have prepared a resolution to that effect. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mark. Will this remain a separate parcel in the RUF
classification?
Mr. Taormina: Actually, combined with the Chapman's property, this will make
one conforming RUF parcel. Right now what we have are two
non -conforming parcels.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Taormina?
Ms. Smiley: I have question. Did you say this is landlocked?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. The city -owned parcel is basically landlocked.
Ms. Smiley: So it doesn't go out to that street?
Mr. Taormina: There is no street. On the plan it shows as a street, but it was
never improved. It is public nghl-of-way, technically, but its
never been improved as a street.
July 19, 2011
25760
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I guess the obviously question is, do they ever plan on building
Harrison Road there?
Mr. Taormina:
At the present moment, no.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Where Harrison Road is indicated, does that space remain as
City properly even though this parcel that we're speaking of is
possibly going to go into possession of the homeowners?
Mr. Taormina:
The right-of-way is public domain.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The right-of-way continues to exist?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct. It does continue to exist. Until it is vacated, it remains
as public properly or public right-of-way.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Does it seem likely that we would vacate that road completely
and just split d?
Mr. Taormina:
I would have to take a look at that. There could be easements
that would have to be retained. I'd have to look to see how far
down it could be done. It's not something that has ever been
requested or studied to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean
that it won't be in the future.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Any other questions or comments on this petition? I guess it's
not a petition; its just kind of a consideration. So if there is
none, I will ask for an approving resolution.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Krueger, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0742-2011
RESOLVED, that in connection with a request submitted by
Michael and Donna Chapman, 18886 Brentwood, Livonia,
Michigan, pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Code of
Ordinances, City Property Disposition, and pursuant to Council
Resolution #122-11, to purchase City -owned properly at 18885
Harrison Avenue, located on the west side of Harrison, between
Pickford Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 12, the Planning Commission has no objection to the
sale of the vacant City -owned property based on a
determination that there is no plausible alternative use for the
property, and no compelling reason exists to delay the sale of
the properly.
July 19, 2011
25761
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,011th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,01Ph Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on June 28, 2011.
Ona motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0743-2011 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,011th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 28,
2011, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES: Taylor, Wilshaw, Bahr, Smiley, Krueger, Scheel,
Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,0121 Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 19, 2011, was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman