HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-07-28 16271
MINUTES OF THE 768th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 28, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
768th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James McCann Elaine Koons Robert Alanskas
William LaPine Michael Hale Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
Messrs.'s John Nagy, Planning Director; Scott Miller, Planner II and Jeff Bryant,
Economic Development Manager were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning or vacating request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing makes 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 approval. The Commission's
recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to
whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan
is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to
the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the
professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has
furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the
Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is the Extension of
site plan approval for Petition 97-8-8-20 by Gordon Food Service, Inc. requesting
approval of all plans in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
building on property located at 17700 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 12.
Mr. McCann: This item has been discussed at length at a prior meeting, therefore there
will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will
require unanimous consent from the Commission.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
16272
#7-116-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the request from Gordon Food Service, Inc. for a
one year extension of Petition 97-8-8-20 for approval of all plans in
No. connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property
located at 17700 Middlbelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12 be
approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the request for a one-year extension of Site Plan approval by
Gordon Food Service, in a letter dated July 21, 1998 for a one-year
extension of Petition 97-8-8-20 and Council Resolution #748-97, is hereby
approved subject to all conditions and requirements set forth in the original
resolution.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Alanskas to the petitioner: If this extension goes through, when do you intend to start
construction?
Mr. Case Reimus, Gorden Food Service, 333 50th Street SW, Grand Rapids, MI 49501:
It is anticipated not until the fall of next year.
Mr. Alanskas: And the reason for your request?
Mr. Reimus: There have been some problems. Gordon Foods has recently acquired a
Southfield and Dearborn location and it has taken an extraordinary amount
of time. Also, the Real Estate Department has been totally reorganized and
that has slowed down the process as well.
Mr. Alanskas: So that will definitely take place?
Mr. Reimus: As far as I am concerned, yes. We are very excited about becoming a part
of Livonia. It is an excellent location for us. We are well into the Detroit
market and are excited to be a part of this community.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-6-1-9
by Millennium Park, L.L.C. on behalf of Ladbroke Land Company requesting to
rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft
Road/I/96 Freeway and the CSX Railroad in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25 from
M-2 to C-2.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#7-117-98 RESOLVED, that Petition 98-6-1-9 by Millennium Park, L.L.C. on behalf
of Ladbroke Land Company requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Middlbelt Road between Schoolcraft Road/I/96 Freeway and
Num.,
16273
east side of Middlbelt Road between Schoolcraft Road/I/96 Freeway and
the CSX Railroad in the NW 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2 be taken
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a recommendation from the Plymouth Road
Development Authority indicating in their correspondence that at the 76th
Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority held on
July 16, 1998, the following resolution was adopted: Resolved that the
Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby recommend to the
Planning Commission the approval of commercial zoning for 74 acres of
the proposed Millennium Park development. That was passed by a
majority vote. In addition to that, in the intervening weeks since this
matter was tabled, we received seven letters from residents of Livonia in
support of the proposed change of zoning. That's the extent of our
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions for the petitioner this evening?
Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest since this matter was discussed in detail at
a number of prior meetings that we simply proceed along without any
audience participation.
Mr. McCann: According to the rules, we have to have 50% of the members of the
commission in order to do it, therefore a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was
#7-118-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 14, 1998 on Petition 98-6-1-9 by
Millennium Park, L.L.C. on behalf of Ladbroke Land Company requesting
to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Schoolcraft Road/I/96 Freeway and the CSX Railroad in the SW 1/4 of
Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-6-1-9 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed rezoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan
which recommends industrial land use for the subject property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is not required for the subject
property to be developed;
r..
16274
3) That the area in the vicinity of the Middlbelt Road and Schoolcraft
Road/I-96 Freeway intersection is currently well served with uses
permitted by the proposed C-2 zoning district;
4) That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need in
this area for additional commercial uses such as are permitted by the C-2
zoning district;
5) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which
will cause additional traffic congestion in the area;
6) That the property requested to be rezoned represents a significant
portion of the last truly large remaining parcel of undeveloped industrially
zoned land within the industrial corridor of the City and for that reason the
industrial zoning should be retained so as not to diminish the City's
potential for future industrial growth; and
7) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible with the City's
policy of promoting the use of land within the industrial corridor for
industrial purposes.
Mr. McCann: I'll open the floor for discussion.
Mr. Piercecchi: I will support this denying resolution. Not because I oppose
commercial development per se, but solely because I am far from
convinced that we are optimizing the use of this property. First of all, do
we need more big box complexes such as a Meijer's or a Lowe's in this
area? Remember, Walmart will soon be in place just across the street.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to seek professional offices which employ
35-40 per acre and wages start at about $15.00 per hour, or industrial
which employees 15-30 per acre at wages at about $21.00 per hour. Or
better yet, research and development which employs about 18-35 per acre
with wages at around $28.00 per hour instead of the proposed type of
commercial development which employs less and pays about $7.00 an
hour. Wouldn't the above options be more beneficial to the economic
development of our City? Perhaps these employment opportunities would
even enhance our youth's capability to stay in Livonia after graduation.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely question whether this 74 acre proposal is in the
best interest of the developers or in the best interest of the Citizens of
Livonia. Historically, it was about 50 years ago when Livonia had a
population of about 30,000 when the race track became a realty. Surely,
we wouldn't be acting in haste if we gave it a new comprehensive look
with today's vision. Although the McKenna report is of interest, I would
be much more comfortable with a more detailed report authorized and paid
for by the City rather than the developer. If it is true that this track of land
has the potential of bringing jobs and millions into the City coffers,
16275
wouldn't it be a wise investment to develop a plan to maximize it's
potential? I personally think it is our obligation, our duty. Hence Mr.
Chairman, I recommend denial of this petition and recommend that the
City Council when it reaches their table, that they table this matter until
such a time that an independent consultant be retained to prepare a study
to assess the impact of various types of development in this area on our
current economic profile, employment trends, market trends, population
projections, etc. now and over the next decade.
Mr. LaPine: I am really intrigued over the last portion of Mr. Piercecchi's thing about
having an independent outside concern come in and look at this whole 36
miles. It is something I have asked for for the last few years. When I ran
for City Council, that was one of my programs. I said that we can't wait
until the cart is out of the barn, the racetrack is sold and that a petitioner
comes in here with a proposal and we have to jump at it. We should have
been ahead of the game here and looked at that whole project to see what
was in the best interests of all Livonia. With that I would like to go back a
little into the history of this whole scenario. Number 1, I have been a
resident of Livonia for 43 years. I moved to this town in 1955. The City
was born around 1950. At that time the race track was a big selling point
and the young people that moved into this town at that time was sold on
the assumption that the race track was going to pay 50% of the taxes,
which it did over the years when we were a small city of 23,000 people.
Then over the years our City Council, our Mayor, our Planning
`ar Department came up with a Master Plan which was approved in 1974.
That Master Plan included the industrial corridor that was really the crux
of our whole Master Plan. This was going to be the area where we were
going to get good tax base because we got good tax dollars from industrial
development Over the years that plan has been deviated. From time to
time we look at the plan and we update it, but we have never deviated
from that one area, the industrial corridor. I, as a member of the Planning
Commission, was opposed to the rezoning of the property for the Home
Quarters and the property for the China Coast which are now both gone.
At that time my position was that we shouldn't piecemeal this operation,
we should look at it on an overall basis and that is when I made a
recommendation that we should have a blue ribbon committee to look at
that whole area so that when the race track was going to leave, and we
knew there were rumors, now is the time for us as a City to look at it on an
overall basis, not just look at it from a developer's viewpoint when he
came in with a development. I don't think that has changed. It seems to
me that the burden is on the developer in this case to prove, and he hasn't
proved it to me, that we need more commercial in the City of Livonia. I
was up and down Plymouth Road, and this is one of the areas that they say
this is going to stimulate more business,there are more empty buildings
on Plymouth Road, large buildings, others going under, where I think we
have plenty of commercial buildings in the south end of town that just
16276
have to be filled. Now I am not saying that I am opposed completely
against commercial going in there, but I don't think this plan with
big boxes is what we need in Livonia. We need upscale shopping centers
if we are going to get anything, and I am not sure we need a shopping
center in that corner. If you go out there and sit on a Saturday afternoon
and see how much traffic comes off the Jefferies Expressway, off of
Middlebelt, makes left-hand turns and right hand turns going Wonderland
Mall and Livonia Mall, it is going to create a traffic jam. I must say the
comprehensive traffic study we got was one of the best I've seen since I've
been on the Planning Commission. I don't agree with everything they say
in here, but I think it is a good plan. I think they have done a lot of
research and they have a lot of background material. Therefore, I don't
believe it is in the best interests of the citizens of Livonia that at this time
we rezone good industrial property to commercial, and that is why I made
the motion this evening.
Mrs. Koons: I feel this basic proposal has merit, even though the proposed acreage for
commercial is much too large. Some of C-2 zoning, with careful,
thoughtful planning has a potential to add to the revitalization of the
Middlebelt Corridor and act as an asset, not a detriment, to existing
businesses. I talked to many consumers as to why they shop where they
shop, and right after"because I like the store" comes the answer"because
the store is convenient to me". For example, I shop at all four targets that
are convenient to me, Wonderland, Westland, Haggerty Road, Grand
`"' River. The one I choose on a particular day depends on what other errands
I have to run and where my other stops will be. Conveniently located
businesses benefit each other by attracting more customers for all.
However, I do not think that one, huge, overwhelming business will
provide the cross shopping that I am referring to. That is one of the
reasons I am opposed to a Meijer's or a Lowe's in this location. I also feel
that the intensity of a store the size of Meijer's that operates 24 hours, 363
days a year, is not a good fit for what I consider the eastern side of the
middle of our community. I am intrigued by Mr. Piercecchi's comments
on an independent study that were echoed by Mr. LaPine, and I am also
intrigued and encouraged by Mr. LaPine's word "upscale shopping"
because that is what I would be looking for should any piece of zoning
become C-2.
Mr. Alanskas: I, too, would like to thank the petitioners for this intensive study. I have
never had one that complete and it took a whole weekend to read it. It said
that we do have a traffic problem at Middlebelt and Schoolcraft. It states
that we average over 80 rear-end accidents a year there, but it also gave us
ways that we could alleviate that and I find that very intriguing that it
hasn't been done up until now with regard to changing the seconds on the
red, the yellow and the green. We do have that problem and I would
"4.w recommend a report to the Police Department so that they can look to
16277
Wayne County to correct the lighting problem there. No matter what goes
in there we have to think about a traffic problem in that area.
Mr. Hale: After spending a great deal of time studying this issue, and after what we
lawyers refer to as listening testimony, the hearing presentation put on by
the petitioners, I would offer the following: The Millennium Park
proposal undeniably presents a critical proposal for the City of Livonia
and its residents. The subject site of about 194 acres has unique qualities
that cannot be denied. Land with considerable depth that cannot be found
in any other area of the city that has not been developed, property boarding
the I-96 Freeway, separation from residential areas which is very hard to
find in our city when it comes to commercial development. The other
thing that I wish to point out after studying this is that there are some
neighboring commercial uses in this area. Undeniably these qualities offer
considerable opportunities to the City of Livonia and its residents,
opportunities which in my view cannot be given short shrift by any stretch
of the imagination. The proposal tonight is not one of site plan. In the
State of Michigan we do not have contract zoning where we can say we
will give you a certain zoning for a particular type of establishment.
Instead the proposal before the Commission tonight is one that requests a
rezoning of about 74 acres of the entire 194 acre site at issue. From the
current zoning of M-2 which is heavy industrial to C-2 which is general
commercial, the proposal makes the question as to if any commercial at
this site would be appropriate, or if the proposal for rezoning should
simply be denied out of hand and be left zoned as M-2, heavy industrial.
In my view, outright denial is not in order at this time. The petitioner has
demonstrated that there is some commercial that is warranted. The main
question in my mind is how much would be appropriate for this area, and
how much would be appropriate for the citizens of Livonia. Indeed our
Land Use Plan, which we are required as Commissioners to follow,
requires us to assess such rezoning for commercial property on the basis of
need. I think that the petitioners have in their proposal have demonstrated
that there is some need for commercial. Again, the issue is how much. I
also again stress that there are some surrounding commercial in this area.
This is not a situation where we are being asked to rezone a particular area
that would not be in any way suitable to go to commercial in my view.
To deny any commercial at this site is unwarranted in my view and
therefore I will vote against the denying proposal.
Mr. Walkon: Mr. Chairman, may I speak?
Mr. McCann: No. You have to have unanimous consent and we did not have unanimous
consent to have audience participation.
Mr. Walkon: Does that include the petitioner?
16278
Mr. McCann: According to our rules of procedure, yes. Any audience participation must
have unanimous consent.
New Mr. Walkon: Actually I wanted to thank you.
Mr. McCann: I will give you an opportunity to speak on the issue. I know it is coming
before us, but as to the vote, I can't allow you to speak after we have
already closed the hearing. I think the petitioner demonstrated by his
experts opinion that we need industrial in Livonia. We don't have any
areas that are left in Livonia that are separated by highways from residential
area, that are separated by major roads from residential area. This is really
our last frontier. We don't want to see businesses that are industrial
moving out of the City of Livonia. To me, that has helped build Livonia.
They are good citizens of Livonia, as well as the commercial. However,
we have some vacancy in commercial, we don't have vacancies in
industrial. I think that to develop this area properly, we do need some
commercial. I don't think that would hurt it, I think it may benefit it, but
74 acres personally, is too much. We are looking at a situation where
industrial jobs as Mr. Pierchecchi so eloquently stated provides better jobs.
If you take a $7.00 an hour job, that barely pays the baby-sitter. I am
excited that the developer is committed to using all union labor. That is
wonderful, but it would be better if the labor is used building an industrial
site which is going to provide a job that is going to support a family as
opposed to a job that is going to support a baby-sitter. I don't think it will
benefit the rest of the citizens if we lose Livonia Mall, if we lose
Wonderland Mall. That has tremendous impact on other regions of the
city. I think we need enough there to compliment the city, complement the
malls, not to take away from the malls. Therefore, based on the amount of
the commercial requested, I have to go along with the denying resolution.
Now at this point is there an objection to allowing Mr. Walkon to speak
before we vote? Hearing no objection, I will allow Mr. Walkon to speak.
Mr. Walkon: Thank you Mr. McCann. Mr. McCann and members of the Planning
Commission, I want to thank you very much for your consideration tonight
and at the meeting two weeks ago. Thank you for your input. I look
forward to working with the City Council to smooth out any deficiencies
that may be in this plan. Millennium Park is going to do what is best for
the City and the citizens of Livonia. We will cooperate fully through the
process. I think I have to mention one other point. Again tonight we have
over 100 citizens that have come out in support of this project. We have
numerous letters that have come in support of this project. That is a very
unusual circumstance for a developer. I can tell you the typical is "not in
my backyard" and eight or ten people come out against the project. Again,
look out here tonight. Again, 100 people are here and all are in support of
this zoning change.
16279
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walkon, I am going to ask you to end this. We were allowing you just
a couple of closing comments.
Mr. Walkon: What I would ask is that since you brought up new and unique issues, that
these people here tonight, these 100 or so people, are allowed to ask you
questions.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walkon, we have already closed the hearing, we have already put it up
for a vote. You had a couple of comments you wanted to make, I tried to
give it to you, but it is time for the roll call.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: Hale, Koons
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to Council.
Interruption from the audience: Excuse me. As a resident of Livonia. You are going to
pass a resolution without asking the public to ask questions, not to make
comments, but to ask questions? Is that what the Planning Commission is
‘v" all about?
Mr. McCann: Sir, there was an objection made to allowing us to open up to the audience.
Now I will have to ask you to take your seat, or I will have to have you
removed. We held a public hearing two weeks ago.
Speaker: Sir, you are the president and you have to follow Robert's Rules of Order.
Mr. McCann: That is correct, and I am responsible for this meeting.
Speaker: And the public has to have the chance to make a statement and I didn't do
anything but ask you a question. Could I and some other participants at this
meeting ask questions of the Planning Commission?
Mr. McCann: We had a public hearing. We gave public notice out and it was advertised
in the newspaper. We held a public hearing. We allowed everyone in the
audience to speak. We allowed the petitioner to present all the evidence.
This was adjourned for one reason tonight; to vote on the hearing. That was
made clear. We already held the public hearing, we opened it up and waited
until everybody came down and waited until everyone made all the
comments, including yourself, and at that time, I closed the public hearing.
``` Tonight's vote is just for a vote for us to review the information we have.
16280
That's why we have in rules that we don't open it up tonight unless there are
exceptional circumstances. The committee found that there were no
�•- exceptional circumstances to open it up. We are not trying to hurt anyone's
rights, but we have reviewed this. We reviewed it at the Study, we reviewed
it at the Public Hearing, we heard everyone in the audience that was willing
to speak on this issue. Tonight it is for a vote.
Speaker: With due respect, Chairman McCann, the people of the City of Livonia,
haven't heard all the participants sitting in the audience tonight. It was
tabled. There were two members missing from the committee and it was
tabled based on them not being here. Now we have heard the comments
from all those participants and we would like to be able to ask a question.
(The speaker was escorted from the auditorium and Mr. McCann called a five minute
break).
8:05 PM - The meeting was resumed. Chairman McCann apologized to the audience, but
stated that we have to follow the rules of procedures as set forth.
Mr. McCann: The petitioner has informed me that he is requesting a waiver of the seven
day rule. Mr. Walkon, in order for us to allow a waiver of the seven-day
rule, the petitioner has to demonstrate good cause for the waiver. Can you
please give us your reasoning?
Mr. Walkon:This matter was adjourned because Mr. LaPine and Mr. Piercecchi were
absent. That was a two week delay. As I know you are aware, Council has
a two week vacation in August. Having talked to Council President
Engebretson, he said that the earliest meeting we could get on for a public
hearing would be October 5. The meeting of the Council, August 10, is not
closed. With all due respect, because of the Council vacation and the need
that you have to adjourn this, we would deeply appreciate the waiver of the
seven-day notice so that we could go on the August 10 meeting of the
Council.
Mr. McCann: For the record, I was not able to get hold of Mr. Engebretson, but Mr.
Taylor informed me that he does not object to the Planning Commission
doing this. Mr. Taylor had talked to Mr. Engebretson.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved, it was
#7-119-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
`�•► Petition 98-6-1-9 by Millennium Park, L.L.C. on behalf of Ladbroke Land
Company requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
16281
Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road I-96 Freeway and the CSX
Railroad in the NW 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale, Koons, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
minutes of the 766th Regular Meeting held on June 23, 1998. All members were
present at this meeting with the exception of Mr. Piercecchi.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved, it was
#7-120-98 RESOLVED, that the minutes of the 766th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on June 23, 1998 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
vow AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Hale, Koons, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: We will now begin the miscellaneous site plan portion of our agenda.
Members of the audience may speak for or against these petitions.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Pentagon Properties Limited Partnership requesting approval for
signage for the property located at 19500 Haggerty Road in the SW 1/4 of Section
6.
Mr. Miller: This is the Pentagon Entertainment Center requesting signage for the
entire complex. The theater wall signage is not part of this proposal.
Because the signage is over what they are allowed by the ordinance, they
had to go to the Zoning Board prior to being presented by the Planning
Commission. They have gone to the Zoning Board and they have a
variance and that variance is what is proposed tonight. They are allowed
1411.11, two business center signs for this site based on the frontage along
Haggerty Road and Seven Mile Road. They are allowed two at 40 s.f.
16282
each, 8 feet high. They are also allowed directional signage throughout
the site. What they are proposing is three business center signs. One
`r- would be located at the entrance of Seven Mile. This sign would be 91 s.f.
in size, 12 feet in height. They are also proposing one at the access drive
which is at the north of the property and Haggerty Road. It is 53 s.f. in
size and 8 feet in height. One would also be located at the main entrance
off of Haggerty Road right in front of the theater. It is 48 s.f. and 8 feet in
height. Based on this signage, they are over one directional sign and
square footage.
Mr. Nagy: The City's Inspection Department in their report relative to the subject
matter in their letter of July 21, 1998 indicates that this sign package
conforms with the variance (appeal case #9806-78) granted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals. That was signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building
Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Ed Beck, representing Jonna Realty Enterprises, Pentagon Properties, 26100 American
Drive, Suite 550, Southfield MI 48034: It was originally conceived as an
entertainment campus with a number of individual users. The way it was
set up was as a site condominium. What that gave us is the availability to
do was, although each owner unit would be responsible for each of their
own buildings, we would then be able to put together a package that
encompassed the entire site. Basically be able to put together a package
�- that we felt integrated into a single field for the entire 35 acre parcel. We
have attempted to do this by consolidating directional signs and monument
signs all within a single package. The goal of the package that we put
together was actually two-fold. One was to help traffic coming off of
Seven Mile and Haggerty so that we could increase the efficiency of the
project, bringing the traffic in most efficiently and also reduce traffic flow
within the project and out of the project to increase safety as well. I will
start at the M-2 sign in your package that shows Homestead Village,
Homewood Suites and a to be determined plaque. The purpose of this
sign is to bring back patrons to a site that is currently being developed on
I-275 and is actually better represented on this plan. As you can see,
although it does have exposure on I-275, it is essentially landlocked from
the major arteries where they will have to come in in order to access this
site. What we are trying to do is encourage people to use the north access
road and keep the majority of the flow of the traffic away from this part of
the site making it a little more efficient, also making it very easy to find
the hotel sites which are not very visible off of Haggerty Road. The
purpose of the next sign is that we want to bring the patrons to the theater
down the main entrance, the boulevard entrance, right down to the plaza
area. That gives them the option of splitting them off with the use of a
directional sign into the two large parking areas. Once again kind of
funneling everyone into a centralized area and try to keep them away from
some of these other entrances. On Seven Mile Road is the third
16283
monument sign. We feel this is one of the more important signs in that
one of the original approvals that we had to go through was with Wayne
County. One of their requirements was to put in a right hand turn lane.
Their feeling was that they wanted to keep traffic away from the Seven
Mile and Haggerty intersection and also off of Haggerty if it were at all
possible. Placing the sign here for the theater and AmeriSuites we figure
it will help in a couple of ways: Number 1, it will create a better traffic
flow into the property and it will also help travelers looking for the hotel
site, as well as people coming off the highway to access the theater, once
again reducing the amount of traffic that would flow into the intersection
and then on to Haggerty Road causing unnecessary congestion. One of the
problems with this access road is the fact that it does have a very small
footprint as far as its access on to Seven Mile Road. You have a law
office, which I believe is a historical building and sits close to the road and
has some nice vegetation, and just north of that some other trees, which if
you are coming westbound on Seven Mile the access road comes very
quickly. You could very easily pass it by. One of our goals with that sign
was to make it large enough, yet not overwhelming, to draw the traffic in
at that point, keeping it away from the Seven Mile intersection. Once
they've flowed into the project, the goal was once again limit their just
kind of meandering around the project and very quickly allow them to find
the use that they are looking for whether it be a restaurant or the theater or
a hotel for out-of-towners. So we have placed directional signs throughout
'411111ir the project to help ease people in finding their location. I think one of the
key things here is that with these directional signs, you should be able to
find a place to park at the restaurant, theater, and go to your destination
and then later on if you happen to go to the theater, then you can just walk
through the plaza to the theater without having to repark. That is one of
the nice aspects of this project. I think those are the key elements. We
obviously would like, with the theater approaching its opening very soon,
to get these elements in place so that pedestrians and traffic can very
quickly and easily find their way through the project.
Mr. Piercecchi to Mr. Nagy: Will AmeriSuites be entitled to any type of monument sign
out there?
Mr. Nagy: They are only pursuant to the granting that they may receive from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Piercecchi: AmeriSuites cannot put any type of ground sign?
Mr. Nagy: They have to have either approval from the Zoning Board, or they have to
own their own property.
`"' Mr. Piercecchi: So they will not have a sign there then?
16284
Mr. Nagy: To have a ground sign, they would first need approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Mr. Piercecchi: That M-2 sign, has that been established by the City Council? Are
you being a little presumptuous here?
Mr. Beck: We are currently going through City Council for approval on the zoning
on that site and I believe that the Zoning Board of Appeals amendment did
leave a provision in there that if site plan approval had not been received
within 12 months, that sign would no longer be valid.
Mr. Piercecchi to Mr. Nagy: If that PO-II is rezoned into C-4 and C-2, which is a request
that we denied, will they be entitled to a sign there?
Mr. Nagy: Only if granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Our ordinance states you
cannot have an off premise sign.
Mr. Piercecchi: Our ordinance also states that you cannot have tenants listed on a
ground sign.
Mr. Beck: Our understanding was that we would be allowed to place the name of the
center, which in this case is Pentagon Center Entertainment Campus. Our
feeling in this case is that Pentagon Center Entertainment Campus is not
going to mean much to people coming to use this site. AMC theaters is
the anchor for this site. Our feeling is that people are more likely to refer
to this as the AMC Center than Pentagon Center because as I mentioned,
Pentagon Center isn't going to mean much to people. The draw is AMC
and we want them to very quickly find AMC or the other users.
Mr. Piercecchi: The ordinance calls for 40 s.f. and you are asking for up to 93 feet.
Isn't that a little bit of overkill? When you look at the Laurel Park
theaters, the most successful theater in Livonia, doesn't even have a sign.
So you don't really have to advertise AMC that much. You have a right to
have two business signs of 40 s.f. That sign off of Seven Mile Road is
definitely in order. I would be more inclined to accept this package if you
could restrict your signage to the ordinance requirements. I can't see why
you need 90 s.f. Everyone is going to know where AMC is as everyone
knows where Laurel Park is. Granted, you can't compare because one is
in a mall. That's the point. There is no sign on the building, on the
theater, there is only one thing that says AMC Theaters on Haggerty Road.
One beautiful, 40', brick sign. I can't see why you can't live with 40 s.f.
Mr. Beck: My understanding is that the M-3 sign located on Haggerty is actually
within the signage allowed.
16285
Mr. Piercecchi: Section 18.50A of the ordinance states that the center shall only
identify the entertainment complex itself and no tenants, or theater, can be
identified on it. I feel it is our job here to enforce ordinances and try as
best we can to get the scale of the ordinances in perspective. I can't see
why you can't do it in 40. I looked at the steel work on the front of the
theater and it looks huge. You will be able to see that from outer space
like the Chinese wall.
Mrs. Koons: As a follow up to Dan's question: How many floors is the AmeriSuites?
Mr. Beck: I believe five stories.
Mrs. Koons: They will have signs on the building?
Mr. Beck: I believe on their own they have received signage approval.
Mrs. Koons: If the Homewood and Homestead Village is approved, how many stories
will they be?
Mr. Beck: I am not sure. Approximately four stories.
Mrs. Koons: They will probably have signs on their building?
Now Mr. Beck: I would assume so. That is their responsibility as the unit owner.
Mrs. Koons: What would the footage of the AMC complex translate to if it were a
building with stories?
Mr. Beck: I am not sure. I would estimate over three.
Mrs. Koons: On your rendering it says brushed aluminum and the support column
painted to match the side of the building. It doesn't say what it is made
out of
Chuck Verus with Planet Neon, 46593 Grand River,Novi, Michigan. I actually don't
know what the exterior surface of that building is. The color is to match
the dryvit color of the building. The sign would basically be aluminum
and stainless steel construction.
Mrs. Koons: So the painted portion is also either stainless steel or aluminum?
Mr. Verus: That would be aluminum.
Mr. Alanskas: Why are we discussing tonight signage for the hotels when it hasn't even
NMI gone through Council yet?
16286
Mr. Beck: One of the things we are trying to do with this package is to submit an
integrated package that would encompass all of the signage for the
completed project or projects.
Mr. Alanskas: It is not completed. It is not even started yet. Let's give signage to what
you have there. Going through your M-3 which is off of Haggerty Road, I
agree that you need a sign there. I agree that it is way too big. On Seven
Mile Road, I think people coming from Seven Mile Road to go to the
theater need a sign there so they can turn there to get to the theater system.
But on your M-3, when you are coming here and saying you want a sign
for that site when there is no site there, it is still going through zoning and
it may not even go through, you are putting the cart before the horse. You
want to open those theaters in October or November?
Mr. Beck: The last I heard was in September.
Mr. Alanskas: A sign is definitely going to be needed there. The more signs we have as
far as a sign on the corner will be a better thing to reduce car accidents. I
think it is a big campus, a good looking campus, and I think we need a
little glitz in our city. I have nothing against signs showing people how to
get in and out of a complex, but there is no need to make them so big. I,
as one commissioner tonight, can't see discussing the M-3 because it
doesn't exist.
Mr. Verus: I would like to address that and a couple of other points. Part of the reason
the M-3 is presented tonight is that we are trying to present the complete
project as we envision it.
Mr. Alanskas: You are talking about cost by getting it all together tonight?
Mr. Verus: No, not cost. It wasn't priced based on all three. The facts that I did want
to point out is that a lot of times when we go before a board they will ask
well what are you going to come back for with the hotels, and we are
trying to answer all those questions up front rather then have them come
around later and say, oh, by the way, we have some hotels back here and
we need a sign. We want to be totally up front with the Council and let
you know exactly what we think would be the best way finding system for
the entire complex.
Mr. Beck: And also show that these hotel sites will be developed at a later time.
The site will be developed eventually with some type of use. We would
like to show you that we do have a plan in place that would integrate the
signs that would be necessary to direct them back there and that would still
complement the entertainment campus.
v..
16287
Mr. Verus: The other thing I would like to have the Commission keep in mind here is
that, especially with AMC from both Seven Mile and Haggerty, we do
have a very large setback. We have a change in grade, and although we do
have 6 foot letters reading AMC, 20 on the front of that building, we
don't have the kind of visibility that it may sound like when you have over
a 500 foot setback, when you have a change in grade, it is not really very
visible especially when you look at the number of trees being planted, the
change in direction on some of the winding drives. I think that looking at
the overall package, the finish required, the materials they are using, they
are trying to do a very high quality project here. In my professional
opinion, I am about 15 years in the industry, the signage is at a minimum
to adequately identify and find your way at the site.
Mr. Alanskas: You are talking about 6 foot letters for the sign on the building? How
many square feet are you talking about for a sign there?
Mr. Verus: I could give you a ball park figure, but I am estimating. I am going to
estimate that if each letter is as wide as it is tall, if you have five letters
plus equal space between, approximately 35' or 36' for the total sign.
Mr. LaPine: Most of the comments made tonight I can agree with. When this whole
concept came to us, this was going to be an entertainment campus where
we were going to have little stores. Everything has changed. The overall
plan that you are presenting tonight isn't what we originally envisioned
being there. We have two additional restaurants that have not been
approved yet, but are coming in eventually I understand. We don't know
for sure if the two hotels are going to go in. We turned it down. We think
it should stay office, but if turns into office it wouldn't change your sign
because you could put the office complex on it. My problem with the sign
is that I think it is too large. Number 2, talk about visibility. You have
your AMC theaters at Laurel Park. If you don't go to those theaters you
wouldn't know there were any theaters there. You have a very modest
sign that you can hardly see. My position is that you don't need AMC as
large as you show it because once the people come to this complex, most
people who go to theaters are repeaters and know how to get there. My
problem is you want too much signage and at this point I don't know how
much signage you are going to get on the face of the building. You
haven't presented that to us yet. Your renderings show like it is going to
be a pretty good sign and if that is true, that sign can be seen from
Haggerty Road from either direction once they get within 75' of the
entrance. The sign on Haggerty Road should more or less be a directional
sign. I am trying to keep down the signage for the homeowners that live
across the street. All the signs you are trying to put in, your directional
signs, your handicap signs, your parking signs, your stop signs, and it adds
up to 145 signs we are going to have within that complex. I took off 13
because I don't know what they are. That still leaves 132 signs around
16288
this complex. I don't think we have a shopping center in Livonia that has
anywhere near that many signs. Can you tell me why we need all those
signs?
Mr. Verus: A good percentage of those are regulatory. If you look at the number of
handicap signs, the crosswalk markings,those are regulatory.
Mr. Beck: We met with the City Fire Department and the individual who handles that
at the Fire Department and that is what they requested as far as where they
wanted the no parking signs located and on which drives and whether they
wanted them on both sides of the drive, on a single side of the drive. As
far as the stop signs, we were very concerned because this is an
entertainment campus and we wanted to encourage people to walk around
the campus, we did want to make sure that the pedestrians were safe and
that's obviously the reason for the large number of crosswalks and stop
signs.
Mr. LaPine: I am not saying I am opposed to all those signs, but when I look this
proposal and see all those signs!
Mr. Beck: It is a lot of signs to us too.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say you want people to walk around this campus here, let's say
I am going there to go to the movies and I am parked at the top right hand
of your plan there which is between M-3 and M-1, when I walk around the
campus, what am I going to see?
Mr. Beck: One of the items we did want to encourage to use is the plaza area.
Mr. Alanskas: What are you going to have in the plaza area?
Mr. Beck: It will be fairly heavily landscaped as well as a fountain. Also, this will be
up to the condo association, they are hoping to have small events there,
maybe art exhibits and so forth and basically encourage people to use the
plaza area. A lot of money is being spent to construct it and they
obviously want it to be some kind of small gathering area.
Mr. Alanskas: Don't you think the majority of people going there are going to see a
movie at the theater, possibly a dinner there before or after?
Mr. Beck: That's correct, but with every movie, even with AMC's plan to have a
movie every 15 minutes, you still have ten or fifteen minutes to wait and
no one wants to wait in line at the theater inside if they don't have to.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, I heard a term here tonight that I haven't heard before,
condominium commercial.
16289
Mr. Nagy: Yes. That is the way they are selling their property. It is a condominium
type of ownership just like you would buy a condominium lot in a site
condominium.
Mr. LaPine: So each restaurant owns its own property?
Mr. Beck: They own their own "hat". Basically it is what is within their own unit
boundary. They own the property underneath it and the rest of the
property is governed by the association. It is usually referred to as site
condominium in this situation.
Mr. LaPine: When the original concept came in, they were going to have 50,000-
60,000 sq.ft. of commercial and they were talking about having a coffee
shop and ice cream parlor, boutiques, so that people would come in and
buy their tickets to the theater and during the wait, walk around and shop.
That's gone. You are coming in here with restaurant row, three hotels and
a theater. It is no longer an entertainment center. To me it's a commercial
piece of property where people are going to come in, go to the theater and
go home, or they will come in and eat before or after the theater. They are
going to walk and look at the flowers and once they go to the theater one
time, the flowers don't change until the next season. So the whole concept
has changed completely from what they originally planned, which was a
Ns. good plan.
Mr. Piercecchi: I entirely agree with the wisdom of Mr. Alanskas that the M-2 sign
is very presumptuous and puts the cart before the horse.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#7-121-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Pentagon Properties
Limited Partnership requesting approval for signage for property located at
19500 Haggerty Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Pentagon Properties Limited
Partnership, as received by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1998, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to except for the following:
- That M-1 and M-3 business center signs shall not exceed 40 s.f.
in sign area, 8' in height, 10' in length and shall be set back a
minimum of 10' from any right-of-way lines;
- That the two business center signs shall only identify the
entertainment complex itself and no tenants, including the theater
16290
shall be identified on them in accordance with Section 18.50A of
the City Ordinance.
2) That all signage for this development shall not be illuminated
beyond one hour after the last business closes;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council as stated.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Metro-Detroit Signs, on behalf of Residence Inn, requesting
approval for signage for the hotel located at 17250 Fox Drive in the SW 1/4 of
Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This Residence Inn is being constructed at this time and is located on the
north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and I-275. They are
requesting a conforming sign package and it does differ from what was
shown at the study meeting. At the study meeting we had a phone call
from the Inspection Department that the wall signage has to be on the front
of the hotel. It was proposed to be on the rear elevation of the hotel. The
petitioner has revised his sign package where he now has the proposed
sign for the gate house, which is a part of the hotel. It is a conforming
sign. The wall sign is 18 s.f. in size. They are allowed one based on hotel
frontage of 210'. They are also proposing a monument sign of 30 s.f. on
Fox Drive and right in front of the gate house.
Paul Detters, Metro Detroit Signs, 23544 Hoover Road, Warren, MI: At this time I
would like to let the board know that we are in the process of removing
one of the signs from the application because that sign has to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals so we may be back before you again. The signs
that we are proposing here this evening are within the ordinance and well
within the spirit of your ordinance. You can see they are tastefully done. I
will be honest and let you know that what we have applied for in the other
one is a sign on the rear of the building, a channel letter sign that will say
Residence Inn so that it will have some visibility from the expressway.
The reason we have to go is that we can't put a sign on the back of the
building.
Mr. LaPine: When he brought up about the sign being moved, I wondered why he
didn't have the sign with him. Is that going to be a modest sign there?
16291
Mr. Detters: Yes. I don't have the exact square footage. It is not a large sign. The
reason we have broken it up is that they are looking to open up fairly soon
and we would like to get these signs approved.
Mr. LaPine: I appreciate your coming in with conforming signs. We don't get too
many of those these days.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#7-122-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit
Signs, on behalf of Residence Inn, requesting approval for signage for the
hotel located at 17250 Fox Drive in the SW 1/4 of Section 7 be approved,
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Wall Sign submitted by Metro-Detroit Signs, as received
by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1998, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the Ground Sign submitted by Metro-Detroit Signs, as
received by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1998, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine: Is that basically the color combination we are going to have, basically a
burnt burgundy?
Mr. Detters: Yes, it is.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-7-8-
22 by Terry Welker, on behalf of Eternal Tattoos, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal
to construct an addition to the existing commercial building located at 27590
Plymouth Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Inkster
and Cavell Avenue. They are proposing to construct a 300 s.f. addition to
the existing tattoo parlor. This would be located on the rear elevation
towards the alley located behind the site. Because the building has
',Nor deficient setback from Plymouth Road, it is non-conforming and based on
the ordinance, cannot be added on to a non-conforming building. The
16292
petitioner had to go to the Zoning Board prior to presenting to the
Planning Commission. They have gone to the Zoning Board and they
have a variance to add on to a non-conforming building. That is what is
before you tonight. The petitioner has stated that the new addition will be
used for an employee cafeteria and equipment sterilization area. The
building elevations show that the building addition will be constructed out
of the same materials as the existing building. They will also step it down
which the existing building also steps down so that once constructed the
entire building should like as if it were constructed at one time.
Terry Welker, 2563 Pleasant Valley, Brighton, MI 48116: The dumpster will be moved
over to the northeast corner of the parking lot. If I get my approval for the
addition, I can block the dumpster in with a block material or I can fence it
in. It will be set in the parking lot.
Mr. LaPine: Do you own the building east where they sell earrings and stuff?
Mr. Welker: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Can you place the dumpster behind that building somehow?
Mr. Welker: I don't want the truck coming in on the asphalt because it tears up the
asphalt. If I go with block you won't really be able to see the dumpster. It
will be next to KFC.
Mr. LaPine: So the three sides would be blocked.
Mr. Welker: Right.
Mr. LaPine: I was out there Saturday, but I am an early bird and you don't open up
until 11:00. I wanted to see your operation. I notice on your plan one part
is for sterilization and one is for a lunchroom. To me these aren't
compatible. Are they going to be separate from where the people are
going to eat?
Mr. Welker: Yes, they will be separate.
Mr. LaPine: Your new sign out there, it looks like you need to do some landscaping.
Mr. Welker: They put some grass down Saturday and they are working on it today.
Mr. LaPine: You own the building that sells the earrings, and I noticed that is full of
weeds. You did a nice job on your building and I assume your addition
will be compatible with your present building.
Mr. Welker: The city has been working on the landscaping.
16293
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed a window on the upstairs of that building. Is that used as
'"' a residence?
Mr. Welker: No, my office is upstairs.
Mr. Alanskas: You have seven tables inside the facility for working on people?
Mr. Welker: Correct. We are not adding any more.
Mr. Alanskas: So the room in back is 10'x30' and you will have it petitioned to two
rooms?
Mr. Welker: Yes, we will put a wall up.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand you will have a door and a window on one end.
Mr. Welker: Yes, on the side. The back will be all block and fire proof.
Mr. Alanskas: When did you remodel that building? It looks very nice.
Mr. Welker: Last year.
`" Mr. LaPine: How long have you been in that location?
Mr. Welker: Seventeen years.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it
was:
#7-123-98 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 98-7-8-22 by Terry Welker, on behalf of
Eternal Tattoos requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the existing commercial building located at 27590 Plymouth
Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 25 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan submitted by Terry Welker, as received by the
Planning Commission on June 19, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan submitted by Terry
Welker, as received by the Planning Commission on June 19, 1998, is
"`.. hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
16294
3) That the building materials of the new addition shall match the
building materials of the existing building so that upon completion the
entire structure shall look as if it were constructed at one time;
4) That the petitioner shall meet to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following requirements as outlined in the correspondence
dated July 21, 1998:
- That the landscaping in the right-of-way and around the monument sign
shall be completed
- That the existing dumpster shall be relocated and screened with cement
block
- That the parking lot shall be restriped with double striping
- That the rear wall of the addition shall be of fire proof construction with
no windows or openings.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-7-8-
23 by Italian American Club requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the existing clubhouse/banquet facility located at 39200 Five Mile
Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Miller: This is the Italian American Club located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between I-275/96 and Knolson Avenue. They are proposing to
construct a 1,970 s.f. addition to the northwest corner of their existing
building. The existing building is 12,000 s.f. so when completed, if this is
approved, the entire structure will become 13,970 s.f. in size. Based on
the floor plan that was submitted, the new addition will be used for
storage, therefore parking is not affected. The new addition will be
constructed out of materials to match the existing building so that upon
completion the entire structure should look as if it were constructed all at
one time.
Mr. Nagy: The City Engineer indicates he has no objections to the proposal.
Similarly with the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department. The
Inspection Department also indicates no problems or deficiencies were
found.
Claudio Forest, 31700 W. Eight Mile Road, Farmington Hills, MI: The need arose
because all of our banquet facility tables are currently being brought
downstairs into a storage bin via the elevator and they are just tearing the
heck out of them. In order to create a more easy flow within the space,
16295
we would like to put up an addition and also create an entrance for the
members to come in downstairs that is a little fancier than a 3'x7' hollow
metal door. This will be the new lobby for the members to go downstairs
and then the balance of the building will look like the existing building.
Mr. Alanskas: How many feet will the new wall be protruding from the front of the
lobby?
Mr. Forest: The addition is going to come out 47' north and then it is approximately
44' wide.
Mr. Alanskas: You will be using those two doors to enter the new facility?
Mr. Forest: The double service doors will be inside the new addition. There will be
access from the kitchen into the storage area.
Mr. Alanskas: The only way to get into that new facility is through those two doors?
Mr. Forest: That's correct, and we are putting in line with the two doors will be two
unit doors off the back and then on the side of the building, which will be
the east elevation, there will be a glass entry which will be the new
members' entrance.
''`,.• Mr. Alanskas: Our notes say that you said there will be a kitchen in that area?
Mr. Forest: No, it will be strictly for tables, dry goods, etc.
Mr. Alanskas: Will there be beer or liquor stored in there?
Mr. Forest: No. That is in secured storage downstairs.
Mr. Alanskas: On the west side it looks like you have a bunch of refuse there. Is that
going to be cleaned up?
Mr. Forest: Yes. That's all waiting to be picked up.
Mr. Alanskas: Some of the trees on that side of the building look like they are almost
dead.
Mr. Forest: There were a couple, yes, and that's been addressed with the landscaper
and will be replaced.
Mr. Piercecchi: My visit to your establishment pointed out a very notable
deficiency. Your dumpster housing does not have gates. Are you aware
"°' of that?
16296
Mr. Forest: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: It seems to me that this was mentioned once before on a small item
that the Italian-American club wanted us to approve that they would put
gates on there. Can we be assured that as of now you will put gates on
there?
Mr. Forest: It is not necessarily my responsibility to say so, but if it is part of the
conditions, I would assume that it would be done.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to suggest that if there is a motion to approve, include
that gates be installed to match. It is such a beautiful place, I would think
you would want to hide it. They shouldn't be seen. They should be
closed. There are a lot of violations like that, people don't close the gates.
People are coming in very close to that, and I don't think you want to
display a weakness in your system.
Mr. LaPine: You have a single door on the east side, double doors. Where the single
door is now is where the glass is going to go for the members to go in?
Mr. Forest: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The only other thing that I would point out is the debris that is behind the
building and also along the 275 corridor. You have junk out there, one of
your original 4'x8' signs laying out there. Have you been out there lately?
Mr. Forest: Sure, every day.
Mr. LaPine: There are two dumpsters. Is one of those dumpsters for grease? I have
never seen a smell like that in my life coming out of those dumpsters.
Mr. Forest: Yes, that particular dumpster is for grease and when it gets hot, that's what
happens.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#7-124-98: RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-7-8-23 by Italian American Club
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
existing clubhouse/banquet facility located at 39200 Five Mile Road in the
SW 1/4 of Section 18 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Al prepared by Forest Building
''F Company, as received by the Planning Commission on June 29, 1998, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
16297
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet A2 prepared by Forest
Building Company, as received by the Planning Commission on June 29,
1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
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 elevation plans marked sheet A3 prepared by
Forest Building Company as received by the Planning Commission on
June 29, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the building materials in the new addition shall match the
building materials in the existing building so that upon completion the
entire structure shall look as if it were constructed at one time;
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed
out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all
times.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 768th Regular Meeting
held on July 28, 1998 was adjourned at 9:03 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
7) Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: ,,
/lames C. McCann, Chairman
/du r
Nur