The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-10-04 13671 MINUTES OF THE 691st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF %ft'' LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 4, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 691st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 15 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann William TaPine Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg C. Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: Jack Engebretson Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step up and tell us your reasons for this request. Art Carmichael, 19450 Haggerty Road: I am two entities. Professional Consultants is a consulting engineering firm. We are mechanical engineers. We design heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning systems, etc. for buildings. I also am the general partner of Haggerty Road Investments, which is our family, my wife, my children and myself. We own 13672 the building, and my company rents it. When we moved out to the area 17 years ago it was a dirt road, hilly with deer and quail. We still have the field mice. It was quite quiet. Today I am slowly being engulfed by commercial. Right across the street is Home Depot. There is a tentative plan for the ML to become C-2 around me. The traffic pattern is so horrendous. We don't have a high profile. We are very law profile. We go to our clients' offices. We have no off-the-street traffic coming out of a business like a doctor might or a bank might or whatever, so we are thinking that it is getting so busy around that area that we are better off to go to someplace like Victor Park where there is office space available and it is quieter, and let this become some other use that has a high profile that needs all that promotion, which we don't. Right now when we look out our windows we see trees. In short order we will be seeing asphalt. We are thinking if it is going to become C-2 around us, and we have C-2 on the corner, we have C-2 across the street, we might as well be C-2 along with it and develop this property better than it is right now. When we moved out there we had no storm sewer. We are still on a septic tank. We have a a dry well in the ground. I talked to the Wayne County Road Commission and they will allow me to take our parking lot if we regrade, whatever we do, into the storm sewer along Haggerty Road on a restrictive flow basis, meaning under a light rain it would flow out directly, but under a heavy rain we would be ponded on the parking lot but ultimately drained totally. Mr. McCann: Tonight we are dealing with the zoning only. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Carmichael, is your investment company working with any timetable as it relates to moving your business? Mr. Carmichael: None whatsoever. Mr. Morrow: Is it your intent to develop your site C-2 yourself or to just get a conforming zoning to what is in the mill now? Mr. Carmichael: I would probably do it myself. Mr. Morrow: Haw large is the site? Mr. Carmichael: .79 acres. Mr. Morrow: A question to the staff. Could that site support a C-2 classification? Mr. Nagy: There isn't a whole lot of uses that could go on that property but to say there isn't one, I would say you could find one but it is not sufficiently large enough for a restaurant for instance. If you look at the corner and see what Macaroni 13673 Grill is situated on compared to this size, it is substantially smaller. It is highly unlikely to be developed by itself. Mr. Morrow: It would probably be more of a C-1 operation if it didn't join the abutting property. As you indicated earlier, the property around you is under a rezoning request. Mr. TaPine: Mr. Carmichael have you had any conversations with the owner of the ML property, who is now trying to get it rezoned to C-2, about selling this parcel to him? Mr. Carmichael: He has made some overtures to us, yes. Nothing concrete yet. Mr. rapine: It would seem, from a practical point of view, that would probably be the best solution. Mr. Piercecchi: John, whose obligation is it to remove the brush and high grasses from in front of that site? It is totally being overgrown with vegetation. Mr. Nagy: The property owner. Mr. Piercecchi: Any explanation why it is such a mess? Mr. Carmichael: Because we are engulfed by the vegetation around us. We have put down various things to control growth and to no avail. When the ML around us develops, the thought I had was to develop ourselves to be consistent with them. Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking off Haggerty Road. You can't see your fence. Mr. Carmichael: I agree with you. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-1-18 closed. Mr. TaPine: I will make a tabling motion primarily for the reason the ML parcel is still in the Committee of the Whole of the City Council. Until such time as we know what the City Council is going to do with that parcel, we will table this and make a decision after we see what the Council does with the other parcel. On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #10-167-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the 13674 Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-8-1-18 until date uncertain. N"' FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Mr. Carmichael, what we have done is currently there is a pending petition before the City Council to change the zoning of the land surrounding you from ML to C-2. What we have done is table this until we get direction from the City Council. If that property is going to remain ML, it may not be appropriate to have yours go to C-2, so we are going to wait to see what they do. Once they do something then we will have a better understanding of where yours will fit in with the surrounding property. The staff will be notifying you as soon as we get word from the City Council. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-9-1-20 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #365-94, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road west of Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12 from P to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing `ow zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. McCann: We will go directly to the audience because this is a petition by the Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-1-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #10-168-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-9-1-20 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #365-94, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road west of Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12 from P to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-1-20 be approved for the following reasons: 13675 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing zoning on adjacent property. 2) That the proposed zoning district is compatible with the current use of the property. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the 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. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-2-27 by Bogart's Billiard Cafe requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in conjunction with an existing billiard hall facility located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal and '4111' Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the proposed operation of a full service restaurant at Bogart's Billiard Cafe will not change the parking requirements that currently exist, nor will it create any additional deficiencies at this site. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step up and give us your reasons for this request. Larry Wathen: I live in Livonia. Food service has always been part of our business plan. We wanted to get the billiard operation up and running a profit so it could pay for other things. It is now time to add food service to the services we offer in our facility simply to accommodate our customer base. What happens a lot is we find people are leaving our facility, perhaps going to Westland or Farmington Hills or another community to do the exact thing they they could be doing in our building, have something to eat and play some billiards. Mr. Alanskas: What hours would you say you would have the biggest flux of traffic? In the evening? 13676 Mr. Wathen: Probably our peak hours would be from five o'clock to midnight. Mr. Alanskas: Wouldn't you think that most of your customers when they come to play billiards would have already eaten? Mr. Wathen: A lot of them certainly but people eat more than once a day. Mr. Alanskas: When you say full service restaurant, what do you plan on serving there if this went through? Mr. Wathen: I want the flexibility to do anything we deem necessary. What we are going to start with is a limited menu offering bar food such as hamburgers, french fries, tuna fish sandwiches, etc. Mr. Alanskas: But not sit-down dinners? Mr. Wathen: No. In all probability we would never become that. Mr. Alanskas: It will strictly be a fast-food type of thing so they could have a hamburger, french fries or coney island while they are playing billiards? Mr. Wathen: Exactly. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you aware of how many establishments there are that sell food in house along Plymouth Road? Are you aware there are over 30. At what level do you think we reach saturation on 'oar- Plymouth Road? Mr. Wathen: I frankly don't know. I don't see that my operation is going to hinder or add to the food services available on Plymouth Road. Some of the restaurants I go to on Plymouth Road I will still go to on Plymouth Road because I can get a good sit-down dinner at a reasonable price. We are not going to offer that. Mr. Piercecchi: The original use there that was granted to you by the Zoning Board of Appeals allowed you to sell snacks and soft drinks. Correct? Mr. Wathen: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Do you plan to seek further licenses? Mr. Wathen: Yes we do. Mr. Piercecchi: You plan on going beyond that? Mr. Wathen: Yes sir. That is a couple of years down the road but that is in our business plan. 13677 Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wathen, just for clarification, following up on Mr. Alanska's questioning, what do you provide now and what do you plan on providing if you would be granted the waiver for the Nifty restaurant? Mr. Wathen: At present we provide cold sandwiches which we purchase from an outside source and have delivered. Frankly, it is inefficient, expensive and not real appetizing for our customer base. Also, we have been doing this for over two years and people get tired of all you have to offer is a ham and choose sandwich. From that we would jump to hamburgers, chccseburgers, some kind of salad, chicken fingers, finger food, typical bar food. Mr. Morrow: So you would say billiards or pool is your primary use. Mr. Wathen: It is our basic use. Mr. Morrow: Normally I think of a restaurant as a primary use. In other words you either have a restaurant which is the primary use or another primary use. Basically it appears you are requesting to have two primary uses for your facility, and along with what Mr. Piercecchi said if there is an area in the City that is over served with restaurants, it is certainly Plymouth Road. I think the number he gave you was probably conservative when you take in effect the whole of Plymouth Road. Is it your attempt to remain in business as a billiard parlor? Mr. Wathen: Yes it is. Mr. Morrow: I ask because as you know waivers run with the land. You could leave tomorrow and that property could become a restaurant and would be limited to perhaps seating, but one of the things we have to be aware of as Commissioners is if we grant a waiver of use, it becomes a restaurant use and it could in fact not be a billiard parlor any longer, it could become a restaurant. Mr. Wathen: I have a ten-year lease so I will be there for the next ten years at least. Mr. Morrow: What I am saying is you could move your pool operation tomorrow and set up a full blown restaurant to service the area. That is just a point I want to make. I am not saying you are going to do it but this is one of the considerations we have. Mr. spine: The letter you wrote you say food service has always been part of our business plan. I am curious about something. When you got your waiver to put the billiard hall in there, did they know that in the future you wanted to have a full service restaurant in there? 13678 Mr. Wathen: Everyone I have ever discussed this with I have been very open about it. My billiard room is like most of the up-scale billiard rooms in the country today. They are three faceted. They primarily offer billiards, adult beverages and food. In any context some of them the most important aspect of the business will be adult beverages and food and billiards as a third. Some of them food will be the primary motivating force, then alcohol and billiards third. We are primarily a billiard room. We cater to the professional billiard player. We want to add food service. If and when we ever ask for and start adult beverages, that would be number three on our list of services that we offer. We are primarily a billiard room. Mr. rapine: I guess what I am curious about is you say in your letter it has always been in your plans for food service but the Zoning Board of Appeals granted you as a condition that you could serve certain food in there. That leaves me to believe that is what they thought was going to be here, just a small operation. It says here you sell deli sandwiches, pizza, nachos, potato chips, soft drinks. I don't think the Zoning Board of Appeals knew at the time that you wanted to put in a full service restaurant and basically that is what you are asking for now a full service restaurant. The point that bothers me, as Mr. Morrow brought up, is the fact that once we grant that waiver use, you have a ten-year lease but that doesn't mean anything. People walk away from leases. If somebody else moves in there they can operate a restaurant and as has been mentioned here by a number of Commissioners, we are saturated with restaurants on Plymouth Road and that creates a problem for me. On the other hand, if somebody knew that eventually we were going to have a restaurant in there, I think it should have been before the Planning Commission and not before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Wathen: You keep saying full service restaurant. It is not my intention to be a full service restaurant. We don't want the kind of kitchen that someone can come in and order filet mignon. We don't want that. If I wanted to do that I would have gone somewhere and opened up a restaurant to start with and I would not have invested a quarter of a million dollars on a billiard operation. I have a quarter of a million dollars invested in Bogart's Billiard Cafe without food service capability. Food service capability is going to run me about $30,000. I think those figures alone will tell you where our emphasis and our concerns are. We are a billiard room and we are always going to be a billiard room whether we have food service or not. Our primary emphasis and our time and energies are spent on the core portion of our business. The core portion of our business is billiards. We have been losing a certain amount of our customer base to other billiard operations around the City of Detroit in the last two years, and we are just losing them for one simple reason, you can get a hamburger and an order of fries. It is the American way. 13679 Mrs. Blomberg: You said that later on down the road you would like to serve adult beverages. What exactly do you consider adult beverages? �.. Mr. Wathen: Beer. Mrs. Blomberg: So we are not looking at a full service restaurant, we are looking at a bar? Mr. Wathen: Yes, in a couple of years. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-2-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #10-169-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-8-2-27 by Bogart's Billiard Cafe requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in conjunction with an existing billiard hall facility located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-8-2-27 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. 3) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the adjoining uses of the area. 4) That this area of the City is currently well served with restaurant uses similar to that which is being proposed. 5) That there is no demonstrated need for additional restaurant usage in the subject area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: I am going to vote against the denying motion. I don't think this affects the other restaurants in there. Although I am not in favor of any alcohol being served there, that is not 13680 before us tonight. Basically he already has the seating and I don't think it will change the type of crowds that will go in other restaurants in Livonia. It is only for the customers that are now attending this business. I don't think it is unreasonable. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: McCann ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 690th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on September 20, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #10-170-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 690th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 1994 are hereby approved. ``. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-9-8-19 by Providence Hospital requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a medical clinic on property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road west of Newburgh Road. It is 17.15 acres in size. The petitioner, Providence Hospital, is proposing to construct a new medical clinic on this property. The medical clinic will be 68,000 square feet in area and four stories in height. Also as part of the proposal the petitioner would like to landbank some of the parking area required as landscaped area. Before they could do this they had to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance because this landbanking would make the parking deficient. They have gone before the Zoning Board and they were granted a variance for deficient parking. Based on the size of the building they are required to have 729 parking spaces. They are proposing to have 490 parking spaces 13681 available for the patients and 243 spaces will be landbanked or kept as landscaping. This is a total of 733 so they have enough parking for the site. The landscaping is 60% including `r. the landbanking or 47% if you take away the landbanking. The elevation plans show that the first story of the four story building will be stone with the remaining stories brick. The landscape plan shows they are proposing to have a five foot berm along the southern portion of the property which is adjacent to the residential property to the south and this berm will be five feet in height with about a 38 foot base and will run along the back of the property. Because they have a greenbelt here they are proposing to substitute that for the required protective wall. Mr. Morrow: Scott, the parcel at the corner of Newburgh and Seven Mile, the wetlands on that property, doos that fall within the Providence Hospital parcel or is that part of the undeveloped parcel? Mr. Miller: I am not sure. The petitioner can explain that but the way the map looks they have mitigated wetlands on their property and I believe some of the wetlands go through their property. Mr. Morrow: We can pursue that with the petitioner. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present tonight? Would you please come down and update us on the changes that you made since last week. Charles Bisel: I am Director of Facility Planning and Construction for Providence Hospital: I have with me Joe Siekirk, who is our architect with MAS Associates, Inc. We also have representatives from the hospital that will be involved with the operation of the building if you have questions in that regard. Since we came before you last week we have made some changes. Joe is going to put the color rendition of the site plan up on the easel. As indicated we are going to have a five foot high earth berm that will be landscaped and sodded in a 35 to 38 foot wide band that runs across the southern and western edges of the property, as well as the landbanked area will be landscaped so we will have quite a green space that separatPs our parking and building facility from the adjoining neighborhoods. The portion on the corner, which is just under 2 acres I believe, is owned by another person who we have been dealing with. It is the same person we purchased the property from and we have the first right of refusal in terms of purchasing the property. As a matter of fact, Jack is coming into my office on Thursday to talk with us about a possible picking up of that parcel. We also made some changes across the northern side of the building in terms of a protective wall that separat s and screens the receiving area of the building so that architecturally that is protected, as well as the landscaping on the adjoining property will nicely screen that. The rendering that Joe just put up is the first time we 13682 have shown this in public in terms of what the building will look like in three dimensions. As you can see it is very handsome. It is four stories high. The lower level will be 14.1. cast stone or granite material. The upper floors will be a warm brick. The roof is a metal standing seam in a light green color and, of course, there is glass where glass wants to be in terms of the inside areas. The building is approximately 35-40% outpatient facilities made up of X-ray, laboratory, pharmacy, cardiology units, an urgent care facility and physical therapy. The balance of the building will be made up of physicians' office practices, the largest amount of which is Providence based and is already in the City of Livonia on Farmington Road just south of Eight Mile in the Certified Realty building. They will be moving down here and will comprise the better part of one of these floors. The balance of the building will be leased out to other physicians. I should mention this is the first of a series of joint venture opportunities that we have as Providence with the Catherine McAuley Health System and the name Mission Health will be the indicator for what will take place as part of that joint venture. It is really an exciting opportunity for us to come into the community and provide better health care facilities and opportunities than we have in the number of years we have been a member of your community. We made some changes to the rear elevation. (He presented the rear elevation) We think that has added something very nice to the building. It really gives us two front facades. Mr. Alanskas: On your rendering there we don't see any identification of \r. Providence Hospital. Will that be on the building? Mr. Bisel: We will be coming back to you with our more precise sign program. Right now, as I mentioned to you, this is a Mission Health facility and we are in the midst of developing the corporate identity logo program for exactly what that is going to look like and what that is going to say. That will appear on the building with some other information that will identify the four hospitals that will make up that Mission Health. I assume we will be coming back within a very few months once we have gotten that formally adopted by the hospitals. Mr. Alanskas: John, being this is going to be a medical facility, will the City get 100% taxation? Mr. Nagy: The City will get taxes on the portion that is leased out for doctors' offices. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bisel, I want to get it on the record because we discussed it before, that berm is going to be high enough so the residents that are at the rear will not be able to see the parking lot. Is that correct? 13683 Mr. Bisel: Yes. Mr. TaPine: Will there be plantings on top of that berm? Mr. Bisel: Yes and no. We have some indicated along there. Whatever is necessary and whatever is required, we will provide. Mr. TaPine: That portion of the berm that is going to screen the residents, there is no way that can ever be cut into as part of additional parking if you should need it? Mr. Bisel: That was the agreement that we made with the Zoning Board and, of course, you at an earlier basis. Mr. LaPine: One other question I have, could you just give me a feeling of on what would be your busy day, how much traffic would be generated at that facility? Mr. Bisel: We have a Traffic Study that was produced for us by Goodell-Grivas, Inc. , and they indicated a very minor amount of increase in traffic. I think it was 3%. Mr. LaPine: I am just curious. What I am trying to find out is will there be 200 cars a day coming into this facility, 150 cars a day? Do you have any indication of that? Mr. Bisel: At the peak hours it would add 72 cars at this intersection of Seven Mile and Newburgh between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. ,so'' Mr. T. Pine: How many cars would be coming into your facility at this peak time of the day? Mr. Bisel: 72 cars in an hour. Kurt Kuhn, 37516 Kingsburn: I am one of the houses on the south side there. After reviewing the landscaping plans that were submitted yesterday to the City Planning Commission, the plans show that there are approximately three trees per lot. These trees are, based on what their plans are, 6 to 7 feet high and only 3 or 4 feet wide. They are called Austrian Pines. I don't know how large they are going to get and how wide around they are going to be but for 80 feet to only have three trees in my back kitchen looking out on that building, I don't feel that is sufficient. There is already an existing easement for drainage of water to my backyard, and how it looks at this particular point in time is the trees are planted in between the landbank and the easement. If they are 6 to 7 feet tall, and I don't know how tall Austrian Pines are going to get, I am a little concerned that the proposed five foot berm may not be high enough. Let me address them in a little more detail. The three Austrian Pines provided is not adequate to maintain whatever amount of privacy we have or will have left in that 13684 particular area. I brought some pictures of landscaping taken by the Laurel Park mall which shows approximately 7 trees or so, which I feel would be minimum per lot to maintain a fair level of privacy. As I said, four doesn't make sense. To plant a six foot tree on the bottom of a berm that is only going to be five feet high, what does that do? It only adds one more foot. My back area is approximately two feet off the ground so it doesn't provide any type of barrier whatsoever. The proposed height of the berm is only five feet. I would like to see it go to six feet. The wall that the Zoning Board of Appeals made the variance for was going to be a six foot wall and I am proposing that it go up to six feet instead of five. In talking with people in the Planning Commission as well as another person in City Hall today, there is something called the 4 on 1 rule, for every 4 feet you go horizontally you go up 1 vertically. That is so a riding lawn mower can do that but there is also something called 3 on 1, which you can also do as well and obtain a six foot berm. One of the questions that was brought up was is there going to be landscaping on top of the berm as well as around it. That is also one of my concerns as well. I didn't see that. I saw trees in between the actual landbank and the easement. There are two other things. The snow removal. I am concerned with where they are going to put all the snow in terms of flooding in that area. I don't know if you are familiar with that but there have been places in the area that have flooded, and with good rain there is some high standing water from two or three days ago. The final thing I have to say are the hours of construction. I would like to know when those hours of Swap construction are going to be. Can you tell me that at this particular point in time? Mr. McCann: We will answer all the questions all at one time. Mr. Kuhn: I am concerned about the amount of noise that will be generated from the equipment and the times of the operation. This project is definitely a major undertaking and will command a lot of noise. I can even hear the highway from my bedroom with all the doors and windows shut. I would like to suggest a starting time of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. After that I don't feel I would be able to tolerate noise at that time. I understand there are construction schedules and weather changes and whatever coming into the winter season but I also feel I don't need to hear trucks at breakfast time nor do I want to hear trucks at six o'clock when I am sitting down to eat dinner. I do have pictures if you would like to see these pictures of what is existing at Laurel Park just down the road. (He presented the pictures of the Commissioners) This is what I would like to see. I would not want to accept the proposed landscaping at this particular point in time unless some changes are made. 13685 Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner like to respond to that. Mr. Bisel: We do have with us this evening a representative of the landscape architectural firm, Grissim/Metz. He may want to join me to speak to some issues on the landscaping. Again, we would be more than willing to work with whatever is necessary to provide the necessary screening, etc. We feel we have certainly attempted to do that with the landscaping that is shown. The choice of the pine tree, the coniferous tree, maintains its fullness year around versus a deciduous tree where it drops its leaves, so for half a year you reduce your screening opportunities. With regards to the height of the berm, what we recollect is we have the option of a masonry wall or the berm, which was recommended by this group. In both cases it was a five foot high dimension so we feel we have adhered to that. Again, the five foot height and the 30-35 foot width gives us the opportunity to maintain it and keep it neat and tidy. In terms of hours of construction, the standards hours are pretty much 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or 3:15 p.m. We don't expect construction much beyond either one of those two hours. The project right naw is set up and scheduled to be built on a normal construction basis versus any type of double shift or what have you. We do have a target completion date that we would like to adhere to, which is the full 12-14 months of construction, so there may be opportunities that come about because of material deliveries, etc. that don't come on time when we may have to push that but I think generally speaking we can say it will be a 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. program. As far as the snow removal, we will of `tar course be removing the snow for safety purposes on both the driveways, parking lots and walkways and we would simply push that snow to the sides allowing windows, etc. as required. I believe your Engineering Department will certainly have a lot to say in terms of the approval of the on-site drainage system, which we will be submitting as part of the working drawings for approval, so we don't feel it will be a problem in that regard either. I hope that answered the questions. Mr. Morrow: I think one specific question he asked, could you give us an idea of the size the Austrian Pine will eventually grow into? Paul Andres: I am with Grissim/Metz Landscape Architects. We specified the Austrian Pine at a six foot height which I believe is your ordinance requirement, and that tree will mature to approximately 30 to 40 feet in height at a growth of approximately 12 inches per year. Mr. Morrow: What about the width? Mr. Andres: I would say 15 to 20 foot range, maximum. Mr. Morrow: So we are talking 40 feet high and roughly 20 feet wide? 13686 Mr. Andres: With about 12 inches growth per year. Mr. Morrow: That was a specific question he had and I just wanted to make sure it was answered. On a motion duly made by Mr. I.Pine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #10-171-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-19 by Providence Hospital requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a medical clinic on property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 16, 1994 by Nowak & Fraus Corp. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan, dated Oct. 4, 1994 by MAS Associates Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and that the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Elevation Plans dated Sept. 29, 1994 by MAS Associates Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; `44.. 4) That the parking spaces for the entire medical clinic shall be double striped. 5) That the landscape materials shown around the berm shall be increased to more adequately screen the proposed development from the neighboring residential homes, such additional landscaping to be determined by the City Planning Department. as well as subject to the following additional condition required by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) The lawn area and permanent berm, which will be 30-35' in width, 5' in height and will be landscaped, are to be sprinkled and properly maintained at all times. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: Just a comment. I think they have done an admirable job in presenting this and I certainly hope something works out where Providence Hospital and Catherine McAuley would become the benefactors of the parcel on the corner of Newburgh and Seven Mile Roads. 13687 Mr. rapine: I would like to echo that. I think it would be great if they could buy that corner. They are building a beautiful facility here and I am worried about whoever buys that other parcel. We may have something that may not be compatible with this so let's hope you are successful in getting that parcel. Mr. Alanskas: I just wanted to tell the neighbor to the back that regarding those Austrian Pines, believe me if they are watered they will grow between one to two feet per year. They can go as high as 65 feet so you will have plenty of treatment back there. Mr. Kuhn: I am concerned with the 14 years it will take them to grow. I am concerned about 1996. Mr. Alanskas: You will be pleased. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-9-8-20 by S. Casadei requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at 8891 Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Miller: This is right on the corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 45,700 square foot neighborhood shopping center. The building will be "L" shaped with storefronts facing out towards Newburgh and Joy Roads. Parking for this site, they are required to have 293 parking spaces and they are providing 306 parking spaces, so they are over what they are required to have. Landscaping, they are `o . required to have 15%, the site plan shows 16% so they are over on landscaping. The elevation plans show that the shopping center will be constructed out of brick with stone accents along the front of the store faces. The landscape plan shows there will be a wall constructed along the residential district, which is to the back of the property, with trccc planted along this wall area as well as out in front and at parking spaces. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this site plan but they want us to note that the storm sewer outlet for the site is restricted by a recent Westland-Livonia Drainage Agreement setting forth the conditions for storm sewer systems in Livonia which outlet to the City of Westland. Accordingly, it will be necessary to detain storm water runoff on-site for the subject shopping center area. Finally, a six foot wide sidewalk should be required along the Newburgh-Joy Road frontages. Mr. Piercecchi: John, I noticed this evening we received a new set of data showing the greenbelt had been eliminated and a wall replacing 13688 it. Initially on our write ups we had a 16% landscaping. Did that change it by getting rid of the greenbelt and putting a wall there? Mr. Nagy: No, the percentage will stay the same. What was graded in back of the building where the greenbelt was on the residential side, has now been substituted on the public side next to the road, so it is a re-allocation from the back of the building to the front of the building. Mr. Piercecchi: When I looked over the site Sunday morning, I was going to recommend tonight that the greenbelt be eliminated and a wall put up. If you recall John, some of those homes are on a very high slope. I think we should possibly consider going the maximum on the height because they are up several feet. Mr. Nagy: The wall height is measured from the commercial side of the property. The purpose of the wall is to screen the noxious fumes, lights and glare that is emanating from the commercial property so the establishment of the grade is taken from the finished grade of the parking lot, the height of the wall. On the residential side of the wall it might be a different elevation altogether because obviously they are not going to be able to go upon the neighboring property to adjust those grades, so in some cases you may have a wall higher on the exposed residential side than you do on the commercial side. In some cases the screening wall is actually going to act as a as a retaining wall. Mr. Piercecchi: So as far as a six foot wall, if you have homes sitting on an elevation of this nature, wouldn't it be more beneficial to our residents if we gave the maximum height of that wall, like say seven feet? Is there a problem with that? It is a beautiful neighborhood as you all know. Mr. Nagy: I really think that was the reason why we wanted the vegetation in there in addition to the wall was to obtain additional height over and above the wall to soften the effect of the building and make it a more pleasant view for the residents rather than have a stark wall of seven foot. The combination of the wall and the landscape materials accomplish that objective. Mr. Piercecchi: So you think the six foot wall is more than adequate? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please identify himself and give us your reasons for this request. Michael Boggio, 255 S. Woodward, Birmingham, Michigan: I am the architect. I will start out with the landscape plan that is before you to 13689 discuss the one question in terms of percentage of landscaping on site. Our previous plan that we looked at during the study meeting, prior to suggesting the construction of the wall, had the landscape area along the rear property lines `r"" that abut the residential at 15 feet in width and the landscape area along both Newburgh and Joy Roads at also 15 feet in width. We have now, with the installation of the masonry wall, made the greenbelt along the wall 10 feet and we have increased the front yard greenbelt along both roads to 20 feet. So we basically re-allocated five feet from the back of the building to the front. In addition to the wall, we tried to locate back where there would be homes, groups of three trees that would further screen the back of the building from the residential properties, so we are doing both the wall and the landscape treatment. In addition to that, by re-allocating some of the space, some of the planting islands that were in the parking lot have actually gotten a bit larger also. So I think overall from our initial plan the landscaping here has benefited. (Mr. Boggio presented the elevation plan) The building is going to be a brownish earth tone type of brick. All of the facades will be brick. We won't have any dryvet or metal siding or anything in terms of the facade. We plan to add to the quality look of the building and the custom feature by adding some limestone trim and medallions to further enhance the architectural style. We are planning on the fronts along the entire building a green metal canopy. It will be a sloping canopy as well as on the tower we would match the same *ft. metal canopy with a metal roof. That will help to again customize the exterior and will completely hide any HVAC units from the road, and we propose to screen any HVAC units from the residential site also so none of that will be exposed. We have also tried to, within the rendering, depict the types of landscaping that would be within the islands of the parking lot. You can see most of these islands are pretty well realistic. The parking lot will have more than a sufficient number of tree plantings and planting islands within the asphalt itself so we are very happy with that also. There were a couple of other questions that were brought up last time that we wanted to discuss. There was a concern as to trash pickup and loading, etc. , the hours of operation of those kinds of things, and the owners have agreed that they would limit the hours of loading the trash from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Engineering requirement in terms of increasing the sidewalk, our plan now shows the sidewalk with the standard five feet. We have no problem with going to six feet in width. I would be willing to answer any other questions. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Boggio, we compliment you on amending your site to install the combination of wall and landscaping in lieu of the 13690 landscaping itself, and I am sure the shopping center will be first rate. My only concern is obviously the neighborhood as it surrounds the site. You have addressed the hours of pickup �.. of the dumpsters, which falls within the working hours. The only other question I have is because of the proximity to the houses, the height of your lights. I know they are downlit and I see you have it on the plan here it says it is 20 foot high on a 2 foot 6 inch concrete base. Does that mean it will be 22 feet, 6 inches high or does that mean it will be 20 feet high including the base? Mr. Boggio: The standard pole height is 20 feet plus the base so as it stands right now it will be 22 1/2 feet. Mr. Morrow: The reason I bring that up is, as you well know, the lights are very close to those neighbors and I am certainly no lighting expert but I would certainly call upon you as the architect to bring those poles down as much as you can to limit the amount of light, although it will not be shining directly on the homeowners, it will still be a patch of light in there until I assume nine or ten o'clock at night. I feel the lower the better. That would be my concern but I don't have an answer. Maybe you could give me some insight. Mr. Boggio: We could probably go to an 18 foot pole and make it a total of around 20 feet. I don't see that as a problem. We have indicated the type of fixture that is commonly known as a shoe box type of fixture that can be aimed completely downline. All the poles are basically in front of the building. In the back of the building we would have some lighting but that would be located down around 9 or 10 feet high so that we won't have any spillage. Mr. Morrow: That is my main concern, not so much in the front yard as in the service area in the back. Mr. Boggio: We have indicated some wall-mounted lights at certain locations and on the back wall typically we use the same type of shoe box light and the beam of light is aimed down at the base of the wall so there is no spillage of any sort into the residential area. Mr. Alanskas: There is one light that would be on the west side of Joy Road that does appear to be the 22 1/4 footer and I believe there would be some homes directly behind that. Mr. Boggio: I don't think knocking those down to 18 feet would be a problem. Mr. Morrow: Make it as low as you can. Does the staff think that would help? 13691 Mr. Nagy: Sure. We will make that modification on the notes. Mr. Alanskas: We discussed at the study meeting, you were talking about possibly doing this in two phases. Would you explain that to ''"' us. Mr. Boggio: Presently, we consider Phase I as constructing approximately 27,000 square feet of space fronting Newburgh Road and then there is an additional 18,000 square feet of space that would be constructed as a Phase II type of construction once Phase I is full or nearly full. Mr. Alanskas: When do you plan on having Phase I completed? Mr. Boggio: We would plan on hopefully beginning construction this fall and having Phase I completed around mid-summer of 1995. Mr. Alanskas: By that time you should know if you have clients to go into your Phase II. Mr. Boggio: Yes and perhaps Phase II could start before then. As we said at the study meeting, there is a fairly strong commitment for a major drugstore, major video store, major pizza chain, and a major hair cutting facility so that well over 50% of Phase I is presently spoken for. Mr. Alanskas: On your rendering there you show trccs 40 to 50 feet high. What are the height of the trees that are going into this facility? How high are they going to be when you first put `m. them in? Mr. Boggio: We have called for deciduous trccs. We haven't called a height on them. We have called for the deciduous trees to be 2 1/2 inch caliper burlap tree. Different type of trees we have are Norway Maple and Green Ash. Those would probably start out in the range of 12 to 14 feet high. Mr. Alanskas: Those are very sloping trccs. Will all your landscaping be irrigated? Mr. Boggio: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Including the treesin the back? Mr. Boggio: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I have one question. You are talking about the six foot high brick texture poured concrete screen wall. Can you explain that to me? Mr. Boggio: It is a concrete wall but the forms that they use to pour the wall are textured and they look like a split face brick and brick joints, etc. 13692 Mr. LaPine: What is the color of the brick that is on the building? Mr. Boggio: The color of the brick on the building is a brownish earth tone. Mr. Tapine: Is there any way that concrete can be colored so it blends in with the building? Mr. Boggio: You can precolor concrete. We are presently looking at a couple of other alternatives for that wall. They do make some prefabricated walls that are precolored, etc. , and they are prefabricated and go into the ground differently than a poured concrete wall. We weren't settled on one yet so we didn't want to commit to anything but we are looking into the possibility of installing a precolored masonry wall. Mr. LaPine: A precast concrete wall, that isn't the type where you have stool beams? Mr. Boggio: No. Mr. Tapine: Have you ever thought about making this a brick wall to match the building? Mr. Boggio: We thought about it, but the cost. Mr. rapine: You are putting a lot of money into this facility and it would make it look a lot neater. Mr. Piercecchi: This poured wall, is it identical to the one at Five Mile and Merriman area, which I think is one of your facilities? Mr. Boggio: I am sure it is. Unfortunately it is gray color concrete but the texture and size of the brick, it looks like simulated brick from a distance. It looks like a gray brick wall. Mr. McCann: You are going to have landscaping going all the way down to the eastern most edge and your western most edge around the wall. I am wondering about the visibility of the wall to the people on Newburgh and Joy. Mr. Boggio: We have a 20 foot greenbelt on both sides. We actually indicated the wall stopping back 20 feet so it would help vision. We have planting in the greenbelt but we have tried to leave a triangle of vision on either side and we would use law plantings in this area so the vision along either side was not totally blocked. Mr. McCann: I like your plan but it troubles me to see a concrete wall out there next to a nice brick building. 13693 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. rapine and unanimously approved, it was #10-172-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-20 by S. Casadei requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at 8891 Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as number 1 dated Oct. 3, 1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as number L-1 dated Oct. 3, 1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and that the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as number 2 dated Oct. 3, 1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to 4) That the parking spaces for the entire shopping center shall be double striped. 5) That the color of the screen wall shall match to the extent possible the brick color as used on the shopping center structure. 6) That the hours for trash pickup shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. as committed to by the petitioner. 7) That the height of the light poles shall be no more than 18 feet with a base of 2 1/2 feet. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-9-8-21 by Kamp-DiComo Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the auto dealership located at 32570 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Miller: This is the Tennyson Chevrolet dealership located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Mayfield Avenue. Tennyson Chevrolet is proposing to add a 1,000 square 13694 foot addition to their existing building. This will help renovate the interior of the dealership. Because this building is deficient in front yard setback, prior to them coming before you tonight the petitioner had to go to the Zoning Board to be granted a variance for adding on to a non-conforming building. They have received the variance so they are in conformance due to the variance. In addition to their addition, the petitioner is also proposing to add new landscaping along the front of Plymouth Road in front of their property. This will include new curb cuts, facade and landscaping in certain areas. The addition will be constructed out of block. The existing dealership is brick. Once it is completed the dealership will be completely painted white with chevy blue accents on the building. Mr. Nagy: The Fire Marshal in his letter dated September 26, 1994 indicates that they have no objections to the proposal. The Inspection Department in their letter of September 27, 1994 indicates that they have reviewed the site plan and the existing building is currently non-conforming by virtue of a deficient front yard setback. The proposed addition to the existing building will not create any additional building deficiencies. Additionally, the applicant has been to the Zoning Board of Appeals and has been granted relief from the requirements of Section 18.21(a) of the Zoning Ordinance for this addition. The proposed addition will require five additional parking spaces for the site, and the total number of vehicles to be displayed or stored, as well as landscaping, 'tor approval subject to a recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The Engineering Department similarly indicates that they have reviewed the site plans and recommend that a six foot sidewalk be placed across the frontage of the site. The locations of the planting areas should take into account the location of this sidewalk requirement. Further, it is recommended that all existing asphalt parking areas be removed from the Plymouth Road right-of-way. The Traffic Bureau stag in their letter that they have no objections to this site plan. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come down and explain your proposal. Dan DiComo: I am representing DiComo Associates. With me is Mr. Kip Tennyson from Tennyson Chevrolet. I would like to put a rendering up clarifying some changes we have made in our proposal. What I would like to do first of all is explain what we are doing with our proposal and to explain some of the things that happened at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and then get into some of the changes that we made from the study session. Again, I would like to stress that there is a lot more happening here than just a small addition. We are trying to keep in touch with what the City is trying to do in 13695 line with Plymouth Road and update it. Mr. Tennyson has allowed us to not only renovate his showroom and do a small addition but also to treat Plymouth Road with a little respect '�.. and to enhance what we feel greatly an existing situation. What we are doing is along the road right now there are presently no curb cuts, or I should say one long curb cut the whole length of this property, over 400 feet. What we are trying to do is create traffic patterns where if somebody is coming to the facility they would only be able to turn into designated locations. Obviously our main entrance is curbed on both sides, and what we are hoping to do is provide customer parking where there used to be used car display so the customer, as they come in, they see the showroom and display and then they head to the customer parking and walk over to the present facility. We are removing all these areas where you see designated in green, removing asphalt and replacing it with landscaping. This gray area is a brick paver patio or extension of the existing showroom. The existing showroom is not going to be enlarged in building but it will be enlarged to encompass exterior spots for presentation of new vehicles. This proposed brick paver area will match the showroom tile work so it will appear as an extension of the showroom. Once again, some of the things that happened at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. There is a main Chevrolet sign there right now. What we are doing at the present time is we are proposing to remove this sign entirely to take this rosy existing large pylon sign and move it further away from the building so as to anchor the piece of property so as you are driving from the east you would have a designation as to where the property starts, and also with the signage on the building where that property ends. The same thing if you are heading west along Plymouth Road. So we are eliminating one of the large pylon signs, actually moving it further down, and that has been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. One other thing I would like to bring up that we have done since the initial review with the Planning Commission is the intent behind the renovation of this is not only to enhance Plymouth Road but to enhance the business. One of the items that was brought up was the fact that a lot of the cars are displayed in and around the front of the showroom right now. The intention behind this addition and renovation, again which includes refacing of the entire facility, is to try to bring the new car customer along to the front of the building. We are creating a new front entrance with a four foot overhang so people will recognize this as the front of the building. We are also allowing an extra wide brick pavered area here which is 26 feet from the building face to where the front of the brick pavers are so the remaining vehicles could be able to be parked in front of the building, which would be six to eight 13696 feet away so as people park and come to the showroom they would come to the front of the building as opposed to the existing door. In keeping with that idea what we have done is basically taken out an area of approximately two to three parking spaces and landscaped those so we are able to display new vehicles to the west side of the building and a few at the east portion of the building and along the east wall where we would have the vehicles parked outside of the road right-of-way area. We are trying to make sure this whole new renovation of the facility is visible for the people driving down Plymouth Road so it is a little more pleasant, and also for the new car buyers so they will be able to look in and see all the new things that are happening within the showroom. I think we have addressed the number of items that were discussed last time. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Morrow: I heard something about a sidewalk. Is that illustrated on the plan? Mr. DiComo: Presently right now what we have we are adding this sidewalk against the brick paver type of sidewalk. We have a sidewalk proposed to go here. We have called for a five-foot wide sidewalk. This area in the front, which is again used for new car vehicles, it is not going to be a parking area for patrons. You will have the new vehicles parked here. We are allowing a four to six foot wide area behind the vehicles. It is not a continuation with this. We are trying to get the people closer to the building and off the road right-of-way. Mr. Morrow: Was there anything said about in front of the used car sales as far as any type of sidewalk in that area? Mr. DiComo: Actually what we are hoping to do again is limit access into this area so there is not much confusion. It is a hard surface but it is not proposed or designated as a specific sidewalk. Mr. Morrow: I guess that was one of the things I was leading up to was if there is any way while you are reworking that area to build in similar to what you did in front of your customer parking. I don't mean sodding the area but something along those light poles there in the way of greenery. If that would be an alternative, as it would come up and abut with the easterly landscaped area similar to what you have behind the paver in front of the customer parking. That would be something I would certainly like to see done. Secondly, did the Zoning Board of Appeals address the portable sign by the service? Will that be removed or will that remain? Mr. DiComo: To be honest with you I am not familiar with the portable sign. Maybe Mr. Tennyson can answer that. 13697 Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tennyson, specifically we looked at all the signs on your building and the pylon, and the one sign I didn't see addressed was in front of your service area. You have like a ,`, portable sign that is on a stand there and addresses some service specials that you have. I view that as a sign. Will that be removed or is that part of your resolution? Christopher Tennyson, 19299 Linville, Grosse Pointe: Truthfully, I never even thought of that. That is a temporary sign. Mr. Morrow: So it is temporary and will not be a part of the site? Mr. Tennyson: No. Mr. Piercecchi: I heard it mentioned to our Planning Director you were eliminating all the asphalt up to Plymouth Road. Mr. DiComo: That was the recommendation in one of the letters. I am not sure what department it was. Mr. Nagy: It was the Engineering Department. Mr. Piercecchi: How does that recommendation sit with you? Mr. DiComo: That would limit the tusiness obviously as it presently runs. Obviously, with the building sitting so close to the Plymouth Road right-of-way, if we were to start all over, the building had been built in the early 50s and at that time it was a y` proper setback, but if we were to start all over with this facility obviously it would be set further back. We would be able to invite customers into the property and to set up the whole layout as far as how new and used cars are displayed and how the flow through the property would be. At the present time, due to the boundaries and the limits of the facility, we have to virtually step off the entire piece of property for purposes of safety and vehicle theft, etc. Mr. Piercecchi: How much asphalt will there be there? Mr. DiComo: What we are doing presently all these areas in green are being removed. We are removing approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of the existing asphalt . We would like to leave some of this area so the facility can work as it does now where a few people can pull up on the weekend. A lot of people like to shop without talking to a salesman. This site does not allow people to come onto the site after business hours. Mr. Piercecchi: So they would park in those spaces there. Mr. DiComo: Because of the bad traffic flaw right now with one continuous curb cut, we are obviously trying to limit that so they come in and are back from the road so when they pull back out they will be facing the right direction. 13698 Mr. LaPine: Scott made a reference to the new addition as block and then the whole building was going to be painted white. I thought you told us at the last meeting that you had some material you `y were covering that with. Mr. DiComo: The actual physical construction is a masonry base with steel joints on top of it but the entire facility is going to be covered with plaster. Mr. TaPine: That is what I thought you said at the study session. I have an objection to the vans parking there. Are we going to be able to limit it to vans the size of small vehicles like you mentioned? Mr. DiComo: Yes. We tried to show our intention of keeping it clear and open by permanently eliminating some of those areas where they can gather. We will definitely not put the large vehicles in front. Mr. TaPine: The building to the rear, which is your collision shop, which you have that sign on, which is huge, is that going to be eliminated? Mr. DiComo: That is going to be eliminated. Mr. TaPine: So there won't be any signs on that building at all? Mr. DiComo: Correct. Mr. TaPine: In the front you have customer parking. I think there are seven spots there. What happens when you have an overflow? Where do they park? Mr. DiComo: Actually right now this entire area has been set up for a different flow of traffic where used vehicles park here and here. (He pointed this out on the plan) Obviously, since this is going to be used more as a driveway, we would probably allocate this area and leave this area open for customer parking. Mr. TaPine: That will be striped so they know they can park there? Mr. DiComo: We can do that. Mr. LaPine: I know I have been in a dealership when a lot more than seven people have been in there, and therefore I don't think seven is enough to take care of the patrons. They have to know where they can park, and one of the reasons I lean toward what Mr. Morrow was talking about getting rid of that asphalt because the tendency is to park out there, which I think you are trying to eliminate so you get a better traffic flow. I think you have to show some additional parking. 13699 Mr. DiComo: I think designating more spaces is an easy task at this point. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tennyson, being you are so tight for space, has there been `, any thought on the west side of the building to obtain that barber shop? Mr. Tennyson: Not really. It would be nice. Mr. Alanskas: Just a thought. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #10-173-94 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-21 by Kamp-DiComo Associate requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the auto dealership located at 32570 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 21, 1994 by DiCono Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 21, 1994 by DiComo Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and that the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Elevation Plan received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 21, 1994 by DiComo Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That no vans shall be allowed to be parked and exhibited in front of the showroom along Plymouth Road. Mr. McCann: I would like to make a comment. Mr. Tennyson has been a long time corporate resident of Livonia. I am glad to see this improvement. I think this will really improve the view from the City and I think the Plymouth Road Development Authority will be glad to see it, and I am glad to see it coming around. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-9-8-22 by McDonald's Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the restaurant located at 15399 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14. 13700 Mr. Miller: This is a McDonald's restaurant located on the west side of Middlebelt north of Five Mile Road. The petitioner is proposing to add a 925 square foot playspace addition to the existing restaurant. To make room for this addition, the existing drive-thru lane approach will be made narrower and brought in to about 12 feet in width and will run past the new addition around the building. Also, the drive will be widened in the front area approach to allow traffic to also go into the parking spaces to the north of the site. The playspace addition will house a children play area and game area for the children which will include tubular slides and tunnels. It also will house new barrier-free restrooms. The elevation plan shows the new addition will be five feet higher than the existing building and will be constructed with scored block treated lumber and insulated glass. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he has no objection to this proposal. The City Engineer similarly indicates that their office has reviewed the plans and have no objection. The Inspection Department indicates they have reviewed the site plans and it is in compliance and since there will be no additional seating within the playscape addition, no additional parking would be required. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present. Please come forward and give us a description of what you are intending to do. Frank Martin: I am an architect with Dorchen/Martin Associates, 29895 `. Greenfield Road, Suite 107, Southfield: Unfortunately, last week you had a study session and Scott Powlus from McDonald's visited with you. I was at another meeting here at the Zoning Board of Appeals on another issue. Scott happens to be in Chicago this week at McDonald's for some training, and I had prepared with him the site plan and some elevations for him when he came to that meeting, so he and I had discussed your planning session. In fact, I think I delivered to your offices prior to the weekend some revised site plans and elevations based upon some discussions. I brought along a colored board and some photographs that might help. As was mentioned in the introduction, the addition is to the north side of the building. The drive-thru lane continues as it did before. However, what we were able to do is remove an existing landscape island and actually relocate it back a little further so that we can widen out this approach so when traffic comes in you can go straight ahead to the drive-thru or you can turn and go through the parking lot. We didn't lose any cars in doing this. We actually picked up some landscape area. In addition, we picked up one additional barrier-free space. There were only two there before. We now have three that comply with ADA and Michigan Barrier Free. I brought along some existing photos so you can see where it is going to be placed. N .. 13701 As was mentioned, the intent of this addition is to create an enclosed 365 day-a-year space for children to use instead of an outdoor play space. You have seen these around at McDonald's and other facilities. We ourselves have been involved with quite a few of them. In this particular case, because we were limited in the amount of space available, the addition is about 21 feet in width and about 42 feet in depth. It allows us to put a playspace area of tubes and crawling tubes, activities for children under four feet high. In addition, this particular facility is an older McDonald's. It has been there a long time. It could use some help. To try to modify the restrooms that are within the facility to make them barrier free would be a difficult task because the kitchen is limited. We can't bump out the back, so we thought a solution would be to provide two barrier-free restrooms within this facility, which would do a couple of things. It would first of all allow children within the playspace and parents to use the facility there and would also give us a male and female barrier free restroom, which really complies, and we think would then be a good faith in terms of meeting the ADA requirements, even though they did whatever they could within the existing facility. The other thing with regard to the addition, there is no room for seating within this addition. There is no plan to put seating in. We have 89 seats within the facility. As a matter of fact, we may lose one or two tables because of one Sow of the proposed accesses that we have for the facility. We have an existing exit door at the rear of the facility. That would continue to be there and we have another exit door out of the facility. We have another access door through an existing window that is on the side of the facility. We think it will be a good addition to this particular store and to the neighborhood for the children. If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer them. Lee Morrow: At our study session there was some talk about a drive around the front of the store. I am certainly glad to see you retain that. Mr. Martin: I forgot to mention that based upon your discussions, that by-pass lane, which would have ideally helped the situation for McDonald's and customers because of the traffic flow within the site, it would have taken out landscaping but it would have also caused an intersection with three drives. I agree with you that this plan better addresses the fact that it is still 60 foot back and that has not changed. I think the other issue is barrier-free wise and I think that helped in terms of changing that. 13702 Mr. Morrow: That was Mr. McCann's concern. The only other thing, the site is in very good shape, in other words the housekeeping is very good, except you have one dumpster sitting outside your enclosure. Is that something temporary? If that is going to be permanent, we would like to see it screened per the ordinance per code. Mr. Martin: I forgot to mention that with me tonight is Terry Alexander from McDonalds. He is Operations Manager. Maybe he can address that situation. Terry Alexander: I am Operations Manager for McDonald's, 2000 Town Center, Southfield: I don't see a problem with that. If it is a matter of putting some type of an enclosure on the dumpster, that will not be a problem for us. . So in other words the dumpster will remain? MrMorrow: Mr. Alexander: Right. Mr. Morrow: You would probably have to show it on your site plan and then build it per our specifications. Mr. Martin: If we find out from Operations the people that run that particular store, if we find out that does not have to be there, it will be removed. If it has to be there, we will show it on our site plan as being screened. Mr. Morrow: It appears you almost have a compactor behind the screen wall `r. as opposed to a dumpster. Mr. Alexander: The compactor behind the screen wall is their primary compactor. The one you referred to is probably a recycled dumpster. It is not a requirement but we just have it there for recycling products. Mr. Alanskas: John, what percent of landscaping do we have on this site at the present time? Mr. Nagy: We are in the 15%. We just didn't put it down. Mrs. Blomberg: I just was curious as to why the playland was five foot higher than the building. Mr. Martin: The McDonald's Corporation has essentially gone through an evolution with playspaces and as you know they have been outside, and then they have been inside, and they have been a couple of levels high and children like them, but they have been very successful. There are two manufacturers of playspace equipment. One is called Omni and another one is called Softplay, and they essentially put equipment in Leaps and Bounds and Discovery Zones, etc. They have created a 13703 three level playspace that requires about 16-17 foot of height, and in order to do that you need about a building that is 20 feet high within the structure. You don't want to architecturally, mechanically, you don't want to cram these '4111. playspace units to the underside of the structure. This looks like a gymnasium inside and kind of playful. To constitute trying to give children and customers a variety of playspaces, the units are getting a little taller and consequently the building is having to accommodate that. The typical McDonald's facility is about 17 feet high from the ground to the top of the double mansard. This is about 21 foot, 8 inches. It is about 4 foot higher. In most cases these playspaces go on the front of a facility so you end up seeing more of the playspace than you do here. In this case you see more of the restaurant. In my perspective sometimes that is more acceptable to communities than having it on the front because then it seems like all you have is a playspace and no restaurant. In this case the height is a factor of the equipment that is being placed inside. It is not meant to be taller because we want it to be the highest point in town. It is just because that is what it ends up taking. Mr. Piercecchi: Most of my questions have been answered but I would like to compliment you Mr. Chairman. You did bring the drive-thru bottleneck lane to their attention and it was removed. I think it was a good thing for McDonald's and a good thing for the City of Livonia. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and �,.,. unanimously approved, it was #10-174-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-22 by McDonald's Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the restaurant located at 15399 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 30, 1994 by McDonald's, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plan defined as A-1 dated Sept. 28, 1994 by McDonald's Corporation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by RJM Sign & Lighting requesting approval for one wall 13704 sign for the restaurant located at 34359 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Miller: This is the Senate Coney Island that is located in the Stark Plaza Shopping Center on the corner of Plymouth and Stark `'�► Roads. The petitioner is proposing one wall sign for the front of their building. This restaurant already has an existing awning sign on the building and because it is in a shopping center the business is only allowed one wall sign so this becomes a non-conforming sign. Normally they would go to the Zoning Board before they would come to you but when this restaurant expanded in 1990 one of the conditions of that approval was that no new signage would be approved for this expansion. Because the Zoning Board cannot override a Council resolution, they must come back before the Planning Commission and then City Council and then the Zoning Board before a variance can be granted. The existing awning sign is 45 square feet. The new signage would be 83 square feet. Because of the frontage of the building they are only allowed 110 square feet so if you combine both signs they are over what they are allowed. They are also proposing to add two 18 foot neon strips along the building of the new addition of the restaurant that would match the color to the proposed signage. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner p1Pase step up and tell us your reasons for this request. Bob Schmitz: I have a business at 34147 Schoolcraft in Livonia. Mr. Dimopoulos feels he needs a sign on that wall because if you look at the building, you cannot identify that building from `. the street as to what is in there, mainly because of the greenery on Plymouth Road. He feels since he has added those two additions on the Stark Road side he feels he is in definite need of a sign there. Mr. Alanskas: John, with that new addition, does that also go with the square footage of the sign or is that not included? Mr. Nagy: The 110 feet does include the new addition. Mr. Alanskas: Do you actually need that neon tubing across the new addition? Mr. Schmitz: Mr. Dimopoulos would like to add that to that addition along that side of the building to identify his building from the rest of the tenants that are on that property there. He feels the only way to do that is to run a couple of neon strips down there. Mr. Alanskas: How bright would that be? Mr. Schmitz: Not very bright. We are going to put it into a fixture so it is not predominant so it won't be as bright as it normally would be. Mr. Alanskas: So it is not just neon tubing. It is encased into a fixture. How far does that fixture stick out from the wall? 13705 Mr. Schmitz: Probably about 5 to 6 inches. Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed that the waiver use approval did not include any additional awnings. Are you aware of the damage to the awning \r► that you have on that site? Mr. Schmitz: I pointed that out to him the other day. He is going to have that fixed. I also mentioned to him that when he first came in here he should never have put a sign on that awning. He told me he needed the awning to keep the sun and lights out of there. I told him he should have petitioned for a sign and put it up on the wall so you can see it because if you come down from the west side of Plymouth Road going Past, you don't know what is in that building. Mr. Piercecchi: It doesn't seem to be affecting your business. Mr. Schmitz: That is true but he still feels people come in to his business and they can't find the place. Mr. rapine: I just don't understand the two strips of neon. I can understand the sign. Even if these strips line up with that sign so it looks like like one long strip going across there I could understand to make it look balanced but to me you have a sign here and two strips of neon over here. I think we can eliminate that and just give him this sign here and that is going to give him exactly what he wants. People are going to be able to see the sign coming from east going west. I just don't see where this accomplishes anything. If this was lined `, up going all the way across it would make sense but being below the sign, I don't think it does anything. Mr. Schmitz: He brought that up to me. He feels that by having those strips of neon there it shows how far that restaurant runs. Mr. LaPine: Do you understand what I am saying. If this neon were lined up with the sign and went all the way across, it would look like one long strip. This doesn't seem to make sense. That is my personal opinion. Mr. Alanskas: You couldn't possible raise the sign you wanted and move it over 30 feet so it is over your door between the two buildings? Mr. Schmitz: He wants it on that main section of the building, the highest elevation of the building, so it can be seem coming west on Plymouth Road. Mr. Alanskas: From the last letter of "restaurant", from the "t", how many feet do you have from there to the edge? Mr. Schmitz: I am not really sure. We are going to move it to the center. I can move that down to the end. 13706 Mr. Alanskas: Couldn't we do that John? Mr. Nagy: Of course. Mr. Alanskas: If you moved that sign over towards that entrance door, it would show that is all one building. Mr. Schmitz: He feels since he has taken these buildings over, he wants to add this strip of neon. That is his idea to put this in to show the people that this restaurant runs from here down to here. Mr. Alanskas: I think if you just take that sign and move it as far as you can to the right towards the other building, it would show the whole building is Senate Coney Island. Mr. Schmitz: As I said this was his idea not mine. Mr. Alanskas: If that sign could be moved to the right. Mr. Schmitz: There is no problem moving that. Mr. Morrow: I would just make a comment that I heard at the study session. I was a little concerned about the size of the sign but after site checking it I can agree with the petitioner, you can't hardly see anything as far as signage on that building. I think Mr. Alanskas' idea is a good idea of moving it down, which would give you a little more relief from those trees on Plymouth Road. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, by moving it along next to that neon, does that count as part of the signage? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Schmitz: This is the Stark Road side. Mr. Morrow: When you are viewing it coming down Plymouth Road it is hard to see the Stark Road side because those trccc are there. The further back you move it the better chance you have of seeing it. Mr. Schmitz: I have no problem with that. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #10-175-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by RJM Sign & Lighting requesting approval for one wall sign for the restaurant located at 34359 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 be approved subject to the following conditions: 13707 1) That the Sign Package by RJM Sign & Lighting, received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 19, 1994 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; except for the fact that the neon tubing strips will not be permitted and that the subject sign shall fir► be reduced to no greater than 55 sq. ft. in area so as to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements, and moved to the edge of the door for better visibility. 2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Mccann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 691st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on October 4, 1994 was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION R. Leo Morrow, Secretary AT EST. r. ti.. �• ;' ( � �ti�— J C. McCann, Vice Chairman I I j9