HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-06-07 13462
MINUTES OF THE 685th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 7, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 685th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Robert Alanskas William LaPine Raymond W. Tent
Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director, and
Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson 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
`'r.• Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Revised Site
Plan in connection with Petition 94-1-2-2 by Building Committee,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a new credit union
facility to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Levan and Golfview Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, did you plan to present the present proposal? As
I understand it the Council has approved the waiver use but
the site plan normally approved in conjunction with a waiver
use was held in abeyance. That is my understanding that we
are now dealing with the final site plan.
Mr. Nagy: That is the correct understanding. The Council did approve
the waiver use and with respect to the site it approved the
building footprint only. There were several other conditions
attached to that approving resolution but the site plan
per se was not approved, and it is coming back to you pursuant
to the office service zoning district regulations for your
review and recommendation, which will be forwarded on to the
City Council for their final disposition.
13463
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy.
Mr. Miller: Part of the Council resolution was that the rear area would
stay wooded and that is shown on the site plan. They also
have a berm along the south and the east side of the parking
lot. This was required by Council. The teller drive-thrus
are reduced from four to three. Because of the berm they took
out ten parking spaces. The drainage will go out in a
direction that will flow into the existing Bell Drain. It is
on an angle to flow into that.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, is that at the eastern most portion of their property?
Mr. Miller: Yes, that is what they show on the site plan.
Mr. Morrow: The property to the south is to be left in its natural state?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Was there anything other than an understanding? Was there
some sort of a legal document to that effect?
Mr. Nagy: The Council required that the rear greenbelt area now
indicated on the site plan will always remain a greenbelt.
The petitioner will enter into a deed restriction for a
conservation easement or other legal instrument to prevent any
further construction or usage of that area. The petitioners,
through their attorney, have met with our law office and they
are in the process of preparing a conservation easement. The
document has been prepared. It is waiting for a final review
`r•► by our law department. Our City attorney is on vacation. It
is being protected through a conservation easement.
Mr. Morrow: So it is stronger than just a mutual agreement.
Mr. Nagy: Not only through the site plan approval process but also by
the easement document which the City will have an interest in.
Mr. Engebretson: I think Mr. Kropf has some additional information on that.
Rodney Kropf: I have prepared a rough draft of a proposed easement that will
run with that piece of property forever. Certainly it will be
executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit by the City.
Mr. Engebretson: There was some question at our last meeting as to the height
of the berm on the eastern portion of that property.
Mr. Nagy: The landscape plan has been revised to provide a continuous
five foot berm throughout the entire length, not only on the
south but also where it turns and comes along the Past
property line, and also the plan has been revised to indicate
13464
that there will be a full irrigation system for all the
landscaped areas. The only other thing I would add is the
building itself has been downsized so much from what the
Council originally approved, from 4,400 square feet to 3,600
�.. square feet. There was no other change only the elimination
of one of the drive-thru lanes and teller window. There was
also a reduction in the overall building size itself.
Mr. McCann: To the architect out there, you look like you disagree.
Bill Minahan: At our last meeting I think we discussed the five foot berm
going 30 feet around the edge, and you asked that I look at
that and find out if we were capable of doing that. With the
225 feet of frontage of the site and the size of the building
and the planned expansion of the drives that are necessary to
move the cars out there, we have some concern about whether
this is really what we should be doing to meet the intent of
all the discussions we have had up to this point. In order to
maintain a five-foot berm with a plant area, we are going out
about 20 feet at the base of that berm. The berm is shown
right now at five feet tapering down to a three foot height
with evergreen arborvitae type plants on top of it. I have
two concerns. First of all, the width of that berm being as
wide as it is, begins to encroach in the building area that we
have and the drive area that we have as it comes around the
corner. The second concern, which I think is more important,
is that you are getting into an area where you are talking
about a security concern for that drive-up area. We are
beginning to encapsulate that drive-up area to a point where
it is blind back there now. At three feet it may be blind as
well but we have at least the advantage of not having such a
wide, high berm right towards the end of that as it wraps
around. I guess I would ask for some discussion on it to see
what your feelings are as to what you want us to do.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you clarify what you mean by blind? Blind from what
point of view?
Mr. Minahan: What is happening is that the drive-up is in the back and as
that berm comes around it is beginning to completely shield
that whole area. We want to have at least some visibility
back there in order to maintain a safe environment. I am not
so sure we do even with a three foot berm, to be honest with
you, but my concern is height when we get to a five foot berm.
Mr. Engebretson: Where does the sense of security come from in having a lower
berm than a higher berm?
Mr. Minahan: The possibility of being able to at least see back there.
Mr. Engebretson: Who would you see?
13465
Mr. Minahan: People using the drive-up. The police as they drive by prefer
to have some visual access back into that area so there isn't
someone waiting and lurking in the darkness to possibly cause
a problem.
Mr. Morrow: What plantings are on top of the berm? You mentioned
arborvitae. How thick are the plantings?
Mr. Minahan: Arborvitae, as you may or may not be aware, when that matures
you get a strong, year-around, visual block with it.
Mr. Morrow: Some of those can go eight to nine feet.
Mr. Minahan: They can get very high. Our hope would be this, that in order
to maintain those things you trim them up a little bit. If we
can keep the berm low enough and we have enough visual access
underneath it, we are going to get at least the perception of
a view. I am not convinced that we are going to have much of
a view at all. In terms of security issues, if you can
maintain a perception there that there is an openness, that
many times will deter anybody from going back there and
creating problems.
Mr. Morrow: What is the distance between the berm and the residence to the
south? How many feet?
Mr. Minahan: I am really talking about the berm on the Past. The residents
on the south, we have that conservation area, dense, thick,
wooded area plus the berm of five feet, plus planting areas.
As it comes around to the east side, where that vacant land is
Nom. located now, that is where there was some concern expressed.
Mr. Morrow: So you are saying it is facing vacant land right now?
Mr. Minahan: That is correct sir.
Mr. Morrow: We have that separation and we have a three foot berm that
would screen must headlights.
Mr. Minahan: The headlight screening, we have met the spirit of the problem
here with the three feet.
Mr. Morrow: So we are really not concerned about the residents so much as
uniformity?
Mr. Minahan: That is not exactly true. There was some concern on the part
of the residents on the other side of the access road into the
development that they could see across the access road,
through the vacant land, over the berm to the building.
Mr. Morrow: I got the picture. Thank you.
13466
Mr. LaPine: John, what did you say the new size of the building was?
Mr. Nagy: 3,360 square feet. It originally was approved at 4,400
square feet.
Mr. T. Pine: The plan I have from May 19th was 3,360 and the plan today is
still 3,360. The other question I have, I notice here you are
not going to sod. The grass area is going to be seeded?
Mr. Minahan: That is correct.
Mr. Lapin: The worry you have about security, it was my understanding at
the last meeting that at this point in time you are not going
to have any 24-hour ATM, so where is your concern now? Are
you looking at the future? Is that what the problem is? This
is only open during the day.
Mr. Minahan: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: The odds of something happening on that corner during the day,
I think, are kind of slim. I am not saying it isn't going to
happen but I think it is kind of slim so I don't understand
where the problem is. I could understand if you were going to
have a 24-hour operation where people could drive in at night
and get cash. That could be a problem. I would have to agree
with you but as of now you don't have that problem. I don't
understand why you think the berm is going to be a problem.
Mr. Minahan: Let me just quickly review the security issues involved with
buildings like this. We are talking about real and perceived.
Nor. Real issues involve holdups, and these businesses get held up.
Perceived is what kind of an environment are we developing
that encourages or discourages any potential for that kind of
a problem? We are dealing with cash here. These businesses
are held up at all times of the day and night. We cannot
simply say that because it is a nice, bright, sunny Saturday
afternoon somebody is going to come in and hold this business
up. We have to develop an environment that discourages that
or at the very least allows for regular police protection
being able to see in. I agree with you that I think the
likelihood is slim but I don't think we are prudent in our
development of this project unless we plan for that
eventuality.
Mr. LaPine: If there would be a holdup here, it would be a holdup of the
individual going to the individual kiosk to get money,
correct? Is this the type where you will have the tubes that
shoot in?
Mr. Minahan: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: So they wouldn't be robbed in the bank. The individual would
be robbed in the car getting their money.
r..
13467
Mr. Minahan: Mr. TaPine, you would be amazed at the way these things get
held up. We have clients of ours that actually have robbers
come up to a kiosk unit, hold a gun at the bullet-resistant
glass and demand that money be sent through the tubes. We
have had customers, members of credit unions and banks, held
up at the kiosk unit by somebody rushing the car as the tube
comes in. There are a multitude of ways this can happen.
Mr. rapine: I didn't know that.
Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, looking at the site plans you have here I
would say the five-foot berm is over 95% so only a small area,
would you say about 25 to 30 feet, will be tapered down?
Mr. Minahan: You can see that even on this plan trying to show a five-foot
berm with a 20-foot base to ensure that the plantings on the
top stay alive, we are encroaching over the property line. We
can't do that obviously.
Mr. Alanskas: What I am saying is that small area being three feet should
not be a problem. If it would ensure the safety, then I would
recommend that it does stay at three feet and that would solve
the problem that you are talking about.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is no one else wishing to speak to this, then a
motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#6-103-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
"4410. to the City Council that Revised Site Plan in connection with
Petition 94-1-2-2 by Building Committee, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to construct a new credit union facility to be located on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Golfview Drive
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated 5-10-94 prepared by Building
Committee, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 5-19-94 prepared by
Building Committee, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
3) That the Landscape Plan dated 6-2-94, as revised, prepared by
Woods-Moynihan, Inc. Architects which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to and the landscape materials shall be installed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall
thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
for the following reasons:
13468
1) That the submitted plans are in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance in every respect.
2) That the submitted plans are in accordance with the conditions
set forth in Council Resolution #319-94.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make would be if I am looking at the
correct plan it says berm at east side to be 5 feet high where
possible. I think we are going to tie that down to 3 feet for
how many feet?
Mr. Nagy: Just on the east side where it overlaps the property line.
Mr. Morrow: Just so we get that down on the site plan.
Mr. Tent: On this conservation easement that we are talking about to
protect the wooded area, would it be appropriate to have that
as part of the resolution?
Mr. Nagy: It is because we refer to the Council resolution.
Mr. Tent: I mean is it covered or should we document it also?
Mr. Nagy: It is covered by the reference to the Council resolution in
your approving resolution.
Mr. Tent: It is implied that it is. In other words, legally if they
decide to go ahead and do something with the back part, there
is no way of getting out of that easement?
*'`' Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Before I have Mr. McCann call the role I would like to explain
why I am going to vote no. I am sure this is going to be a
successful resolution but I am more convinced than ever that
the special and general waiver use standards required for this
facility have not been proven to be complied with, and while I
know that is not the issue here tonight, I just don't want my
fingerprints on this development so I will be voting no in a
symbolic way realizing that it isn't going to make any
difference.
Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment. I have been completely
negative against this proposal and I thought it was poor
planning in its original location, and I believe at this point
now that by the credit union being moved over closer to the
westerly position, by its scaling dawn, by its landscaping and
what they have done the conservation easement, etc. , I think
at this point its use would be proper because as we discussed
before, and I was concerned, they could have an office
building there or something else and it wouldn't be as
appealing as what we have here now. While I was negative
13469
before I think the architect should be commended. They have
done a good job with this. They scaled it down so I am going
to support this petition.
.. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, raPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Engebretson
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-2-10 by Danilo Josifoski requesting waiver use approval to
remodel an existing building in connection with a proposal to
operate a full service restaurant and banquet hall on property
located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street
and Ryan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This is the former restaurant site of La Bordeaux. Some of
the concerns from the public hearing and the study meeting
have been addressed. The parking lot will be resurfaced and
restriped to improve it. Landscaping has been beefed up to
15%. The property line will be used as a greenbelt and has
been increased by 3 feet. The outside elevations will be
cleaned up and power washed. The site plan also says that the
roof top mechanical equipment will be screened. The existing
non-conforming sign has been taken down. I believe that is
basically some of the problems that were addressed.
*4111.
Mr. Alanskas: Scott, two things. At our meeting you did not know what the
colors of the canopies were going to be. What are the colors
going to be?
Mr. Miller: I don't know if the petitioner can answer that.
Mr. Alanskas: Number two, how many canopies are we talking about?
Mr. Miller: That hasn't been answered yet.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to know those things before I could vote on it.
Mr. Engebretson: We will ask the petitioner to come forward and perhaps address
that question and some of the other items that were held over
from our last meeting.
Mr. Philips: (He presented a duplicate of the color board) The canopies
will basically go where the arched areas presently exist in
the front of the building. There are presently four arched
areas. Those will be covered with canopies. They do not
extend out into the sidewalk. The intent is not to be real
13470
illuminated. There would be a single stripe that would go
across the face of each one of the canopies. There would be
no signage or logos on the canopies at all. Again, the intent
is just to keep some color on the canopies themselves. The
existing building is rather neutral and the intent of the
canopies again is to add a little color. The shingles are
gray. There is some fieldstone in front and also some
reclaimed brick. On the side, as you turn the corner, this
would be facing the east property line. Again where there
presently exists a slight arch would be a canopy that would
project only a foot or so and then further down where the new
entrance door would go would be a legitimate canopy that would
stick out and form a cover for the patrons coming in that
would extend approximately six foot or so out in front of the
door. The colors that are represented there, basically the
door areas, the main entrances would go with the darker green
color. Some of the trim around the windows would be the
neutral beige color and then the rear of the building would
be the subtler green color that is represented here.
Mr. Engebretson: In all cases that canopy presentation that you are showing us
is to be uniform with all the canopies on both sides of the
building. Is that correct?
Mr. Philips: With the exception that this one canopy would extend much
further.
Mr. Engebretson: It extends further but the color scheme is the same.
'4011, Mr. Philips: Yes that is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: The landscaping on the east side hugging the building is in
very bad condition. Will that be replaced with new
landscaping?
Mr. Philips: I think the most current landscape plan added some additional
landscaping to that area.
Mr. Alanskas: You were going to add to it but that area is in very bad
shape, so will it be replaced with all new landscaping?
Mr. Philips: The existing landscaping in the front of the building and
along that side will be replaced. There were five items when
we were here. One was the paint color. The other one was the
awning colors which we just addressed. The other one has to
do with parking lot light fixtures which I submitted a sample
of that, which is basically what is known as a shoe-box light
fixture that will direct lighting downward.
Mr. Engebretson: Does it meet the standards John?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it does.
Mr. Philips: The hours of operation. Mr. Josifoski said it would be from
10:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The restaurant would be closed on
13471
Monday. The hall would be as booked. The final area of
concern was the screen wall. Again, at the prior session that
we had, the informal session, there were some of the neighbors
there. What we did at that meeting was explain that basically
Now there are two neighbors that ahit the easterly property, one
abuts about 290 feet of the property, the other one the back
60 feet or so. It was the desire of the immediate neighbor
that has the majority of the adjacent property not, in fact,
to have a screen wall but he opted for the landscaping that
was put there. The neighbor for the remaining 60 foot would
prefer the screen wall. Our feeling is that in that immediate
area of the last 60 foot, there is an area there that is
bermed. I know some of the Commissioners said they would try
to view the site. I have been out there. Mr. Josifoski has
been out there. The view that may get some headlights between
some of the landscaping that is there would hit probably the
garage area first before the house. The house is tucked
behind the garage. Our feeling is we would opt to stay with
the landscape plan as proposed and feel the natural area would
be better than the constructed masonry wall.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-104-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on May 17, 1994 on Petition 94-4-2-10 by
Danilo Josifoski requesting waiver use approval to remodel an
existing building in connection with a proposal to operate a full
service restaurant and banquet hall on property located on the
south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street and Ryan Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-2-10 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 5-16-94, as revised,
prepared by Joseph Philips, Architect, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 dated 4-11-94
prepared by Joseph Philips, Architect, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to and such approval shall include
the exterior building color scheme as illustrated on a color
board dated 5-23-94.
3) That the landscaping which includes the substitution of a
greenbelt in lieu of a protective wall along the east and
south property lines as shown on the approved Site Plan shall
be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a
healthy condition.
4) That the total number of customer seats in the restaurant
shall not exceed 197.
13472
5) That the parking lot lights shall be as depicted on the Area
Lighting brochure and marked 17R as submitted by the
petitioner and shall be mounted on poles no higher than 20
feet.
6) That any signs proposed to be erected shall first be submitted
to the Planning Commission for its approval.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special
and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-2-11 by Lorrine B. Salan requesting waiver use approval to
operate an arcade with mechanical amusement devices within the
Livonia Mall shopping center located at the northwest corner of
Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-105-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-4-2-11 by Lorrine B. Salan requesting
waiver use approval to operate an arcade with mechanical amusement
devices within the Livonia Mall shopping center located at the
northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller do you have anything new?
Mr. Miller: The petitioner submitted a listing of his machines.
Mr. EngPhretson: Scott, the list that was submitted by the petitioner in the
last week or so dealt with the matter of our concern with some
of the machines having some pretty graphic violence and those
13473
kinds of issues, and it is my understanding now that all of
the games are passive and at least do not deal with a lot of
violence or any other undesirable characteristics in any way.
Mr. Miller: Correct and there are only 25.
Mr. Engebretson: And we have reduced the number to 25, which is the number
permitted in this size facility.
Mr. Miller: Right.
Mr. Nagy: Mr. Chairman, for the record on May 26, 1994 we received a
letter from a Joseph Medved of 14102 Blue Skies, Livonia,
Michigan indicating his opposition to the proposed use. Even
though it is after the public hearing I would make it a part
of the record.
Mr. Engebretson: Did he indicate what his opposition was based on?
Mr. Nagy: He indicates that he is writing to express his opposition to
the proposed arcade in the Livonia Mall. He personally does
not think that this type of business would add to the value of
Livonia. Furthermore, he wants us to be aware of an incident
that occurred outside of a similar establishment in Fast
Lansing, Michigan. At this particular establishment there was
a shooting involving teenagers. He is concerned that an
arcade may draw unsupervised teenagers from Livonia and other
communities. Please vote no on this proposal as it will help
to keep Livonia a safe community.
fr..
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Why don't you come forward sir and
add whatever comments you feel are appropriate. Sir, would
you just confirm for the record what we just discussed
relative to the change in the lineup of the games as
originally presented in contrast to what your current plans
are.
Mr. Kuhn: The big change is that we are not going to put violent games
in there. It is going to be a more family-oriented type
arcade.
Mr. EngPhretson: Haw firm of a commitment is that?
Mr. Kuhn: It is firm.
Mr. Engehretson: I see Mrs. Hildebrandt behind you listening to all of this.
She is a witness. Those were the issues. The hours of
operation, as I recall, were also a matter of concern. Has
that all been worked out satisfactorily? One or two hours
after mall closing hours?
Mr. Kuhn: Yes sir.
13474
Mr. Engebretson: And that is acceptable with Mrs. Hildebrandt?
Mr. Kuhn: Yes sir.
`�- Mr. Morrow: I would just like to comment that I think the petitioner and
the mall worked diligently to bring the use in conformity with
some of the thoughts the Commission had and I want to thank
you for it.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make the comment that I was very much opposed
to your proposal. I am very appreciative of the changes that
you have made. Secretary McCann, while he doesn't represent
us as an attorney, because he is an attorney he pays special
attention to people's constitutional rights when it comes to
making sure that we don't trample on them and it was pointed
out that it would probably be inappropriate to include in our
resolution such rigid requirements relative to the game
formats that you have. We realize that you are going to have
to change them from time to time, but we still feel very, very
strongly about the issues that we have discussed in the past,
and frankly I will defer to Mr. McCann's expertise on that
matter, but I am going to depend on Mrs. Hildebrandt as being
judge and jury and with a lot bigger hammer and I don't think
she has any different view toward the diminishing of the
well-being of the Livonia mall than we do. We have a common
interest there. So without trampling on your rights sir, the
lady behind you is going to be the enforcer from my point of
view, and with that I will be able to support your proposal,
whereas without that I couldn't.
4011.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#6-106-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on May 17, 1994 on Petition 94-4-2-11 by
Lorrine B. Salan requesting waiver use approval to operate an
arcade with mechanical amusement devices within the Livonia Mall
shopping center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and
Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 94-4-2-11 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Floor Plan/Storefront Elevation Plan marked Sheet P-1
dated 4-12-94 prepared by Jon Greenberg & Associates, Inc. ,
Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the total number of mechanical amusement devices shall
not exceed 25.
3) That the hours of operation shall not extend beyond 9:00 p.m.
except on Friday and Saturday when the hours may be extended
to no later than 11:00 p.m. subject to a variance being
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for such extended
hours.
o..
13475
4) That the subject area shall be soundproofed as required in the
Zoning Ordinance Section 11.03(s)(5) .
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the 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. Tent: The reason I proposed that this petition be approved is I
certainly appreciate the fact that the petitioner did work
with us so closely and he was flexible enough to see what our
requirements are and he was going to be cooperative. I feel
this will be a successful operation and something we need.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
Nos. ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of
the minutes of the 684th Regular Meeting held on May 17, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-107-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 684th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 17, 1994 are
hereby approved.
Mr. EngPhretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Ventura Properties, Inc. requesting approval for
three wall signs for the building located at 17800 Newburgh Road in
Section 8.
13476
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Newburgh between
Six and Seven Mile Roads. They are requesting three wall
signs for their one building, which is conforming with their
variance they received from the Zoning Board in April. So
this is a conforming sign package.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, could you comment on the characteristics of the
sign and how they compare to each other, etc.
Mr. Miller: The signs will not be illuminated. They will have a gold type
of lettering and they will not be the same size but they will
be in proportion with each other so they will look as if they
are all the same size and type of signage.
Mr. Engebretson: The materials and colors are all the same?
Mr. Miller: Yes, they will be gold.
Mr. Engebretson: Is Mr. Ventura here?
Mr. Ventura: We are hopeful that you will approve our sign package as
presented to you. We would be pleased to answer any questions
you might have on this.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the lettering in the window going to stay on or come off?
Mr. Ventura: The letters that exist in the windows today or the ones that
appear on the drawing?
Mr. Alanskas: On the drawing.
Mr. Ventura: The ones that appear on the drawing are not accurate. Those
letters will not be affixed to the building.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Ventura is the building completely occupied now?
Mr. Ventura: It is.
Mr. Engebretson: It is a beautiful building. You have done a nice job there.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you very much, and you may note that since last meeting
the repairs to the parking lot have been accomplished that
were asked about and we are still probably 30 days away from
doing the finish coat on the parking lot.
Mr. Engebretson: Did we talk to you about double striping to protect people's
doors?
Mr. Ventura: Not to me.
Mr. Engebretson: It is not part of this issue here but it has been our practice
recently to request property owners to double stripe to
13477
define their 10x20 bays to protect to the extent possible
doors being damaged, and the double striping does really
position people better.
Mr. Ventura: I believe Mr. Chairman that may be our plan but I can't be
`'l•• certain because the only thing that is presently striped are
the handicap spots and they are double striped. We are
waiting until we put the top coat of the parking lot on to do
the finished striping, but based on what we have done so far,
I have to assume we will.
Mr. Engebretson: If it is not there, we would sure appreciate your doing that
and your tenants and your customers would appreciate that as
well.
Mr. Ventura: I agree.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-108-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Ventura
Properties, Inc. requesting approval for three wall signs for the
building located at 17800 Newburgh Road in Section 8 be approved
subject to the following condition:
1) That the Sign Package by Ventura Properties, Inc. , received by
the Planning Commission on May 18, 1994, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to.
`r.. as well as subject to the following conditions (which were required
by the Zoning Board of appeals) :
1) The signs are not to be illuminated;
2) At no time shall a ground sign be erected on this property.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Signcrafters requesting approval for one wall sign
for the building located at 17187 North Laurel Park Drive in
Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This office building is located on the west side of Laurel
Park Drive between Six and Seven Mile Roads and between Laurel
Park Drive and I-275. This office building is called on their
site plan Phase II. They are requesting one wall sign to be
located on top of their building. Because they already have
oversized address signage, as we call it, this is in excess of
what they are allowed. They are allowed 100 square feet.
13478
This will be 88 square feet so they have gone to the Zoning
Board and received a variance for excessive signage. So this
is a conforming sign.
Mr. Engebretson: As I recall at a previous meeting we had some colors on this.
` . Is it dark blue?
Mr. Miller: I don't know the exact color but it looks like a dark blue.
Mr. Engebretson: Let's ask the sign man to come down and bring us up to date.
Sign Man: It is a trimmed cap letter. The internal portion of the
letters are light to reflect any of the neon. The faces are a
dark blue.
Mr. Engebretson: I think you mentioned that each letter has its own. . .
Sign Man Transformer and neon.
Mr. Engehretson: It will be a real first class sign.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-109-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Signcrafters
requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at
17187 North Laurel Park Drive in Section 7 be approved subject to
the following condition:
``.• 1) That the Sign Package by Signcrafters, received by the
Planning Commission on May 9, 1994, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
as well as subject to the following additional conditions (which
were required by the Zoning Board of Appeals) :
1) At no time shall additional signage be erected on this
building;
2) In the event Alexsis, Inc. , vacates this location, the sign is
to be removed immediately.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-5-8-12 by Bridgewell Construction requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to develop a condominium project on
property located at 28050 Seven Mile Road in Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
13479
between Middlebelt and Inkster. It is the old D.A.V.
property. They are proposing to develop a 25 unit condominium
project. Each unit will be two bedrooms. Parking required
for this is 2 1/2 cars per unit. Each unit will have a
two-car garage plus a driveway area that could hold two cars,
"tow which takes care of the parking requirement. From the last
study meeting there have been some changes mostly because the
Fire Marshal has looked over the plan and he had some problems
with it. At one time there was a cul-de-sac at the end of
this road. It has now been changed to a T-turn type of
turnaround so the fire trucks could come in here and turn
around. This was allowed so that the units could be further
apart. In the first proposal each unit was about 10 feet
apart. They are now 14 feet apart, which the Fire Marshal
liked better. The road now is at 24 feet. The Fire Marshal
required that so the trucks could bypass the cars. One side
of the road will be dedicated so no cars can park. It will be
a fire lane so fire trucks or emergency vehicles can get up
and down the road. The petitioner also in this T-turn has
provided parking along the edge of this T-turn. There are
also 4 parking spaces between this unit and this unit. (He
pointed this out on the map)
Mr. Engebretson: So while each individual unit taken in total had already met
the parking ordinance requirement, now we have enhanced that
by adding those 4 near the center.
Mr. Miller: I think the petitioner is deterring people from parking on the
road just so emergency vehicles can be up and down. The front
elevation of each unit will be brick. The side will be about
r.. one third brick with siding the rest of the way. At the study
meeting the petitioner explained that because of the closeness
of each unit and because this will be brick, it will be
perceived as the whole unit is brick.
Mr. Tent: The Fire Marshal expressed some concern for safety of the
development?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Tent: I believe they addressed them all. Could you tell me about
the totally brick side elevation?
Mr. Miller: He required that if they were to stay 10 feet. At 14 feet he
didn't have a problem.
Mr. Tent: They are going to retain the bricking as we discussed.
Mr. Miller: Yes they are not going to change the elevation.
Mr. Tent: And about the windows being staggered?
13480
Mr. Miller: Because of the 14 feet, because in an R-1 district most houses
are 14 feet apart, the Fire Marshal had no problem with that
either.
Mr. Tent: Then they did address the major concerns?
Mr. Miller: Yes with the units further apart and the road widened.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the plan is greatly enhanced as a result of that.
Mr. Morrow: Will the units have basements?
Mr. Miller: Yes they do.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, would you like to turn it over to the petitioners and
let them make whatever comments they wish to make.
Ron LaCasse: I am with Bridgewall Construction, 30777 Northwestern Hwy. ,
Suite 101, Farmington Hills, 48334. Basically we have revised
the site plan to meet the Fire Marshal's needs. We have
enhanced the front of the homes with the brick as far as
coming down the street and seeing the full garages with the
brick. We have cooperated with the City totally in putting
this together. If there are any questions, I will be happy to
answer them.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-110-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
`ar to the City Council that Petition 94-5-8-12 by Bridgewall
Construction requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
develop a condominium project on property located at 28050 Seven
Mile Road in Section 1 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet C2 dated 6/7/94, as
revised, by JCK & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plans, defined as Sheets A-2, A-3, A-4, and
A-5 dated 5/5/94 by Bridgewall Construction, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet Li dated 6/7/94, as
revised, by JCK & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
13481
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-5-8-13 by William Roskelly requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a small commercial center on property
located at 9627 Newburgh Road in Section 31.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Newburgh Road
between Ann Arbor Trail and Ann Arbor Road. They are
proposing to construct a small retail center on this property.
Based on parking and the floor plan that was submitted with
this, it will be a four tenant building. Parking, they were
required to have 35 spaces, which is exactly what they have.
Landscaping, they are required to have 15% of the total area.
They have 21% so they are conforming in landscaping. I know
just from the study meeting the property owner is building
this for his wife to have a dance studio in it. The color
rendering submitted shows it will be a greenish roof with a
gray building elevation.
Mr. Engebretson: Before we go to Mr. Roskelly Scott, where are the handicap
spaces on that site plan?
Mr. Miller: (He pointed out the handicap spaces) There are two. I
believe that is all they are required to have.
Now
Mr. Engebretson: So they are basically at the end of the building where they
have access to that sidewalk.
Mr. Miller: There is also a ramp between them to the sidewalk.
Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I would like to revert back to the site plan.
As I explained at the study meeting perhaps the first question
would be, why the inconsistency in the configuration of the
property? The majority of this land was purchased from the
City of Livonia. This existing home was purchased by the
client so he could square this portion off. It was then
suggested and he attempted to buy the existing single family
home shown here. At that time it was for sale but by the time
he called, someone else had purchased it and it was not for
sale. The reason I am explaining that is because over here we
have a shopping center, here we would like to, if we are
successful be building this, and you have this one little
island of an existing home that lies mostly in the
right-of-way.
Mr. Engebretson: Excuse me Mr. Roskelly you said the home lies mostly in the
right-of-way. Could you explain that?
13482
Mr. Roskelly: The City purchased the land because of the widening of Ann
Arbor and Newburgh. This became surplus land so as you can
see the location of this home and the right-of-way line, it is
actually encroaching into the right-of-way.
\r. Mr. Engebretson: So at some future time that could become a problem.
Mr. Roskelly: True, and I think conscientiously I told my client if we
recall we have a 75 foot setback to the building line. If, in
fact, that will prevail, and it would, this is the only
portion of usable land on this parcel. (He pointed this out
on the plan) But unfortunately he was unable to get it so
therefore we proceeded. We, first of all, wanted to build a
larger building. Unfortunately because this could not be
purchased we resorted to this.
Mr. McCann: The existing home is still there correct?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is there a dividing wall between the two?
Mr. Roskelly: No, the existing home actually lies in here and that will be
demolished.
Mr. McCann: What about the property that was for sale? Is there a house
on it?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
`r.. Mr. McCann: Located between your property and their property.
Mr. Roskelly: Yes we are really creating an island.
Mr. McCann: Is there a wall between it?
Mr. Roskelly: No sir because it is all zoned C.
Mr. McCann: Including where the home is?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is there any type of barrier Mr. Nagy that is required even
though a residence is there and existing?
Mr. Nagy: By operation of our zoning ordinance there is not the usual
requirement for a screen wall. As was pointed out, even
though it is used residentially it is actually in fact zoned
commercial. The Future Land Use Plan calls for that area to
be converted to commercial so therefore there is no
requirement, no standard in the ordinance that says that area
should be screened with a protective wall. There is some
13483
landscaping that has been provided at the end of the parking
lot to try to make the compatibility between the interim use
of the residents and this but there is no hard screen per se.
Mr. McCann: How far is it between the parking lot where you are building
Mr. Roskelly and that person's home?
Mr. Roskelly: The nearest home would be approximately 8 to 10 feet between
our property line and the nearest corner of the existing home.
Mr. McCann: What I am more concerned with, how much between your parking
lot? Are you going to have 8 feet between the cars pulling
and parking from this guy's house or are you going to have 30
feet?
Mr. Roskelly: Actually we do not have parking in this area. There is no
parking contiguous to that property line.
Mr. McCann: So you will have some separation between your parking and your
customers and this person's home?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: What about the dumpster?
Mr. Roskelly: The dumpster is located in this extreme back corner and, of
course, there is an existing masonry wall there now.
Mr. McCann: Is there an enclosure around the dumpster?
Ntor
Mr. Roskelly: Yes a protective enclosure as per City ordinance. I suggest
it be of the same material as the building.
Mr. McCann: You suggest or is that on the plans?
Mr. Roskelly: We indicate that it will be per City requirements.
Mr. McCann: Is it all sprinkled?
Mr. Roskelly: It will be sodded and/or landscaped and all these areas will
be irrigated. Incidentally for what it is worth, no rooftop
units will be exposed. When you get into our elevations you
will see that all the units will be hidden under the roof so
there will be no projections whatsoever that has to be guarded
or fenced, etc. As was mentioned before it will be owner
occupied by Bunny's Dance Studio. We have two frontages on
Ann Arbor Trail and Newburgh so we have shown two faces with a
green tinted glass with white split masonry unit. I think as
the rendering shows it will be very attractive. We have shown
enough exit doors and windows to accommodate perhaps the future
three, two or one added tenants. Personally I think it is a
13484
beautiful building and I would hope you would find it the
same.
Mr. McCann: Are all four sides going to be this white color?
Mr. Roskelly: No just the two. The back two walls would be normal regular
block.
Mr. McCann: Is that going to be cemented in? Does it look like a block
when it goes up like that?
Mr. Roskelly: I would have to say yes with the exception that it is a split
block that gives you these highs and lows. I call it a
split-block masonry unit.
Mr. McCann: So the north wall and the east wall are the ones that are
going to be this material?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes the exposures to Newburgh Road and Ann Arbor Trail.
Mr. McCann: John, is anyone going to be seeing the other side wall? Is
that going to be out of view for most of the public or are you
going to see that coming up Newburgh?
Mr. Nagy: Not so much from Newburgh. Perhaps the view of the west wall
as you were to drive Ann Arbor Trail might have some exposure,
ultimately when the house is removed. When the non-conforming
house is removed, that might have some exposure.
Mr. Roskelly: It certainly would be a painted masonry wall.
Mr. McCann: I am just wondering if you are going to have an exposed wall
at some future point, you are obviously putting a lot of money
into this, the difference between your masonry block and
regular block may be justified in maintaining the future value
of the business.
Mr. Roskelly: I don't believe it would be overcumbersome if we turned the
corner and went a certain way but I don't know if we should go
all the way around the whole building, but I can appreciate
your comments if we, in fact, went a portion along this wall.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#6-111-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 94-5-8-13 by William Roskelly requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a small commercial center
on property located at 9627 Newburgh Road in Section 31 subject to
the following conditions:
13485
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/2/94 by Basney
& Smith, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/2/94 by
Basney & Smith, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/6/94 by
Randal J. Cizek, AIA, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
4) That based on the parking provided on the subject property, no
more than 4 tenants shall be permitted to occupy this building
at any one time;
5) That the spaces in the parking lot will be double striped;
6) That all signs shall come back before the Planning Commission
for approval;
7) That the masonry unit will be wrapped 10 feet around the west
side of the building;
8) That the trash enclosure shall be of the same material as
the building.
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
Nor
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 685th Regular
Meeting held on June 7, 1994 was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION
4
J. - C. McCann, Secretary
rr,,,,
ATTEST: clOk 01 C '14 ,✓t, !
Jack Engebrtson, Chairman '\
jg