Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-01-2820028 MINUTES OF THE 858" REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, Januar 28, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 858 Pudic Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William LaPine John Walsh Carol Smiley Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-08-0847 BURGER KING Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 08-08-17, submitted by Tania Salem, on behalf of Burger King, requesting approval of landscaping and signage for the restaurant located at 28203 Plymouth Road in the Northeast % of Section 36. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Inkster and Harrison. On September 25, 2002, this site received Site Plan Approval to construct an addition to the existing Burger King Restaurant. As part of that approval it was 20029 condifioned: 'That a detailed landscape plan that adds landscaping to the front and rear of the properfies and addresses the signage issues shall come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for review within 60 days following the acfion of the City Council on the site plan" On December 30, 2002, the petifioner submitted a Landscape Plan for the overall site. The new plan shows that the existing concrete walkway between the parking spaces directly in front of the restaurant would be converted into landscaping. Also, the four parking spaces immediately adjacent to the sidewalk along Plymouth Road would be removed and transformed into landscaping. In addition, the greenbelt along the west property line, the curbed islands defining the drive-thm lane, and the parking island next to the east property line would all be reestablished and enhanced with new plant material. The Director of the Plymouth Road Development Authority (P.R.D.A.) has reviewed the plan and commented that the landscaping out front along Plymouth Road would conform to the P.R.D.A.'s conceptual plan. The required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; the provided landscaping is 19% of the site. On January 13, 2003, the petifioner submitted a Sign Package comprised of a wall sign for the restaurant and a new ground sign. The proposal would include the removal of the existing large pylon sign and the erection of a new monument sign in its place. They are allowed to have a 52 square fool wall sign on the building; they are proposing one wall sign at 46 square feet. They are also allayed to have a 30 square foot monument -type sign; they are proposing a 20 squarefoot sign. It is a conforming sign package. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspecfion Department, dated January 13, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Shaheen Bouldaroun, Technical Group, Inc., 34441 W. Eight Mile Road, Suite 109, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We are the architectural firm that has been hired to do this project. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? 20030 Mr. La Pine: Maybe Mark can answer this for us. I asked this at the study session. Is the parking lot going to be fixed? It is in bad shape. Mr. Taormina: That is a required condition of the original approval. Mr. La Pine: The second question I have concems the shrubs on the east side of the property. I don't think they are on the Burger King property; I think they are on the adjoining property. I think the shrubs were replaced. A lot of those are dead again. Can we just gel back with the guy next door there and see if he can replace those? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Shane: What will the proposed addifion be used for? Mr. BcuMaroun: I'm sorry? Mr. Shane: What is the purpose for the proposed addition? Mr. BcuMaroun: What we're trying to do in the back is move the walk-in cooler and freezer to an enclosed area so that we can enlarge the bathrooms and make them ADA compliant. Mr.Shane: Thankyou. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? See no one, a mofion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #01-11-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of landscaping and signage in connection with Pelifion 2002-08- 08-17 submitted by Tania Salem, on behalf of Burger King, for the restaurant located at 28203 Plymouth Road in the Northeast % of Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS -1 dated December 20, 2002, as revised, prepared by Technical Group Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 20031 3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4. That the Sign Package submitted by Burger King Corporation, as received by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That these signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this restaurant doses; 6. That the existing pylon sign shall be removed; 7. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; and B. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the building permits are applied for. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas? Mr. Alanskas: I'd just like to say thank you very much for doing a very nice job with your plan. It's really nice when a petitioner comes before us and asks for signs that are in compliance with our sign ordinance. To get rid of that large pylon sign and put in a 20 square foot sign, I think, is just great. Thank you. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-01-08-01 ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-01-08-01, submitted by the Italian American Club of Livonia requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal for signage and to expand the parking lot of the banquet facility located at 39200 Five Mile Road in the Southwest %of Section 18. 20032 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile Road between 1-275/96 and Hix Road. On February 4, 1997, the Italian American Club was approved for a ground sign that looked very similar to what is being proposed now. An on-site inspection shows that there is a wooden sign identifying the facility. This is not the ground sign that was approved. The proposed wall sign would be located on the west elevation of the building, which is the side that faces the 1275/96 Expressway. They are allowed one wall sign at 165 square feel; they are proposing one at 80 square feet to be located on the west elevation that faces 4275. They are also allowed a 130 square fool ground sign; they are proposing a 19 square fool ground sign that would be located in the plaza area within the drive between this facility and the adjoining church. This is a conforming wall package. The petitioner is also requesting approval to expand the parking lot of the banquet facility. Back in December of 1996, the Italian American Club submitted plans and requested to expand their rear parking lot. At that time, 120 additional spaces were to be added to the north of the existing parlting lot. During the review process, residents of the adjacent Blue Gress Farms Subdivision expressed concerns about the noise level generated by the expressway. They fell that the clearing of the trees and the openness of the expanded parking area would increase the noise to their homes. In January 1997, the pefitioner withdrew the pefifion. The new proposal shows that the parking lot would be expanded to the north but not as far as the 1996 request. Most of the additional parking spaces now would be situated to the east, towards the driveway that separates the banquet hall from the neighboring church. The bump out to the north would now be only 62 feel, which would allow two rows of additional parking spaces and a two-way aisleway. Part of the woods would still have to be cleared to accommodate the lengthening. The expansion to the east would require the filling in of the detention basin that is presently located there. A note on the plan stales, 'Delenfion basin will be replaced by an underground piping storage system." According to the "Light Pole Detail" cul -out, any new parking lot standards that would have to be installed would be 18 feet in height. They are required to have 150 spaces. They are proposing to expand to 271 parking spaces, so they would be over about 121 parking spaces altogether. The expansion to the north would encompass two rows of parking and an aisleway. To the east, the detention area would be filled in and additional parking would be located there. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? 20033 Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 21, 2003, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above- eferenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right -of my dedication is required. The petitioneris proposing to replace the 32,481 cubic feet of open detention basin with an underground storage system. This would require approximately 2,600 feet of 484nch diameter pipe. It appears that this pipe could be placed in the same area as the open basin. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 10, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to expand the parking lot on property located at the above- ferenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 13, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans submitted by the Italian American Club requesting approval of their proposal to expand the parking lot of the banquet facility located at 39200 Five Mile Road. There are currently six handicap parking spaces provided as required for the 187 spaces. By increasing the parking to 271 total spaces, there will need to be an additional two handicap parking spaces provided." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 10, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 7, 2003, the above- eferenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is the pefitioner here this evening? Ronald Cammagno, Vice President ofthe Italian American Club, 39200 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about the proposal? Mr. Caramagno: There are some trees that are going to be removed. On the west property line, we continue to that berth. We intend on planfing trees there to follow the berth line, which we already have. 20034 Mr. McCann: I understand you have some colored renderings of what you're going to replace it with? Would you care to put them on the tripod so the audience at home can view them as well? There is a microphone and a set of footprints over there for you to stand on and speak to us. Can you explain to us which Iocafion your drawings are from? Mr. Cammagno: Pardon? Mr. McCann: If you will just take us through your drawings and tell us what points they are at. Mr. Cammagno: This area here is where the monument sign will be. We're developing this in kind of a memorial and park area with benches. The sign will look like this. The flags will stay in place, a little greenbelt over here and trees over here. Any questions on this? Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Not on the signs. Mr. McCann: This is just so the audience at home will know where this is going. Maybe you could put up the other board and show us where this is going to be as you're entering the parking lot. Mr. Cammagno: As you can see, I'm new at this. The only reason I'm here is that two are sick and one is out of town. Mr. McCann: Well, we're going to keep you going. The south road is Five Mile Road? Mr. Cammagno: This is Five Mile here. Mr. McCann: Okay. Do you want to show us where the entrance and location of the sign would be? Mr. Cammagno: The entrance and location of the sign are going to be approximately right in here. This area here. This is the driveway in. This is the area of the retenfion pond hat is going to be underground storage and filled in and parking here. Back here is where the additional parking will be. The bene is over here with an additional tree line to be followed. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: I have two questions. I asked at the last meeting if you would give us the capacity of the banquet hall. What is the capacity 20035 that the Fire Department alloys you to have? How many people are allowed in that building at any one time? Mr. Caramagno: One of the gentlemen that was here at the last meeting is sick. He was the one that was finding out. Ido not know. Mr. La Pine: Okay. One of the Commissioners made a recommendation that we eliminate one parking row at the north end of the parking lot. According to the notes, I guess the Club does not wish to do that. Is that correct? Mr. Caramagno: We had a meeting the day after our meeting last week. We talked to the people doing the paving, and the pncing we got was for everything. To come back to add 30 feet, the cost is going to go up. He's got to move his machinery in and this and that. They'd like to do it all at one time. Mr. La Pine: Okay Mr.Shane: Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCann: Mr. Alanskas has the floor. Mr. Alanskas: That's okay. He answered my quesfion. Mr. McCann: Okay. Mr. Shane. Mr. Shane: I'm the one that made the suggestion, and my suggestion was that you never have that row of parking back there. Mr. Caramagno: Pardon? Mr. Shane: My suggestion was that you elirrinate that particular row of parking altogether, that way you wouldn't worry about coming back and doing it later. You wanted to add two rows of parking. I was trying to compromise and eliminate one. That was the purpose for the suggestion. Mr. Caramagno: From the meeting that I attended with the Club, they feel they need that extra row of parking. When we have events, especially like this wild game dinner this Fnday night, it is attended by 300 - 400. But for that kind of event, most of the people dive themselves; there's not a lot of togetherness there. The parking is needed. If the church has something that night, we cannot use their lot and it leads to much confusion. The more parking we have, the easier it is on the church and on us. 20036 Mr. Shane: Can anyone tell me what the extent is of the trees in that particular area? Can you tell me that, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes, the tree line begins about 42 feet from the north edge of the existing parking lot. What they propose to do is extend the paved area back about 62 feet. If we induce another 3 feet of clearing beyond the new curb, you're looking at about 65 feet. So the intrusion into the actual woods would be somewhere around 23 feel or so. Mr. Shane: And you probably lose a few other trees just because of the disturbance of the area even beyond that. So we're not talking about a huge intrusion into that tree line is what you're telling me. Mr. Taormina: No. It's not significant given the makeup of the trees there. It is a relatively high density stand of smaller diameter trees, predominately Elm and Ash and those types of species. So it's a young age stand of trees. They should be able to withstand the impact, at lead those fringe trees, without much die off later on. Mr. Shane: I appears that the 20 feet is not going to do huge damage to that tree line. So if that's the case, then I'm not going to have any problem with it. Mr. Caramagno: There is still going to be about 200 feet oftrees. Mr. Shane: I understand that. Mr. Alanskas: You said you were going to have a large function this Friday evening. What are you going to do temporarily to alleviate the parking problem? Where are you going to park all those cars if you haven't got room in the lot? Mr. Caramagno: I believe they diecked and the church is not having any kind of event that night, so they're going to take the overflow from us. Mr. La Pine: When this facility was first built, you had adequate parking. You were required to have 150 spaces, and you have 187 spaces. That's the reason I wanted to know what the capacity of the banquet hall is. You're not increasing the capacity of the banquet hall, but you want another 135 additional parking spaces. That's what you'll be over. I'm just wondering why they would need that many? Are there more people going into that facility that it should hold? I mean that's important to me. 20037 Mr. Caramagno: I don't believe so. We only have seating for, I think, 400 or something like that. From the inception of the hall until now, we have not increased it. The membership has come up a little bit more, so we do have more members coming into the club level when parties are going on upstairs. When we first moved there, we maybe had 400 families. We're up to 700 families. Now they don't all come at one time. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. Mr. Caramagno: But its growing on the dub level. Mr. LaPine: The point is, when the building was built, you had so many seats and seating capacity. The parking capacity is calculated on how many square feet or how many seats you have in the banquet hall. And you had adequate seats then. If it hasn't increased in capacity, I don't understand why the parking need is going up. Mr. McCann: May I? I was silting on the Planning Commission at the time they previously came before us. I think you were too, Bill. As I recall, we had an issue with regard to the number of spots. We got a cross -easement with the church with regard to parking as part of the approval. Mr. LaPine: Right. Mr. McCann: And my understanding from Mr. Caramagno is that they are finding that there's conflicting events where the church is having a big party, the club is having a big party, and there is not the space to cross over. Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me then, at this point, if you gel this additional parking, then you won't have to use the church parking any more? Mr. Caramagno: Not as much. Correct. Mr. LaPine: You're still going to have to use it? Mr. Caramagno: There might be an occasional time when it's still needed, but it will eliminate our need 80% ofthe time. Mr. LaPine: It still leaves me to believe you got more people in the building than you have capacity for. Mr. Caramagno: I will get you that number. 20038 Mr. La Pine: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I go along with Commissioner Shane's initial presentation where he thought that you could use just one now and a driveway ... 22 fool. Now those trees are 43 feet from the end of the current parking lot. That would be a 20 footer, plus a 22 fool now. Now all you're going to give up here is 20 trees and you can save 25 feel of trees. If you were really squashed for parking, that's another ballgame. But even by losing those 21 parking spaces on the north end, you still would be 76% over what's required. And you do have access to that church. As far as conflict with the church, your big nights are Friday and Saturday. Mr. Caramagno: There are some Sunday events. Mr. Piercecchi: Isn'tthattme? Mr. Caramagno: Yes, but there are some Sunday events too. Mr. Piercecchi: But the church doesn't operate on Sunday nights. Mr. Caramagno: Pardon? Mr. Piercecchi: Churches rarely have functions on a Sunday night. Mr. Caramagno: I'm tallang about Sunday afternoons. They have many limes on Sunday afternoon showers and dub events. Mr. Piercecchi: You don't think you can give up 20 spaces to save 25 feet of trees? Mr. Caramagno: If I remember correctly at the last meeting, we talked about banking them. Mr. Piercecchi: Right. Mr. Caramagno: And doing it later. Well, I mean, if they have to bring their crew back in six months and do it again ... while they have the crew there, the cost per square fool goes down when you're already there. To bring them back, redo a curb line, and for six - seven months down the line, it just didn't make sense monetarily. You're only going out 20 feet of trees. Is that correct? You said about 20 feel? Mr. Taormina: Roughly. Mr. Caramagno: Yeah. And there's still 200 feet of trees left. 20039 Mr. Piercecchi: I know, but they go 25 feet at a lime. Before you know it, they're all gone. Mr. Walsh: Just a quick question for Mr. Taormina. The parking requirements are based on square footage of the space, is it not, as opposed to capacity? Mr. Taormina: Well, yes. I believe the parking computation for a facility of this nature, being a place of assembly, would be computed on the basis of one space for every 50 square feet. At least that is my understanding at the ordinance. I did not go back through the original file to determine what the total square footage of this facility is and how much at it is based on assembly versus the other uses in the building. Mr. Walsh: I appreciate that. I wasn't seeking the exact number but how we came to it. The comments that were made at our study session and tonight, talking about capacity and the number of cars is not relevant to the formula for determining what number of cars we need, which is based on square footage of the facility. Now assuming they are within heir capacity codes, that is separate from how we derive the number of parking spaces required. As far as I'm concemed, and I'll get to this when we get to the resolution in more detail, but I think they've made a case for the need for extra space. We've had some change in circumstances since the original approval that drives the need. You're busier. The church is busier with their activities. And I would have liked to lose a row, but I'm hearing what you're saying. And I'm mindful at the fad that you are a non-profit corporation, and I see the need. I hear the need. And I think it is probably more prudent for you to do it all at one time for the benefit of your dub and your members. And I think, in turn, your club benefits the City. The loss at that extra 20 feet is unfortunate. But the fad is, you're going to leave 200 feet at trees. So I think, at least my opinion is, I find it acceptable to do it all now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shane: I'd just like to make a comment that the idea at banking parking is generally based on the fad that you might need it in the future. That's why you bank it. What I'm hearing tonight is not only might they need it, but they will need it. Mr. Caramagno: That's correct. Mr. Shane: Based on that, if he comes back in six months, we might just as well do it now. So that's the reason why I've changed my mind. 20040 He's made a case for it, and I think it ought to be done now, all at once, rather than piecemeal. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #01-12-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-01-08-01, submitted by the Italian American Club of Livonia requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal for signage and to expand the parking lot of the banquet facility located at 39200 Five Mile Road in the Southwest %of Section 18, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site and Landscape Plan dated October 22, 2002, prepared by Kamp—DiComo Associates, is hereby approved and shag be adhered to; 2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 5. That the wall sign and ground sign shown on the approved plan, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That no LED light band or neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 7. That any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 20041 8. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I have one question, Mr. Shane. Does that mean on approving condition #1 that you're eliminating that bold face copy? Mr.Shane: Yes. Mr. McCann: I was going to possibly make a friendly amendment. I do have some concerns that the parking spots that are perpendicular to the western boundary line do extend over the boundary line. I don't have a problem with what is there now, but I don't want to extend it further. From looking at the aerial photos and by driving by, it appears to me that the western side is the most densely forested of the area and would have the greatest impact. The seven spots that are perpendicular to the western properly line that abut there ... was it four spots? That's about 40 feet then. I'm trying to figure it out there. All right. But those four spots may be eliminated? Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that. But I was going to ask, do those spaces actually extend beyond the property line? Mr. Taormina: I don't know that. The plan that was presented this evening shows what would appear to be the boundary line and the limit of those parking spaces extending about eight feet or so beyond it. But we'd have to verify that with the surveyor. Mr. Shane: If, in fact, they do extend over, I have no problem with that friendly amendment. Mr. Walsh: Just a quick comment. We've talked plenty about parking, but one of the points that we talked more about during our study session was the sign area and the landscape area. I wanted to point out for the viewing public that our petitioner is pushing that back off of Five Mile, so it's really going to be attractive. I think we must have a trend because Burger King was in compliance with our sign ordinance. This petitioner is taking a nice looking sign and keeping it off the main road, pushing it back on their properly a bit. We appreciate that. I think it will be attractive on your property and will be good for your building. Mr. McCann: Mr. Walsh, there was an amendment to just delete the four spots to the north. 20042 Mr. Walsh: Oh, that's fine. Mr. Piercecchi: In looking at the map here for the layout, when I counted 85 2003-01-08-02, submitted by Time Warner Cable requesting spots, I never even counted those there. So I don't know how approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning many extra spots they are really adding. I counted 85, which is Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition what Scott told me it was. And I counted 42 in one place and 43 to and expand the parking of the office building located at 14525 in the other. All those along there, they're adding a lot more Farmington Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21. packing spaces. Is that correct? Mr. Caramagno: Pardon? Mr. McCann: No. There would be only four more additional parking spaces. Mr. Shane: Those were already there. Mr. McCann: Those are already there. They are just adding four spaces. Mr. Piercecchi: Oh. Okay. All right. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing This site is located on the west side of Farmington Road resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road. The petitioner is approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-01-08-02 TIME WARNER CABLE Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-01-08-02, submitted by Time Warner Cable requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to and expand the parking of the office building located at 14525 Farmington Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21. Mr. McCann: I abstained from this item when the zoning change was before us. I am going to abstain from the site plan process as well to avoid a possible conflict of interest as I am related to the petitioner, Robert McCann, who is representing Time Warner. I am going to step down and turn the gavel over to Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to and expand the parking lot of the existing Time Warner Cable facility. To the west of this property are the elderly housing complex, Silver Village and an office building occupied by a law firm. To the north are residential lots zoned R-2, One Family Residential. 20043 The proposal includes incorporating the R-2 lot immediately north of the subject site into the development. This piece of property is in the process of being rezoned to OS and P (Pet. 02-07-01-11). The submitted plans have been reviewed as if the property has been rezoned. The proposed addition would be constructed to the northeast corner of the existing building. This add-on would lengthen the front of the building. It would be one-story in height and 5,226 sq. ft. in area. The size of the existing building is 16,217 sq. R. Once finished, the overall size of the new building would become a total of 21,443 sq. R. The existing building is constructed mainly out of brick. A note on the Building Elevation Plan states that the building materials of the new addition would match that of the existing structure. Upon completion, the entire structure should look as if it were all constructed at one time. The existing panting lot would be expanded to the north and west. The existing house and other structures on the northern property would be removed. The west extension would prolmde over and out towards Silver Village. According to the cutout on the Site Plan, lighting of the new parking lot would be by 20 R. high light standards. Parking is summarized as follows: existing parking is 88 spaces; they are providing 235 spaces so there is excess parking of 149 spaces. Because Silver Village is zoned residential, Time Warner is required to provide some type of screening between the two properties. The screening method can either be in the form of a masonry -type protective wall or, if authorized by the Planning Commission and City Council, a greenbelt. A wall is not shown or mentioned on either the Site or Landscape Plans. The only means of screening shown on the plans seems to be a 59 foot wide landscaped greenbelt along the south property line and a 46 foot wide landscaped greenbelt along the west property line. Both greenbelts qualify as appropriate substitutions as outlined in Section 18.45(b) of the zoning ordinance. A protective screen wall is also required along the north property line, but because the adjacent northern properties are in a somewhat transitional stage concerning their zoning, the wall should be waived until it has been decided how the properties will be developed. Landscaping is summarized as follow: they are required to have landscaping equal to not less than 15% of the total site; the plan shows 40% landscaping which exceeds the landscape requirement. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 20, 2003, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no 20044 objections to the proposal at this time. No further right -of -my dedication is required. This project will be subject to the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, and this fact is acknowledged by the design engineer. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 10, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to and renovate the parking lot of the office building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 13, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the proposal to construct an addition to and renovate the parking lot of the office building located at 14525 Farmington Road. Our only recommendation is that a 'Yum right only" sign and stop sign be installed at the northemmost exit to Farmington Road." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 15, 2003, which reads as follows : "Pursuant your request of January 7, 2003, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A site visit was made January 13, 2003. (a) One unlicensed vehicle with a Flat tire (#225) was in the parking lot along with a licensed vehicle (#111) with a flat tire. In addition, many vehicles were already parked on the property to the north. (b) The dumpster enclosure gate was open and is simply chain link fence. The enclosure walls are two feet shorter than the dumpster used. (c) The parking lot needs sealing, double striping and the accessible spaces properly sized and marked. (2) This site borders R5 zoning and will require either a protective wall or an approved greenbe# where it abuts said zoning. (3) The presumption has been made that the property to the north will be zoned similar to this site. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. La Pine: Is the pefitioner here this evening? Herve A. Henry, Engineer, JCK & Associates, Inc., 45650 Grand River Avenue, Novi, Michigan 48374, representing Time Warner for the project. Mr. LaPine: Would you like to tell us anything more about the project? Mr. Henry: Basically, the existing site is located on the west side of Farmington Road. The lighter shade building here is the 20045 existing building. The proposed building addition, 5,000 sq. ft. more or less, will be on the northeast corner of the exisling building. The parking lot extension will be on the northern side of the property and expanding towards the west and the senior residential area. As indicated earlier, the areas to the south and to the west are remaining as greenbelts. We're going to just maintain this heavily wooded area. We're going to maintain those trees and, basically, take advantage of them as a screening material. There will be a minimal green space on the north side of the property towards the residential area. Mr. La Pine: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: I notice that you have on your drawing a decorative fence south and west of the new parking lot. Can you explain to us the construction of that? Mr. Henry: We received a request to provide a decorative fence. We haven't really worked out the details right now. We will just work with the Planning Department and basically provide what they have in mind. Mr. Shane: Do you have any ideas on the subject? Mr. Henry: Right now, we are mostly showing a split rail fence. I'll tum this drawing around. We have done a couple of cross sections. This is a section that basically goes east -west and shows where at the end of the parking lot we are, more or less, matching the existing grade within a foot or so. There's going to be heavy trees, so any fence that we actually put there will mostly be seen from the Time Warner side more than from the neighboring properties. That is, more or less, the same situation if we look at it in the north -south cross sections. On the south side, we'll excavate for the additional parking lot and we'll catch up to existing grade, and hit the area that is heavily wooded. Most of those trees will serve as a protection so the fence will, more or less, protect from the drop. It will not really be visible from the outside. Mr. Shane: So it is more of a decorative item as opposed to a screening Rem? Mr. Henry: Right. Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: I have a couple questions for Mr. McCann. On your proposal for your new building, what are you going to use that for? 20048 Bob McCann, Vice President and General Manager of Time Warner Cable. It's general office. We need more space for our cost center and general office. Mr. Alanskas: It's not going to be for repairing at all inside? Mr. McCann: No. Mr. Alanskas: How many service trucks do you have at the present time? Mr. McCann: I think there are 81 service vehicles in the fleet. Mr. Alanskas: How many more will you be adding? Mr. McCann: We wont be adding more. We add a truck or two when we add a new employee. But as far as bringing more vehicles here, no, we're not bringing any more. Mr. Alanskas: Now, when you park your vehicles, do you park them in the lanes like they belong or do you park them haphazardly? Mr. McCann: Well, the intent here is to park them in an identified parking spot in the rear part of the parking lot. Mr. Alanskas: So each person that has a truck will have the same parking spot all the time? Mr. McCann: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, you keep mentioning a greenbelt. Do you realize, sir, that you have to submit to us a landscaping plan down the road? Mr. Henry: Yes. Actually, we've included a landscaping plan this time. Mr. Piercecchi: Also, a signage package will have to be submitted separately. We are not going to approve any landscaping or signage this evening. Are you aware of that? Mr. Henry: Right. Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Mr. McCann: We did want to put an 8' by 8' neon sign out front because we want it to conform with the ordinance like the other petitioners. Is that okay? That's a joke. 20047 Mr. LaPine: On the west side, the land goes up like a berm there. Is that staying or are you cutting into thatfor parking? Mr. Henry: Well, we are cutting partly into it. The existing parking lot terminates approximately at this area here, so we are excavating further west for the expansion, but we are catching up to the existing grade prior to reaching the property line. We have aboul46 feet lett of greenbelt on the west side. Mr. LaPine: But you are cuffing into some of that? Mr. Henry: We are cutting into the west portion. Yes. This whole area here is basically cul down. From the existing right here, we're slowly cutting down but we're matching the grade. Mr. LaPine: One other thing, I'm glad to see you lined up the parking. Mark, on the north side, at this point they are required to have a masonry wall. Because of the fact that the parcel is right now in the Council wailing to be rezoned or not to O5, can we hold that in abeyance until such time as the Council makes a decision? Because if the Council turns that down and it goes back to a residential zoning, then a wall would be required. I dont want to waive the wall, or alloy them to go ahead with the landscaping, and then later on we come along and that property goes to residential and they are not protected. Mr. Taormina: Really, we have to consider at this point whether or not the greenbelt is going to be substituted for the required wall. Otherwise, they have to show the wall on the pian. The other option is that this item could be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance, although I would hope that we could avoid that. The question of the zoning of that northerly parcel will be addressed soon. That's what I'm hoping. Mr. LaPine: I'm hoping too. My point is, if what is proposed to go in there falls through, then I think that zoning is going to fall through. Mr. Taormina: It could, although as of last evening, the direction of the Council relative to the Future Land Use Plan was to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission to make a change to show that area as office. Mr. LaPine: Even if the proposal that's now before them falls through? Mr. Taormina: Well, there is no proposal at this time. Nothing has been submitted, but that is the direction they would like to see this area go. 20048 Mr. Alanskas: I have one more question for Mr. McCann. With this additional building and parking, aren't you at a maximum of what you can do in the future for expansion? Mr. McCann: This may sound funny, but I hope that's the case. We would have adequate space here, I would think. You know, we still maintain offices in Redford and Farmington Hills as well. But this hopefully will be the Iasi expansion we have to put on this building. We had one many years ago, and our intention is for this to be the final one. Mr. Alanskas: Because there is no place more for you to go. Mr. McCann: Right. Mr. Alanskas: On that site, is what I'm saying. Mr. McCann: That is correct. Twice we've purchased the lots immediately to our north. Mr. Alanskas: Is there a chance that you would need more expansion, and you coukln t do it, and you would have to leave this facility? Mr. McCann: I would love to think that we would need more expansion, but I dont think that is going to happen. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou. Mr. La Pine: Mark, I have another question. I want to get this straight in my mind. The property abuts Silver Village. Are they going to put in a berm there with landscaping, plus the decorative fence? Is that correct? Is that the plan? Mr. Taormina: As you are aware, the western boundary of this site is heavily wooded. One of the things that we asked the engineer to do, and which they've done quite nicely along the vestem limit of that parking lot, is match the grade. They should be able to protect a significant number of trees between Silver Village and this parking lot, about 40 feet or so. We don't know about the details of the decorative fence. The suggestion of a berth there, I think, may be contrary to us wanting to prated those trees. If, on the other hand, we find that a number of those trees aren't worth keeping once they cut into that area, then maybe a berm does make sense, in which case we might want b re -think the fence. But as we have it shown today on the plan, our desire is to keep as many trees as possible on this site, which means that we probably wouldn't add a lot of dirt or create any kind of 20049 bene in that area. Instead, some kind of a decorafive fence could be put up between the parking lot and Silver Village. Our thought initially was a vinyl clad fence, something that would be predominanfiy solid. I know he's showing a split rail fence now, but I think that is something we can discuss when the landscape plan comes back. Mr. LaPine: I agree with you. I prefer to see all those trees stay back there as much as possible. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Inglis? James Inglis, Director of Housing for the City of Livonia. I've mel several times with Mark and also the petitioner. We just have several concerns, and I believe they are really being addressed by the Planning Commission. One would be the brick wall issue. I've met with the residents at Silver Village, the leadership of the Resident Council, also the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Commission, and they are all in favor of not having a masonry wall and trying to have as much green space in terms of existing trees anc/or decorative fence put between the properly lines. There are four buildings that are being affected, some on the south and also some on the west. The residents who live along there have enjoyed woods now since 1978, so they would like to see the woods stay as much as possible. The other issue, which is somewhat of a issue to the Lutheran Village, which is to our north, and also the Time Warner building a little bit right now, is the lighting issue. I believe originally they were proposing 20 foot fixtures. We were talking about the possibility of reducing the height of those fixtures to keep some of that lighting from going into Silver Village as well. So we would hope that the lighting issue would be considered by the Planning Commission. Other than that, the residents would love to keep as many woods as possible and have as much green space between the two. I'm really pleased to see that we have 59 feet on the south and 46 feel on the west of green space. I commend the pefifionerforthal. Mr. Alanskas: Just for Mr. Inglis, Condition q6, if we approve this, we are going to reduce the height of the lights from 20 feet down to 16 feel. Mr. Inglis: Very good. Excellent. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Are there any more questions? A motion is in order. 20050 On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was #01-13-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-01-08-02, submitted by Time Warner Cable requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to and expand the parking of the office building located at 14525 Farmington Road in the Northeast %of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1, the Grading and Details Plan marked SP2, and the Sections Plan marked SP3, all dated January 24, 2003, as revised, and prepared by JCK & Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan, inducing the fencing detail, shall be submitted for approval within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A50 dated December 3, 2002, as revised, prepared by JCK & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick, no exception; 5. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in tie construction of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and the endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 6. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 16 ft. in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 7. That the greenbelts along the south and west property lines, as shown on the approved site plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 8. That if there are any change of circumstances in these areas containing the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective banner, the 20051 owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the prolective wall pursuantto Section 18.45; 9. That for the north property line, the petitioner shall have the option of either erecting a protective wall immediately, going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall variance, or seeking the consent of the abutting property owner(s); 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated January 7, 2003: That the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; - That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Banner Free Code; 11. That the petitioner shall coned to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated January 13, 2003: That a 'turn right only" sign and stop sign be installed at the northern most exit to Farmington Road; 12. That no identification signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the building permits are applied for. Mr. LaPine: Mark? Mr. Taormina: If the Commissioners would consider a change to Item #1 and that is 'that the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1, the Grading and Details Plan marked SP2, and the Sections Plan marked SPY with a revision date of January 24, 2003, be referenced. Mr. LaPine: Is that okay with you, Mr. Pieroecohi? Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, that goes without saying. The numbers here can't change. It says "as revised, January 24, 2003" No problem with that. 20052 Mr. Miller: Mark, do they want to add the substitution of the greenbelt? I took that out and didn't put it back in, so don't they need to substitute on the west and south? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that should be added. Mr. LaPine: That the green belt on the south west will be instead of the wall. Is that all right with you, Mr. Pieroecchi? Mr. Pieroecchi: Why, certainly. Mr. LaPine: Would the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Smiley, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi NAYES: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Let the records show that Mr. McCann returned to the podium. Mr. McCann: This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item? ITEM #4 PETITION 200240-08-22 MAD BAZZY Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-10-08-22, submitted by Imad Ba=y, requesting approval to renovate the existing gas station located at 27430 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 13. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #01-14-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does h=ereby recommend that Petition 2002-10-08-22, submitted by Imad 20053 Bazzy, requesting approval to renovate the existing gas stafion located at 27430 Five Mile Road in the Southeast '/of Section 13, be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller: On January 2, 2003, the petitioner submitted revised plans. The petitioner has retained the services of a new architectural firm, National Specialties Installation. This is the same company that redeveloped the BP Gas Station at the intersection of Five Mile Road and Merriman Road. The new plans show that the petitioner is now proposing to construct only one addition to the existing station to the north elevation, literally squaring off the back of the building. It would be one-story in height and 560 sq. ft. in area. The existing canopy overhang extending out from the east elevation would be completely removed. Upon completion, the gas station would become a total of 2,770 sq. ft. in gross floor area. The petitioner is still planning on converting the service station in to a convenience store and pump station. As staled previously, it is prohibited to add to a nonconforming building. Because of deficient setbacks, the existing building is nonconforming and therefore to enlarge it would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Parking is summarized as follows: required parking is 16 spaces; provided parking is 8 spaces. Because the site would be deficient in parking, a variance from the ZBA would be required. In connection with the panting, another area of concern has to do with the proposed parking spaces extending out and into the aisleway of the driveways. The Site Plan does show that the driveway off Inkster Road nearest the intersection would be closed off. The Traffic Bureau suggested this driveway and the other driveway closest to the intersection on Five Mile Road be closed off to reduce conflicts between vehides entering and exiting this site and the traffic on the roadways. By dosing off these drives, the remaining drives could be reshaped and widened so that the parking spaces do not extend out into the ingress and egress. The plan now shoes an enclosed trash dumpster area behind the building, abutting its northeast comer. The problem with this location is that there are three parking spaces blocking the accessibility to the dumpster. With the limitations of the site, there does not seem to be any other workable altemative location for the dumpster. It might be possible to arrange pickup of the dumpster early enough before any of the spaces would be used. As it was on the original plans, the existing pump islands and their canopies would remain as is and not be touched as part of this proposal. Included in the revise plans is a Landscape Plan for the entire P111II111f, site. New landscaping would be installed along the southern half of the west property line, and also next to the parking spaces at the northeast corner of the site. A note on the plan indicates that the existing landscaping at the comer of the intersection would remain and be reworked. The right-of-way of the driveway proposed to be closed off would be curbed and reinstated with grass. Landscaping is summarized as follows: required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; provided landscaping is 6% of the total site. The Elevation Plan shows and notes that both the south elevation (facing Five Mile) and east elevation (facing Inkster) would be covered in new face brick. It is indicated that the face brick would be painted white. A decorative stepped dryvil parapet would con along the top of the front of the building and wrap around the entire east elevation. This parapet would screen the existing pitched roof. Slightly more than half the west elevation seems to have the same pattern as shown on the south and east elevations, but there is no notation explaining if it is brick. The remaining back half of the wall, according to the pattern, seems to be block. The dryvit parapet is not shown extending along this elevation. The rear (north) elevation would be block. The Site Plan includes a cutout of the proposed BP ground sign. A note on the plan indicates that for the time being, the existing ground would remain and be repaired and repainted. Once the station goes through the re -naming process, the existing sign would be removed and the new sign would be erected in its place. No other signage, including wall signs for the building or pump island canopies, are shown on the plans. Signage is summarized as follows. Signage permitted for this site permits wall signs, including signs attached to the building or canopy fascia, not to exceed a maximum total area of 100 sq. ft. and one ground sign not to exceed 30 sq. fl. in sign area, unless sign contains fuel pricing information in which event the maximum is 40 sq. ft. and not to exceed 12 ft. in height. Proposed signage is one ground sign with fuel pricing panels, 72 sq. R. in sign area and 12 R. in height. Excess signage is 32 sq. R. in ground sign area. If the sign were to be approved as proposed, it would require a variance from the ZBA for excessive sign area. Mr. McCann: Is there any additional correspondence, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes, we do have new correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 22, 2003, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced revised petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. However, we still note that the building addition will place more of the sanitary lead 20055 under the Floor slab and will require moving additional facilities currently mounted on the north face of the existing building. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 10, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to build additions to and renovate the gas station on property located at the above -reference address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The bird letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 13, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the revised plans in connection with a proposal to build additions to and renovate the exterior of the gas station at 27430 Five Mile Road. There are not enough parking spaces to support the type of business proposed and it does not meet the ordinance requirements. We also recommend the left tums be prohibited from the eastern most Five Mile Road driveway and that stop signs be posted at each exit." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 18, 2002, and revised January 15, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 7, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site is a noncronforming previously existing site. The following zoning deficiencies exist. (a) Required site area is 22,500 square feet. Existing is 15,494 square feet. (b) Street frontage of 150 feet is required. Existing is 122 feet and 127 feet. (c) Street setbacks to building are to be 75 feet. Existing on east side is 51 feet 4 inches plus or minus and the south side is 64 feet 4 inches. (d) Driveways are to be a minimum of 25 feet from the street intersection corner. Existing is 16 feet 6 inches along Middlebelt Road and 18 feet along Five Mile Road. (e) Pole sign exceeds 12 feet in height and has deficient setbacks. (f) A section of right-of-way sidewalk is not completed from the north side of the north driveway along (Inkster] Road to the property line. (g) The canopies are set 10 feet from the property line. The Inkster canopy is deficient by one foot. The canopy along Five Mile is deficient by three feet. (2) The landscaping needs maintenance. (3) Existing parking light posts need painting and repair. Several are damaged and leaning. (4) The parking area needs maintenance, resealing and double striping. (5) This site will require the following zoning variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals: (a) Adding and enlarging to a non- conforming structure (as detailed in #1). (b) Deficient parking. The site, as proposed, will have 8 spaces. This site would require 10 spaces plus one for each employee. We have used 12 required, therefore, the site is deficient 4 spaces. The barrier 20056 free access aisle must be 8 feet wide. (6) The proposed future main identification sign must have 5 foot setbacks each way. If it contains pricing information the maximum size will be 40 square feet total and no other pricing signage would be allowed elsewhere. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Michael Beydoun, National Specialities, 12747 Stout Street, Detroit, Michigan 48223. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about the proposal? Mr. Beydoun: I am here tojust answer your questions for now. Mr. McCann: Okay. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Pieroecchi: Sir, at the study meeting, I mentioned my concern about the space between the setbacks on the west and on the north boundaries of this proposed gas station. Have you come up with any ideas on how you are going to landscape that area and what you are going to do with it? Mr. Beydoun: In the back oflhe building, right? Mr. Pieroecchi: It's back and ... Mr. Beydoun: I said we have no problem landscaping the back of the building, both sides actually. Mr. Pieroecchi: Were you planning on submitting a plan? Mr. Beydoun: Yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay, because we will then expect you to resubmit a landscape plan then, including those two areas. Is that correct? Mr. Beydoun: Yes, sir. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, let's rehash what we talked about in the study meeting for the benefit of the public. Number one, you want to add to a non -conforming building. When you have a convenience store, 20057 what percent of sales is gasoline and what percent is store items? Mr. Beydoun: I have the owner here. Maybe he can answer that question better than me. Mr. Alanskas: Sure, have him come on up. Imad Baay, 6130 College Drive, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. I'm sorry, you wanted to know what percent of sales ... Mr. Alanskas: For just gasoline and then adding a convenience store, what percent will your convenience store be and what percent will your gasoline sales be in conjunction for 100%? Is it 50% gas and 50% convenience, or 20/80? Mr. Baay: About 70/30. Seventy percent gas, 30% in the store. Mr. Alanskas: So only 30% would be for the convenience store? Mr. Baay: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Could you jrst exist if you only had a gasoline station, period, and not a convenience store? Mr. Baay: No, sir. I would not be able to survive. Mr. Alanskas: Because you've got such a small site there. As stated, you don't have enough parking. Mr. Baay: Yes, sir. Mr. Alanskas: It's going to be a safety hazard with people coming in to just gel gas and someone else wants to pull up and gel whatever you sell in the store. I understand you also want to put a sub shop or a sandwich shop in there? Mr. Baay: Yes, sir. Mr. Alanskas: This would generate more traffic, which in my mind, the entire plan is a disaster. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Just one question. It is my understanding right now, if you renovate this gas station, it will stay as it is now as far as tie gasoline, but in the future, British Petroleum is going to take over the station. You are going to be using their gas. Is this correct? 20058 Mr. Beydoun: We're actually using their gas right now. Mr. La Pine: Pardon? Mr. Beydoun: We're actually using Bitish Petroleum's gas right now. Amoco and BP, they are the same. They've already merged. But as far as the image, yes, sir, we will be redoing the image when we have the approval from you. Mr. La Pine: That's the point I'm trying to find out here. When will the point come when British Petroleum will renovate the station, put in new canopies, new pumps? Mr. Beydoun: They will not actually be putting new canopies or new pumps. The pumps will stay the way they are. Things will stay the way they are. Also the canopy, they will only be re -facing the canopy and redoing the sign to comply actually with their.... Mr. La Pine: They'll reface the existing ... Mr. Beydoun:: Yes, sir. They will not be moving the canopy or relocating the canopy or anything like that. Mr. La Pine: I want to help you guys out here, but as I staled at the last meeting, and as Mr. Alanskas has just pointed out, this site is just loo small for everything you want to do here. If you're going to have a sub shop in here and a convenience store, you're going to generate a certain amount of traffic. Not everybody who comes here is going to buy gas and then go into the convenience store. There are going to be other people in the neighborhood who are going to stop by for milk and whatever else they want that's convenient. I think that you just dont have the parking. You dont have the facilities for it. Mr. Beydoun: Actually, most of the customers that come in park by the pumps. I mean we have some more parking on the side, but they usually park by the pumps and those are actually extra spaces. Mr. Bazzy: We have switched from putting in a sub shop. We're going to have pre -wrapped food. Mr. La Pine: You're going lodowhal? Mr. Bazzy: Pre -wrapped food. We will buy them already pre -wrapped. Mr. Beydoun: Pre-cooked food and all that kind of stuff, so that will actually minimize the time the cuslomerstays inside the station. 20059 Mr. Alanskas: If you have a convenience store where you're selling groceries and Pepsi and pop, where are you going to be putting all these containers? Mr. Beydoun: We have a small place; we have a small area in the store right now. Mr. Alanskas: Inside or outside? Mr. Beydoun: Inside. Right now, at the "c" store we have a small area, a cooler. Mr. Alanskas: At our Iasi study meeting, I talked to you about the station, the BP on Merriman and Five Mile, and that's twice the size of your proposal. Al this present time, on the entire side of the building, they have pop cases. They have milk cases on the outside of the building, and they don't belong there. Mr. Beydoun: This is probably the only time for delivery, so they can minimize R. Mr. Alanskas: They shouldn't be there at any time. That should be all inside the building. I'm afraid that vhal you're going to do, because your space is so small, if you're going to sell the same product, you've got to put these boxes and containers somewhere. You can't put them outside. Mr. Beydoun: That's one of the reasons, sir, we're building that addition in the back and we're cutting the side of the building. Mr. Alanskas: Even with that addition, you're not going to have enough room. Mr. Beydoun: I think we will, sir. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Mr. Beydoun, if you would go over to the board. I have a couple questions. Thank you. I was trying to figure out what we could do after our meeting last week. As you understand, we all have concerns. You listened to the reports from the Engineering and Inspection Departments. We've got a use that has a minimum requirement of 150 fool of frontage; you only have 122' on one side, 127' on the other. You have a situation where you're supposed to have 75' setbacks; you've got 50' setbacks. These are preexisting conditions. I know the mad was widened since this gas station has been there. Our problem is trying to expand a nonconforming use. We've got a situation where you're 20060 adding about 40' x 15' . . . about 1,100 square feet you're adding? Mr. Beydoun: No. We're not adding that much, sir. Mr. McCann: How much are you adding? Mr. Beydoun: We not extending anything to the front or anything to the side. We're just doing something in the back actually. It's about 600 square feel we're adding to the back. Mr. McCann: You're going 40' by about 14', right? Mr. Beydoun: No, we have existing storage right there. That's existing. Mr. McCann: I understand that, but I'm just trying to find the plans that says the addition is 38' long by 14', if I was reading the plans correctly. The measurements weren't where I'd like them, but it says the addition is 39.6 or 40 feel long and just trying to scale it down, I think it's about 14 feel wide, so about 600 square feet. Mr. Beydoun: It's about 39 feet almost by 14 feet. Mr. McCann: I guess I was trying to find out in my own mind where we could come up with additional parking. The extra space that you have in the rear just isn't functional for anything. Its commercial to the north. Isn't that correct, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that's correct. Mr. McCann: So we could have zero setback on the north line. Isn't that true? Mr. Taormina: Under certain condifions, he can have zero setback I believe. Mr. McCann: My thought is, if you could cul this off, you'd add at lead one spot there, maybe two. If we moved the dumpster to another locafion, you could gel a handicap space and one there. You'd only be adding 20 feel by another 300 feet for storage. You'd add another parking spot. To be honest with you, I'm really trying to work with the pefifioner. But when you tell us that you're going to expand the size, expand the use to carry -out foods, and do some type of either wrapped sandwiches or prepared sandwiches, we have too many problems. Mr. Beydoun: One of the biggest problems, actually, are the garages in there and that's a big problem. He's been a mechanic all his life, and he has another operation on Inkster at Warren. He loves to do all mechanical work right here. But I think its deaner for the 20061 City, its better for the City, actually, to eliminate the garages completely out of there. That's why we came up with the idea of having a "c' store right in here and also having a small carryout restaurant. It's going to be either way, either a "c' store or he's going to go back and operate his garage, which is not good actually for that entrance to the City, to go back into the garages where he's going to have all the tires and that kind of stuff back there. We're trying to minimize that stuff back there, and the site will be deaner. I've already cut out part of the building here for you. I've already re -done all the landscaping. I'm doing all landscaping. I'm resealing the entire panting lot. We will conform on all the sign issues. And we already closed this approach right here. We're already trying to do as much as we can also for the City, but we're trying to do so much also for us in order for us to exist at that location right there. You don't make any money out of gas. Nothing. And just wail, give it a couple more months, you're not making anything. Everybody actually makes money out of the "c" store. I did the Five Mile and Meriman station. I'm the one who fixed up that. I'm the one who designed it. Now they want it to come in front of the board to put up mother addition on the site because they can barely survive selling gas, and the "c" store is too small. Mr. McCann: I understand that, but Five Mile and Merriman has quite a bit of property to work with. This piece of property . . . you're expanding a use that's nonconforming. Mr. Beydoun: We're trying to stay in business. There is another station that is coming down the road, actually on 496 and Inkster, that will be taking a lot of our business. They have so many restaurants in there and it's a huge station. If we dont actually do something in this station here, we will not survive. Mr. Alanskas: Did you just say that you do not make any money at all on gasoline? Mr. Beydoun: We can barely make anything out ofgasdine, sir. Mr. Alanskas: Then why dont we think about rezoning that property and laking out the gasoline and just putting a convenience store in there? Mr. Beydoun: It's an existing gas station, sir. Mr. Alanskas: I know, but you said you don't make any money in gasoline. Mr. Beydoun: Gas will bring your customer in for the "c"store, sir. 20062 Mr. Alanskas: So if it were just a convenience store and no gasoline pumps, Mr. Pieroecchi: In reference to making money, we just approved a Costco. They dont have a convenience store. Mr. Beydoun: I believe that is Costco's first gas station here. We'll see how @'s going to survive, sir. I do gas stations for a living. I do them all over the city. I do them all over. I'm working on about six locafions right now. I do about 15 to 20 locations a year. Mr. Pieroecchi: We're kind of between a rock and a hard place too. The stafion is there. You've got it grandfathered. But it really doesn't fit there. You know that. Mr. Beydoun: That's why I'm trying as much as I can. Mr. Pieroecchi: If you were designing that station now, wouldn't you have more land? You wouldn't put it on a postage stamp, would you? Mr. Beydoun: The problem is that it's an existing station, sir. I'm hying actually to work with what we have right there. There is actually you would have much more room for customer parking and you could just sell groceries. Mr. Beydoun: You can actually go to the city, to Detroit or any other places, sir, they have all the party stores. They are demolishing them and they are going back to gas stations and "c' stores. Mr. Alanskas: The reason why I ask is because we just approved a few weeks ago a new station on Plymouth Road and Middlebelt, a Costco gas station with twelve pumps and there's not going to be convenience store. They're going to pump gasoline only. So I guess they are going to make money in gasoline. Thank you. Mr. Baay Sir? Mr. McCann: Yes, Mr. Baay? Mr. Baay: I'm the owner at that location. We cannot remove the gasoline. We are obligated to keep it as a gasoline station by BP Amoco for 15 years. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: What was that comment? Mr. McCann: They have a contract with BP/Amoco. They have to keep the gas station for 15 years. Mr. Pieroecchi: In reference to making money, we just approved a Costco. They dont have a convenience store. Mr. Beydoun: I believe that is Costco's first gas station here. We'll see how @'s going to survive, sir. I do gas stations for a living. I do them all over the city. I do them all over. I'm working on about six locafions right now. I do about 15 to 20 locations a year. Mr. Pieroecchi: We're kind of between a rock and a hard place too. The stafion is there. You've got it grandfathered. But it really doesn't fit there. You know that. Mr. Beydoun: That's why I'm trying as much as I can. Mr. Pieroecchi: If you were designing that station now, wouldn't you have more land? You wouldn't put it on a postage stamp, would you? Mr. Beydoun: The problem is that it's an existing station, sir. I'm hying actually to work with what we have right there. There is actually 20063 a budget for this. And he is ping beyond the budget for this. I'm trying to reface this entire front right here also to take that ugly look off the building right now. I mean, we'll give you 12 feet of brick right here too. New glass. We're trying to do as much as we can also for that site. Mr. Piercecchi: I know, sir, but whenever renovations are involved, it goes back to conforming and not conforming, and it's our responsibility as Planning Commissioners to try to eliminate nonconforming structures, and here we're adding to it. You see our dilemma. Mr. Beydoun: Yes, sir. I do understand exactly where you're coming from. Our problem is, we have an existing station. We're trying to work with it; we're trying to modify it as much as we can. I mean, its there. It exists. Ifs not like we're proposing something new. Mr. Walsh: Just a couple points. I appreciate your position. You've been dealt a hand and you're dealing with it the best you can. Personally, I think it is the best you can do with it. If you begin operating your garages again, you're going to have cars parked in the spots, backed up as you do your business. In my mind, I think the parking spaces are a concern, but they are a concem whether you're operating your garage or you're operating a convenience store. And to hear that you're going to go to a pre - wrapped sandwich has alleviated some of the concern for me. I'm not particularly fond of really packing this coffee can so tightly, but I think it's necessary. For me, you've made a case. So I don't have a specific question. I do have just a comment. If I remember correctly on Costco and I could be wrong, the petitioner there indicated that they don't make money on their gas stations. It's for the convenience of their customer base. It's to drive traffic to their store or to service their customer base while there. So the argument is very similar to the one you're making here. The gas station will bring the customer to the store, but the proprietor can make a few extra dollars because you have food. Mr. Beydoun: F�acUy. Mr. Walsh: So the arguments are actually quite similar, and that is if I'm remembering the Costco petition correctly. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. McCann: Anybody else? I don't see anybody in the audience. A motion is in order. 20064 Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chair, I'm going to offer the approving motion. I'm going to take this as prepared by the staff with the request that they return with a landscape plan. So for my colleagues as you follow along, I will not be staling conditions 2, 3, and 4, but I will be adding a new condition to call backlhe landscape plan. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was #01-15-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-10-08-22, submitted by Imad Bamy, requesting approval to renovate the existing gas station located at 27430 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked sheet SP -1 dated December 26, 2002, prepared by National Specialties Installation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be be submitted for approval within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan sheet /+2 dated December 27, 2002, prepared by National Specialties Installation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick, no exception; 5. That all mechanical rooftop equipment shall be screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Planning Director; 6. That due to the deficient parking of the site, no type of restaurant use, including carryLout, shall be permitted; 7. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination is decreased; 8. That all stand-alone light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 feet in height; 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence with a revised date of January 15, 2003: 20065 That all existing light posts shall be repaired, repainted or, if need be, replaced; That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Banner Free Code; 10. That the petitioner shall coned to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated January 13, 2003: - That a "tum right only" sign be installed at the eastern most exit to Five Mile Road; - That STOP signs be posted at each exit; 11. No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site; however, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil-based products as permitted in Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; 12. That the existing pylon sign shall be removed; 13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 14. That no LED lightband or neon shall be permitted on this site, inducing but not limited to, the pump island canopy, building or around the windows; 15. That window signage for the station shall be limited to what is permitted by Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subheading (g) "Window Signage'; 16. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on to a nonconforming building and deficient parking and any conditions related thereto; and 17. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department allhe time the building permits are applied for. 20066 Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh: Mark, will condition #6 prohibit the use of pre -wrapped sandwiches? Mr. Taormina: No, I don't believe so. It would just be a part of the convenience operation. As I understand it, this would not be considered a carry -out restaurant, necessarily. There would not be any prep work. Is that correct? Mr. Baay That's correct. Mr. Taormina: Provided it would just be some refrigeration units that would be used to store and display the sandwiches. I think that's an important distinction. Mr. Walsh: All right. Mr. Alanskas: I'd like to make a comment if I could. The petitioner came before us and so did the architect stating that they could only afford so much money to do this project. And I think its very poor planning to approve something because the petitioner can only afford a certain amount of money when there should be other things done. Thank. Mr. Shane: I share Mr. Walsh's feelings on this. When I came in here tonight, I was leaning the other way but because of the prohibition on the restaurant situation and the likelihood that this will go back to business as usual, lam willing to allow them to go ahead and see if they can't make it at least better than what it is now. I think that keeping the mechanical situation there as it is now would not improve a thing. I'm willing to take a chance on the parking assuming that these gentlemen will not go into the restaurant business in the future. I'm hoping this prohibition will take care of that. So I am going to vote yes on this petition. Mr. McCann: Its rare when I come into a meeting like this tonight. I think I was br it, against it, for it and against it. And I quoted that as .maybe" It doesn't comply. There are a lot of serious problems. One of the things that bothered me, I was just ready to say no, and you told me it's because it's mechanical. We're trying to get that blight out of here of doing repair work. But the one thing I remember about this station is the prior owner won a city-wide beautification award, and he was doing mechanical work. Just because you're repairing cars does not mean that the service station or the flowers and the greenbelt .. . that station was one of the prettiest corners in the city at one time. So having a small corner or doing mechanical work does not 20087 mean that it can't be a nice looking site and kept up. As long as the staff is comfortable that they can enforce the no carryout restaurant, and we just have pre -wrapped sandwiches that you're going to buy as you're getting gas and leave, and not bring the kids up and have everybody ordering and waiting for sandwiches, which at 5:00 is going to be a terrible problem there, I'll live with it. But either way, no matter what we approve as far as landscaping, its up to the owner to maintain the grounds and make it look nice. And I'm looking to you. I'm really going out on a lirrb in approving this, but I'm hoping that you take this opportunity to make the site look really nice. Will the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walsh, Shane, Smiley, Piercecchi, McCann NAYES: LaPine, Alanskas ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2001 -05 -PL -01 ROSATI Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati requesting to revise the condifions of approval for the Rosati Industrial Park located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcrett Road and Plymouth Road in the South Ybf Section 28. Mr. McCann: Is there any additional correspondence on this, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No. Actually, the suggestion was made that we table it and bring it to the Planning Commission at the same time tie plat is submitted for the residential subdivision to the south. In fad, the Planning Department has received that petition and it is scheduled for the public hearing of March 11, so our recommendation this evening is that we table this item once againtothe March 11 meeting. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #01-16-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati, requesting to revise the conditions of approval that was previously approved by Council Resolution 228-02 on April 24, 2002, for the Rosati Industrial Park located on the west side of Stark Road between SchoolcreR and Plymouth Roads in the South %of Section 28, be tabled until the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting of March 11, 2003. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 85V Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 855" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 26, 2002. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #01-17-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 855" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi, Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smiley ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20069 ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 85C Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 856" Regular Meeting held on December 17, 2002. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, 8 was #01-18-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 856" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 17, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas, Smiley ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 858th Regular Meeting held on January 28, 2003, was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman n