HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-07-1123338
MINUTES OF THE 928° REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 11, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 928"' Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William La Pine R. Lee Morrow
H. G. Shane Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott
Miller, Planner III; were also present.
Chairman Walsh 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 tum, 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 and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the dale of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I'd
like to welcome Mr. Wilshaw, our newest Commissioner, to our meeting this
evening.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2006-05-0840 QUAIL CHASE CONDOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-05-
08-10 submitted by Schafer Development, on behalf of Quail
Chase Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the
landscape plan for the open space lot on the northwest corner
of Newburgh Road and Quail Chase Lane in connection with a
proposal to construct a condominium development on property
located at 9229 Newburgh Road in the Southeast''/. of Section
31.
23339
Mr. Miller: Al the May 30, 2006, Regular Meeting, the Planning
Commission approved plans in connection with the
development of the Quail Chase Site Condominiums. As part of
the approval, it was conditioned that a fully detailed Landscape
Plan for the open space lot on the northwest comer of
Newburgh Road and Quail Chase Lane be submitted to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval. This proposed condominium development is to be
located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road
and Ann Arbor Trail. Quail Chase would consist of 29 lots. On
the approved plans, a vacant lot is shown between Lot 1 of the
development and Newburgh Road. This lot measures 110 feel
along Newburgh Road and 65 feel back in depth. The
submitted landscape plan demonstrates that the lot would be
landscaped with grass and a berm feature would be established
across the middle of it. The berm would meander across the lot,
parallel to Newburgh Road, and dimb to a height of three feet.
Planted on the berm would be a variety of plant materials
including evergreen trees (Norway Spruce), ornamental
deciduous trees (Tuliptrees, Serviceberry), and a number of
shrubs (Cranberrybush). Adjacent to the entrance next to the
intersection of Newburgh Road and Quail Chase Lane would be
a landscape area. This area would encircle the developments
entrance marker. Perennials (Daylilies), and low-lying
shrubbery (Spireas & Junipers) would be planted around the
sign. As part of the approval of the condominium development,
it was conditioned that only a conforming entrance marker is
approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The plans show a cutout profile
and a location of a conforming entrance marker. Since the
conforming sign does not need any additional approval, the
review of it is for informational proposes only. The entrance
marker would consist of a decorative wooden sign mounted on
a brick base. The graphic "Quail Chase Subdivision" would be
roulered in the sign panel. It was also suggested by one of the
Planning Commissioners that the public walkway between Lots
8 and 9 that allows direct access to the adjacent park to the
north be defined and outlined with landscaping. In order to
accommodate this request, the landscape plan reveals that a
row of lilac bushes would be planted along both sides of the
pathway. To help further distinguish the public passageway,
split rail fencing would also be installed.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
23340
Mr. Nowak: There is no correspondence in connection with this item.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steven J. Schafer, Schafer Development, LLC, 25800 Northwestern Hwy, Suite
720, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening. I'm here
tonight for the review of the landscape plan on the front lot and
the walkway. There was some discussion at Council updating
some kind of a hedge in there between the homeowners, so
there was a nice divisional along that pathway, so we also
added that in and that's what's before you tonight. We're just
waiting for permits and we'll get started out there.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine:
On Lot 1 where you're going to have a bene and some
landscaping?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
My question is, unfortunately, that's adjacent to Newburgh
Road. With all the salt that's going to be poured on there, how
will that landscaping be maintained? I have found over the
years that when we have this type of landscaping on a main
road, after a few years, all the landscaping is gone because the
salt kills it and nobody takes care of it. The only way you can
really take care of it, you have to burlap the shrubs and all that.
Can that be somehow incorporated with you and the
homeowners that they take care of that?
Mr. Schafer:
We can certainly recommend that, yes. But they would maintain
that and, in this particular situation, it is setback pretty far. It's a
pretty large lot. Typically you'd probably expect to see that a
little bit closer to the nghtof-way. So it is setback fairly nicely,
but we can talk to the management company that will managing
this for us when we're complete and request that.
Mr. Alanskas:
On the post for the sign, are they going to be cedar posts?
Mr. Schafer:
No. Its actually a masonry bottom sign. All masonry. And then
those posts that you see drawn through the sign, those will be
wood posts but those will be back behind the actual sign that's
going to be made out of wood.
Mr. Alanskas:
What kind of wood are you going to be using?
2aaa1
Mr.
Schafer:
Probably like a cedar or some type of an outdoor wood,
redwood. The foundation is all masonry.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Okay. Also the fence along the pathway, will that be also
cedar?
Mr.
Schafer:
Yes, that would be a split -rail cedar.
Mr.
Alanskas:
I'm asking because cedar lasts longer in regards to rotting out.
Who will be maintaining that fence along the pathway?
Mr.
Schafer:
The association.
Mr.
Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr.
La Pine:
I assume the sign is not Id. Is that correct?
Mr.
Schafer:
We'll probably have some just down light out in front of it, like
fluorescent that just up -lights, not like spotlights or anything like
that.
Mr.
La Pine:
Okay.
Mr.
Morrow:
It should probably be on the plan if you're going to put any type
of lighting on it.
Mr. Schafer: Yes. You know what? I'd put a note on it. I believe this is
going to have to go in front of Council loo. So if we put that in
the approval I'd make sure that I add that note on the Council's
plans for final approval.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#07-63-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of a
landscape plan, submitted by Schafer Development, on behalf
of Quail Chase Site Condominiums in connection with Petition
2006-05-08-10, which previously received Master deed, bylaws
and site plan approval by the City Council on June 26, 2006
(Council Resolution #32406), to construct a condominium
development on properly located at 9229 Newburgh Road in the
Southeast % of Section 31, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
23342
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated June
12, 2006, prepared by Creative Land Planning & Design, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
3. That dl disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the conforming entrance marker, as shown on the
plan marked LP -2 dated June 12, 2006, prepared by
Creative Land Planning & Design, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
6. That if this entrance marker is to be illuminated, only up -
cast ground mounted lighting shall be permitted;
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
8. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #324-06
in connection with Petition 2006-05-08-10, which permitted
the construction of a site condominium development on the
subject property, shall remain in effect to the extent that
they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: We should add in there, that if the sign is to be lighted, it should
appear on the final plans
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
23343
YI=l,4Eib'M9=k ik IU] 7 E'ADI--EQDErR45E�y=1 i! Y1=1 i! Ii! I/_10:2 t►ph,111
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-08-11 submitted by TACS, LLC, on behalf of Centennial
Plaza South, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an office complex on properties located at
14821 and 14829 Farmington Road in the Northeast I/ of
Section 21.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a three -building
office complex on property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road.
The proposed property is in the process of being rezoned
(Petition 2004-10-01-12) from R2 (One Family Residential) to
OS (Office Services). The Planning Commission, after holding
a public hearing on November 16, 2004, recommended
approving the requested rezoning. Following a public hearing,
the City Council referred the item to the Committee of the Whole
(CR -138-05) for its report and recommendation at its March 30,
2005, Regular Meeting. Review of this petition is based on the
assumption that the subject property will be rezoned to R-2.
The proposed development would be known as "Centennial
Plaza South." The subject site consists of two adjoining parcels,
14821 and 14829 Farmington Road. Presently there are single-
family homes on each parcel. Much of the back half of each
parcel is currently covered with trees and other natural
vegetation. The combined area of both parcels equals 1.79
acres with a total frontage of 132 feet along Farmington Road
by a depth of approximately 588 feet. The subject site is just
south of the two -building office development currently known as
"Centennial Title." Centennial Plaza South would be developed
very similar to this existing complex. So similar, in fact, that the
temporary identification sign out in front of Centennial Title
would be replaced with a permanent sign that reads "Centennial
Plaza North." Meandering between the two sites is a driveway
known as Luther Lane, which is the entrance drive for the
Livonia Woods Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Livonia
Woods is an eldedy-living facility that is located behind both
Centennial Plaza North and South. The front building, Building
"A", would sit close to Farmington Road about 40 feel back from
the right -0f -way line. This building would be one-story in height
and a total of 5,888 square feel in size. According to the site
plan, Building "A" would be occupied by general office type
uses. Building "B", the next building back, would be located
almost directly behind Building "A", with a separation gap of
approximately 125 feel. This building would be one-story in
23344
height and slightly smaller then Building "A" at a total square
footage of 5,780. According to the site plan, Building "B" would
be occupied by medical type users. Building "C' would be
located the farthest back, approximately 20 feel from the rear or
west lot line. This building would be one-story in height and the
largest of all the buildings at a total of 6,336 square feet in size.
According to the site plan, Building "C" would be occupied by
general office type uses. The reason for pointing out the type of
users occupying each building is because the required amount
of parking is based on it. Medical requires more parking
spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires 92 spaces and 96
spaces are proposed, so they meet the parking requirement.
The proposed landscaping scheme for Centennial Plaza South
would be very similar to what exists throughout Centennial
Plaza North. They are required to have 15% landscaping, and
they show 22% landscaping, which meets the landscape
requirement.. Because this site abuts residential along the
south and west, a screening wall or greenbelt would be required
along these property lines. Along both property lines, the
petitioner is requesting approval to substitute a permanent
greenbelt in lieu of the prolective wall. The proposed greenbelt
along the south property line would be 10 feel in width and
planted with a continuous row of Austrian Pine trees. The
proposed greenbelt along the west or rear property line would
be on the average of 20 feet in width and screened with a row of
Austrian Pine trees. As stated before, behind this property is
the Livonia Woods development. Adjacent to the property line,
on the Livonia Woods side, is a natural wooded area and the
continuation of Luther Lane. The Livonia Woods building itself
is located a considerable distance away. A portion of the
property line, at the southwest corner, does abut Silver Village,
the City owned elderly -living complex. Natural woods also
screen this corner area. The architecture of all three proposed
buildings would be basically the same. In order to coordinate
and be in harmony with Centennial Plaza North, they would also
appear very similar to the buildings of that development. All
three proposed buildings would be constructed out of brick on
all four sides. The comers of the buildings would have pre -cast
stone quoins and a stone sill would divide the buildings just
under the windows. A peaked feature in the roofline would
highlight each entrance. A shallow structural canopy, supported
by decorative columns, would also stick out and define the
entrances. The roof would be multi -peaked and shingled.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
23345
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 10, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the legal description contained therein. There are no
additional right-of-way requirements for this site and we have no
other objections." The letter is signed by James Zoumbaris,
Superintendent of Public Service. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 20, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an office
complex on property located at the above -referenced
addresses. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter
is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated July 6, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal for Centennial Plaza South located at 14821-14829
Farmington Road. We have no objections or recommendations
to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W.
Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated June 30, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 19, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This petitioner will need to satisfy the Assessing Department
as to buildings, property division, tax ID numbers and so on. (2)
The parking spaces must all be double striped. (3) A picture
provided to us showed steps into all buildings. All buildings
must meet the barrier free code and all accessible parking must
be property located. 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. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Alanskas:
Scoff, how high is that berm going to be? You said it's 10 feet
wide, but how high is it going to be?
Mr. Miller:
The plans do not indicate a ny type of berm.
Mr. Alanskas:
Will it be irrigated where the Austrian Pines are going to be?
Mr. Miller:
You have that as a condition of approval.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Is it the same architect? You said they're using the same
pictures.
23346
Mr. Miller:
Yes, DiMattia was also the architect for Centennial North.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just curious about something, Scott. On the letter from the
Planning Commission to Council that approved this on
November 17, 2004, and then it went to the Council and
apparently on March 30, 2005, the petition for rezoning was
withdrawn. Now, I thought I heard you say it was still in the
Committee of the Whole. If the petition was withdrawn, have
they resubmitted a new petition?
Mr. Miller:
I don't think it's been withdrawn.
Mr. LaPine:
It says here, that "submitted by Thoroughbred Properties, LLC,
on behalf of the Margaret Holley Estate and Vincio Bonn and
Angela Bonn, for a change of zoning of properly located ... on
the west side of Farmington Road ... be withdrawn" I note it
says from "R-2 to OS, be withdrawn, the Council does hereby
determine to refer this Petition to the Committee of the Whole"
I dont know what that means. Does that mean it was withdrawn
and or did it go to the Committee of the Whole and it's still in the
Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Miller:
I believe they tried to withdraw it but the Council decided to
place it in the Committee of Whole.
Mr. LaPine:
So it hasn't been withdrawn as far as you know?
Mr. Miller:
No, not as far as I know.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Please step forward.
Carl V. Creighton, Brashear Tangora PLC, 14881 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48154. Good waning. I'm appearing on behalf of
TACS, LLC. I apologize. The manager of TACS, LLC is not
present tonight. She is otherwise engaged in the building as a
member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Tonia Aloe. With
me tonight, however, is Frank DeMattia, the architect, for this
project as well as the original Centennial Plaza. He served as
the construction manager on that project. He will serve as the
construction manager on this project as well. He is intimately
involved and informed as to all of the technical aspects of the
site plan, so he can answer any questions for you. With regard
2a 7
to Mr. La Pine's question, there was a letter (March 3, 2005)
submitted asking for a withdrawal and then a letter (March 25,
2005) asking for the withdrawal of the March 3 letter, and the
matter was then sent to the Committee of the Whole. In the
interim, from the time that the original petition was submitted,
approved and the initial reading on the rezoning, Ms. Aloe
acquired the property, instead of the owner of Thoroughbred
Properties, and they have taken over the petition by assignment
from the original petitioner. Thoroughbred Properties is out and
TACS, LLC is in, and the rezoning will have to be brought back
out of the Committee of the Whole to catch up with the site plan,
which is where we are.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Shane:
I presume this question has been discussed before but just for
my own information, it is absolutely necessary to have outside
dumpsters? Is there no other way you can handle your trash?
Mr. Creighton:
No, because on the original parcel, we have two separate
owners. TACS actually owns the rear parcel and another LLC
owns the front parcel. There is a long waiting list of prospective
tenants and/or purchasers for these buildings, so they may not
be all the same users, and with three buildings or two buildings,
its very difficult to have a central compaction site if you wanted
to try to do that. Some of our commercial neighbors do use
curbside pickup by the City of Livonia, but we have our own
commercial service, and unlike many of the dumpster
enclosures around, ours is still in tact.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Creighton, to the south there are two lots still vacant. Has
your client ever tried to purchase those lots?
Mr. Creighton:
I don't know if there is actually two or one. We've attempted on
numerous occasions, and the individual who owns the lots is
completely unrealistic and unreasonable with respect to their
acquisition.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Creighton:
We would have loved to have incorporated those in, but he's
simply not interested in selling at any price that is in any
relationship to market conditions.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Going back to the dumpster enclosure, what type of gates will
you have on it?
Mr. Creighton:
Presumably, very similar to those that we have on the existing
dumpster. It's a brick structure with a stockade fence, painted
cedar stockade fence, painted a green slain to match the green
shingles on the roof.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I was watching the Council meeting last night and there
were a couple of dumpster issues. They were looking forward
to getting some sort of steel or metal gales as opposed to the
wood.
Mr. Creighton:
These cedar posts actually are mounted on a steel rod
assembly, so it's just the material that is on the face ofthat.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. But it matches what you have to the north?
Mr. Creighton:
Absolutely. And it's green and illies in with the shingles.
Mr. Morrow:
That might come up at the Council level. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
My question is regarding signage. Right now it looks like you're
just looking to have a general sign that says Centennial South.
Are you anticpating any additional signage to be submitted to
us in the future or tenant signage?
Mr. Creighton:
Actually, there is no signage yet. It would be coming in as a
separate petition on this parcel. The sign that is shown is
actually for the buildings immediately to the north.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Creighton:
14881 and 14891. And that sign, I believe, is simply a masonry
structure. It just has Centennial Plaza and the addresses of the
two buildings on it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Is that what you anticipate for this facility as well?
Mr. Creighton:
Probably something very similar.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Because certainly that building in the back is quite a
ways back there.
Mr. Creighton:
We would love, again, very much to incorporate some kind of a
centralized driveway, but we haven't been able to convince our
23349
#07-64-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission cbes hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-06-08-11
submitted by TACS, on behalf of Centennial Plaza South,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
office complex on properties located at 14821 and 14829
Farmington Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 21, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
neighbors to the rear that it's a wonderful idea, yet, but maybe
someday.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
If I could follow up on signage. We brought this up at our study
session. One of the problems I have with the building in the
rear, any sign you have out in front there, the guy in the rear is
not going to be able to see it. If you have a doctors office or a
dentist office or something back there, its going to be rough for
people to know that's where they're located. I just want you to
understand, I'm not in favor of having any big sign out there
that's going to list every tenant you have in every building. I
mean, one sign with the whole name of the complex is fine, but
a list of a lot of names, I think, is not nice. The one next door is
perfect. It looks good.
Mr. Creighton:
That is the concept of the sign that is being erected on the
properly to the north, and undoubtedly the paroel to the south
will have a matching sign. It wouldn't make sense to have
matching architecture and then have two different kinds of
signs.
Mr. LaPine:
Very good. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Anyone else? I see no further questions. Thank you, Mr.
Creighton.
Mr. Creighton:
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-64-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission cbes hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-06-08-11
submitted by TACS, on behalf of Centennial Plaza South,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
office complex on properties located at 14821 and 14829
Farmington Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 21, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
23350
1. That the Site Plan marked S-1 dated June 14, 2006, as
revised, prepared by DiMattia Architects is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked L-1 dated June 14, 2006,
as revised, prepared by DiMattia Architects is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. Thal the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point oflhe lop leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. 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;
6. That the greenbelts along the south and west property
lines, as shown on the approved plans, are hereby
accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall
required by Section 18.45 oflhe Zoning Ordinance;
7. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts'
effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked AA, A-5
and AE, all dated June 14, 2006, as revised, prepared by
DiMattia Architects is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
9. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
10. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
M51
11.
That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the 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 enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
12.
That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils,
including storwater management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
13.
That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (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;
14.
That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated June 30, 2006;
15.
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;
16.
That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
17.
That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
18.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void at the expiration of said period.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
23352
It 1=1Ai Ei$=9=kik If)] LlL'ALI£S Erf 15 D411111&19=1 =11]1A7_\'(HTZS-1 EVI 1[0]
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-08-12 submitted by Lewandowski Engineers, on behalf of
Marathon Petroleum Company, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas
station (Speedway) located at 33405 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast % of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to demolish and reconstruct the
existing gas station located on the southwest corner of
Plymouth Road and Farmington Road. The proposed rebuild
would also include the repositioning of the gas pumps. The
subject site has 193 feet of frontage along Plymouth Road and
measures 200 feel along Farmington Road. Abutting the
property to the west is a Big Boy Restaurant. Behind this site to
the south is an office building. To the east, across Farmington
Road, is the Sheldon Commercial Center. Directly to the north,
across Plymouth Road, is another gas station. Kitty comer to
the northeast is a Walgreens Pharmacy that is part of the
Fountain Park development. The new proposed convenience
store/gas station would be positioned more towards the
southwest comer of the site and would face Plymouth Road.
The building would be one-story in height and 3,936 square feet
in size. Vehides would enter or exit using one of the four
driveways, two off Plymouth Road and two off Farmington
Road. The plan meets the parking space requirement of 18
spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires all parking spaces to
be a minimum len (10') feet in width by twenty (20') feel in
length. All the proposed parking spaces for this Speedway are
striped at only nine (9') feet in width by eighteen (18') feel in
length. Because the spaces are deficient in size, a variance
would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
submitted site plan shows that all of the gas pumps would be
moved and lined up along the Plymouth Road side. No gas
pumps would be located on the Farmington Road side. One
large canopy, measuring about 120 feet along Plymouth Road,
would cover all 20 gas pumps. Metal beam type columns would
support the proposed canopy. In the past, the City has required
these support columns to be brick. When this was explained to
the petitioner, he stated that he believed that having brick
columns would take away from the building. This site falls in the
Plymouth Road Development Authority's jurisdiction. The
landscape plan shows that the PRDA's decorative slreelscape
would remain untouched and incorporated into the site's
landscaping theme. Proposed landscaping equals 24% of the
zaasa
site, which exceeds the landscape requirement of 15%. The
proposed station would be constructed out of brick on all four
sides. A band of windows would run along the front elevation
and wrap around partway across the east elevation. The main
entrance would consist of a two -door system surrounded by full-
length windows. The front elevation, as it is shown on the
elevation plan, would have two ice containers and two propane
exchange cages setting out in front of it. Ice containers are
permitted if they are located within 10 feet of the building. The
propane apparatus would require a separate waiver use
approval. The building would have a shingled peaked roof. The
back of the roof would have a roof well. The petitioner is also
requesting approval for wall signage. This site already has two
existing ground signs that are incorporated in the PRDA's
streetscape walls. These two signs would remain as is. They
are allowed to have 100 square feet of wall signage, which
would include the building and the pump island canopy. They
are proposing five wall signs at 156 square feet. They would
have a 40 square fool electric reader board on the building,
which is shown on the plans, a Speedway sign on the west and
east elevation of the canopy, and then two logo signs would be
located on the south and north facade of the canopy. They
exceed the sign ordinance by 56 square feel; therefore, a
variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 10, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the legal description contained therein. There are no
additional right-of-way requirements for this site and ws have no
other objections." The letter is signed by James Zoumbaris,
Superintendent of Public Service. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 21, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to demolish and rebuild
the gas station on property located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated July 6, 2006, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal for Speedway located at 33405 Plymouth Road. The
intersection of Plymouth and Farmington is a high traffic crash
location in our city. Some of the crashes are as a result of
vehicles making a left tum from this location onto westbound
Ma
Plymouth Road. We would request that Speedway install 'No
Left Tum 3 p.m. — 6 p.m.' at both exits onto Plymouth Road.
This will assist in reducing crashes." The letter is signed by
David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated July 10, 2006, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 19, 2006,
the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following
is noted. (1) This site in the past provided 'free air' per Council
direction but currently does not. We suggest that if Commission
and/or Council wish this to continue to add the cunent fee air
stipulation. (2) This site will need a variance for deficient number
of parking spaces. They are lacking the required spaces for
employees. The spaces must also be redrawn to the required
10 feet wide by 20 feet deep dimensions and double striped. (3)
It appears that this site was granted two ground signs by virtue
of several zoning variances from the 1970's (710350, 740657,
7410-113, 7807-104). One of the conditions from 7807-104 is
that 20 square feet of window signage is allowed or 60 square
feet of wall area for incidental advertising. What is now
proposed exceeds the sign ordinance and conditions of the
previous grant. By cunent standards, this petitioner would be
allowed 100 square feet maximum of wall, window, canopy and
fascia signage; however, they are now limited to 60 feet by the
previous grant. This petitioner needs to seek a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals to have signage as proposed. 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. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening.
Troy Barman, Lewandowski Engineers, 234 North Erie Street, Toledo, Ohio
43624. Good evening. I'm representing Speedway. This site
will be requesting the two variances and we have made
changes in the plan to provide free air for the site, addressing
those issues brought to our attention. The variances that we
would like to move forward with are parking variance and the
signage variance.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions forthe petitioner?
Ms. Smiley: Are you talking about making the parking spaces 10 feet by 20
feet and then being short on parking spaces?
Mr. Barman: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you.
23355
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions?
Mr. LaPine:
Could you tell me what the reader board is?
Mr. Barman:
The reader board is just a backlit sign. It's not an electronic
sign. It's just a backlit sign with manual changed letters that you
put in to say, milk on sale, $1.42 a gallon, or something.
Mr. LaPine:
Is this sign on the outside and you open up the glass and you
change the letters or is it done from the inside?
Mr. Barman:
Itwould be done from outside oflhe building.
Mr. LaPine:
And why do you need that? I mean is it that important?
Mr. Barman:
Its for the customers that are fuelling at the pumps to know
what's going on inside the store, to remind them if they need
milk on the way home.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. The next question I have is, the ice machines you have
outside. You have very large refrigeration on the inside of the
building. Why can't that ice be kept on the inside? Why does it
have to be on the outside and clutter up the outside of the
building?
Mr. Barman:
We Ike to have our ice containers on the outside for a couple
issues. One, a safety issue. Typically, if you go into a gas
station and you're buying ice, you're buying six bags, not one
bag. And people dragging six bags of ice through a C store is
going to make the floor wet. We like to keep any of the dripping
ice outside if at all possible. The other thing is convenience for
the customers. You pull up right to the ice chests. You can
unload the ice right into your vehicle, so there's the convenience
factor also there. We do fill up the refrigeration units inside with
different merchandise.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Lel me ask you this now. They go into the convenience
store; they purchase the ice. Correct?
Mr. Barman:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
And most of the stations I've been to, these outside ice
containers are locked. So somebody has to come out and
unlock them and take out the ice. Is that correct? Is that the
way it operates?
23356
Mr. Barman:
Yes. We have Bred here with Operations.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, ifyou could please step forward, that would be great.
Mr. Barman:
This is Brad with Speedway. He's Operations Manager for this
area.
Bred:
We do lock them in areas where there's high theft issues, but
we do not require them to be locked.
Mr. LaPine:
So honest is your policy. Is that right?
Brad:
I'm sorry?
Mr. LaPine:
Once he buys his bags of ice, he goes out and picks them up.
You assume the guy is going to take six bags, and 99 percent of
the people, that's all they will take, is six.
Brad:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Now the propane bottles you want to sell. You have to gel a
special permit for that. Now, why do you need that?
Brad:
Just another convenience to the customer. They can easily
come up to grab propane for their barbeque grill. We haw an
exchange program where we will take empty bottles and provide
them with full ones.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me ask one more question about the reader board. If we
allow the reader board, will you agree to not have any signage
at all of any kind on the windows?
Mr. Barman:
We have another gentleman here from Marathon.
Travis Moore,
Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC, 539 South Main, Findlay,
Ohio 45840. You say get rid of all the signage other than the
reader board, torted, on the windows?
Mr. LaPine:
On the windows.
Mr. Moore:
I think that would be a decision for the Regional Director and
Regional Manager to decide on. That's something definitely we
can take back to them and see if they would consider that.
Mr. LaPine:
Because I'm inclined not to allow the reader board if you're
going to have signs in every window like most gas stations
2335]
have. If we are willing to give you the reader board, eliminate all
the signage in the windows.
Mr. Moore:
Isn't the window signage limited to like a certain percentage
though? Isn't it like 20 percent or something?
Mr. La Pine:
You're absolutely right, but the reader board is not a permitted
sign. So we would eliminate the reader board and then you can
have your 20 percent in the windows. That's my thinking.
Maybe the rest of the members don't think that way.
Mr. Moore:
We definitely can take it back to management and see what
they say about that.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
To the gentleman in the while shirt, in the last few years when
we've had new stations come up, we make sure the columns
are all made out of brick. Have you had a chance to address
that yet?
Mr. Barman:
Yes. We've discussed that with Scott. We have two issues with
a brick canopy. We want to make the canopy columns as
invisible as possible. As you're driving past the site, we want
you to see through the canopy columns and see the building.
We note that on sites with large brick canopy columns at the
front, it looks like a secondary building at the front, as opposed
to what we try to achieve as something to look through. The
other item that we have with brick canopy supports is vehicle
damage, cars hitting them doing damage now to brick masonry,
whereas the steel posts are much smaller. You can protect
them quite a bit easier than the full brick canopies.
Mr. Alanskas:
But they look so much better. Question number two is, why
don't you want to have any pumps on the Farmington Road side
like you used to have?
Mr. Barman:
Just layout for getting cars in and out of the site and gas
stations take on quite a bit of traffic. You cant overcrowd them.
You want to get cars in and out smoothly. You've got to get a
tanker in and out smoothly. You've got to get pedestrians in
and out smoothly. There are a lot of dynamics.
Mr. Alanskas:
But don't you believe that having the pumps strictly on Plymouth
Road would give you more traffic?
zaasa
Mr. Barman: Having the pumps strictly on Plymouth Road gives us more
traffic?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Right now, you have pumps facing Plymouth Road, but if
you had some on the side on Farmington Road, that would be
less traffic, wouldn't it?
Mr. Barman: We don't have quite the depth on the Farmington side that we
have on the Plymouth Road side. We definitely need extra
depth to gel between the centerline of a pump and the next
parking space by the building and the cenledine of a pump to
the curb. Gas stations, we have to keep those things nice and
large. We want nice and easy maneuvers for cars, easy
maneuvers for tanker vehicles. We want to get the people in
and out as easily as possible.
Mr. Alanskas:
The question I have is, because you're so close to Plymouth
Road, if you have people putting gas in their vehicles, there is
no room for stacking cars, is there?
Mr. Barman:
Typically, we like to design the pumps so you aren't stacking
cars.
Mr. Alanskas:
You've got two on each side. Correct?
Mr. Barman:
There is a pump on each side, correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to comment on the ice machines. 1, as one
commissioner, would liked to see the ice machines inside the
building, but I will defer to your experience as the best service to
your customers and you can manage it on the outside. As far
as the propane sales, I only know of one request that we've had
by a prior service station to have the propane sales, and we
denied that. As one commissioner, I would like to see that not
part of your operation. It may be something you will have to
lake back to your people in Findlay.
Mr. Barman:
If its a strong feeling of the Commission to have outside
propane sales removed, that is something we can agree to
tonight, as opposed to the ice. But the propane, if it is the
Planning Commission's desire to have that removed from the
site, we can remove the propane.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, that would be my desire. There is precedent for it and I
guess what I'm saying is, you cant predict the future but it could
23359
begin to open up Pandora's box all around the city. Pretty soon
every gas station is competing for propane in addition to their
normal product sales. Thirdly, I didn't see the inside of the
building. I'm assuming you have restrooms that are available to
your customers.
Mr. Barman:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that a unisex?
Mr. Barman:
Men and women.
Mr. Morrow:
Men and women. Thank you. That's what I was hoping.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have a number of concerns, too, with the clutter in general
around the building. You have a very attractive looking building
and then you see the ice container, the propane cages, you're
going to have a free air pump, which is good. I also see on the
site plan there was mention of a coin operated vacuum. Is that
still in the works?
Mr. Barman:
That is still in the works to have a coin-operated vacuum. Noise
levels of them nowadays are down to basically your natural
urban background noise. I brought along a couple handouts
here regarding the vacuums. They roughly run about 58
decibels at a distance of 30 feet away. If you look on the chart I
passed out, 58 decibels is close to a busy office sound.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Are you concerned about clutter from traffic? You're going to
have someone at the free air pump, someone at the vacuums.
Mr. Barman:
We can put those off to the side. And that would be at the top of
the site plan away from the building so it's not cluttering up the
building area.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I also see on this particular site plan over by the
dumpsters, it looks like there's three doors there. Is this two
dumpsters and a storage or what is this third door?
Mr. Barman:
Yes, two dumpster and a storage. For landscape we need
some yard tools and that kind of stuff out there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So that's going to be a shed?
Mr. Barman:
Yes.
za3so
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I also have a number of questions about the canopy. I,
like Mr. Alanskas, tend to like the brick pillars on the canopies. I
think ft's a IifUe more attmctive than just a metal pole. But I do
have a number of questions in regards to the canopy. There is
a stripe that goes around the lop of the canopy and also around
the lop edge of your building at the roofline. Are those
illuminated stripes or are theyjust red stripes?
Mr. Barman:
Just stripes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And also with the canopy, is there going to be a fire
suppression system hanging from the canopy that's visible to
the naked eye or is that all on top of the canopy?
Mr. Barman:
Lel me check with my design person.
Mr. Moore:
First of all, I have a question for you all. Is fire suppression
required here in the City of Livonia?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, can you address that?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know what the requirements are in terms of any external
fire suppression systems, but I know what Commissioner
Wilshaw is referring to and we don't see those around. I'm
guessing that its not a requirement throughout the community.
I think his question was whether or not d was the practice of
Speedway or Marathon to include that with your new facilities.
Mr. Moore:
We hadn't intended on it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, because I see some gas stations that have all these red
tanks hanging down there and, again, it clutters up the view.
The other question I had then was, you don't have any problems
with the "no left turn" signs that the Police Department
suggested?
Mr. Barman:
No. The "no left turn 3 to 6"? We can comply with that without
a problem.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And I do see the brick sample. Is that a building sample
there?
Mr. Barman:
This is the Speedway standard brick colors that we have.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The roof would be a dark gray shingle or something along those
lines?
23361
Mr.
Barman:
Yes.
Mr.
Walsh:
Are there any otherquestions?
Mr.
Shane:
You intend to ask for a variance for the parking space numbers?
Mr.
Barman:
Yes. We will go to the 10'x 20'.
Mr.
Shane:
How many parking spaces will you be short?
Mr.
Barman:
The mostwe will lose is one.
Mr.
Shane:
Oh. Okay.
Mr.
Barman:
On the side we can make up that space. Just in the front of the
building, we may lose one there. So it would be just a variance
of one.
Mr.
Shane:
Okay. The other issue I have is, I would like to see the pump
island supports in brick. I heard what you said. I know what
Marathon's position is, but my position is that I would like to see
those brick and that's what I would approve if I were to make a
resolution.
Mr.
La Pine:
Just one more question. The convenience store - are you just
selling pop and milk? Do you sell any alcohol beverages of any
type?
Mr.
Barman:
I would have to refer to Operations.
Brad:
We will notbe selling any alcohol.
Mr.
LaPine:
Do you sell sandwiches and things of that nature?
Brad
Yes, we have hot breakfast and lunch sandwiches. We have a
deli case with prepackaged sandwiches.
Mr.
LaPine:
Do you have sealing inside where people can eat inside?
Brad
No.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Al this particular location, whalwould the hours be?
Mr.
Barman:
24 hours a day.
23362
Mr. Alanskas: Seven days a week?
Mr. Barman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. You want to put these vacuum stations in and you want
to put the propane in and you want to put the ice outside.
You're trying to put a lot on this particular site. I would think that
if you didn't have those vacuum stations, you wouldn't have a
parking problem as far as parking spaces. You might consider
removing that. Mr. Chairman, if there's no more questions ...
Mr. Walsh: I do want to take an opportunity to go out to the audience.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay.
Mr. Morrow: Just one question as it relates to the brick columns. If you were
to put the brick colors in there, were you saying that it could be
a problem as it relates to turnings? I don't know the space
requirements.
Mr. Barman: It's not so much of a problem, but it's easier to protect the
smaller steel columns from getting hit. The larger brick, when
those gel hit, they do some pretty decent damage to them. You
have to get a brick mason out there to repair them. That is
something that if the Planning Commission desires to add as a
condition of this approval ...
Mr. Morrow: I guess where I'm coming from, like I say, I can't really see the
space and how it relates to cars, but I guess I wouldn't want the
pillars damaged and people wouldn't want their cars scraped
either. That was just my thought on that.
Mr. Barman: Its just maneuvering. As cars comes in and out, like I say, we
try to make it as big as possible for the cars to maneuver in and
out without any interference. But no matter how big you make
it, somebody is always going to swing wide or do something,
and eventually the column is going to gel lapped.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: I just have one more question. The lights under the canopy -
are they recessed?
Mr. Barman: They are flat lens lights.
Mr. Alanskas: They dont protrude?
23363
Mr. Barman:
Correct.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
I have a question for the petitioner through the Chair. Have you
investigated the requirement for a stormwater management
detention system on site? It is a requirement of the County for
redevelopment.
Mr. Barman:
We will meet any requirements for stormwater. Our engineers
will review that with the county engineers.
Mr. Taormina:
Even if it requires a buried stormwater detention system ...
Mr. Barman:
Any stormwater quality or stormwater volume that is required by
the engineers, that is what we will meet.
Mr. Taormina:
Itwould be required in this instance.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one come forward, a motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because we have five different issues that we are still looking
at, I think we should table this and have the petitioner come
back with a revised site plan at a determined date.
Mr. Walsh:
We have a motion to table. Is there support? There is support
by Mr. Wilshaw. Under Robert's Rules of Order, under which
we operate, there is no further discussion. I have to go straight
to a vote.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#07-65-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 2006-06-08-12 submitted by Lewandowski
Engineers, on behalf of Marathon Petroleum Company,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and
reconstruct the gas station (Speedway) located at 33405
Plymouth Road in the Northeast % of Section 33.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will be tabled until a point when you contact our
23364
Planning Department and work out an opportunity to come back
onto our study session to address these issues.
Mr. Barman: I appreciate your time this evening.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you.
kill ViFa l 9 =k 0Y0[QkJlpjljlj r II9�QrS�K�]AJ�:7[K.1
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06Sh401 submitted by Euko Design, on behalf of the Comerica
Operations Center, requesting approval of wall signage for the
high-rise office building located at 39200 Six Mile Road in the
Southwest % of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: The Comerica Operations Center is requesting approval of two
wall signs for their four-story office building located on the north
side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and Fox Drive.
This facility is Comerica Bank's critical intersection for electronic
and paper transfer of all transactions conducted throughout
Comerica's 500 -plus customer service locations. Immediately
to the north is the Marketplace commercial center, which is part
of the ongoing College Park development. Right in front of this
site, adjacent to the intersection, is a gas station. To the east,
across Fox Drive, are the Marriott Residence Inn and the Laurel
Park West Assisted Care facility. One of the proposed wall
signs would be located on the south elevation near the
southwest corner of the building. This sign would face Six Mile
Road. The other wall sign would be located on the west
elevation near the southwest comer of the building. This sign
would face Haggerty Road. Both signs would be attached to the
very top edge of the elevation's fourth floor, just under the
roofline. Both signs would be 146 square feet each for a total of
292 square feet. This building is allowed one wall sign at 100
square feet. So they are one wall sign and 192 square feet over
what they are allowed by the sign ordinance. Therefore, a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required.
The petitioner has explained that the reason behind the oversize
signs is visibility and perception. They believe that signage
needs to be extra large in order to be seen. They also believe if
the signs were made smaller they would look out of balance and
not in scale with the building.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
23365
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated June 30, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 6, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This site is allowed one wall sign with a maximum of 100
square feet. Any additional number of signs and any excess
square footage will require a variance(s) from the Zoning Board
of Appeals. 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. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the
petitioner step forward?
Thomas Chubb,
Project Manager, Comenca Incorporated, 3501 Hamlin Road,
MC2220, Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326. And Euko Signs ...
Eugene Diachenko, Euko Design Signs, Inc., 24849 Hathaway, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48335.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Chubb:
We're passing out a handout. There was discussion as far as
us proposing a 100 square fool sign versus the 146 square fool,
and there is a photograph illustrating the comparison between
the two to understand the increase in square footage does not
actually affect the readability.
Mr. Diachenko:
If you don't mind, I would like to go through what the purpose of
Comerica is in going forward with this request for variance.
Basically, this is a four-story building. It is a large office building
as you are very aware. It is at the corner of Six Mile and
Haggerty. This building has different angles to the elevations
and as we were trying to look at this, we realized that none of
the faces face directly towards Haggerty or face directly towards
Six Mile. Comerica is undergoing a program trying to identify
their buildings right now. Because of the setback, because of
the amount of space that it has along Six Mile and along
Haggerty, because of the gas station that sits at the corner, and
as we all know, that's a very busy corner and it seems to be
getting busier and busier. They would like to properly identify
the building as people drive by. Are we getting feedback?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes, I'm not sure why. They might be adjusting it in the back.
Mr. Diachenko:
Basically, again, it's because it somewhat faces Six Mile and
somewhat faces Haggerty. As people are trying to come to this
23366
building, and there's a lot of business meetings here, there's a
lot of people pulling in there, and you know that there's things
going on with traffic lights and left turns and the parking and the
shopping center across the street to be able to identify the
building. Aesthetically, we have found that the 146 square fool
is more readable. It is not as readable with the 100 square fool
as you are driving by as you are trying to see that. We do want
to assure that people can identify the building. I think another
point to be made, which I think cannot be overlooked, is that
there is a number of other banks now in the area. They are now
building the high rise office on 275, TCF is. And they're building
a Franklin Bank just to the north of us. There's the bank across
the street. There's a bank just down Six Mile, I think on the
Northville side. And I think it's very important to Comerica to
identify itself and that's what they are doing in a number of the
communities. I think the bottom line, though, is to realize the
way this building sits and the setbacks and the angles, which I
think are attractive, that it requires a little bit larger sign. You
can see it aesthetically fits on the building. Again, if you're
driving down Six Mile, there is not a side that faces directly on
Six Mile and there is not a side that faces directly on Haggerty.
I think its aesthetically pleasing for the building. Its just more
difficult for us to do signage, and that's why we're asking for the
variance.
Mr. Wilshaw: You're correct that there are a number of banks in the area, and
there's certainly Rock Financial. As you mentioned, there are
ones right on the comer, that type of thing. None of which has a
sign that is over 100 square feet in size. Is that something that
you could accept or is thatjust completely out of the question?
Mr. Diachenko: I cant speak for the bank in that it's out of the question. There
has been a lot of discussion over this building. Its a very busy
building. I think you know that. And it is very important to the
bank to try and aesthetically put the appropriate signage on
there. We do understand that Livonia's requirement is 100
square fool. I think it would be more difficult. I don't think it
would be as readable, and I think it would be very difficult
especially if it were only one sign.
Mr. Wilshaw: I certainly don't begrudge the fact that because this is on a
corner with two major roads that two signs is not unreasonable,
but in looking at buildings in the area, such as Rock Financial
over in Laurel Park on the other side of the freeway, they have a
95 square fool sign that is over almost 100 feet further away
from the roadway than your building is and it's quite readable.
The other Quicken Loans facility up in Victor Park is 80 some
2aas7
square feel and is very readable. And we have, of course, TCF
Bank, which is going to be coming to the city once their building
is complete looking for signage. So this would set something of
a precedent for them to also decide what signs they like. So I
kind of like the 100 square foot, and I think 100 square fool per
sign, giving you a total of 200 square feet, seems reasonable.
Mr. Diachenko: Itseems reasonable.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay.
Mr. Morrow: I guess I'm familiar with the signs that Mr. Wilshaw was talking
about. I guess where I was coming from was I see you're
adding "bank" to your sign and maybe the fella from Euko Signs
could address this. Perhaps one of the reasons for having a
larger sign is the number of letters and the readability of the
bank because now you've added four more characters plus
space, which I can't recall what Quicken looks like or Rock, but
they dont seem to have the same number of characters in that
sign. I know you're trying to stress that you're a bank. In the
old days, we used to have NBD, Manufacturers, you know a
couple savings and loans, and that was it. And we all know that
NBD became Comenca and then you incorporated
Manufacturers. So now you've got a lot of competton and I
think you're trying to say now you're a bank. Our younger
generation would probably wonder what Comerica is.
Mr. Diachenko: Actually, part of the signage program is in the Metropolitan
Detroit but it's also in the out state. As the bank moves further
out, not everybody knows that Comerica is a bank, and also it is
to try and have something across the nation. I always bangs up
the fact that if you watch Dallas hockey, you're going to see the
trapezoid on the boards. And basically, all of the signage
moving forward is having the word "bank" put on it, which does
make the Comenca letters become somewhat smaller. There is
that balance between readability from a distance and the
importance of putting "bank" and this comes down from a CEO
after a lot of discussion meetings with marketing and the
determination. It is because of competition and it is as they're
expanding. Obviously, in Livonia, I live very near here, is that
we're all very familiar with the trapezoid, the blue trapezoid and
the Comerica bank.
Mr. Morrow: I think you kind of anchored the growth along 275 when you
made your first expansion out here.
23368
Mr. Diachenko:
Yes. I was involved moving the people in originally into the
building before they added the other addition.
Mr. La Pine:
Doyou know how many square feetthis building is?
Mr. Diachenko:
I certainly should. But I realize that I don't want to be incorrect,
but I do believe that each floor of the two floors of the addition
are in excess of 70,000 square feet and each floor is 50,000
square feel of the four floors that there are there.
Mr. La Pine:
So it's one of our largest buildings in the city.
Mr. Diachenko:
I think it's the largest.
Mr. La Pine:
Probably one of the top taxpayers in the city and you've been
here for many years and never came in and asked for anything
as far as I know except for that addition you put on before you
had the underground. The only argument that somebody could
say, well, why does it have to say "Comerica Bank" because
you're not really dealing with the general public because it's not
a banking facility where people go in to draw out money and
take out loans. But you do have a lot of people that come here,
like you say, for meetings from different parts of the city,
different parts of the stale even.
Mr. Diachenko:
Different parts of the country. The operation center, there's
more and more obviously corporate meetings that take place
here.
Mr. La Pine:
So I don't think it's unreasonable for a taxpayer who has been
with the city as long as you have and as big a building you have,
it's all occupied by one firm, to ask for what you're asking for
and 1, as one commissioner, have no objection to it. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilshaw:
How many employees do you have working at that facility?
Mr. Diachenko:
There are multiple shifts there. In corporate America, they're
constantly changing. I do believe there is approximately 1,300,
but the thing is that there are different shifts there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And you do get a fair number of visitors each day as
well.
Mr. Diachenko:
Yes. The visitors are, again, mostly corporate meetings. It is
primarily employees. And that is correct, this is not a regular
banking institution but there is a lot of business there that takes
place, people coming from the airport, people coming from
2aass
different parts. And again, living here, that's a very busy comer.
You don't want to drive by the driveway and be slowing down
putting your foot on the brake looking for the building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
You do have two monument signs as well that identify your
building.
Mr. Diachenko:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Which are quite visible.
Mr. Diachenko:
They're obviously lower. They could be enlarged in size, but we
did not even think of asking for that because it was more
important, I think, to have the signage on the building so that as
you're coming down Haggerty and as you're coming down Six
Mile in either direction you can identify the building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
I tend to agree with Mr. LaPine. Look at 100 square feel and
146. There's a big difference in looking at that sign, and like Mr.
LaPine said, its a big building. It's one of our best, and I have
no problem with 146 square feet. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Can the one sign facing Six Mile be seen from traffic coming
south on the expressway? I don't think so, can it?
Mr. Diachenko:
No. Not at all.
Mr. LaPine
Not at all.
Mr. Diachenko:
No. It cannot be seen from the expressway at all.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you. If I may say, that's one of the advantages TCF is
going to have. They're right along the expressway. They'll
probably have a sign that will be visible from the expressway.
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by Alanskas, and adopted, it was
#07-66-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006 -06 -SN -01
submitted by Euko Design, on behalf of Comerica Incorporated,
Myo
requesting approval of wall signage for the highrise office
building located at 39200 Six Mile Road in the Southwest %of
Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Euko Design — Signs,
as received by the Planning Commission on June 5, 2006,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
3. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and,
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: You do have a 24 hour operation there, do you not?
Mr. Diachenko: Yes. I obviously picked up on the hour after closing.
Mr. La Pine: Yes.
Mr. Diachenko: Typically, that would be lit once it is dark, and it is regular
fluorescent tubes in there and this is a lit sign. We would have
to address that with the appropriate people in Livonia on how
you would like us to proceed with that.
Mr. LaPine: So you would prefer to have it lit up 24 hours a day?
Mr. Diachenko: Basically, yes.
Mr. LaPine: Especially in the wintertime with people coming in early.
Mr. Diachenko: People come in early. People also come in there on the
midnight shift loo.
M71
Mr. LaPine:
Well, I have no problem with it lit 24 hours, but I don't know what
the other members think.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any comments from the maker and supporter?
Mr. Morrow:
I guess this is something that didn't come up before. I knew it
was a 24 hour operation but I wasn't aware that the people that
would be coming there .... but I guess there's no difference
during the day or night, you still want it seen. I guess I would
not have a problem with that.
Mr. Alanskas:
We always say that the signs must be turned off one hour after
closing, but if it's 24 hours a day, you wouldn't turn it off. So I
have no problem with it being on all the time.
Mr. Walsh:
So it is acceptable to Mr. Morrow and Mr. Alanskas that we
delete condition 2.
Mr. Morrow:
Right, that we don't make reference to the hours.
Mr. Walsh:
Then the motion would stand with all items mentioned with the
exception of item 2. Is there any further discussion? I would
like to just add that I'm going to join what appears to be a
majority and support this. I pass this building every day. I work
at Schoolcmft College. Its a beautiful building. We're proud to
have you here in the city and having your name up in lights just
adds, I think, to the fact that we show we're hospitable to
businesses and we're proud to be a partner with you.
Mr. Diachenko:
Comerica does understand that. They really do. It is
appreciated, and I will carry that back to the appropriate people.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just wanted to comment that I will not be supporting the
resolution just because of the size of the signs. I do think that
two 100 square fool signs would be reasonable, although in no
way does that reflect my views of Comerica. I think you're an
excellent employer, an excellent corporate citizen, and Ithink
the signs will look nice on the building one way or another.
Mr. Diachenko:
Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
I just want you to know that I dont want you to feel pressured to
move the Tigers out here. We'll lake a vole?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
M72
AYES: Morrow, Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES: Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, 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 2006-05-0241 VAN MASTERS (KFC)
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
05-02-11 submitted by Van Masters requesting waiver use
approval to construct a full-service restaurant (Kentucky Fried
Chicken) with drive -up window facilities at 29060 Plymouth,
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller
Avenue and Camden Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 25.
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, do we first need a motion to remove this from the
table?
Mr. Walsh: Yes, we do need a motion.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#07-67-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2006-05-02-11 submitted by Van
Masters requesting waiver use approval to construct a full
service restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken) with drive -up
window facilities at 29060 Plymouth, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Haller Avenue and Camden Road in
the Southwest'''/ of Section 25, be removed from the table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Taormina: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you remember, we tabled this
item at the June 13" meeting to allow the applicant to address a
number of issues that were raised at the public hearing. A
couple of those items were operational issues, for example, the
hours of operation as well as the time that the trash removal
would occur at the site. In addition, there were a number of site
plan issues. Many of these were items brought to our attention
by a representative of the Lutheran Homes of Michigan, which is
233]3
immediately adjacent to this site to the north. The petitioner has
responded to those concems. We had a chance to review
those changes at the study session. I believe your packet this
evening also includes a letter from the nursing home
representative thanking the applicant for making those changes,
and I will go over them quickly. The two issues that were
addressed in the letter included the hours of operation and the
trash pickup, but it also included widening the landscape area at
the north end of the property and the addition of a fence that
would go along the property line and wrap around the corner
slightly that would match the fence that's already at the nursing
center. This would provide additional screening and buffering
for the residents that are relatively close to the rear property line
in this area. Additionally, there was some landscaping provided
along that side of the property and along the west property line.
In fact, some of the nice pine trees that exist along the front of
this site, which is vacant, will be transplanted and moved to the
back of the property to supplement the buffering along the north
side adjacent to the residential area. The speaker volume will
be restricted. There will be an opportunity to adjust that volume
so that it does not provide any nuisance to the adjoining
residents. The light fixtures will all be shielded and the height of
the pole -mounted lighting along the north end of the property
has been lowered. The maximum height there will be 16 feet as
opposed to our normal standard of 20 feet. The lighting fixtures
closer to Plymouth Road will be 20 feet, but the ones to the rear
again would be 16 feet. Additional landscaping would be
provided along Plymouth Road frontage that would be
consistent with the streetscape design formulated by the
Plymouth Road Development Authority. Also, the wall sign has
been modified. There were two images, one facing east and
one facing south. The one facing east has been removed so
the wall sign now complies with the ordinance. And lastly, the
ground sign was altered to conform to the ordinance. However,
I think it was understood that because this petitioner was willing
to voluntarily construct the design piers and fencing along the
frontage of the property, that there would be an exception by the
Planning Commission allowing for one additional foot of height
for the ground sign. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: You might also add, I didn't hear Mark say it, but we did also
request input from the Plymouth Road Development Authonty
and we have a letter to that effect.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is correct.
233]4
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, in the motion, condition 12 says that two parking spaces
shall be designated for drive-lhru usage. What does that mean?
Mr. Taormina:
That's a special requirement.
Mr. LaPine:
I thought we had a line where they could pull in and pull out. Is
that right?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and that's what that is. Two additional spaces are
available for that purpose on the site plan.
Mr. La Pine:
I wasn't sure what that meant. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions for the staff? Then we'll go to the
petitioner. I know they are in the audience. They wailed
throughoutthe other items. Good evening.
Troy Chonlos,
DCJA Architects, Inc., 30600 Northwestern Highway, Suite 102,
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. Good evening. I really
would just like to go to any
questions you may have. Mr.
Taormina touched on everything I was going to say.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner? No questions?
Mark, before we move on, I have recollection that there was a
request for a seven day waiver but I didn't see anything in the
material.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm glad you remembered that. If we could include that as a
separate resolution this evening, lhalwould be appreciated.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. We will do so. There was no objection from the
Council on that request, but I didn't see any material and I
wanted to make sure of it.
Mr. Taormina:
I apologize for that.
Mr. Walsh:
No problem. Well, if there is no discussion, is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? Okay.
We have a representative from Lutheran Homes.
Mr. LaPine:
I just have one more question. I'm looking through the
resolution. Did we establish any time limit on when they open in
the morning and how late they're open at night?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe the approving resolution includes any conditions
relative to the hours of operations. That was something that
was indicated in our discussions previously, and was
233]5
understood by the Commission and the adjoining property
owner as being acceptable, but we did not incorporate that into
a special requirement.
Mr. LaPine:
Is Mr. Masters here so he can tell us what the hours of the
operation will be?
Jay Brown, Facilities Director, Van Masters Management, Inc., 22114 Telegraph,
Southfield, Michigan 48034. Initially, the first meeting when we
were up here, there were hours asked of what our current
operation was, and that we closed at 10:00 p.m. We're looking
at 11:30 p.m., midnight for closing, opening at 1030 in the
morning.
Mr. LaPine:
11:30 p.m. to midnight.
Mr. Brown:
10:30 in the morning.
Mr. LaPine:
You open at 10:30 a.m.?
Mr. Brown:
And close at midnight.
Mr. LaPine:
Is that going to be seven days a week?
Mr. Brown:
Yes, and close at midnight. We had talked to Patti at the
Lutheran Home next door and she was quite happy to hear that
because she has a shift change that comes in at, I think, 11:30
or quarter to 12, that they would have the opportunity to get
some dinner before their shift started. So she was kind of glad
to hear that also.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, what are the hours of operation of the one on Farmington
Road?
Mr. Brown:
Right now I believe the Plymouth Road restaurant is closed at
10:30 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
They close at 10:30 at night?
Mr. Brown:
Yes, but that is not a drive thru.
Mr. LaPine:
So the drive thru is open or the whole operation is open?
Mr. Brown:
No, normally the drive thru would only be open until midnight.
Mostly standard procedures are that the lobby is open until
probably around 10:00 p.m. depending on the time of the year,
and then the drive-thru would remain open until midnight.
23376
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? Then a motion would be in
order.
Mr. Wilshaw: I would be happy to make an approving resolution. This is a
nice looking building and you've done a nice job of meeting the
requests that we've had and that the Lutheran Homes have had
and the PRDA, so I'd be happy to make this approving
resolution.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Alanskas, and unarimously adopted, it
was
#07-68-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-02-11 submitted by Van Masters requesting
waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant
(Kentucky Fried Chicken) with drive -up window facilities at
29060 Plymouth, located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Haller Avenue and Camden Road in the Southwest %
of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-05-02-11 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 0542
prepared by DCJA Architects, dated June 27, 2006, as
revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced
Site Plan, including the brick piers and simulated wrought
iron fencing as depicted on the Pier/Iron Fencing Detail,
is hereby approved and shall be completed in
accordance with said plan;
3. That all planted materials required in connection with this
waiver use approval shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu at
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas regardless of size;
23377
6. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 60 seats;
7. That the Exterior Elevation Plans marked Sheets 4 and 5
of Job No. 0542 prepared by DCJA Architects, both
dated June 27, 2006, as revised, are hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face
4 -inch brick, no exceptions;
9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
concealed from public view on all sides by screening that
shall be of a compatible character, material and color to
other exterior materials on the building;
10. That the refuse enclosure shall be constructed of brick to
match the building and shall have steel gates which,
when not in use, shall be closed at all times;
11. That all parking spaces shall be double striped and all
accessible spaces shall be marked and signed properly;
12. That two (2) parking spaces shall be designated for drive-
thru usage;
13. That light pole heights shall be as specified on the above
referenced Site Plan and all light fixtures shall be aimed
and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing
across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway;
14. That the approval of wall signage, subject to the granting
of any needed variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals
and any conditions related thereto, includes the following.
- One (1) wall sign at 35 square feel with the "Colonel's
face" graphic;
- Illuminated cupola lower;
15. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon tubing shall be
permitted on the building nor shall the awnings be backlit;
16. That the ground sign depicted in the detail provided on
the above -referenced Exterior Elevations Plan marked
Sheet 5, to be at a height no higher than seven (7) feet,
is hereby approved, subject to the granting of a variance
M78
by the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive ground
sign height and any conditions pertaining thereto;
17. That any additional signage beyond that which is
permitted under Conditions #14 and #16 above, either
freestanding or wall mounted, shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council;
18. That the landscaped greenbelt along the westerly 40 feel
of the north property line, as shown on the above -
referenced Site Plan, is hereby accepted and shall be
substituted for the prolective wall required by Section
18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; provided, however, that
any change of circumstances in the area containing the
greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts
effectiveness as a protective barrier, the 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 protective wall
pursuant to Section 18.45;
19. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection
Department at the time of the application for the building
permits;
20. That this approval shall incorporate the stipulations and
requirements contained in the letter dated June 27, 2006
from the Executive Director of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority;
21. That a six (6) fool high vinyl fence shall be installed on
the northerly portion of the subject property as depicted
on the above -referenced Site Plan;
22. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the time
period between 10:30 a.m. and midnight, seven days a
week; and
23. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, he Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for
a period of one year only from the date of approval by
City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void allhe expiration ofsaid period.
23379
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved 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 Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate
the proposed use; and
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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Walsh: Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: I'd also like to make a motion for a seven day waiver.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, itwas
#07-69-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Arficle VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effectiveness of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2006-05-02-11 submitted by Van Masters
requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service
restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken) with drive -up window
facilities at 29060 Plymouth, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Haler Avenue and Camden Road in
the Southwest % of Section 25.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
23380
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 926'" Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 926"' Regular Meeting held on May 30, 2006.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#07-70-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 926" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on May 30, 2006, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resoluton resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Smiley, Alanskas, Morrow, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Shane, Wilshaw
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resoluton
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 928" Regular
Meeting held on July 11, 2006, was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman