The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-01-1216574 MINUTES OF THE 777th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 12, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 777th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Elaine Koons Members absent Dan Piercecchi None Michael Hale William LaPine Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing, makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat 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 is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Mr. McCann: We will begin with the Pending Items of our agenda. These items have been previously discussed. There will only be limited discussion tonight unless there is unanimous consent of the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for Camborne Stark School Subdivision located on the southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. McCann: Is there anything new on this John? Mr. Nagy: No, as we learned at the Study Meeting all the financial obligations have been posted by the proprietor of the subdivision and we have a letter from the Engineering Division recommending approval of the plat. 16575 On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #1-01-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat Approval for Camborne Stark School Subdivision located on the southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 33 for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the Preliminary Plat; 2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the Final Plat; and 3) That all financial assurances required by the City have been deposited with the City Clerk. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Withdrawal Letter from Leo Soave of the Preliminary Plat for Merriman Forest Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile Road, in the N .W. 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. McCann: John, do we want to do a No Further Action or just accept and file the letter? Mr. Nagy: Both. Acknowledge receipt of the letter and approve the withdrawal; and take no further action. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to do that? On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #1-02-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 5, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat Approval for Merriman Forest Subdivision, and pursuant to a request dated December 15, 1998 from Leo Soave, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of the Merriman Forest Subdivision Preliminary Plat proposed to be located on the east side of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 11. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, there will be no further action on this matter. The motion passes. 16576 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Saiyed Qaderi requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 17352 Cross Winds Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #1-03-99 RESOLVED that, Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Saiyed Qaderi requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 17352 Cross Winds Road in the Southwest'/4 of Section 11 be taken from the table. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion. Hearing none, the motion passes. Mr. Miller: I wanted to point out that this tem was tabled at the November 24, 1998 Regular Meeting so that the petitioner could see if this satellite dish could be moved to an alternate location and be less obtrusive to the front of the building. The petitioner has moved the dish to the rear of the house, the N.W. corner of the house and it sets back about 30' from the original position. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners on this matter? Mr. Hale: Is the petitioner here? I do have one question. Saiyed Qaderi, 17352 Cross Winds Road. Mr. Hale: Mr. Qaderi, it has been some time since you were here previously. Could you refresh our recollection. What are the reasons you need this type of satellite dish? Mr. Qaderi: We get a religious program being disseminated from London and it is used mainly for educational purposes for our children and myself. Mr. Hale: You are not able to get this through one of the smaller dishes, is that correct? Mr. Qaderi: Right. Mr. Hale: All right. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that I appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Moving it basically from the front of the house to the rear of the house. I will offer a motion to approve. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was 16577 #1-04-99 RESOLVED that, Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Saiyed Qaderi requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 17352 Cross Winds Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the request to retain the satellite dish antenna at its existing location is hereby approved. 2) That the Site and Specification Plan submitted by Saiyed B. Qaderi, received by the Planning Commission on January 5, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That a Landscape Plan, showing the screening of the dish, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for their review and approval within 30 days of this approval. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine, Koons, Hale, McCann NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the minutes of the 775`h Regular Meeting held November 24, 1998. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #1-05-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 775`h Regular Meeting held on November 24, 1998 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: We will now go to the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our meeting. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 99-1-8-1 by Frank and Rosalie Tiscerics requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct the Rambling Acres Site Condominiums on property located at 9655 Farmington Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Miller: The location for this proposal is on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth and Hathaway. The zoning is RUF, Rural Urban Farm. The petitioner is requesting 16578 approval to develop a site condominium development on Lots 119 through 122 of the supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 2. The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development would consist of our (4) condominium lots. Three of the lots would front off Farmington Road and the remaining one lot would front off Richland Avenue. According to the submitted documentation, the new development would be called "Rambling Acres Condominium". Each condominium lot conforms to all requirements of an RUF zoning district. A note on the Site Plan states "no sidewalks are to be installed". A copy of the Master Deed and bylaws for this new development has been submitted for review by the City. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: A letter dated January 4, 1999 and signed by Dave Woodcox reads: "Pursuant to your request of December 22, 1998, the site plan for the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The proposed building sites are conforming in lot width and area. I trust this provides the requested information. " A letter dated January 14, 1999 and signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal reads: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium development on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal. Hydrant location to be consistent with City ordinances. Minimum water supply shall be 1,500 gallons per minute. " and a letter dated January 5, 1999 by John Hill, Assistant City Engineer states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The following legal description should be used in connection therewith: That part of the N. E.1 /4 of Section 33 described as Lots 119 to 122, except the West 228.75 feet of Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 2 of the South 5/8 of the Northeast'/ and the East Y2 of the North 3/8 of the N. E. '/ of Section 33, T. IS., R. 9E, Livonia Township (now City of Livonia), Wayne County, Michigan as recorded in Liber 66, Page 1 of Wayne County Records. The Engineering Division notes the following deficiencies with regard to compliance of City Ordinances: (1) The site plan shows no sidewalks to be installed with the development. (2) The site plan does not address the lack of curb and gutter along Farmington Road. (3) There is no backyard drainage for Units 1, 2 and 3, with no available outlet for backyard drainage for Unit I in the site plan's current configuration. The Engineering Division would have no objection to the Council waiving any of the above deficiencies with the exception of the no availability of drainage outlet for Unit L This deficiency could be eliminated by creating a short 12' wide easement across Unit 4 to Unit I as shown in red on the attached site plan. This will allow for legal surface drainage from the backyard of Unit I to the storm structure on Unit 4 and possible extension of storm pipe from Unit 4 to Unit I should it become necessary. Should the Council decide to waive any or all of the other deficiencies, the Engineering Division respectfully requests that the waivers be spelled out in the approving Council Resolution. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." That is the extent of the correspondence. 16579 Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is the petitioner here? Scott Schamacher. I am a representative of the petitioner, Greg Ash Surveying. We are representing the Tiscerics in this matter. Mr. Ash isn't here yet and he did want to speak with you. Could you possibly hold off on this? Mr. McCann: Are there any objections from the Commissioners? Hearing none, we will put this off to the end of the agenda this evening. We will recall this as the last item. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-8-2 by Stephen Gottlieb, on behalf of Days Inn, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the hotel located at 36655 Plymouth Road in the N.W. '/4 of Section 32. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Ann Arbor Road and Raleigh Avenue. It is zoned C-4, High Rise Commercial. Presently the front, or north elevation is a plain brick wall with a flat roofed porte-cochere over the entrance. The petitioner is proposing to cover the bump out of the front wall with dryvit to form a decorative column up. The front portion of the roof of the porte-cochere would be trimmed with a dryvit half circle. Dryvit end caps would also be added to dress up the corners of the front wall. The west wall, which faces the parking lot would have dryvit bands added along the lines of the existing air conditioning units on each floor. The rest of the wall, above the brick would be painted. A decorative dryvit baffle, to match and tie in with the new look of the front of the hotel, would be added outside the existing side entrance. On the east elevation, facing the adjacent roller skating rink, the dryvit bands along the line of each floor air conditioning units would only be installed 35 feet back from the front of the hotel. The remaining portion of this wall, above the brick, would be painted. The entire rear elevation of the hotel would be painted only. Mr. McCann: John is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated January 5, 1999 which reads: "Pursuant to your request of December 22, 1998, the plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. There are no apparent deficiencies." The letter is signed by David Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Steven Gottlieb, 30776 Woodward, Royal Oak, Michigan. As Mr. Miller stated, we are trying to re -do the front of our property. To update it to the 1990's. It was probably done in 1970 and probably hasn't had anything done to it since that time. Unfortunately, my decorator was suppose to be here with a full blown up model but he hasn't shown up yet. Probably stuck in traffic. So I will try and do the best that I can. This is the color rendering that we would like to change the outside to. The dryvit material and the bands in the red, orange and yellow and redoing the front into dryvit with the square coins. The Day's Inn replica sign that is a national sign. 16580 Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any area in your dryvit where it goes down to ground level where it could be damaged by people carrying suitcases? Mr. Gottlieb: No Sir. There should be no area where it comes to the ground. At the side of the building the existing brick that is here will remain. So that is our side entrance. Mr. Piercecchi: But you have dryvit around the opening, correct? Mr. Gottlieb: This will be the dryvit around this point here and there will be a side entrance that comes in here and there will be a glass door here. Mr. Piercecchi: So there won't be any area that can be hit or damaged? Mr. Gottlieb: No sir. Then we have the glass doors and the dryvit points would be on this area here and to the immediate left here. Mr. Piercecchi: And that is the only two ways to get into that structure? That is the area there that is facing east? Mr. Gottlieb: This section is facing west. Mr. Piercecchi: That section facing east, you stopped that about 35 feet. Mr. Gottlieb: Yes we did. We stopped at that point for economics for the cost of doing this project was more than I could afford. Coming off Plymouth Road and since we sit so far back you couldn't see that part of the building. That area is more toward the alley. More towards the garbage cans. That is what is in the back. There is parking there but our customers won't use that area. Mr. Piercecchi: Have you considered breaking up the flatness of that area. For instance, if you made the dryvit thicker at least over and under the a.c. units, like over at Laurel Park. Mr. Gottlieb: These bands here are above and below the air conditioning units. So it really recessed the air conditioning sleeves back in there and hides the air conditioning sleeves. Mr. Piercecchi: And you think that breaks up some of the flatness? Mr. Gottlieb: Unfortunately, I wish I had the model here. It shows even more on the model, that it looked like it did recess the units. 16581 Mr. Piercecchi: That was my main concern. The people walking along banging their luggage and the dryvit is soft, as you know, and anyway we could get rid of some of that flatness and number (3) I would hope that perhaps you could do the whole wall. Mr. Gottlieb: If I could find a contractor to reduce his price..... Mr. Piercecchi: Approximately 43 feet? Isn't that right? Mr. Gottlieb: I think that is correct. Again, my designer has all the measurements. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, there are going to be three different colors in the bands? Mr. Gottlieb: Yes. There are three different floors. The bottom band will be red, then the orange where the air conditioning units are. We will use the bands to help disguise the air conditioning units. Mr. Alanskas: How wide are the bands going to be? Mr. Gottlieb: My best guess is about 2-1/2 feet wide. Mr. Alanskas: You are going to paint the building? Mr. Gottlieb: Very similar to the color you have here now. A tan or cream. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Koons: The three colors, the red, orange and gold, is the yellow or gold color matching the color of your sun in your logo or is that a fourth color? Mr. Gottlieb: No, it's to match the sun. It's to tie it together. Mrs. Koons. O.K. Thank you. Mr. Hale: The colors are also my question. Are there any other Day's Inns that have similar triple color type themes? Mr.Gottlieb: As a matter of fact there is. In the directory, I don't have my directory with me, but there is one in the directory that we actually pulled this design from. Mr. Hale: You are of the opinion that these three band colors will tie in with the other colors of the building? In this respect it is hard to envision it. Mr. Gottlieb: I paid a professional to tell me what was current and what would be the design standard and he came up with this color scheme. In presenting it to others, it seems everyone we have shown it to, has liked it. 16582 Mr. Hale: The model that you don't have here, does that depict that in any other way? Mr. Gottlieb: As far as the color scheme? Mr. Hale: Right. Mr. Gottlieb: Well, it does pick up. It hides the air conditioning units in between the dryvit. You are going to have a layer of dryvit on top then a color scheme on top then another layer of dryvit. So it gets set back in there a little bit. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding from your presentation, you are only renovating the west side and the front? Mr. Gottlieb: The east side will have approximately 35 feet done from the front corner going south. The rear side has nothing being done except matching the paint, the white matching. And the full west side will get done and the front will get done. Mr. LaPine: On the east side, the 35 feet you go back, are there air conditioning units there too? Mr. Gottlieb: Yes Sir. Mr. LaPine: Isn't that going to look kind of weird where you have the bands go around 35' then the rest of the way they stop? Mr. Gottlieb: Well no actually the bands are going to be painted through the balance of the building they just aren't going to have the dryvit all the way back. Mr. LaPine: So the bands are going to go all along the east side as well as the west side? Mr. Gottlieb: Correct. It is just the dryvit material above and below the air conditioning units. Mr. LaPine: Are any of these bands on the front of the building? M r. Gottlieb: No. Just like a black indentation in between the squares. Mr. LaPine: Is that window going to be there? Mr. Gottlieb: No. Just the glass doors. Mr. LaPine: I mean up above there? Mr. Gottlieb: No. No windows at all. Mr. LaPine: I'm not an architect, but I don't really like the three different colors there. I think we 16583 could pick either one color or two and I understand the Day's Inn has the colors of the sun and they are trying to pick up the colors from that. I understand this motel has been there for many many years and it needs some updating to be competitive with all the new places that have come in along the I-275 corridor. I think I can go along with it because I think we need the upgrading here. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition. Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, supported by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #1-06-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on January 12, 1999 by the City Planning Commission Petition 98-1-8-2 by Stephen Gottlieb, on behalf of Days Inn, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the hotel located at 36655 Plymouth in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 32 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Drawing No. 1, as received by the Planning Commission on November 17, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the dryvit bands above and below each floor's air conditioning units shall be installed the entire length of the east elevation. 2) That any new brick used in the refurbishing of the building shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions. Mr. Alanskas: That is full face 4 -inch brick. Mr. Gottlieb: We only have new bricking coming in on our pillars. In the very front will be the only new bricking we have and they have that to match. Mr. Alanskas: It will be brick and no concrete blocks? Mr. Gottlieb: No, it is a brick. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. That's it. Mr. LaPine: Are you saying here that on the east side you are going back 35' and on the rest of the building they are going to be painted? Mr. Gottlieb: The east side of the building will look exactly like the west side. They will be identical except for this point here where the dryvit material and the thickness here Paround the air conditioners. The bands will continue on. Mr. LaPine: Then the bands on the west side, are they painted too? 16584 Mr. Gottlieb: They will be painted on. Mr. LaPine: Then I misunderstood I thought they were going to be dryvit but they are not, they are going to be painted. Mr. Gottlieb: I don't know if we can do paint into dryvit. Mr. Piercecchi: This motion then accepts the 35' on the one side? Mr. Alanskas: No it does not. Mr. Piercecchi: No? Mr. Alanskas: The band he is referring to is going to be a painted band and then from a point 35 feet from the front of the building only a painted band is proposed, no dryvit. He is going with a 35' painted band with the dryvit on the top and bottom then from that point on it will just be a painted band. Mr. Piercecchi: But the question I was asking, the dryvit has been excluded for the 108 feet? Mr. Alanskas: No. On the east side it is going for the whole length of the was as a condition of this approval. Mr. Piercecchi: This gentleman doesn't want that? Mr. McCann: No. That is why this is an added condition. Mr. Piercecchi: The motion talks about dryvit bands and we're talking about the panels too? O.K. I understand. Mr. McCann, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-8-3 by Doug Spohn, on behalf of Wendy's requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the rezoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition and refurbish the restaurant located at 31150 Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue. The zoning is C-2, General Business. The petitioner is proposing to construct a small addition and renovate the vacant building that was at one time a Hardee's Restaurant. The site would be transformed into a Wendy's Restaurant. This building is located in front of the Merri-Five Shopping Center. The new addition would be 154 sq. ft. in area and 16585 constructed on the west elevation. This addition would allow the modernization of the drive-thru windows. Also a new 12 ft. X 15 ft. cooler would be added to the rear of the restaurant. Because the existing building is nonconforming, due to the fact that it is deficient in front yard setback, the petitioner first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. A variance (case #9811-159) was granted at the Board's November 24, 1998, Special Meeting. A note on the Site Plan states improvements to the existing parking lot would be "asphalt to be sealed and restriped to match existing parking configuration". As noted on the plan, the number of seats for the new Wendy's Restaurant would remain the same as the restaurant before it, which was 72 seats. Because the seating does not change the number of parking spaces required, it remains the same. The parking required is 44 spaces and the parking provided is 44 spaces. The petitioner indicates that the site plan notes and shows 12 off-site parking spaces. Wendy's, as did Hardee's before it, has an agreement with the Merri-Five Shopping Center to share parking. The amount of landscaping will stay the same as it was for the former restaurant. The submitted Landscape Plan shows that the existing landscape areas would be cleaned up and in some places replanted. The landscaping required is not less than 15% of the total area of the site. The existing landscaping is less than I% of the site. The Elevation Plan shows that the new restaurant would look like a typical Wendy's Restaurant. The Wendy's "series II" fascia system would run along the entire top of the building. The building materials of the new addition would match that of the existing building. The trim of the former restaurant is to be removed and the entire building is to be repaired and repainted. The petitioner is also requesting approval for a conforming sign package. The signage includes a wall sign for the front elevation of the restaurant and a ground sign located in the landscaped area between the two drives off Five Mile Road. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is I wall sign not to exceed 40 sq. ft. in sign area. One ground sign not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area and not to exceed 6 feet in height. The Proposed signage is one wall sign 38 sq. ft. in sign area, one ground sign 30 sq. ft. in sign area and 6 ft in height. Mr. McCann: John is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated January 7, 1999 signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector which reads: "Pursuant to your request of December 28, 1998, the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed and the following was noted. (1) That the proposed ground sign is conforming for sign area, height and structure length. The proposed setback at I foot .± is deficient where a minimum of 10 feet would be required and would require a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for sign location. (2) The required on site parking space count is 44 spaces; the proposed on-site parking space count is 32 and is deficient by 12 spaces and would require a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The existing parking area is currently snow covered. The asphalt parking surface may need to be resurfaced, sealed and double striped. (4) The proposed menu board is at 43 sq. ft in area and is in excess of sign area where a maximum of 30 sq. ft would be allowed and would require a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for sign area. (S) The (2) directional signs are shown to be in excess of height at 4 ft. each. Allowed is 3,feet and each sign is 1 foot in excess height and 16586 would require a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for sign height. I trust this has provided the requested information. A letter dated January 6, 1999 signed by John B. Gibbs, Traffic Bureau states: "In response to the captioned petition, and Preliminary Plat, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. There is a letter dated December 30, 1998 and signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal which states: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition and refurbish the restaurant on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal. " There is a letter dated January 5, 1999 which states: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description provided with the site plan is unacceptable to this department due to two inaccuracies only one of which this office can rectify: Part of Outlot A ", in Merri-5 Mile Subdivision which is part of the S. W. % of Section 14, T. IS., R. 9E, in the City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, (Recorded in Liber 81, Pages 30 and 31) more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of Outlot A'; thence North 89 °50'30" East a distance of 350.00 to a point; thence along the South line of Outlot A', North 89 °50'30" a distance of 130 feet to a point; thence North 0'90'30 " West a distance of 182.00 feet to a point; thence South 89'50'30' West a distance of 130 feet to a point; thence South 00'9'30 " East a distance of 182.00 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel containing 0.543 acres more or less, subject to legal highways. (1) The noted section in boldface is unacceptable due to the indeterminate nature of the starting point. Please have Thomas DuBose & Associates clarify this section. Furthermore, the tax description record on file shows an initial distance form the S. W. corner of Outlot `A' to be 305_feet not 350 feet as described. (2) We have corrected the closing course to read "Thence South 0909'30 " East a distance of 182.00 feet to the point of beginning to provide a proper closure. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions. The letter is signed by John Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That this the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the Petitioner here? Doug Spohn, 38654 Alma Lane, Westland. Mr. McCann: Tell us about your project. Mr. Spohn: I think it's going to be a great project. I have a few concerns that I didn't hear of earlier. It is the closed Hardee's. It has been closed for over two years. So we really just want to go inside and gut it. I want to turn it into a Wendy's. I have two other sites here in Livonia and I have one in the Westland area. I've been with Wendy's for eighteen years. I have been a franchisee for eight years. I think we can do a real nice job on that site. 16587 Mr. McCann: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: How about the problem with the resurfacing seal and double striping? You don't know what is there because of the snow. Could we put that in our motion to make sure that is done. Mrs. Koons: It is in the motion. Mr. Spohn: I also plan on doing that just so you know. It is cracked. If I re -sealed it, you would still be able to see the cracks. We are going to put on another layer of asphalt and re -stripe it. Mr. LaPine: Have you purchased the parcel? Mr. Spohn: Yes. I already have a contract signed here with me this evening. With the same people who did the Hardee's. Mr. Piercecchi: John, the first reading we had on this site showed that the parking provided was 44 spaces why all the way down to 32 now. What happened? Mr. Nagy: In the staff report and as Mr. Miller presented this evening there are 32 spaces owned by the applicant but they also have the right to rely on the leased space which is shared with the abutting shopping center to make up the difference. Mr. Piercecchi: So if they get that lease they won't have to go through the Zoning Board? I just wondered why the drop from 44 to 32 that was mentioned. John when looking at the landscaping, it showed it at I% and it seems to me tonight that there is some additional. What kind of numbers do we have now? Mrs. Koons: 9% Mr. Alanskas: It went from 1% to 9% Mr. Piercecchi: Would you have a problem with increasing the landscaping in that area. Mr. Spohn: We talked a lot with Scott to see if there was something we could do. There were some nonparking areas that were striped off. So we are going to go in there and take out that asphalt and put that line and re -vent those and replant. As our plans show now. Mr. Piercecchi: That is from 1% to 9%? Mr. Spohn: Right. 16588 Mr. Piercecchi: Some areas are difficult to landscape. Mr. Spohn: There are the three corners on the north/south. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, could you possibly put some type of flower boxes on the building itself? On the walls of the building? Because 9% is nothing. That is a big area and you see Wendy's and you don't see any greenery. Mr. Spohn: Other than what is inside. If you have been in Wendy's there is some inside. Mr. Alanskas: No, not inside. You've got three walls. Especially on the east and west side. We need more landscaping. If you could put in some long flower boxes or flowers on the wall itself and plant some annuals. You are required to have 15% and you only have 9%. That is nothing. Mr. Spohn: We could take a look at that. I've not seen it on a Wendy's before but it might not be a bad option. Mr. Alanskas: I wouldn't think it would be that difficult and you understand that this has to be irrigated as far as the ones on the ground. Mr. Spohn: I agree. Mrs. Koons: I have a question for Scott and then for Mr. Spohn. Scott, on the landscape plan, are there any trees in it or is it all low growing? Mr. Miller: There are some ornamental trees they show a cut out here and evergreen trees here. There is at least one in this area, one here and at least two over here. Mrs. Koons: If you lost one parking spot and leased another parking spot, have you thought about that option? You could use it for more landscaping and lease one more space. Would that be possible? Since you are deficient in parking spaces anyway. Mr. Spohn: I'm sure we could. It's not something that we looked at and I would have to determine what side we would want it on but basically with the 12 spots outside the property that is nice because we could get off site. Our workers could get off site. Mrs. Koons: Scott, how much would that bump up the percentage if they gave up one parking spot? Mr. Miller: If you're talking one, because the site is so large, it's not going to make that much difference. When you are down that low, it's not going to bump it up that much. Mrs. Koons: It's not going to make that much difference? 16589 Mr. Miller: They do show landscaping off site of the shopping center, so there is some around it. Mrs. Koons: Whose landscaping is it? Mr. Miller: Merri-Five Shopping Center. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Mr. Alanskas: I have one. What are your hours going to be there? Mr. Spohn: We will open at 10:00 A.M. In the winter we will shut down at 10:00 P.M. The drive through and the dining room will be open seven days a week. In the summer we will extend the drive thru until 11:00 P.M. perhaps 12:00 depending upon the volume. Mr. LaPine: Just one question. In relation to the people who come in to sit down, what is the relation to the drive-thru? Mr. Spohn: 58%. I have one store that is as much as 62%. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Any more questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. Mr. LaPine: I will make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see Wendy's come in there. That property has been standing there vacant for over two years and Wendy's takes pretty good care of their properties. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #1-07-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on January 12, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-1-8-3 by Doug Spohn, on behalf of Wendy's, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition and refurbish the restaurant located at 31150 Five Mile Road in the S.W.1/4 of Section 14 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet G-1 prepared by DuBose & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on January 8, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 16590 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet G-2 prepared by DuBose & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on January 8, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new and existing 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 entire parking lot shall be repaired, repaved and double striped 6) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared by DuBose & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on December 28, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7) That the Ground Sign, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, and the Wall Sign, as shown on the approved Exterior Building Elevation Plan, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the ground sign shall setback a minimum of 10 feet from the Five Mile Road right-of- way line; 8) That all signage for this restaurant shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after closing; 9) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated January 7, 1999. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, the motion passes. Mr. McCann, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Metro Detroit Signs, on behalf of Residence Inn, requesting approval for additional signage for the hotel located at 17250 Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Fox Drive and I-275/96. The zoning is C-4, High Rise Commercial. On August 24, 1998, the City approved a wall and ground sign for this hotel. On September 29, 1998, the Planning Commission approved an additional wall sign for the rear elevation of the hotel. The applicant has requested that the additional wall sign not be presented to the City Council until tonight's proposal catches up. As a condition of the original sign approval and the additional sign approved by the Planning Commission it was specified: "That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning 16591 Commission and City Council for their review and approval." Residence Inn is now requesting approval for an additional ground sign and a pylon sign. The applicant has retained easements for both off site signs. Because the proposed ground sign is excess in height and the pylon sign is excess in height, sign area and number of signs allowed, the applicant first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. A variance (case #9809-177) was granted at the Board's October 27, 1998 Special Meeting and a variance (case #9812-164) was granted at the Board's December 8, 1998 Regular Meeting. The new ground sign, which would identify all three new hotels, would be located on the west side of Fox Drive near Six Mile Road. The large pylon would be located in the northeast corner of the Towne Place Suites property. This sign would only identify the Fairfield Inn and Residence Inn. Mr. McCann: John, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: A letter dated January 5, 1999 signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector states: "Pursuant to your request of December 22, 1998, the sign package for Residence Inn has been reviewed. The plyon sign and the ground sign, as presented, is in conformance with Appeal Cases 9809-117 and9812-164 for sign area, height and color rendering. I trust this provides the requested information. " That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Sir please state you name and address for the record and tell us about your proposal. Mr. Maurice Taitt, Marriott International, 5151 Beltline Road, Suite 347, Dallas, TX 75240.We have three Marriott hotels that are proposed. One is open, one is under construction and one is future. Marriott International built the Residence Inn, a franchisee is building the Fairfield Inn and another franchisee at some point will build the Town Place Suites. Our primary concern with the sign is that they will be visible so the guests can find the hotels relatively easily. A word on how we arrived at the height of the pylon sign. When we originally did this, we thought we would do this at 30 feet and then we did what are called balloon tests. Our sign company, Metro Signs, did back in the fall and we discovered that our sign wouldn't be seen at 30 feet or even 40 feet. J. D. Properties, who owns Fairfield Inn, which is under construction, also did their own balloon tests and between those two tests arrived at a conclusion that we needed a sign at 60 feet, in order for both signs, the Residence Inn and the Fairfield Inn, to be visible. We thought this was in conformance with existing signs in the area. There is a Holiday Inn Hotel located at the north east intersection of 6 Mile and 1-275. And that sign, we had that measured, is 67 feet and the Best Western located at the southeast corner. We had that sign measured and that sign is 65 feet. You will note that there is no request for a pylon sign for our Town Place Suites. Town Place Suites is our extended stay and signage is very limited in that project. We have a Town Place Suites going up in Novi and the only sign we have for that is a monument sign. There are no plans to come back to the Planning Commission to request a pylon sign for the Town Place Suites once it gets built. The rational for the ground sign located at Fox Drive and Six Mile is that these 16592 three hotels only access from Fox Drive. And Fox Drive is a relatively narrow drive and we thought we would kill three birds with one stone by making an application for a joint sign to cover all three hotels. Initially the plates for the Residence Inn and Fairfield Inn would be erected when the signs are approved and then when the Town Place Suites gets developed there will be a place to put up it's own plate. We asked and received the variance in excess height because we felt the signs needed to be that high so our guests could easily read them as they are approaching Fox Drive and we felt since we were killing three birds with one stone, having the one sign serving all three hotels, that's how we ended up with the height. We asked and received an easement from Comerica to erect that sign at Fox and Six Mile. I have with me today representatives from J. P. Properties who are developing the Fairfield Inn and I also have the area manager of the Marriott Hotels in the Livonia and Novi area in case the Commission has questions they would like to ask of either of them. Mr. McCann: Where did you get your information for the Best Western. Our notes say that it is a 50' sign. You are saying it is 65'? Mr. Taitt: The measurements that my sign contractor gave me, unless I got them mixed up, his notes say 65' for the Best Western and the Holiday Inn at 57'. Mr. McCann: We have a sign permit allowed of 50' for that sign for that location, that's why I am concerned. We'll have that checked. Mr. Taitt: Actually the Zoning Board's measurements were slightly different. Mr. Alanskas: When people call these hotels and make reservations, wouldn't you say the biggest percentage are already called in and premade and made for people coming to your facilities. People don't just drive down the road and say "there's a hotel" and stop there. That's a very small percentage, isn't it? Mr. Taitt: For the Residence Inn, for most people I would imagine would make reservations but the Fairfield Inn is more transient sensitive that is why their sign is on top of the Residence Inn. Because of the three signs, the Fairfield Inn, based on our experience, most needs the signage. Mr. Alanskas: But most of your hotels, when you go to your hotel you already have reservations and then when you do go don't you ask for directions? How to get there, where your hotel is at so why would you need this type of sign? Mr. Taitt: When you are trying to find a hotel at mid -night, sometimes you get directions and sometimes the directions are not always correct either. It really helps to have these signs visible. Mr. Alanskas: This is a hypothetical question. If there are 1,000 hotels, what percentage of these 16593 hotels, have pylon signs? Very few, isn't it? Mr. Taitt: It depends on your location. Mr. Alanskas: Naturally. So with your pylon sign are you trying to get traffic shown from the freeway basically? Mr. Taitt: We're trying to if somebody is coming north on I-275, which is where we expect most of our guests will be coming from, we are trying to get them to see the sign and know that they can take that exit. Mr. Alanskas: So you are referring to traffic from the expressway, not at Fox Drive. Mr. Taitt: No, the Fox Drive sign is intended to inform the people to make the turn at Fox Drive. Mr. Alanskas: I am not concerned with that sign I am concerned with the pylon sign. Mr. Taitt: Yes, that is directed to the people on the freeway. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: I have a comment on your ground sign. I can't strongly disapprove of it since is it two feet over the height of our specifications since it does meet the 30 square foot area however I do believe we can eliminate these two feet by just combining these three signs. There are three signs there, right? Mr. Taitt: There are three. Each hotel is treated as a separate branch, the Fairfield Inn, the Residence Inn and the Town Place Suites. Mr. Piercecchi: I realize that Mr. Taitt: I got the same question asked by the ZBA. In fact they asked why can't we change the shape of the sign. Even though the shapes that are on there, are the brand shapes. Mr. Piercecchi: But there are a lot of office buildings that list 15 different businesses on one sign. I think that is a very weak argument. I can't get too excited about you being two feet over the height but I do believe that you could meet that 8 foot height simply by combining the three of them and I don't think it would take anything away from any of the signs. But like I say, I can't get too excited about you being two feet over in height. Mr. LaPine: The sign you want to put on Fox Drive, I have no problem with but I do have a real 16594 problem with a 60' sign along the expressway. You bring up about the Holiday Inn and the one across the street, I don't know how they got those signs. I was on the Zoning Board of Appeals a long time but I know that we never allowed a sign over 35' because that was what our ordinance called for and how they got those signs I don't know. How the Zoning Board could have approved this sign is beyond me because I really feel that I don't want to get into a Las Vegas type of deal. If we allow these signs, I can just see anything along 275 corridor, everybody will want a large sign. I want to be seen too. When Embassy Suites came in they originally wanted a big pylon sign. We said no you can be seen from the expressway. I grant you, you are kind of back in off of Six Mile but I don't think there is any real justification to allow a sign that large. I am just afraid of what is going to happen. I think we will just open up a Pandora's box here. There are parcels along there that are empty they are going to say Fairfield and Residence Inn have a sign that is 60' high, we want one that is 65' and the next one will say they want one higher at 70'. So all we are doing is allowing something to happen here that we are going to be sorry for. This sign here, I have no objection to, this one here I have a big problem with. Mr. McCann: Any further questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Pirececchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #1-08-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on January 12, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Sign Permit Application by Metro Detroit Signs, on behalf of Residence Inn, requesting approval for additional signage for the hotel located at 17250 Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7 be approved in part subject to the following conditions: 1� That the Sign Package submitted by Metro Detroit Signs, as received by the Planning Commission on December 22, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the large pylon sign shall not be permitted; 2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. Mr. McCann: Any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, pylon signs are not in the best interest of Livonia's image. Fortunately, at this stage of our development there are only a few, the petitioner mentioned two of the many hotels and businesses that are in Livonia. Speaking for myself alone, I would hope that our Council and Mayor would consider removing pylon signs from our Ordinance altogether. I request this before we look like a Vegas strip and hotel strip as we know some communities have the horror of having to look at. We are an upscale community and these 16595 signs I fine are unnecessary, redundant and a plight on our excellent city. Thank you. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a partial approval. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Collins Signs, on behalf of AmeriSuites, requesting approval for additional signage for the hotel located at 19300 Haggerty Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Haggerty between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads, part of the Pentagon Entertainment Campus. The zoning is C-2, General Business. On November 18, 1998 the City approved wall signage for this hotel. As a condition of that approval it was specified: "That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. " AmeriSuites is now requesting approval for a ground sign. The campus itself was approved for three (3) large ground signs, one of which identifies the hotel. The overall site was also allowed six (6) directional signs, one of which identifies where the hotel is located. The new ground sign would be located on the south side of the drive in front of the hotel. Mr. McCann: John, is there anything additional? Mr. Nagy: No. There is no additional correspondence on this one. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Sir please state your name and address and tell us the reason for your sign. Barry Hardy, 4255 Napier Field Road, Dothan, Alabama. What we need the sign for is not for advertising, it is for directional for the convenience of our customers. If I'm not mistaken it is within your sign regulations. It meets your criteria. Mr. McCann: It is a nonconforming sign. Mr. Hardy: I am speaking of the square footage of the sign. McCann: You have three wall signs, and one wall sign, correct? Mr. Hardy: Yes Mr. McCann: You are allowed one wall sign and one ground sign. You are in excess of one sign already. This would be a fourth sign. It is nonconforming. Mr. Hardy: Right. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? 16596 Mr. LaPine: You are going to have to give me a better argument than the one you just gave. When people drive off of Seven Mile Road into this complex and you have three wall signs, why do they need another a sign. It is the only building in there that could be a hotel. Why would you need another sign in there saying AmeriSuites? Mr. Hardy: It is just for convenience. Mr. LaPine: I can see what you are saying if there were two or three hotels in there but you are the only hotel in there. As they drive in, there is a movie theater and two restaurants, yours is the only hotel. Are you open yet? Mr. Hardy: I don't know, I'm a stand in. Mr. LaPine: I think you are a little premature. I think if you come back after you are open and tell me that you are getting complaints from our clientele saying they had trouble finding the hotel. But I don't think you are going to have an argument. You haven't been operational long enough to show me any statistics that people are having trouble finding your hotel. Mr. Hardy: It was just for a matter of convenience. Mr. LaPine: I understand and you have the right to make the application. But right now we don't know if people are having a hard time finding your hotel. Mr. Alanskas: I have seen your hotel quite a few times and I think your sign is more than adequate. You have a sign there right now as you approach the hotel and you have the three wall signs. You would have to be blind not to see the hotel. Mr. McCann: Sir, who decided 30 square feet? That is the size we have on our main roads to show what businesses are there. Normally our directional signs are usually four or five sq. ft. with a little arrow showing where to turn in. They are driving 15 mph on a one way road and there is only one entrance to turn in there. I have a hard time comprehending you need 30 sq. ft. Mr. Hardy: It's from a family of standard signage. A lot of it is in our experience we need this and as far as the height, is based on our ability to get the full 14" letters, which to us is what is needed, to be readable. Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions? Anybody in the audience wishing to speak on this item? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was 16597 #1-09-99 RESOLVED that, Sign Permit Application by Collins Signs, on behalf of AmeriSuites, requesting approval for additional signage for the hotel located at 19300 Haggerty Road in the S.W. '/4 of Section 6 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That the applicant has failed to justify the need for any excessive signage for this location over what is permitted by the sign ordinance; 3) That this ground sign is not needed, in addition with the previously approved wall signs, in identifying the location of this hotel; 4) That approving this sign request would set an undesirable precedent for the area; 5) Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best interest. Mr. McCann: Any Discussion? Hearing none, the motion passes. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Sir you have 10 days in which to appeal this petition to the Livonia City Council. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision to Petition 97-8-8-21 which received site plan approval to construct a gas station/convenience store on property located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the N.E.1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller: The property is located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads, The zoning is C-2, General Business. On November 5, 1997, the City approved the construction of a gas station on the subject site. As part of the approval, it was conditioned: "That there shall be no dumpster located outside of the building, and all trash must be contained within the building except on the day trash is scheduled for removal." The petitioner is now requesting approval to construct a trash dumpster enclosure on the site. The petitioner has explained that he has recently purchased this gas station from the person who originally went through site plan approval. He feels that the site would be better served by a trash dumpster. A revised Site Plan has been submitted showing an enclosed dumpster are abutting the northwest corner of the new station. A note on the plan states that the enclosure would be constructed out of 4- inch brick to match building materials and accessible by either chainlink or wooden entrance fences. A portion of the gas pump island canopy extends over the proposed enclosure area. Mr. McCann: Tell us about your proposal. Mustapha Hannawi, Architectural Design Construction, 13530 Michigan Ave., Suite 210, 16598 Dearborn. There is a building under construction now, it is about 1970 sq. ft. and this building is going to open 7 days a week for 24 hours and this will result in a lot of garbage and frankly there is no room inside to put all this garbage. We would like to keep it clean and have an enclosed dumpster. This dumpster will be the same material as the building so it will look like it is part of the building It will be 10'X IO'X6'high. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. LaPine: You don't change oil, you don't do any repairs, this is a convenience store, is that correct? Mr. Hannawi: Correct. Mr. LaPine: You say you will create a lot of garbage. You sell bread, you sell milk, you sell pop, you sell candy, what kind of garbage? Where is the garbage coming from? Mr. Hannawi: We will have a deli too. Mr. LaPine: But they aren't going to eat the deli in the store are they? Mr. Hannawi: No. Mr. LaPine: I don't undertstand what is generating all the garbage that you can't have an inside compactor that can handle your trash. Mr. Hannawi: There are a lot of boxes and cans. Mr. LaPine: Cans you would have whether you had an inside storage or outdoor storage. If the pop is used there the cans will be picked up with the next delivery of pop and the boxes you would flatten out for the trash people. You are not proving to me that there will be that much trash. Mr. Hannawi: I have been there a long time and at the end of the day you see a lot of trash accumulate and at the end of seven days you see a lot of trash. Mr. LaPine: You may be right, but from my perspective I just don't see where it is. If they buy a candy bar, they are leaving with the candy bar. If they are buying a deli, they are leaving with the deli. I just don't see where all the garbage is coming from. Mr. Hannawi: From the empty boxes. Mr. McCann: We approved the site plan based on the fact that there would be no dumpster based on the size of the building. Would you be willing to reduce the size of the building by 500' feet so we could put the dumpster over at the southeast corner of the 16599 building? Reduce the size of the building, would that be preferable to you since this is an important issue. Mr. Hannawi: The building is already there. We build the building already. Mr. McCann: But the building was built on the fact that there wouldn't be a dumpster there, correct? Mr. Hannawi: The Planning Commission approved the dumpster but the City Council objected. We need to keep this building clean and we can't do that without a dumpster. We are putting everything inside this building. We would like to see the dumpster so we won't see garbage bags outside. Just to make it cleaner. Mr. LaPine: If we deny your petition, don't get the impression that you can stick it in bags and stick it outside. You will have to get yourself a compactor and compact that stuff inside. Mr. Hannawi: If you look at the dumpster, it will look like it is part of the building. The back of the dumpster is the side of the wall. If it makes everybody more comfortable you will have room for the garbage. I don't see the reason for the denial. Just to make things cleaner is our whole purpose. Mr. Alanskas: Let me try to clarify this if I can. You say you have been at the building for a long time, how long have you been at the building? Mr. Hannawi: Not at that building. I have been in the station business for a long time. Mr. Alanskas: One of the things you have to understand is that intersection is one of our biggest intersections right at Middlebelt and 7 Mile. You have the mall across the street on one side and all the dumpsters are behind the building. When this petition first came to us we suggested not putting that building so far in the corner bring it out a little further but the people who had the building at that time wanted to have as far back to have more driveway accessibility and they knew that. At that time we could not have a dumpster at that site. You could see it from anywhere and the City did not want that. What I am reading from you is because it is a convenience store you want to have as much area for putting merchandise inside and you want to have as much room as possible. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there any further discussion? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak? Sir, do you have anything to add? Mr. Hannawi: No sir. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. 16600 On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #1-10-99 RESOLVED that, Revision to Petition 97-8-8-21 which received site plan approval to construct a gas station/convenience store on property located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the N.E. 1/a of Section 11 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That condition #2 of the City Council resolution #924-97 that specified, That there shall be no dumpster located outside of the building, and all trash must be contained within the building except on the day the trash is scheduled for removal. is hereby upheld and shall be adhered to for the following reasons: a) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general standards and requirements as set forth in Section 18.58 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance; b) That the location of the proposed trash dumpster enclosure would have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring properties; C) That this site does not have enough room to accommodate the proposed trash dumpster enclosure; d) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and it's residents. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. You have 10 days in which to appeal this petition to the Livonia City Council. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision to Sign Application for the Amoco gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the N.E.1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller: This is the same location as the previous item. On November 5, 1997, the City approved a ground sign for the gas station on the subject site. As part of approval it was conditioned: "That the sign shall be a low profile monument sing, 4 ft. X 8 ft. maximum, mounted on a 5 ft. brick wall base, and the total maximum sign height shall not exceed 9 feet. This station has switched over from a Citgo name to Amoco. The new owner is requesting approval for a slightly larger ground sign than what was previously approved. Mr. McCann: John, is there anything additional? Mr. Nagy: No, nothing additional. 16601 Mr. McCann: Sir, I believe you are the petitioner again. Mustapha Hannawi, Architectural Design Construction, 13530 Michigan Ave., Suite 210, Dearborn. Yes sir. Mr. Hannawi: I believe Scott said it all. It was a Citgo station and we had approval for a 32 sq. ft. sign and now it is going to be an AMOCO. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, why do you need an additional foot in height? You are asking for 10' instead of 9'? Mr. Hannawi: I can go with 9 feet. Mr. Alanskas: You can go with 9 feet? Mr. Hannawi: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: The reason why I ask is that there is a sign at Schoolcraft & Farmington Road that is the same sign but it is 9', not 10'. O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Anyone in the audience? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and denied, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revision to Sign Application for the Amoco gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the N.E. '/4 of Section 11 be denied subject to the following conditions: 1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance. 2) That the applicant has failed to justify the need for any excessive signage for this location over what was permitted in the original resolution. 3) That approving this sign request would set an undesirable precedent for the area; 4) Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best interest. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: 16602 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT LaPine, Piercecchi Alanskas, Hale, Koons, McCann None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was #1-11-99 RESOLVED that, Revision to Sign Application for the Amoco gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the 39.3 sq. ft. ground sign (identified as 3A), as received by the Planning Commission on December 22, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the height of the sign shall not exceed 9 ft. 2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Alanskas, Koons, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-8-4 by Fulcrum Real Estate requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to add windows and repaint commercial building located at 33326 Seven Mile Road in the S.W.1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads. The zoning is C-2, General Commercial. The owner of the building, formerly occupied by a carpet store, is requesting approval to reopen two bricked over windows that face Farmington Road. The openings would have commercial grade tempered glass installed to match existing windows. The owner is also requesting permission to paint the exterior of the building. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Tom LaForest, 58 Fox Hills Court, Chelsea, MI Mr. McCann: Want to tell us about your project? 16603 Mr. LaForest: We are requesting to open up the two windows and repaint the building that has needed painting for quite some time. Mr. McCann: And repair the facade and do those kind of things? Mr. LaForest: Yes. That was blown off by a wind storm. We are talking to the insurance company. Mr. Alanskas: You say you are going to paint the building. What color are you going to paint the building? Mr. LaForest: We have a paint chip here. It is called a Sherwin Williams "rouge red". I have a number. Mr. Alanskas: Is it a bright red or a dull red? What color is it? Mr. LaForest: It is very similar to a brick red which the other side of the building is brick already. Would you like to see it? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. I just want to make sure it isn't a Chinese red. There's nothing wrong with that color, I just want to see what we're talking about. Mr. LaPine: In the meantime, can I ask John a question? John, how many parking spaces does the bar require? How many parking spaces are in there? I know there was a parking problem before. We rezoned some property back in there. The owner of a house behind there was suppose to tear down the house and make a parking lot in there. I don't know if he ever did that. I am concerned about the parking. Mr. Nagy: For the Mattress Retail Sales, you would take 80% of the gross building area of which you are required to have one parking space for each 150 s.f. Mr. LaPine: How many for the bar? Mr. Nagy: The bar was required to have one parking space for each two seats either at the bar or any seating in the bar area. Mr. LaPine: Do you have any idea how many spaces are there for the bar? Mr. Nagy: I don't know off the top of my head. We certainly have records we can check. Mr. LaPine: I just want to make sure there is adequate parking. Mr. Nagy: They have the right to rely on the parking in the parking lot at the rear of the building both north and south of the alley and some of the parking is shared. 16604 Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: You're not planning on painting the front of the building just basically the west wall? Mr. LaForest: Yes. The west wall and where the paint is starting to come off. Mr. Piercecchi: But not the front? Mr. LaForest: No, not the front. Mr. Piercecchi: When we talked earlier on this, the stucco or plaster or whatever it is, there is a lot of disrepair there. Mr. LaForest: Right. That's why we want to repaint whatever is covering the building. Right now whatever is covering the building is coming off and it is not very pleasing to anybody going down the road. Mr. Piercecchi: So there will be an attempt to eliminate all that and change the texture of the surface. Mr. LaForest: Right. We are going to have to condition the building to change what is there now. What is there now is flaking off. Mr. Piercecchi: We really welcome you taking over that building. I think that is wonderful. Mr. LaForest: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: Inasmuch as these buildings don't come before us very often, we try to make the most of the improvements all at one time. that is why I'm mentioning the irregular plaster and you will improve on that? Mr. LaForest: Absolutely. Mr. McCann: Any more discussion from anyone? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition. Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was #1-12-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-1-8-4 by Fulcrum Real Estate requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to add windows and repaint commercial building located at 33326 Seven 16605 Mile Road in the Southwest'/4 of Section 3 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan, as received by the Planning Commission on December 21, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Alanskas, Hale, Koons, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: LaPine 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. Mr. McCann: Recalling Item #5. Is the petitioner here? Greg Ash, Surveyor, 1158 S. Main Street, Plymouth. Mr. McCann: Tell us about your proposal. Mr. Ash: First, I want to apologize for being late. I didn't judge my time on the roads. The proposal is a fairly simple site condominium on Farmington Road. There are a few things that we have gotten stuck with on this one that have been inadvertently imposed on this site that I would like to discuss. John and I have been talking about these over a fairly long period of time. If I may just run through these quickly. On part of this I would be looking for some suggestions or assistance on how to do this if this is not the best way to go with this. To start with basically what we have is 4 large platted lots. On those 4 lots there were 3 lots off on the back end to be built on the side street leaving the remainder of 4 lots fronting on Farmington Road. There is a little known semi obscure regulation within the Plat Act that states you can't split a platted lot more than 4 times and that's not in a 10 year period. That it cannot be split more than 4 times. At some point and time there was a large drain, that would be the Farmington Road storm relief drain, that was put through this property and across the southerly remainder lot. That is a 36' wide easement. The lots are 66' wide. That left a building envelope of 20' wide for this southerly lot. Still a buildable lot but certainly ineffective. As a result, we now have 4 lots with one of thein that is buildable but wouldn't be something you would want to demonstrate to someone. I would like to point out that what we had originally started with until this came up was just a standard split on the lots. Creating one lot that faced on to the side road expanding the width of this lot that has a narrow building site that it was a wider building site and having 3 lots facing on to Farmington Road. Not changing the number of lots that we have but rather creating a configuration that would allow for a better building plan. When we 16606 started this process in early 1997. on August 22, and what we were going to do and what the Plat Act stated was what we needed to do, was we needed to replat the area that had the 4 lots, which wasn't an issue at that time. We started the process and shortly before we were ready to make our application, the Court of Appeals passed down a regulation, or actually a determination, letting the Plat Board know how they were to administer replats or subdivisions. What they were doing and had been doing for many years was the area that you wanted to replat was called the plat that you were altering and maybe that had a title ownership in that plat had to guarantee their approval, in writing, for the process that they wanted to do. In addition to that you had to notify everybody within the surrounding area as to what it is that we were intending to do. At that time, it would have required that we would have had 38 notifications. With the new regulation that the Court of Appeals the way they re -defined it was, when they stated the original plat they didn't mean the plat you were working with but the entire plat. In this area, the plat we are in covers 3/4 of the area bounded by Farmington, Plymouth, Stark and Hathaway and you had to get everybody's approval within that area, not just notify them but you had to get their approval. That changes so that now we had to get 363 approvals of people to keep the same number of lots which is slightly configured differently. In addition to that, one of the things that we were dealing with is that we couldn't split a platted lot into more than 4 parcels. If you go through the rest of that area and only remain within the plat we were working with, we have 7 different parcels that have done contrary to what the 1.111at Act had indicated they were allowed to do. The only difference in this is if these lots here were described by meets and bounds as opposed to platted lots there would be no issue here. Now we go to where we want to do the condominiums I believe already has indicated that it meets the requirements of the zoning area. We have our appropriate lot widths for the units and that kind of thing. The problem that we come up with, not today or tomorrow, but down the road is that in order to do this we have to have a condo document. That condo document has to have a condo association. The job of the association is to make sure that all the common properties within the condominium are maintained. There are no properties in the condominium to maintain. They are all existing public roads so there is nothing to maintain. There are no parks involved in it. If the association did not file every year with the state, they are in conflict and have basically broken the laws of the state. We are set to go with the condominiums. What we are looking for is approval to go forward with the condominiums. Mr. McCann: Sir. It is interesting that you have given us a nice explanation. We have dealt with this type of situation probably 15 times within the last 6 months because all of our properties have had the same problem. But I do have one question for John. I was under the assumption it was abutting property owners. Is it everybody in the original plat? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Everybody in the original plat. 16607 Mr. Ash: It was originally abutting owners to the area you were working with now it is the entire plat. Mr. Piercecchi: How much common ground are you going to have? Has been set aside? If you have an association to oversee the common ground, how much common ground will you have? Mr. Ash: That is the issue that we come up with. So there is an association for nothing that has to be filed with the state. Mr. Piercecchi: Don't we require common ground? Mr. Nagy: In order to justify a site condominium, there has to be something in common whether it is a greenbelt, fencing, lawn area, Sometimes you have to find something that is in the common interest. Mr. Ash: That would be a place where we will have to create something so that the condo association has something to be involved in. Mr. Nagy: That's right. Mr. Alanskas: To the Chair. John, enlighten me. isn't this the same property that a year ago we denied that Durso wanted to put those 4 buildings right off of Richland, at different angles? Mr. Nagy: That was different. His project was off of Hees Road. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: You might also address the letter from Mr. Hill regarding the sidewalk, the curbs and gutters along Farmington Road and the backyard drainage for units 1, 2, & 3 with no available outlet for backyard drainage for unit 1 as the current site plan configuration shows. Did you review that letter? Mr. Ash: Yes, I did. We had talked with Mr. Hill and he indicated that the sidewalks were an issue we could work with since there were no other sidewalks in the area and they wouldn't be attached to anything. The result of the drainage issue is that there is a catch basin 10' away from unit 1. What we would do is we would place an easement on the condominium documents that gives access to that drainage. That was his recommendation as a resolution to that issue. Mr. McCann: And the curb and gutters along Farmington? Mr. Ash: I'm sorry, no, I did not address that. 16608 Mr. McCann: All right. Anybody else have any questions at this point? Mr. LaPine: All of these parcels are large parcels. What size condos are being built there? Mr. Ash: The properties themselves are approximately 100' X 300' and the building sizes will be in compliance with the zoning of that area. Mr. LaPine: Are these single family units? Mr. Ash: Yes. They will basically be single family homes. Mr. LaPine: Actually everyone will have their own back yards, just like a regular subdivision? Mr. Ash: Yes. To drive by you wouldn't know the difference from a subdivision. Mr. LaPine: On the illustration you have up there, where the pink and blue are, did you make that larger, that lot? Mr. Ash: Yes. The condominium lot would then come up to here. Mr. LaPine: So you eliminated a problem there? Mr. Ash: We gave that unit a 45' width on their building area. Mr. LaPine: We can see that he has to have sidewalks there then? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The backyard drainage in there, he tells us that has been taken care of The only thing we are not sure of are the curbs and gutters along Farmington Road? I would assume he will be required to put those in? Mr. Nagy: Yes. He will have to submit improvement plans to our Engineering Division for his development and if the Commission and Council concurs and give their approvals, a condition of this approval would then require that those matters of the curbs and gutters be approved. Mr. LaPine: O.K., I have one other question. The City Attorney has reviewed all of these things and they have been approved? Mr. Nagy: The policy now is that the City Attorney is looking to the Commission and our Department to review the documents and if there are some areas in the document that requires some attention, then they will address those issues. Mr. McCann: They want us to review them? 16609 Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. McCann: And does the staff review them? Mr. Nagy: Yes. But we indicated they need to be brought up to date with respect to the common areas. We need to have them identified within the document. Mr. Alanskas: Then everything else is satisfactory? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Everything else is satisfactory. Mr. McCann: John, also I know the plan of Council is attempting to build sidewalks pretty much along the major routes. Eventually we would hope to have sidewalks all along Farmington Road which would require the City to come in and put in sidewalks then bill the homeowner. It makes sense to put them in now. The petitioner is stating that they will lead to nowhere and I hate to see people waste money. But the City is eventually going to put sidewalks through there. So that is why we require them now. Are there any other questions? Mr. Piercecchi: Along with that, installing curbs and gutters along Farmington Road also. Should that be done now too? Mr. Nagy: You can make it part of your approval and recommendation as set forth in the letter from the Department of Engineering. Mr. Piercecchi: Perfect. Mr. McCann: Is there any further discussion? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak in regards to this? Sir, do you have anything further you wish to report? Mr. Ash: No. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #1-13-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on January 12, 1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-1-8-1 by Frank and Rosalie Tiscerics requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct the Rambling Acres Site Condominiums on property located at 9655 Farmington Road in the Northeast 1'/4 of Section 33 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of 16610 Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance #543, Section 20.01-20.06 of the ordinance, except for the fact that the following shall be incorporated: that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each unit shall be not less than 55% on two-story and not less than 80% on one-story homes; 2) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 3) That the Site Plan prepared by GLA Surveyor, as received by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1998, and modified, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That sidewalks, along both Farmington Road and Richland Avenue, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Department and that curbs and gutters be installed along Farmington Road and accommodations shall be made to make available common ground. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. Hale: The only other question I would have is, John, the bylaws will then come to the Department for final review? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This will go on to the Council with an approving resolution. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 777"' Regular Meeting held on January 12, 1999, was adjourned at 9:14 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: U� ��---- am�s C. McCann, Chairman /rw