The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-05-04,"W MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 4, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 784th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting 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 Members absent: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi None 16823 Robert Alanskas Michael Hale Elaine Koons William LaPine Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, and Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams 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 becomes 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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-3-2-7 by Steak 'n Shake, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Al, is there correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated March 31, 1999, which reads, "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a building to operate a restaurant on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. We have a letter dated April 8, 1999, that reads as 16824 follows, "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 acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. 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 P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated April 9, 1999, that reads: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Please remind the petitioner that all handicapped spaces must be individually posted according to the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated April 16, 1999, that reads: "Pursuant to your request of March 30, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The proposed site is currently zoned "C-2" (refer to Petition #98-11-1-21 and CR - 225 -99) allowing for a restaurant use. (2) Parking calculations are based on one space for every two seats in the restaurant plus employees. Ninety-nine (99) seats are proposed requiring fifty (50) spaces plus employees. Sixty-four (64) spaces are double -striped. (3) The wall signage as proposed would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess area of a wall sign. This signage, wall, monument and menu board, was not reviewed as part of this proposal. (4) Light standards are proposed to be twenty-five (25) feet in height. I trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of our r.. correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Sir you name and address and tell us about what your plans are. Jay Kameir, 14053 Barnett Place, Fishers, Ind. With me are Mr. Bill Roskelly and Mr. Sal Mascola. Sal is our division operations manager and can answer any operations questions and Bill will address any site details. Mr. McCann: Do you have any of the building materials with you or any color renderings? Mr. Kameir: We did submit at the last commission meeting our renderings. What I do have are the annual reports which I will distribute to each one of you. It has an elevation of our building. This is a specific building that we are going to be posting this ideal brick on. Right there is the color rendering. This is not the type of brick that we will be using. We will be using the full brick. Mr. McCann: The fu114-inch brick? Mr. Kameir: Yes. This is the exact brick we will be using on this portion. It is called a Charleston Birkwood. We will be using a white mortar associated with it to give it a white look. As shown I was noting the reviewer's comments, as I remember we did show double striping on the latest site plan and also the signage as originally proposed was a 36" sign. We are not going to ask for any variances, we are going to reduce that to a 30" which falls within your 16825 signage restrictions, there we will be asking for no signage variances. Basically this will be the elevation for the front elevation facing Middlebelt VAft. Road will be this. The signage will be on that portion. The rear of the building will be facing the rear of the property. This is our pickup window side which will be facing north. This will be facing the Walgreen's area. There is a substantial area of green and treed area that we are not proposing to develop, we are going to leave it as is at this time. We are not going to do anything for that area. Basically that is our building. This is a proto-typical a specific building for this area. We have modified our building for your area. I think on your signage you will see how the wing walls used to around the area. We have squared those off specifically it helps a lot with the brick coursing. It makes it look a lot nicer than the arch. The site plan itself, we are not seeking any variances. We have been working with Engineering. Mr. Roskelly has. Mr. Roskelly could address the sites specific concerns if you deem necessary at this time. Mr. Tangora is here now if you have any questions. Mr. McCann: Does anyone a have any questions at this time? Mr. Piercecchi: One of the reasons I was opposed to making that C-2 was because of the setback differential. I notice here that you are 87 feet back which is basically in excess of even C-1 which is 75 feet but C-2 is 60. I am pleased that you moved that back to 87 feet. Mr. Hale: I understand from the beginning that the 24 hour operation protocol has been important to Steak 'n Shake. Are there any other locations that are not 24 hours? Mr. Kameir: I will turn that over to Mr. Mascola. He is the director of operations for this area. He can answer those questions more fully. Sal Mascola, 1998 Amber Lane, Howell. The question was, are there any non -24 hour operations? Mr. Hale: Right. Mr. Mascola: To my knowledge there are none in the corporate side, there may be franchises that do not operate. We do have one or two locations that only have the drive-thru only for security reasons. Mr. Hale: And your plans are to indeed have a 24-hour operation for this particular location? Mr. Mascola: That is right. Mr. Hale: Is it something that you feel is vital for this location? `-- Mr. Mascola: It is part of the branding and we do advertise that we are always open. But we are business people and like in the one instance where it was not feasible from 16826 a security standpoint, we just went to the drive-thru only. Are you saying, are we adamant that we cannot be approached, it is not really my final call, but I `Am- know if it was not operationally sound, security wise or profitable, I don't know why I would not want to do it. Mr. Hale: You are just going to see how it goes then? Mr. Mascola: Right. Mrs.Koons: Regarding the ground sign. Forgive me, because it is probably somewhere in my paper work, but in our pictures it shows a ground sign on a post. Will our ground sign have brick? Mr. Mascola: That is Marina Township in East Lansing. That picture was taken in a couple of days before the brick monument was placed around the post. We have roughly an 18 inch brick monument matching the building, a 5 X 5 sign. Mr. Alanskas: Sir back to your operations. When you came before us and since then, have you taken any traffic studies or traffic patterns after 1 o'clock in Livonia. Mr. Mascola: To tell you the truth, I am not privy to final demographic study. I could probably dig out that information for you. Mr. Alanskas: The reason I asked is because in Livonia after 2:00 am. you are looking at a ghost city. There is no traffic on Middlebelt and Merriman and Five Mile and Seven Mile. So my thought is, who are you going to be open to? There is no one there. Mr. Mascola: We will find that out for one thing, and you may be correct. The other thing may be that there will only be a couple of hours before the morning shift begins, in which case we will be getting breakfast traffic. So for the couple of hours that I am going to leave people in the building anyway to clean, so why not be available to the local police and other city servants that might be patrolling and during the evening, the fire people, etc. for their convenience. We do offer some courtesies to them. They are also more than welcome so if I have a two or three window that I am going to have somebody in the building anyway then maybe we do leave the drive-thru window for the courtesy of the police. Maybe the police would like to come in and sit down. You are probably right if the traffic is not there, the traffic is not there. Mr. Alanskas: Question #2, you say you have a morning shift. What time do you start serving breakfast? Mr. Mascola: Each location is different when it comes to the exact hours. Mr. Alanskas: What time are you going to start in Livonia? Mr. Mascola: I haven't given it a thought yet but we are probably 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. r.. 16827 Mr. Alanskas: That early. O.K. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Here again I voted against them this last time based on the fact that I did not want a 24 hour operation here. Do you have any data that can prove to me that say from To'clock what your sales are at your store? Mr. Mascola: I can't give you that data right now but that data would be available through our corporate office I am sure. We have highway locations. Mr. LaPine: No doubt about it in my mind that you do sales. What my concern is, I would assume that people that are going to work are going to be college kids and after schools you are going to have younger kids after school. When you have people come in after the bars close, and I have been in restaurants where this has happened, you have people that have had too much to drink, trouble starts. When you have young people do not know how to handle the situation. I have no objection to the drive-thru being open 24 hours. I have no problem with that. If someone doesn't want to pay their bill and they want to walk out and it creates problems and why have those problems, we don't need them. If you are telling me that between 2:00 o'clock and 5:00 o'clock when your breakfast starts and you are making $25,000 of business then I say, fine. It makes sense to stay open. But if you are doing a $1,000 of business, and I understand if you have people there cleaning up, I understand all that reasoning. It probably makes but I am saying is it really that necessary to r... have them. Mr. Mascola: I think we would like to evaluate and it would only be fair to us to see if that is a valuable part of our business day and second, I need to be clear who we are. We are, even though we are a chain, we are an old chain, and we are founded by a bunch of family people, and this is a family oriented neighborhood restaurant. I don't want a reputation of this is where you go after hours to cause trouble either. It does me no good and it hurts my other day parts and I don't want to conduct business if that is the case. My vision is that I am not going to be getting after hour bar people. I am going to be getting people on third shift, I am going to be getting people who are getting off at midnight, other service sector people because that is what we are expecting and that is what we are used to. When I drove the area and I have only driven it a couple of times, I was not as thorough as the real estate and construction people. I did not see any bars in the area that we would be attracting a crowd from but I did see some retail outlets in the vicinity and other places that would have similar hours that would close late at night that people might come for a drink or a bite. My initial reaction here is that the crowd you are concerned about is the exact crowd that I am concerned about. Mr. LaPine: Let me say a few more words then I'll get off my soap box, but you weren't here the last time we discussed this case. The gentleman that was here kept pressing this to me, well this is a family oriented restaurant but families are not out at 2:00 am. or after midnight. A family type restaurant are people who go in with their family and they leave and they go home. 16828 Mr. Mascola: That is true. A person who is out in the evening after a work shift does not make them not a family person and they may need a place for convenience and we would like to serve our public in any way possible. Mr. LaPine: If you want to cut it that close fine, but when he tells me that this is a family oriented restaurant a family oriented restaurant to me is a mother, father and kids, or a mother and her kids or a father the kids of whatever. Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia. Just to address some of the features of the site plan per se which I believe is the reason for this meeting. Prior to that and as to the discussion as to the open hours, is it not true that Walgreens is open 24 hours a day? Mr. McCann: I don't know. Mr. Alanskas: It is not a restaurant. Mr. Roskelly: My thought on that is that if a drugstore right next door, perhaps it is just as secure to have the building open as closed. It is not going to be closed because you are going to have cleaners in there. I guess that is not my call. I am here to address the site plan. I guess you have all seen it. We have two entrances and two exits to this. There are far from the intersection of course. The drive is 25 feet wide. We have more than adequate parking. We have the all the full engineering, the sewer and water, paving, etc. and it was pointed *4W out before the site itself, we are developing much less than half of the site that is being purchase. The balance of that will be left will be left in the flood plain and undisturbed. Other than that I am open to questions. Mr.Alanskas: Being that you brought up in regards to the ingress and egress, Steak 'n Shake is going to share that one driveway with Walgreen's. Mr. Roskelly: The one driveway closest to Six Mile. Mr. Alanskas: Is that a verbal agreement or is that a written agreement? Mr. Roskelly I understand it is a written open easement. Mr. Alanskas: How long is that for? Mr.Roskelly: I suggest as long as the lease or whatever the case may be. I was told that was a permanent easement. Mr. Alanskas: All right, thank you. Mr. LaPine: Do we have anything in our file, a letter that this is a legal agreement? `" Mr. Nowak: No we don't. 16829 Mr. LaPine: If it isn't a legal agreement, don't we need something, Mr. McCann? Mr. McCann: We should have something that should have been provided to the Law Department. Nothing was provided that you were aware of? Mr. Nowak: No. Mr. McCann: Then they would need a waiver use before the ZBA, correct? If we don't have a written legal agreement for that property they have to go before ZBA because they have to have two entrances, an entrance and an exit. Mr. Nowak: They have two options. They could provide us with a copy of a legal instrument showing that they have the right to use that as a secondary means an ingress or egress or go to the Zoning Board of Appeal because they only one means of ingress and egress whereas two are required. Mr. McCann: So it is your suggestion that we send them on to ZBA. Mr. Roskelly: At this time the property is under option, and when we went before Council the question was Erickson who built the Walgreen's are owners in fee title. They have an option and they are willing to extend it to any point and I will tell you that certainly they will provide a written easement for ingress and egress over this piece of property. Mr. McCann: Prior to construction? Mr. Roskelly: Yes, prior to construction. Mr. LaPine: Does that easement go with the property. Mr. McCann: It depends on how it is written. Mr. LaPine: It Steak 'n Shake moves out and another restaurant moves in, maybe Walgreen's is not happy with them, and Walgreen's says you are not going to use my driveway they could stop them from using the driveway. Mr. McCann: In order for the Law Department to accept, it would have to run with the land. I am going to go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, does the petitioner have anything last comments? Mr. Kameir: No sir. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was #5-74-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 4, 1999, on Petition 99-3-2-7 by Steak 'n Shake, Inc. requesting waiver use 16830 approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of ,saw Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-3-2-7 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, marked Sheet 1, Job Number 97-1-32, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc., dated October 28,1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan, marked Sheet L-1, Job Number 97-1-32, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc., dated December 8, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and all planted material shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Building Elevation Plan submitted by Steak'n Shake, dated January 14, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the awnings shall be installed only on the front, right side and left side elevations and shall be omitted on the rear elevation; 4) That one wall sign as depicted on the front elevation sign detail marked Design 97 prepared by the Sign Group Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on May 4, 1999, is hereby approved with a sign area not to exceed 46 square feet; 5) That the Ground Sign Detail, marked Design 97, prepared by the Sign Group, Inc., received by the Planning Commission on April 14, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the maximum number of customer seats to be provided is 99 seats; 7) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exception; 8) That the three walls of the trash dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates, to be constructed of treated wood, shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 9) That all light standards shall be shielded and shall not exceed 20 feet in height; 10) That the off-street parking spaces shall be double striped; and 11) That the written document providing evidence of having obtained permission for shared ingress and egress over the adjacent property to the south, running with the land, shall be submitted by the petitioner and reviewed by the Law Department. 16831 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is there any discussion. Mr. LaPine: I am going to vote for this proposal but I hope the owners for Steak'n Shake will look at this after a period of time and if you don't need to be open that 24 hour period that I hope that you will consider closing at a reasonable time. Mr. Alanskas: I am going to vote yes for this proposal but I would like to receive your report '*INV to us in regards of what percent of your sales you do after hours that you said you could get for us. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-3-2-8 by Parkview Memorial Cemetery requesting waiver use approval to construct two additions to the existing mausoleum at Parkview Memorial Cemetery located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Ashurst Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated March 31, 1999, that reads: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct two additions to the existing Mausoleum on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal, Livonia Fire & Rescue. We have a letter dated April 1, 1999, that reads: "Pursuant to your request of March 26, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. No problems or deficiencies were noted. I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. There is a letter dated April 6, 1999, that states: "Pursuant to your 16832 request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. As r„w requested the Engineering Division has provided a legal description for the site plan, which is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. 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 P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated April 6, 1999, that reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? John Hammer, an Architect, and I am representing G. H. Forbes Associates, and my address is 36400 Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills, MI. Mr. McCann: Tell us about your project. Mr. Hammer: It is a pair of mirror image additions which total just under 3,000 sq. ft. to a building that was constructed in 1987. That building was designed to serve as a chapel space actually three chapel spaces that are open to one to another. In those chapel spaces are a number of mausoleum crypts. The additions we are proposing at present at not chapel spaces. They are only crypt spaces. There will be a number of small rooms with niches as well. Mr. McCann: This will all be the same building materials as the existing building? Mr. Hammer: Yes we are matching the brick. We are matching the standing seam copper roof. We are attempting to match as closely as possible the existing materials. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the commissioners? Mr. LaPine: You talk about work that is done in work room. What is done in the workroom? You don't embalm or anything like that, do you? Mr. Hammer: No, that would be a function done in a funeral home. This is a work space, a non-public, staff only, work space in which caskets are lowered into concrete burial vaults and the lid is dropped on top and sealed and then they are taken out for burial. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. I looked at that and I asked the question before and I couldn't figure out what they do in the work room. I just figured they bring the casket in and put them in the vaults. O.K. very good. Thank you. It is a very nice project. Mr. Alanskas: Just one question, on the work room wing, you are going to have two air conditioners on top of the area? v.. 16833 Mr. Hammer: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: It says for sure it will not be seen because it will be 20 feet back from the roof? Is that correct? Mr. Hammer: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: ' It will not be seen anywhere? Mr. Hammer: No. Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the public hearing A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #5-75-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been on May 4, 1999, on Petition 99-3-2-8 by Parkview Memorial Cemetery requesting waiver use approval to construct two additions to the existing mausoleum at Parkview Memorial Cemetery located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Ashurst Road in the Northeast 1,4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission dos hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-3-2-8 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, marked Drawing 1, Fire Number 9901, prepared by G. H. Forbes Associates, dated March 25, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the landscaping shown on the Foundation, Roof & Landscape Plan, marked Drawing 3, Fire Number 9901, prepared by G. H. Forbes Associates, dated March 25, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that upright Junipers (e.g., "Canaerti" or "Blue Point", 4' - 5' in height) are to be substituted for arborvitae in the landscape area just to the northeast of the mausoleum building; 3) That the proposed landscaping shown on the above referenced plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the Building Elevation Plan for the proposed additions, marked Drawing 4, Fire Number 9901, prepared by G. H. Forbes Associates, dated March 25, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and 5) That the brick used in the construction of the building additions shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions. For the following reasons: 015 16834 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the 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. McCann, Chairman, 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 99-3-2-9 by Toys R' Us (Store #9265) requesting waiver use approval for outdoor display of playground equipment on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Parkville Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated April 14, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal, and the following approximate legal description should be used in connection therewith: That part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 R. 9E., T. IS., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan and being more particularly described as beginning at a point distant N. 89°48'00" E., 526 feet and N. 0'12'00" West, 138 feet from the S.W.1/4 corner of Section 1; thence N. 0°12'00" West, 60 feet; thence S. 89°48'00" West, 4.5 feet; thence S. 0'12'00" east, 60 feet; thence N. 89°48'00" East, 4.5 feet to the point of beginning. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Timothy Preville, 29150 W. Seven Mile Road, Livonia. Mr. McCann: Tell us about your project. Mr. Preville: What we are asking an approval for is to build outdoor gym sets off to the right of our exit way as people would leave the store and it would amount to 1%W 16835 four to five gym sets depending on the size of the particular gym set but would not obstruct from the ability for people to exit the store safely with the clearance that we would have on the sidewalk in the area that is striped as no parking even beyond the sidewalk itself. Mr. McCann: You say to assemble them. Is that for display? Mr. Preville: Right. Mr. McCann: Do we have a site plan that you can put on the board, Scott? Mr. Preville: The entrance to our store is down at this end of the building. The exit is down this way and as you come out the door it would be off to the right of the exit door but would not obstruct with the flow of customers leaving the store and proceeding to their parking area there. Mr. McCann: I will go to the commissioners. Mr. Alanskas: How many years has that store been there? Mr. Preville: Since the early '70s. Mr. Alanskas: And have you been selling gym sets all those years inside the building? Mr. Preville: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Then why do you think that you have to sell them on the outside now? Mr. Preville: For customer convenience. We are in to a wider assortment of gym sets that are very high ticket gym sets that customers would absolutely like to see what it is they are purchasing versus a poster type of program that we have always had in the past. Mr. Alanskas: In other words, you have never displayed erected inside the store? Mr. Preville: Right. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I'll grant you that your entrance to that facility is down on the southeast corner of that building, but your parking is on the west end of that building where all the traffic comes in. It is dangerous right now because of the traffic patterns in there to get into your store. Personally, I shop at your store and to put play equipment out there, which to me is something that is going to attract children that is what you want. That is what you want. You want them to look at it and you want them to touch it, right? 4•- Mr. Preville: Right. •r.. 16836 Mr. Piercecchi: I think it is in a very dangerous spot. I really do and at this stage of the game I haven't heard your complete presentation yet but I am very leery of it. Mr. Preville: It would be fixtured in such a way there would not be any liability issues to where they could use this equipment. It would have signage and fixturing to where they would not be able to climb on the equipment. It is strictly for display purposes. Mr. Piercecchi: You haven't even proposed in this package how long that 60' "will call" door is still going to stay open. You are not going to close that up are you? Mr. Preville: That is strictly an exit door. Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. That door is staying put. Mr. Preville: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: You haven't even put in your proposal, that I can see, put up any barriers so it is just something people that observe and look at. Yet they wouldn't be able to handle it or touch it. I don't know that that would satisfy the safety problem but I am sure it would be an asset. I think it is very dangerous putting it in a parking lot and that nine foot sidewalk in most of that area, there is only one little area that is nine foot. Most of it has a curb there. 14ftw Mr. Preville: No, we do not have a curb there. The sidewalk is flush with the parking lot itself. Beyond the sidewalk it is striped. That is also a no parking area beyond the sidewalk. I don't have a curb there. Mr. Piercecchi: No, I am talking about he curb up next to the building. Mr. Preville: Oh, you are right. Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: That takes away from the 9 feet. That is really a small point, I don't know why I even brought it up. Nevertheless, you've got it in a very dangerous spot. You would be better off putting it in the front. You've only got room for only 8 to 10 cars to park there. But you've got hundreds that park there and the traffic, for every 10 people that park in the front you've got hundreds that park in the rear. Thank you. Mr. LaPine. I was out there Monday morning, 10:30 a.m. You've got a speed bumper there and a door that says "will call" and I assume that is for people that will pick things up. Mr. Preville: That is being relocated. Mr. LaPine: There were about six cars there. Some of the cars had children in them and some of the children were running right across the parking lot. To me this is a very dangerous spot to have this. Because as soon as the kids see it, where ,%W 16837 do you think the kids are going to hear for? Are you going to have this fenced in any way Mr. Preville: No, it is going to be fixtured with signage and fixturing where they couldn't assess the equipment but it was not going to be fenced. Mr.LaPine: I don't understand what you mean. If you had a slide out there, you mean the kids can't get on that slide? Mr. Preville: Correct. They can not get on it. It is strictly for visual purposes. Mr. LaPine: And they can't get on it? Mr. Preville: Correct. Mr. LaPine: I have to agree with my fellow commissioners, I think this is a very bad location. I think it is going to be too dangerous. Isn't there any place in the store that you can put these up? Mr. Preville: No. Because of the number of gym sets that we carry they have only been shown by posters. Mr. LaPine: How many gym sets are you proposing to put out there? Mr. Preville: It would probably be four gym sets that would fit into that area. Mrs. Koons: I also think it is way too dangerous for children. I have a suggestion that might help you. I have seen in other stores miniature models rather than a poster. I don't know if that is something your vendors could make for you or you could have that as a condition for you to carry their product and then the in -door front part of Toys 'R' Us which is almost like a long hallway might be a good spot to put that but I really can't in all good conscience support Mr. McCann: We are still at questions. Are there any other questions? I have one. Isn't this area the original loading zone for cars that were coming to pick up large packages? That is where they parked? Mr. Preville: Originally, that is correct. Mr. McCann: Where are you moved the loading zone been moved to? Mr. Preville: Our customer pickup is presently being relocated to the rear of the store and the sign that is over that door is also being relocated. Mr. McCann: So you have a new entrance in the rear for pickup? Mr. Preville: Strictly for customer pickups. 1%WW 16838 Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the commissioners, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Hearing none, does the petitioner have any last comments? Mr. Preville: No. Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi: I will offer a denying resolution. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I do have a comment. I appreciate what you are trying to do. I think it does benefit parents, as I being one, to be able to see the product you are buying and to be able to look at it in full size model however, you have a size restriction within your building that you are attempting to show other products instead of displaying these products. By putting it in your parking lot it would not be attended. There is not a four year old, no matter what you do, that can't figure out a way to get up the slide even if you put a banner up the slide and say "please do not climb". A four year old is going to find it. A four year old is going to find a way to run across the parking lot to look at it in front of traffic. It is an attractive nuisance. It is not appropriate to be in the middle of a parking lot, therefore I am going to vote against it. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously denied, it was #5-76-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 4, 1999, on Petition 99-3-2-9 by Toys 'R' Us (Store#9265) requesting waiver use approval for outdoor display of playground equipment on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Parkville Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-3-2-9 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the 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 proposed use fails to comply with the provisions of Section 11.03 (L)(1)(d) which states, in part, that "retail sales and/or display taking place on any walkway providing pedestrian access to the adjacent building shall be limited to bedding plants (flowers and vegetables) and potted shrubs"; 3) That the petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed use will be conducted in a manner that will insure that the walkway is sufficiently free of obstructions at all times so as to provide safe and direct pedestrian access to and from the building; 16839 4) That the proposed use raises concerns relative to potential conflict between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, particularly with respect to *am- children; 5) That the proposed use would interfere with safe vehicular and pedestrian access; 6) That the proposed use is disruptive and dangerous to the normal pedestrian traffic flow between the parking lot and the building entrance and exit; 7) That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a need for outdoor display of merchandise; 8) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 9) That the proposed use would not represent an aesthetically pleasing use for a property abutting a major thoroughfare. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. You have ten days in which to appeal the decision. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-3-2-10 by AME Group, Inc. on behalf of Livonia Volkswagen, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the Hyundai Car showroom and renovations to the Volkswagen showroom and building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated April 6, 1999, which reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated April 6, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the Hyundai car showroom and renovations to the Volkswagen showroom and building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal, Livonia Fire & Rescue. There is a letter dated April 8, 1999, which reads: "Pursuant to your request, the 16840 Engineering division has reviewed the above referenced petition. Please be advised that the property in question does not conform to the City of Livonia V#UW Master Thoroughfare Plan at this time and an additional 27 feet of right-of- way needs to be acquired. Otherwise, the legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. 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 P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated April 15, 1999, that reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 1, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: ( I ) Section 11.03(b)(2) requires that no vehicle be parked within 20 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street. Existing parking on the east and west lot lines are within 20 feet of a street. (2) The barrier free parking as indicated is deficient in size and is improperly located. The amount of spaces is correct. Double striping is not indicated. (3) Brick is identified as face brick and should be clarified. E.I.F.S. as proposed extends down to ground level on at least three elevations. (4) Light pole heights are not indicated and should be clarified. (5) As indicated in previous petition (letter 10/16/95): "existing barbed wire abutting side streets and residential districts should be removed" (Section 15.44.070). (6) Parking lot bumpers are in disrepair and lot is single striped. Parking area needs to be resealed and double striped. (7) Dumpster, on 4/13/99, was overfull and bump shop trash was piled outside the building (west face (8) Existing parking is not as depicted on site plan. (9) Wood retaining wall along east property line is in disrepair. (10) No signage was reviewed as part of this package. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. There is a letter from the Plymouth Road Development Authority addressed to Livonia Volkswagen, dated March 31, 1999, which states: "At the 91" Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on March 18, 1999, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: #99-56 RESOLVED that, the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby support the concept to renovate the Livonia Volkswagen/Hyundai property on Plymouth Road with 15% required landscaping, appropriate right-of-way dedication, and with construction of a new used car showroom." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, Director, By Direction of the Authority. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Harold Stein, 1825 Brinston, Troy, Mi. I represent AME Livonia Volkswagen. Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us a little about your petition? Mr. Stein: Can I show you our renderings first? Mr. McCann: Are you the architect, sir? Naw 16841 Mr. Stein: We are the design/build general contractor and we built the last addition to the Hyundai. Before we get into the renderings, my I respond to that inspection r.. report? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Stein: Our site plan has been recently revised. I brought in additional copies and gave them to the Planning Department. I don't know whether you were able to distribute them or not, but we have made some of the changes that this report referred to. The only thing that we were not able to do and we just did that today, that was the double striping. The parking lot will be sealed and double striped. We have provided larger handicap spaces that are required. ] have showed that on this recent site plan that I hand delivered the other day. The brick will be a full face brick. The plans that I submitted to you it shows a section of the wall, it says brick but it will be full face brick where it is used on the addition to the Hyundai building. In regard to the light poles, they are existing light poles, we are not changing the light at all there. Also, the barbed wire, the owner who is here tonight, Mr. Auffenberg, has no objection to removing that barbed wire and No. 2 the parking light bumpers are in disrepair but they are going to be replaced and removed because we are presently discussing with the City the granting of that right-of-way, that additional 27 feet the engineers report referred to on the site plan, legal description. The dumpster I can talk to that. The day he was there was the day before the pickup so the dumpster was full. I checked the pickup dates NOW because it isn't full like that all the time. Livonia Volkswagen has a scrap person who comes and picks up some of the bumpers and things like that. That is not considered trash. Mr. McCann: Do you have a disposal area for that. If they are not considered trash and they are not going to be in the trash dumpster, they are either going to have to be stored inside the building or you are going to have to provide some other site. Mr. Stein: We have a pretty large site. If another area is required, we could build something. Mr. McCann: The room next to the dumpster, is what you are saying, is in an enclosed area? Mr. Stein: Not really. The last time we came before you with a site plan we added this enclosed this enclosed dumpster and made it about double the size it normally is Mr. McCann: I understand but if it is not in an enclosed dumpster you cannot have outside storage of auto parts until the collector comes. They have to be stored inside the building. That is correct, right Al? Mr. Nowak: That is correct. They cannot have outside storage of auto parts or material generated from the shop. 16842 Mr. Stein: The existing parking lot, we have met the ordinance in regard to the number of spaces required. There is no wood retaining wall on our property. Our property is a brick stone wall barrier in the back. The east property line is all cyclone fenced. Part of the property is zoned C-2 and the balance of that is residential. One of the residents may have put some wood up against the fence but it is not our fence and we don't maintain it. The signage, is not before you at this time because we have to go before the ZBA to talk about signage. That is not part of the discussion here tonight. This is a national theme that Volkswagen of America is presenting to 700 dealerships in the United States. We are following this theme. As you know this building is about 35 years old. We are a nonconforming building and we have taken up to renovate this. The owner is going to spend approximately a million dollars plus to renovate this building. We are going to tear the complete front of the building off and redo it. This is what the interior will look like and this is the exterior. In your packet I gave you showing you the elevations, only a little larger, this is the landscape plan we propose. In working with the Plymouth Road Development Authority. This right-of-way is what we are going to grant to the City also of this asphalt that is existing there will be removed. The bumpers will be removed. This additional landscaping will be provided. We will have this additional landscaping around the buildings that is existing now. Because we are a nonconforming building and the setbacks will change as we designate that right-of-way, we are going to have to ask for a variance later on. I know that is not part of it tonight. We have a situation here where we only have side entrances off that older building and we need to dedicate a front entrance to match the third design theme where they show the portico on the front. This is the existing Hyundai building now that we built approximately 3 years ago. We are adding the same amount of building to the east of that. With this application we are going to demolish the old used car building. If you have been to the site, I know a couple of you have because I seen you there looking at it. This will clean up that whole site. There is one other thing that was mentioned to me other than the full face brick. We've got planning areas, sidewalks around the west side of this building and we propose to put a reinforced dryvit on this side back to the brick. We are actually covering the brick up to satisfy Volkswagen. That is brick now but to make the seam, this whole front, the aesthetics to look like they proposed it here, we need that dryvit look all the way around to enhance that site. In lieu of the brick we will put the reinforced dryvit. On that particular side we have very little space to put brick anyway because we've got a couple of pillars we've got two large overhead doors and if we adding just that little bit on to the front of it. If we put the reinforced dryvit on there, we won't have a problem and the public isn't back into this area anyway. Mr. McCann: Any questions? Mr. Alanskas: There won't be any cars there? Mr. Stein: No. Mr. Alanskas: You say that you would be yanking all that barbed wire. 16843 Mr. Stein: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: When would you be yanking it down? Mr. Stein: Whenever you want it down. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Hearing no one, I will go to the audience. 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, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #5-77-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on May 4, 1999, on Petition 99-3-2-10 by AME Group, Inc. on behalf of Livonia Volkswagen, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the Hyundai car showroom and renovations to the Volkswagen showroom and building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-3-2- 10 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, marked Sheet A-1, prepared by McGrath, Dohmen & Associates, Inc., dated April 26, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan, marked Sheet L-1, prepared by McGrath, Dohmen & Associates, Inc., dated April 26, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 3) That the Building Elevation Plan, marked Sheet A-3 prepared by McGrath, Dohmen & Associates, Inc., dated March 29, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That the Building Elevation Plan, marked Sheet A-5, prepared by McGrath, Dohmen & Associates, Inc., dated March 29, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to except that the west wall of the service write-up portion of the Volkswagen building, which is immediately adjacent to the asphalt driveway, shall have a base of brick or reinforced dryvit that shall extend at least 3 feet above grade; 5) That all brick used in the construction of the buildings shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 6) That the elevated outdoor display of vehicles on lifts or other similar `' apparatus is prohibited; 16844 7) That the petitioner shall rectify to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the problems and site deficiencies as outlined in their correspondence dated April 15, 1999; 8) That all barbed wire on the property shall be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit; 9) That there shall be no outdoor storage of spare or used auto parts, scrap material, debris or other similar items. 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 represents a relatively minor expansion of an existing and established use since an existing building will be removed and a new building only slightly larger will be constructed on the site. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in `%W accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 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 99-4-2-11 by Tech Express Corporation on behalf of Brinker International requesting waiver use approval to add a banquet facility to the existing Romano's Macaroni Grill restaurant (39300 Seven Mile Road) located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated April 6, 1999, which reads as follows: "the site plan illustrates a total of 147 parking spaces; however, the site plan data summary states that there are a total of 148 on-site parking spaces. The total parking spaces provided regarding this petition are 177; with 30 of those listed as off- site parking. On several occasions, during dinner hours, I have noted customers parking across the street because the parking lot is already full. It is apparent to me that the Macaroni Grill must do an excellent job of providing quality food and a good atmosphere. However, it is just as apparent 16845 that the parking lot can not accommodate the number of customers dining at this facility. The on-site parking lot is deficient by over 33 parking spaces. Unfortunately, this becomes apparent during dinner rush hour. Further expansion of this facility would only add to the number of pedestrians crossing 7 Mile Road in order to dine at this restaurant. The Police Department does not recommend that this site plan be approved." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated April 6, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to add a 17 foot 11" X 39' banquet facility to the existing Romano's Macaroni Grill on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal, Livonia Fire & Rescue. We have a letter dated April 8, 1999, which reads as follows: "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 acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith. 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 P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated April 15, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 5, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.: (1) Current conditions are as follows (4/12/99): (A.) Double striping should be provided when parking area is refinished. (B) Landscape debris �... and trash dumped over north curb proximity east end. (C) Four (4) foot space directly north, adjacent to building, is not landscaped. (D) Guy wire is down at Detroit Edison pole, northwest corner of property. 2. Landscape plan does not identify "CS" in proposed plan. 3. If banquet area addition is to have an entrance then barrier free parking must be dispersed. If current main entrance will still be entry point then no change in location is required. Petitioner has received a variance (9903-25) for deficient parking. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. There is a letter dated April 26, 1999, addressed to the City Planning Commission which reads as follows: "The undersigned is the owner of the historical property located at 39040 West Seven Mile Road, east of the Macaroni Grill. I have no objection whatsoever to the petition of Tech Express for the addition of the banquet facility. The Macaroni Grill has been a fine neighbor to us and they maintain their property in an exemplary fashion. The Macaroni Grill appears fully capable of handling any parking area deficiencies by use of their complimentary valet. The undersigned believes that the banquet facility addition should be approved as well as the waiver use." The letter is signed David Y. Klein and Gary M. Bloom, a Michigan Co -Partnership. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 16846 Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Seeing that the petitioner is not here this evening I will read a transmittal addressed to the Planning Commission, City of Livonia, dated May 4, 1999, from Michael R. Joseph that states: "Due to on-going negotiations regarding the parking lease agreement between Brinker International and Franklin Properties, we are requesting that our petition for an extension of the existing waiver use for the above -referenced property be tabled until the next available Planning Commission agenda. If you have any questions, or if you require any additional information, please contact us at (734) 953-4248." Since the petitioner is not here this evening, I am going to go to the public. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition this evening? Seeing no, I am going to close the public hearing. At this point, is there a motion? On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 4, 1999, on Petition 99-4-2-11 by Tech Express Corporation on behalf of Brinker International requesting waiver use approval to add a banquet facility to the existing Romano's Macaroni Grill restaurant (39300 Seven Mile Road) located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and I- 275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to table Petition 99-4-2-11 to a date uncertain. A roll call was taken with the following results: AYES: LaPine, Hale, Koons NAYS: Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the motion fails. Is there an alternative motion? Mr. Alanskas: We have discussed in regards to off-site parking, it never works because I know they try for one to have their employees park there but in bad weather they are not going to park there. They are going to park where ever they can. Parking with this company is a bad problem. They have so much business now and to take away from the parking to have this addition put on would be a hindrance to the restaurant and to the people going there. Therefore, I would like to give a denying resolution. Mr. LaPine: I am going to support this motion because I wasn't for this but the only reason I made the tabling motion I believe the petitioner should have the opportunity to speak his mind. He might tell us something that might change our mind. Basically I am not in favor of this petition based on what I heard here tonight but I don't know what he may have that he wants to bring before us. Mr. Hale: I don't know if we indicated it would be tabled once they faxed it over here. Maybe they relied on sending that fax over but I will support the motion as it is. 16847 Mrs. Koons: I will be supporting the motion not only because it is too much of a burden to `"w the city and the traffic but I also feel it is a burden on the employees to have them park to close to two miles. It adds unnecessarily to their work day. It is also unfair to them in case of a family emergency. Mr. McCann: I have a couple of comments. The police report says that people are currently walking across Seven Mile to get to the facility. It is a good facility. We all enjoy eating there. It is just too large for the property that it is on. If people have to cross Seven Mile, it is a problem now. If you add a banquet facility now, it is a very intense seating capacity within that room. It is not appropriate to expand it. The petitioner faxed us and requested we table this, however, this is a public hearing. This was scheduled for this evening. It was published in the paper and we notified all the residents. The petitioner had an obligation to be here tonight. If he had additional information beyond parking employees and guests close to a mile or two miles away, he should have been here. It is just not an appropriate petition, therefore, I have to be in favor of the denying resolution. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously denied, it was #5-78-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 4, 1999, on Petition 99-4-2-11 by Tech Express Corporation on behalf of Brinker International requesting waiver use approval to add a banquet facility `ftw to the existing Roman's Macaroni Grill restaurant (39300 Seven Mile Road) located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Haggerty Road and I- 275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-4-2- 11 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sectionsl 1.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 18.38 (17)(a) with respect to required off-street parking; 3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 4) That the proposed use will overburden the subject site because of the lack of a sufficient number of off-street parking spaces; 5) That a signed lease agreement for off-site parking, amended to eliminate the 120 day out clause has not been submitted to the ZoNOW ning Board of Appeals as required to fulfill a condition of approval in connection with Appeal Case No. 9903-25; 16848 6) That the Police Department recommends that this petition not be approved for the reason that an adequate number of parking spaces cannot be provided for the facility; and 7) That there is no demonstrated need to increase the seating capacity of the subject restaurant. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The petitioner has 10 days in which to appeal the decision. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Elmira Court Subdivision proposed to be located south of Plymouth Road and east of Levan Road between the Elmira Avenue dead-end and Arthur Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of 32. Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? ,%W Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from Parks & Recreation, dated April 14, 1999, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed Elmira Court Subdivision and at this time, I find no discrepancies or problems in this plan as submitted." The letter is signed by Ronald R. Reinke, Superintendent. There is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated April 19, 1999, which reads as follows: "The Engineering Division strongly recommends the denial of the Elmira court Subdivision because of the terminus "T" -type turn -around of Elmira Avenue. The "T" -type turn -around does not meet the Engineering Division standard for a subdivision turn -around. The "T" -type turn -around creates a hardship for emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, as well as City service vehicles, such as garbage pickup and brush pickup, not to mention all the private delivery trucks and moving vehicles to these lots. This department. believes Elmira Court Subdivision should be constructed with a full-size residential cul-de-sac meeting department requirements, or Elmira Avenue should be tied into Arthur Avenue. I hope this will help clarify this department's position; should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. It should also be noted that Elmira is misspelled in two (2)locations on the preliminary plat which was presented." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated April 29,1999, from the Department of Public Safety which reads as follows: "The Fire Prevention Division concurs with the Engineering Divisions' recommendation to deny the Elmira Court Subdivision because of the terminus "T" -type turn -around of Elmira Avenue. The "T" -type turn around creates a hardship for our emergency vehicles, especially fire trucks. I hope this will help clarify this department's position and should you need any 16849 further information, please contact me." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. We have a letter dated May 4, 1999, which reads as Naw follows: "It has been brought to my attention that a proposal for a cul-de-sac has been recommended for the end of the subdivision abutting my property. l am at 35680 Elmira in Kenwood Park Subdivision, Lot No. 1. My concern is that this would put this closer than 80' from my west side. I would appreciate consideration of this distance. Further, please feel free to contact me at any time." That was signed by Martin Rubin, Homeowner. That is the extent of our correspondence. I would like to point out that the petitioner has submitted a revised preliminary plat that remedies the problem. that the Engineering and Fire Marshal had opposed. It now provides for a full cul-de- sac instead of a "T" -type turn -around. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia. This plan was revised three times. Our original plan was for a 10 lot subdivision. We eliminated one lot and now we currently have nine lots. One lot faces Arthur Avenue and we accommodated with a cul-de-sac. This subdivision would be nine homes, three and four bedroom homes. They will be priced at about $225,000 and I will answer your questions. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the commissioners? N%W Mr. Alanskas: I see with the cul-de-sac, I know that neighbor also had concerns of possibly of lights hitting his house, you are going to be putting in these nine Australian Pines across which will block those lights? Mr. Soave: Yes sir, we could berm that and we will also put some thick evergreens to help shield any lights. Mr. Alanskas: They are going to be six feet in height when they are put in the ground? Already starting at 6 feet? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: Do you think it will be a problem on lot 6 to sell that because it will be facing Arthur Avenue? Mr. Soave: It is not going to help, but if that is all we can get, we will stay with it. Mr. McCann: You say the berm is in the plans at this point, Al? Mr. Nowak: The plans at this point does not show a berm. It shows plantings. Mr. McCann: So we can add that to our resolution when we approve it. Mr. Nowak: Yes. '*.. L�9 16850 Mr. Soave: Can I go on the record that we will supply the berm, will that be O.K.? Mr. McCann: Does the staff have a recommendation as to the size of the berm? Is a four foot berm appropriate? I don't know how wide of an area it is. Mr. Nowak: Between the easterly edge and the cul-de-sac and the east boundary of the subdivision it is about 30 feet. I think you could easily put in a four foot high berm in that distance. Mr. McCann: With the Australian Pines, you thunk that would be sufficient? Mr. Nowak: I think that would be sufficient. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Soave, as you recall, I was at City Hall today and I bumped into you accidentally when you were discussing this thing and we discussed rotating residence No. 6 with an entrance off of Arthur Avenue. But in that discussion I was hoping that we could in that rearrangement of No. 6 permit Elmira to be a full street because as you know Arthur gets cut off and Elmira gets cut off. I was hoping that radius could have been completed down to make Arthur full all the way and Elmira all the way. Was it impossible to move- No. 6 facing towards Elmira and accomplish that? You thought you could do that. Mr. Soave: My engineer played with this all afternoon as soon as I saw you at City Hall and he could not come up with a reason way to do that. So this is what he cam up with. Mr. Piercecchi: Who did this, Nagy? Mr.Soave: Arpee/Donnan. Mr. Piercecchi: How much distance do you have, you've got 122 feet on No. 6, how much distance is there between that cul-de-sac and that property line? I'm wondering if that would be practical to move it and be able to finish off Elmira. See what I mean Mr. Chairman? What dimensions do you have on No. 6 as a building site? Mr. Soave: As far as the building emblem or the building site? Mr. Piercecchi: You've got a building square. You must have some dimensions that you considered on that building. Mr. Soave: It would be 46 feet wide would be the building envelope. Mr. Piercecchi: Would that be impractical to move it to that cul-de-sac? So we could finish off Elmira? •w r.. 16851 Mr. Soave: When you say to finish off Elmira, that is taking what? That is connecting Arthur to Elmira, is that what you are saying? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, as we talked about this afternoon. Mr. Soave: O.K. We would need that 60 foot right-of-way and that wouldn't work. Mr. Piercecchi: So you can't do it. O.K. Because today at our informal talk standing at the counter we thought that would make a real asset to that neighborhood. I approve of your plan especially No. 6 going in off Arthur. That is a fine idea because everything else on Arthur faces that way. Thatt will be fine. Mr. LaPine: Is there a reason why you didn't have the driveway coming off the cul-de-sac into Lot No. 6 instead off of Arthur? Mr. Soave: I talked to the engineer about that and he said that it would be better for the subdivision to have it that way. Mr. LaPine: I was curious instead of having just this one house a driveway off of Arthur at that location. If the Engineering Department has a problem with it, I am not going to argue with it. Let's assume we leave it the way it is. What's all where we are going to put the berm, then on Lot 7 all that property in there going to be grass, or is that going to be pavement, or what is it? Mr. Soave: That will all grass. It will be like a greenbelt area. Mr. LaPine: These are individual homes. Who is going to maintain and cut that grass. Who's responsibility is that going to be, Lot 6 or Lot 7? Mr. Soave: There will be a homeowners association and they would share the expense of taking care of that area. Mr. LaPine: These are not condos, are they? Mr. Soave: No sir. It is a platted subdivision. Mr. Alanskas: This is for Mr. Piercecchi's information. When the Levan Court Subdivision was first built they wanted to put homes all the way through and open up Elmira and the people in Kenwood Subdivision came out in a large protest. They didn't want that street to go through. That's why is wasn't done. Mr. Piercecchi: It still goes through, doesn't it? Mr. Alanskas: It dead ends where the trees are. I am talking about Elmira. Mr. Piercecchi: You could then make an entrance off of the cul-de-sac, couldn't you? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. If nobody objects, I could put that entrance anywhere they want it. I will put it off of Elmira or the way it is now. 16852 Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Alanskas points out that maybe it wouldn't be the best idea. I thought we were going to table this really so we could go over this. You had written a note that you wanted to table this. Mr. Soave: I checked my records and my option was running out. It was either this or nothing. Mr. McCann: I am going to open this up to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Hearing no one, any last comments Mr. Soave? Mr. Soave: No sir. Mr. McCann: I am going to close the public hearing and a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was #5-79-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 4, 1999 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Elmira Court Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Plymouth Road and east of Levan Road between the Elmira Avenue dead-end and Arthur Avenue in the Northeast 1,14 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Elmira Court Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the `W open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and following additional condition: 1) That the landscaping proposed for the area between the cul-de-sac and the easterly boundary of the plat is hereby approved and shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. For the following reasons: 1) That the revised Preliminary Plat complies with all of the standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations; 2) That the revised Preliminary Plat provides for a full cul-de-sac as recommended by the Engineering Department and the Fire Marshal; and 3) That the revised Preliminary Plat represents a good land use solution for the development of the subject property. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. That concludes the public hearing section of our agenda. We will now proceed 1,1W with the Pending Item section of our agenda and have been discussed at length. 16853 at prior meetings therefore there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the commission. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-3-8-12 by Baki's Unique Homes requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 29418 Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to remove Petition 99-3-8-12 from the table? On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #5-80-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-3-8-12 by Baki's Unique Homes requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 29418 Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, be taken from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is there any new information? Mr. Nowak: No, there is no new correspondence. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was #5-81-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Coriunission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-3-8-12 by Baki's Unique Homes requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 29418 Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to the following --onditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by GAV & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on May 4, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet C-2 prepared by GAV & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on May 4, 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 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; 16854 5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet C-3 prepared .� by GAV & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on May 4, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except the entire building shall be constructed out of 4 -inch brick; 6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exception; 7) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 8) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated April 15, 1999: - that the existing protective wall shall either be repaired and brought up to the proper height or be removed and a new wall shall be erected - that the existing lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped - that the required accessible parking spaces shall be installed according to the current Boca codes - that all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height 9) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. 10) That the five (5) Norway Maples as shown on the site plan shall be added between Middlebelt and. the curb cut and two (2) Norway Maples shall be added between Fremont and the curb cut. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Is this approval moving the sidewalk out to the right-of-way? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I was out there again today a second time and I can't buy that because all the sidewalks on the Livonia side on Middlebelt line up down Middlebelt. When he talks about that sidewalk lines up with Westland on the other side but it won't line up on our side. '" Mr. McCann: He is talking about down Livonia on Joy Road. 16855 Mr. LaPine: Oh, is that what he is talking about? I thought it was Middlebelt that we were talking about. Mr. McCann: He is talking along Joy Road and he is going to take out five feet off the building and expand the glass. Mr. LaPine: I remember that. O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: This will begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans portion of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition of these items. Mr. Piercecchi, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Laurel Pointe, LLC requesting approval for signage for the office/retail building located at 17000 South Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Miller This site is located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Laurel Park Drive. The applicant is requesting approval for a master sign package for the Laurel Pointe Office/Retail Building which recently received site plan approval. This property is located adjacent and to the west of the Ground Round Restaurant. As the Planning Commission will recall, this building will utilize the ground floor for retail type uses and the second floor for office type uses. Signagepermitted for this site under Section 18.50H: Wall signage based on the lineal footage of each separate retail unit - unit #1 = 2 signs (exposure to two thoroughfares) north elevation = not to exceed 80 sq. ft. in sign area - west elevation = not to exceed 40 sq. ft. in sign area - unit #2 = 1 sign north elevation = not to exceed 29 sq. ft. in sign area - unit #3 = 2 signs (exposure to two thoroughfares) - north elevation = not to exceed 72 sq. ft. in sign area west elevation = not to exceed 36 sq. ft. in sign area - unit #4 = 1 sign north elevation = not to exceed 38 sq. ft. in sign area Proposed Signage: 6 wall signs - unit #1 = 2 signs (exposure to two thoroughfares) - north elevation = sign #1 = shall not exceed 80 sq. ft. in sign area - west elevation = sign #I = shall not exceed 40 sq. ft. in sign area - unit #2 = 1 sign north elevation = sign #5 = not to exceed 29 sq. ft. in sign area - unit #3 = 2 signs (exposure to two thoroughfares) north elevation = sign #6 = not to exceed 72 sq. ft. in sign area west elevation = sign #7 = not to exceed 36 sq. ft. in sign area - unit #4 = 1 sign north elevation = sign #8 = not to exceed 38 sq. ft. in sign area 16856 Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated April 29, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 21, 1999, the master sign package at the above referenced address has been reviewed. We would have no objection to this package. The Inspection Department will review each sign when submitted. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Michael Boggio, 30100 Telegraph Road, Bingham Farms, MI. I don't really have anything else to add to what Mr. Miller said. I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the commissioners? Mr. LaPine: I was out there today and you've got some people working back there. Are you going to repair the parking lot when it is done? Mr. Boggio: We are going to repair it and cap the entire lot when it is all done. Mr. LaPine: Now it is all concrete and the concrete has just gone to pot. Mr. Boggio: There is going to be demolition on the site and a lot of the parking lot is going to get tore up worse than it is right now. So we are going to repave. Mr. LaPine: They have patched some areas. Mr. Boggio: It is going to be a whole new cap and paving and striping and everything. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition. Seeing no, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #5-82-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Laurel Pointe, LLC requesting approval for signage for the office/retail building located at 17000 South Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8 be approved subject to the following condition: That the Master Sign Package submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, as received by the Planning Commission on April 26, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. McCann, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 16857 Mr. Piercecchi, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Allied Signs, on behalf of Eddie Bauer, requesting approval for exterior signage for one of the stores in the Laurel Park Place Mall located at 37700 Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller This location is located on the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh. As the Planning Commission will recall, Eddie Bauer recently presented plans at a Study Meeting showing the renovation of their store's exterior entrance in to the Laurel Park Place Mall. At that time the Planning Commission felt that the renovations were minor in nature and did not require going through the formal Site Plan approval process. The applicant is now coming back and requesting approval for a wall sign over their exterior entrance. because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, 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 #9903- 33) was granted at the Board's March 23, 1999 Special Meeting. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50H: This tenant is not permitted a wall sign (wall signs permitted only if identifying a principal tenant or the regional center itself). Signage granted by the Zoning Board and Proposed: 1 wall sign (east elevation = "Eddie Bauer" - 27 sq. ft.) The proposed wall sign would be located directly over the entrance area and would be internally illuminated. "%KW Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We do have a letter from the Inspection Department dated April 26, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 21, 1999, the sign package at the above referenced address has been reviewed. The package submitted was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 23, 1999, Appeal Case No. 9903-33. We have no objection to this package. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Randy Schmidt, Allied Signs, 44131 North Grossbeck, Clinton Township, ML Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell the commission this evening? Mr. Schmidt: No, I am here to answer any questions you may have. Mr. LaPine: Is this basically what you are doing? Mr. Schmidt: Minus the logo below Eddie Bauer, the Zoning Board of Appeals didn't agree with the logo. 16858 Mr. LaPine: Just getting the Eddie Bauer? 44W Mr. Schmidt: Exactly. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #5-83-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend top the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Allied Signs, on behalf of Eddie Bauer, requesting approval for exterior signage for one of the stores in the Laurel Park Place Mall located at 37700 Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 be approved subject to the following condition: That the Sign Package submitted by Allied Signs, as received by the Planning Commission on April 1, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Poblocki & Sons, on behalf of Target Stores, requesting approval for additional signage for the store located at 30007 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller: The location of this property is on the south side of Plymouth Road between r.. Middlebelt and Melburn. The applicant is requesting approval for an additional wall sign for the Target Store located in the Wonderland Mall. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, 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 #9903-31) was granted at the Board's March 23, 1999 Special Meeting. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated April 26, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 21, 1999, the sign package at the above referenced address has been reviewed. The package submitted was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals March 23, 1999, Appeal Case No. 9903-31, modified to approximately 35 square feet. We have no objection to this package. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann; Is the petitioner here this evening? Richard Nattila, 922 S. 70`h Street, West Alice, Wisconsin. Mr. McCann: Tell us the reason for the sign. 16859 Mr. Nattila: As part of a ten-year remodeling project for the store Target is updating the interior and adding a pharmacy section which they do not have in all their stores in the Detroit metro area. At this point there are about five stores that do have them. They have all been signed with pharmacy signs on the exterior. I believe Sterling Heights, Warren, Farmington Hills and Canton. Not all the stores in the metro market have pharmacies yet and they do like to identify the stores that do as a new public service to the customers. The prototype signs as you are probably are aware is a 30" pharmacy sign. The zoning Board has asked us to reduce to 24" which is small but we probably can live with that on this project. The total sign area including the sign over the entrance on this is about 2-1/2% of the building elevation. The lineal feet of the building is 365 feet which would allow us at the one square foot per lineal foot would be about 365 sq. ft. of signs. At this point we only have 204 sq. ft. in place and we are asking for another 35 sq. ft. at this point, which means we are only asking for about 66% of the total allowed sign area. Mr. McCann: But aren't you saying that if it was an independent building and not within a mall? Mr. Nattila: I believe that is within a shopping center complex. Mr. McCann: Al, I understand they got a variance originally to get the sign that they have. Mr. Nowak: The signage for a regional shopping center is based on a regional tenant. Mr. Miller: They have an excess of 500 sq. ft. on that elevation so even if they could count Target as a major tenant, they are still now allowed an additional sign. Mr. Nattila: I stand corrected. I apologize. Mr. McCann: I just don't want to mislead, you know we have a large audience following us tonight. We don't want to feel like we are being hard on a great corporate tenant. Mr. Nattila: The reason for the separation of the signs off the main gate area is a couple of things, Target is, as you know an upscale discount department store, I guess that is an oxymoron, they want to separate the pharmacy sign from their letters at the gate to make sure the people will understand that the pharmacy is not their primary service. It is a secondary service but it is an important one as well. No. 2, the pharmacy being separated off the gate also helps to break up this long 360 foot wide elevation I believe the Zoning Board also mentioned that a pharmacy sign at that location might help to break it up as well. No. 3, the location happens to align with one of the entry drives. It just happens to be there. Target likes to have their building elevations consistent and their signing program as well as the colors. So this location again would help keep it consistent within the Metro market in Detroit. One minor correction I must 1"► make also is we identified the returns as red, we would like to have them white to match the existing letters on the building. Because it is a red brick 16860 background it helps to cut the letters away from the background. It makes it a little bit more visible. Not much but it does help a little. Mr. McCann: Any questions from the commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: On the stores that you now have pharmacies, what percentage of business has that added for Target? Mr. Nattila: As far as business? Mr. Alanskas: Yes, you said it has done well. Mr. Nattila: I am only a sign consultant. I really don't know. Mr. Alanskas: Because you said it was a very important part of Target now and it is a very good thing to have. I am assuming, and I hate that word, that you are going to make all Target stores with pharmacies? Mr. Nattila: I believe that is their intent in the Metro area and I believe that they are doing that on a ten year remodel cycle. I believe this is the first stores that were open in this market that they are doing. Mr. LaPine: When I site checked this location, it is a large building. What you are asking is not a lot but the problem I have is this. Target now has pharmacies, a few years down the road they are going to put in optical. Now we get another sign for Optical. To me Target tells the store, once the people get in there, then they look for the different things that are within the store. I don't every time we add something to a store that we should be able to have another sign outside. Because we could have signs from here to doomsday. Understand what I am saying? You can't tell me here tonight that somewhere down the line they may find optical is a good deal, like Sears has an optical department and they want to advertise and let people know that they have optical. We have to have a standard. What is enough? To me one sign advertising Target should be enough. Then if you want to advertise what you have inside that store, optical, you do that in your newspaper advertising, your circulars and things of that nature. I grant you that this little sign doesn't bother me that much because of the length of your building. It is a concern to me in the future what this might lead to. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions from the commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, sir I am going to give you the last comment if you have one. Mr. Nattila: To address the concern about the additional sign. There is only one other option that Target actually chooses to do on this type of store and that is gardening but that is mainly in the Phoenix market and Texas market whatever down south where they do have garden centers. But is also an addition on the outside of the buildings and what not. They do not chose to advertise any *MW 16861 other departments as far as I know and I have done about 450 new stores for them around the country Mr. McCann: But that is this administration and this week. The pharmacy wasn't part of it last year, was it? Mr. Nattila: Actually they have had pharmacies in other markets and they do advertise pharmacies. Mr. McCann: But that is new. Mr. Nattila: It is new to this market. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and approved, it was #5-5-84-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Poblocki & Sons, on behalf of Target Stores, requesting approval for additional signage for the store located at 30007 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package submitted by Poblock and Sons, as received by the Planning Commission on April 1, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all signage for this store shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Koons, Piercecchi, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Hale ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: Just because of the fact that K -Mart's is right next door and they've got a pharmacy, Penske Auto Service on two locations, I think it is only fair that we do give Target, who is a very good corporate citizen of Livonia, and I think you do deserve to say pharmacy on there. Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to comment on our colleague, Bill. Bill, you really brought up a great point. Perhaps somebody should look into some kind of a generic sign that would cover all of those things rather than have them plastered all over the building. You are absolutely correct and I admire you for your expertise in that area. 16862 Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-4-8-14 by ,r01 Chinese Gospel Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot on the property located at 35301 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Mr. Miller: The location of this property is on the south side of Five Mile between Yale and Gary. The Chinese Gospel church is requesting approval to construct an additional parking lot directly behind their existing lot. The new lot would be a continuation of the existing lot and would provide, according to the petitioner, "much needed additional spaces". The new lot would be 120 feet deep by 124 feet wide. According to the submitted plan, the new lot would provide an additional 48 spaces. There are 175 seats in the churches assembly area. Parking required it one space for east 3 seats in the main assembly, 175 seats divided by 3 equals 58 spaces. Parking provided is 51 existing plus 48 proposed which equals 99 spaces. A note on the plans states that the new lot would be double stripes and the existing lot would be restriped with double striping. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated April 23, 1999, which reads as follows: "The Police Department traffic Bureau has no concerns with regard to an expansion of the existing parking lot." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated April 26, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 21, 1999, the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Facility is in an R-2 Zone and is a waiver use. (2) current conditions are noted as follows: (A) Existing lot should be sealed before re -striping. (B) Lot directional signs need to be painted or replaced. (C) Existing parking is not as depicted on drawing. (3) Required accessible parking is not depicted on plan. Total spaces as depicted required five (5) total accessible spaces of which one (1) must be van accessible. These spaces must be the closest to the accessible entrance. The van accessible space must be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 8 foot aisle. The balance of the accessible spaces must be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 5 foot aisle. Two spaces may share one aisle. (4) There are no provisions for lighting. I trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Robert Lo, 3016 Hazelwood Court, Farmington Hills, MI, chairman of the board for the church. Mr. McCann: Tell us about your project and why you need the additional space. 16863 Mr. Lo: The property was purchased in 1993 and the parking space was assigned for 75 spaces. I think may be previous owner made it substandard. Currently we MAW moved in there and our members increased it to about 200. It is now down about 150. We have about 75 families. There should be enough room to accommodate for additional space. Additionally, there is no handicapped parking which further reduced our parking space. I think the City ordinance requires three seats for each space. I know that some families require two cars. Sometimes the husband will come in one car and the wife will come earlier or later in another car. So we need more space. We now have 99 spaces and the City Inspection Department requires us to have five spaces for handicap. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Do you intend to put any lights back there? Mr. Lo: Not at the present time. Mr. LaPine: No night services? Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. `W On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #5-85-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-4-8-14 by Chinese Gospel Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot on the property located at 35301 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan submitted by the Chinese Gospel Church, as received by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated April 26, 1999: that the existing lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped that the existing directional signs shall be repainted or replaced that the required accessible parking spaces shall be installed `"' according to the current Boca codes 16864 that all new light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision Petition 98-4-8- 14 which received Master Deed and site plan approval in connection with the construction of a site condominium development on the property located at 18150 Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Miller: The property is located on the southeast corner of Wayne and Curtis. On June 10, 1998, the City approved a site condominium project of 8 units on the subject site. As part of the approval it was conditions: that an entrance marker application and a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. The petitioner is now requesting approval to eliminate the requirement for the entrance marker. In a letter dated April 20, 1999, the petitioner states the following reasons for the request: (1) The north side of Curtis Road is already part of an existing subdivision. To designate the south side as another subdivision would be confusing to residents and visitors alike. (2) The lots created on the south side of Curtis Road equal only 8, not really enough lots for a real subdivision. (3) There was no provision for a sign easement in the Master Deed as the development of 8 lots was never platted as a new subdivision; Curtis Road is simply made wider by approximately 14 feet. As for the part of the condition requiring the submittal of a fully detailed Landscape Plan, no plans have been submitted at this time. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is no new correspondence in connection with this petition. Mr. McCann: Is their anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, is there a motion? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #5-86-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revision to Petition 98-4-8-14 which received Master Deed and site plan approval in connection with the construction of a site condominium development on the property located at 18150 Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the request by Tri -West Development, in a letter dated April 20, 1999, to eliminate the requirement for an entrance marker, as specified in Council Resolution #476-98 is hereby approved and adhered to; 2) That all other conditions and requirements as set forth in the original resolution shall be adhered to. 16865 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 784`h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 4, 1999 was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: J es C. McCann, Chairman /rw ...