Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-07-27 17019 MINUTES OF THE 789th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 27, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 789th 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: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons William LaPine H. G. Shane Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II and Bill Poppenger 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. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is a request for a One-year Extension by Gordon Food Service of all plans in connection with Petition 97-8-8-20 which received site plan approval to construct a commercial building on property located at 17700 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional on this, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No there is not. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Case Reimus, Gordon Food Service, 333 50th Street SW, Grand Rapids, MI 49501. Yes 17020 Mr. McCann: Would you like to state something? Mr. Reimus: Yes. I was here last year asking for an extension as well and this is a request for an additional extension. The reason for our request is basically that in July of last year we opened a store in Dearborn which is six miles away from the proposed location in Livonia. In September of last year we opened a store in Southfield which is approximately four miles away. We just needed a bit more time to make sure those stores had sales up to our expectations and they are not quite there yet plus the fact that there are two other stores nearby. One in Farmington to the northwest of the proposed Livonia location and one in Westland about seven miles to the southwest. So Livonia will be right in the middle of this pocket of stores and we like to dominate the market but the timing is not quite right so we respectfully request an additional one year extension due to the building conditions and just building the sales into the two new stores. They all share the same trade area and Livonia is in the pocket of the four locations and we really need the extra time. We are committed to build a store here. We own the property. We spent the money to get it rezoned a couple of years ago, in 1997. But we desperately need some additional months, a year in order to accomplish this. Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a question? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Hale: How many stores does Gordon Foods have? Mr. Reimus: 71. Mr. Hale: 71 retail outlets? Mr. Reimus: Yes. Mr. Hale: 71 throughout the United States? How many in Michigan? Mr. Reimus: Probably close to 40. Mr. Hale: I am assuming before you went to the expense of rezoning this property and saying you wanted to put a retail store there,that you did some kind of market study on the fact that Livonia would be good for one of these retail outlets. Is that your understanding? Was that done? Mr. Reimus: It was prior to the time that I joined the company. I came aboard last year in July and the property was purchased prior to that time. But it is customary that we go through a market study. Mr. Hale: Is there any chance that Gordon Food Services not going to build this building at this location? 17021 Mr. Reimus: To the best of my knowledge, all the information is geared to it. Yes we will build. We have the plans drawn. We are ready to build. We are just not ready to build now. �.. Mr. Hale: The fact that, I think this is at least the second request for a one year extension. Could you live with a six month extension of this? Mr. Reimus: It would be very difficult due to weather conditions or during winter time or early spring. Mr. Hale: So construction would not be possible within the next six months? Mr. Reimus: No, it would not. Mr. Hale: All right. Mrs. Koons Through the chair to the staff, with a six month extension that would bring us to January? Would that mean they would have to pull their permits at that point? Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding, and I will let Al correct me if I am wrong, but once they obtain a building permit the life of that building permit would be for a period of at least six months. If construction is initiated then the permit is extended out beyond that time and once they begin construction obviously the site plan is vested as long as construction is commenced could proceed through the life of that permit. Mr. LaPine: You made a couple of statements that leads me to believe that the store will not be constructed on time. One, you've got four stores in the outer area and we are in the middle. A lot of the business these four stores are getting I would assume it is coming from the Livonia area. Once you build a store in Livonia, those four stores are going to lose whatever business they are getting from Livonia which is going to hurt these stores. It seems to me that these four stores, if they build up to a point where you feel you can build in Livonia and then when the store is built, these other stores will be hurting and you will be closing a store. Mr. Reimus: No, basically it is this way, sometimes it takes about two years, sometimes a little bit more for a store to mature in sales. We project sales for a five year period. If you put two brand new stores into a market with a radius of five or six miles there is a certain amount of cannibalization that takes place from the other stores that surround the two new stores so when we are putting the third new store in a years time the two new stores haven't had the time to mature sales, to build enough sales to establish a buying pattern to get some loyalty from the people that live in the area. We had to steal from stores that are still building in sales drastically because when you open the store,there is no business practically except what walks in and over a period of time you build sales simply by advertising, by being there and doing a good job in the store '41111P. and doing all the things right in the retail world. We will be stealing from the 17022 stores that surround it, they are cannibalized to a certain extent. What we are afraid of is that the two new stores that we just put in, one in July of last year and one in September of last year, will suffer severely by putting a store in Livonia. Mr. LaPine: You must have a dollar volume you want these stores to do before you make your move. Let's assume in a year's time these stores have not reached that dollar volume what will your decision be at that point? Another year's extension or are you going to look at the possibility of not building a store in Livonia. Mr. Reimus: I am told by my superiors that we are committed to building a store in Livonia and we need one more year to get that accomplished. Mr. Alanskas: Your two new stores you opened in 1999, what cities are they in? Mr. Reimus: They were built in 1998. Dearborn opened in July 1998 and it was just before I came here and asked for an extension and the Southfield store opened in September the same year. Mr. Alanskas: The one in Dearborn that opened in July of 1998, when did you go before Planning and Council to get your approval? In what year for Dearborn? Mr. Reimus: I don't know. It is very unusual for us to ask for an extension, very, very unusual. 'Now ow Mr. Alanskas: It is very unusual for us to give two extensions. Mr. Reimus: I respect that and I appreciate that. Mr. Alanskas: What I am hearing from you is that this is a fmancial situation with Gordon Foods. I don't buy into this, that you have to have so many stores because you knew in 1998 and 1999 with these two stores when you came before us for the Livonia store. So why didn't you just buy the property first, which you already did, and then come before us a year later instead of asking for these extensions? To me it sounds like very poor planning. Mr. Reimus: I was not part of the decision process. Mr. Alanskas: I know, but somebody from Gordon Foods was. Mr. Reimus: Absolutely. I don't know how long they owned the property in Dearborn or in Southfield. Mr. Alanskas: Are they the same size buildings as what you are building in Livonia? Mr. Reimus: They are a little bit larger. We have changed our footprint to 14,500 sq. ft. n.. 17023 Mr. Alanskas: I, as one commissioner, it alarms me that for the reasoning you want the extension because like Mr. LaPine says, if those two stores that you now have going do not come up with these numbers that you are looking for. I don't see how it would be feasible for you to open this store and not draw from the other stores. That is just common knowledge, for example, my wife goes to your stores. She goes to the one in Westland. When your store comes to Livonia she is going to be going to Livonia. So you have lost a customer, this is just one person, in that store and you are going to be losing other customers to go to the other stores when it is more convenient to go to Livonia. So, I have an alarming situation where your numbers are going to go down in those stores when you open this store. Mr. Reimus: If we have mature stores, it is not such a big issue because like for instance, Farmington was opened in 1972, I think, and Westland has been open for quite some time. Those stores are mature, they have built sales. They are not still trying to build sales but two brand new stores within a five miles from the store in Livonia, is something we would like to postpone and we just respectfully request a year's extension. Mr. Alanskas: What if you don't get it? Mr. Reimus: Then we have to make a decision whether to build or not. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchi: You own that piece of property on Six Mile and Middlebelt? r.. Mr. Reimus: The company does. Mr. Piercecchi: I echo Bob's and Mr. LaPine's concerns that having an extension, I guess is fine if it is limited, but having it contingent on the successes of an adjoining stores doesn't leave us with much assurance that it will ever go up. But you do own the property, so I guess there is not much of a problem there. Mr. Shane: To the Chair, to the petitioner, what is your normal radius that you try to stick with? Mr. Reimus: There is no normal radius, it depends on density. Mr. Shane: In this particular case, it is five miles? Mr. Reimus: We normally on the wholesale end of it, and you know our stores are 50/50, are fifty percent wholesale and fifty percent retail. For the retail end of it, it is a more narrow radius than for the wholesale portion of it. We draw probably depending upon where you are in the metropolitan area, three miles, because there are other stores around. But there is high density in the Detroit market and we have many stores in the Detroit market. �.. Mr. Shane: Is part of your problem the other stores around? 17024 Mr. Reimus: Not all four,just the two new ones. We would just like for them to build a bit more in sales before we add a third one in this close of a proximity. r.. Mr. Shane: This one will have competition other than Gordon Foods. Mr. Reimus: That is O.K. Mr. Shane: That was my question. What kind of competition would cause you to leave town, for example? Are we on a border line I guess is what I am asking? Mr. Reimus: No. Truly we have very little competition. We are basically a food distributor with some market stores that are open to the public and to accommodate our wholesale customers. We don't really compete with supermarkets,just the same customer with a different location. All of our sales basically go to the in and out not necessarily at home but for the larger gatherings, the churches, the lodges, the schools, restaurants in particular so we have very little competition in the market place. Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: I have one more question. Do you have delivery to these businesses or do they come to your store? Mr. Reimus: They come to the store. `taw Mr. Alanskas: There is no delivery? Mr. Reimus: No delivery. The delivery comes out of the warehouses, the one in Brighton is probably the closest to the Detroit market. The deliveries are made to our wholesale accounts but our wholesale accounts, from time to time, run out of product. It is not that large of a convenience store for our distribution center. That is probably the best way I can describe it. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Hale, if you are going to make a motion I would go along with nine months. That will give them until March 1, 2000, because if we wait until August of next year and then he says we are going to build but we are going to need another six months, then we will have to wait until the next year. He should know, I would think, by March then if he is going to build he can build during that building period. Mr. Hale: Mr. LaPine, then you are the maker of the motion and I will support that. Mr. McCann: Is there discussion? 17025 Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. Maybe somebody on this Board can answer it. Inasmuch as this operation owns the land what negative impact can it have on Livonia? We seem to be concerned about his business operation. I don't see any negative impact on Livonia. It is his land. Noisy Mr. LaPine: Number 1, the property is zoned. He came in and got the property rezoned so he could build there. The property sits there and nothing is built on it so the city is losing tax dollars. So if he isn't going to build on it let him sell off the property and let somebody else, another developer come in and build something there so the city can start getting some tax dollars. We're not getting tax dollars off it as a going business as vacant property. Mr. Piercecchi: The land is still paying taxes. Mr. LaPine: Yes, but .... Mr. Piercecchi: That is your basic reason. Mr. McCann: Also, Mr. Piercecchi, the site plan after a couple of years starts to become stale. There are new buildings going on around it and different things going on in the community, at what point do we need to revisit the site plan that was approved two years prior. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved, it was #7-133-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Extension of Petition 97-8-8-20 by Tolley Vanden Bosch Walton Korolewicz & Bengle P.C., on behalf of Gordon Food Services, Inc. requesting an extension of all plans in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 17700 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the request for an extension of Site Plan Approval by Tolley Vanden Bosch Walton Korolewicz & Bengle P.C., on behalf of Gordon Food Service, in a letter dated July 2, 1999, is hereby approved for a period of nine (9) months and shall be subject to all conditions and requirements set forth in resolution#748-97, is hereby approved subject to all conditions and requirements set forth in the original resolution. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Shane, Hale, Koons, McCann NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. r,,, This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will 17026 now begin the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length at prior meetings therefore there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-2-19 by Shkelzen Kapidani requesting waiver use approval to open and operate a carry-out/sit- down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to remove it from the table? Mr. Shane: So moved. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved it was #7-134-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-5-2-19 by Shkelzen Kapidani requesting waiver use approval to open and operate a carry-out/sit-down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section be taken from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is the petitioner here this evening? `ow Shkelzen Kapidani, 27002 Joy Road, Redford. Mr. McCann: Can you tell us what you position is tonight with regard to the waiver use? Are you still requesting it? Mr. Kapidani: Yes, I am still requesting it. Mr. McCann: Al, is there something new on this? Mr. Nowak: No, we have no additional information on this. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, weren't you going to bring in a revised site plan showing how you were going to put the 30 seats in? Mr. Kapidani: A revised plan? Mr. Alanskas: We had asked you at the last meeting to bring in a revised plan because the way it is right now you showed much more than 30 seats. Mr. Kapidani: I didn't understand that you asked for a revised plan. I just want to make sure �... that there will be 30 seats and no more than that. 17027 Mr. Alanskas: You saying that you will make sure and us not having a site plan showing exactly how it will be, is very difficult. We can't vote on something and say he is going to do this or he is going to do that. What I will have to see is a site plan showing exactly where the 30 seats are, I have no problem with you having 30 seats, but we need a revised plan showing what you are going to be doing and how you are going to have the tables to make sure that it is only 30 seats. Will that be difficult for you? Mr. Kapidani: No, it is not difficult but I did not understand that you asked for a revised plan. I didn't bring the plan with me but I've got the plan already. Mr. Alanskas: But the plan you had showed more than 30 seats. Mr. Kapidani: I am going to use the rest for the carry-out people to wait for their orders. Mr. Alanskas: You are going like this but I would like to see it on paper. Mr. Kapidani: It is not my fault because I did not understand that you wanted to see a revised plan. Mr. Alanskas: Are you all taken care of in regards to your attorney and all the problems that you were having? Kapidani: Everything is straightened out. `ew Mr. Alanskas: Is it being built now, do you have a new builder? Mr. Kapidani: Yes, I have a new builder. Mr. Alanskas: How far have you gone with your building? What are you doing? Mr. Kapidani: They are building the walls today. The plumber starts working today and maybe finish it in two or three days. The electrician is ready to start working. He did some jobs already but they are waiting for each other. Mr. Alanskas: How long before you think you will be able to open with the 30 seats? Mr. Kapidani: In a month. Mr. Alanskas: In a month, o.k., thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi: I will make a motion that we really have no bone fide plans showing the layout of these 30 seats. Each one of you will recall Section 2.08 does allow carry-out to have 30 seats and C-1 you can operate with 12 seats where you can serve. I would like to table the 30 seat section of it because he can go .�,, ahead with the carry-out and with the 12 and when he shows us the plan 17028 perhaps we can add the 18 to it and then you will have 30. That would be my motion Mr. Chairman. Mr. Alanskas: He can't be open for 30 days anyway, so he's got a whole month. Mr. Piercecchi: I wanted to table it to the next regular meeting. Mr. McCann: You are tabling the whole thing? Mr. Alanskas: There is no sense in approving the 12 seats now when he won't be open for a month. Mr. Piercecchi: The point is this is going to force a plan in. The point is he can under C-1 Section 2.08 open a carry-out that seats 12 people that can eat in that restaurant. Mr. Alanskas: But he said he won't be ready for another month to do even that. Mr. McCann: Bottom line is you want to table the site plan. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Piercecchi's motion a little differently. I understand what he is telling me is that the man can go ahead and do his renovations and he can open up and operate a carry-out there right now for 12 seats. Then he would come back to us at a later date to increase the seating to 30 seats. Mr. Piercecchi: That's exactly what I said. Mr. McCann: I think we'll start with Mr. Shane. Mr. Piercecchi: There's been a lot of discussion tonight. I don't even know if it has been supported. Mr. McCann: It's never been supported and you never gave us a date to table it to. Mr. Shane: A question for the staff. Is Mr. Piercecchi correct with respect to the carry- out with 12 seats? Mr. Nowak: There is a provision in the zoning ordinance for a carry-out restaurant with seating which allows up to 12 seats but that also is waiver use approval. That is not allowed by right. You need waiver use approval for the 12 seats. Mr. Shane: Could it be done under this waiver use approval? Mr. Nowak: If you change this from a request to limited service to a request for carry-out, but you still have to receive waiver use approval even for the 12 seats. Mr. McCann: And he still has to go to Council. 17029 Mr. LaPine: We are better off tabling it until he brings back the plans. Mr. McCann: The only problem is he still has to go to Council. So we are looking a lot farther ahead than 30 days. Mr. Taormina: Page 30.01 Mr. Shane: A motion is on the floor, right? Mr. McCann: I don't think so. Mr. Piercecchi: I want to make a motion to table it to the next regular meeting. Mr. McCann: I wasn't sure what you were tabling. You said you were tabling it in part and approving it in part. Mr. Miller: What it is, C-2 is a permitted use. Because all waiver uses in a C-1 carries over to a C-2 and it is a permitted use so under C-1 a carry-out and a 12 seat restaurant is a waiver use. I gave you the wrong information, I apologize. Mr. Nowak: If you look under C-1 District Regulations under permitted uses on page 27, it's got carry-out restaurant without customer seating. So he can only have a carry-out but he couldn't have customer seating. Mr. McCann: So he can open as a carry-out but no seating. Do we have a motion to table? N... Mr. Piercecchi: I want to table to August 24, 1999. Mr. McCann: We have a public hearing and regular meeting on August 10, 1999. Mr. Piercecchi: This will not be a public hearing item. Mr. McCann: We can put it on at the regular meeting part it if he has a plan. Do you want to wait until he has a plan Dan? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. That's what I really want to do. Mr. McCann: This will be tabled until we get a plan. Mr. Shane: I will support that. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved it was #7-135-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 13, 1999 on Petition 99-5-2-19 requesting wavier use approval to open and operate a carry-out/sit-down restaurant with 30 seats to be located within an existing building on the north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Hix Roads in the Northeast 1/4 Section 31, the 17030 Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 99-5-2-19 to date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, do you understand what we have done? Mr. Kapidani: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: In other words we are saying tomorrow if you wanted to you could open up as a carry-out only and then when you bring the staff the site plan of how you are going to have those 30 seats then we will vote on it on August 10, 1999, so that you will have your 30 seats. Mr. McCann: Last week we told you we needed a site plan showing only 30 seats. Tonight you said it wasn't your fault you didn't understand. Mr. Kapidani: It was my fault. Mr. McCann: It is your fault. We need a site plan showing 30 seats. We have to have something to approve. Mrs. Koons: I don't want it to be left unsaid that the other thing we requested through your neighbors, that the trash be taken care of. Mr. Kapidani: I did it the next day. Mrs. Koons: Yes, it was done and done well, thank you. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-8-20 by Nordstrom Samson Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to relocate the AATM on the bank located at 31441 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional on this one, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Michael Rudzinski, Nordstrom Samson Associates, 19853 West Outer Drive, Dearborn. Mr. McCann: You've got some revised site plans for us this evening? Mr. Rudzinski: What we are showing is relocating an existing ATM and looking at a drive- up ATM unit. We are also taking an opportunity to reconfigure the parking so it is easier for traffic to move through the site. We are also doing what we can 17031 to improve the existing landscaping to increase the amount that is on the site from what it currently is. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Nur Mr. Alanskas: What is the date of the site plan? Mr. Rudzinski: I believe the date is July 23, 1999. Mr. Hale: I don't know if you guys were at the last study session when I raised the issue of having additional signage. Mr. Rudzinski: I've gotten the notes from that meeting. Mr. Hale: Is that reflected in your site plan? Mr. Rudzinski: We have a sign that is shown right here. Mr. Hale: I am talking about signage for pedestrian warning. Mr. Rudzinski: It is right here. Mr. Hale: That was added on to this new site plan? Mr. Rudzinski: Yes. It says "Caution Pedestrian Crossing" facing parking area. Mr. Hale: That is located then very close to the building? Mr. Rudzinski: It is located before the sidewalk at a point where somebody driving could see it before they come up to the sidewalk. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? I've got a question. On the prior plan there was landscaping to be relocated next to the southern drive off of Arden Avenue. That will not be installed? Mr. Rudzinski: What we are showing is landscaping being increased here in the corner of Plymouth and Merriman. We are also putting in a landscape island close to the curb cut, the north curb cut off of Plymouth Road. Mr. McCann: My understanding was that we were up to 14.4% landscaping but now you have reduced that down to 11%? Mr. Rudzinski: What happened, there is an island that is actually concrete but there is a tree remaining there. The numbers we have on the drawing, the existing landscaping is 9.5%. The proposed landscaping is 11.1% so we are increasing the amount that is currently on the site. Mr. McCann: The site plan we saw before it was increased to 14.4%which the City requires 15%, why are you dropping down from 14.4%to 11%. That is what I am 17032 trying to figure out, what are we gaining on this site plan over the last one you brought to us? I think the city is losing, isn't it? Mr. Rudzinski: The last site plan we had we also lost in parking. We are trying to maximize the amount of parking on the site. Currently the parking lot on the corner of Middlebelt and Merriman is used for most bank parking. Overflow parking goes over to the west of the bank and then the drive-thru traffic comes through the back of the branch. What we did with this configuration is to allow us to have the same amount of parking on the site and still increase the amount of landscaping from the current amount to a higher amount. Mr. McCann: A question to the staff. Was there adequate parking in the prior plan? Did it meet the city ordinance? Mr. Miller: They have always met the parking requirement on all three plans. Mr. McCann: So they exceed the parking requirement at this point? Mr. Rudzinski: Barrier free parking brings us to 28%of the site. Mr. McCann: What we are doing is creating extra parking at the expense of the greenbelt for the City. Mr. Rudzinski: The problem with big business, especially on busy days, Fridays, if there isn't enough parking on the site, my understanding is customers will tend to drive by the bank and not use it. So the bank may actually lose business on those `V busy days if there is not enough parking. Mr. Shane: The five parking spaces on the south side of the site, the parallel parking, who uses those spaces? Mr. Rudzinski: For employee parking. Don Eagle, First Federal of Michigan. May I say something, there are approximately 10 employees at that branch and even though we are over parked according to city requirements, the realty of the situation is that on many many days of the month we are completely parked up. That is why we are attempting not to cut down on our existing parking. The plan currently shows 28 and the proposed plan shows 28. If I may interject, I may have a minor solution or minor additional landscaping that might help us here. If you look at the southern curb cut on Arden there is an island between the parking and the drive up area, we could widen that somewhat so that it meets at an angle at the curb at the sidewalk. I'm not sure what that will gain us but it will gain us some additional square footage in landscaping. Mr. Shane: Would you have a problem losing one parking space? Mr. Eagle: We would like to do everything that we could possibly do to keep the existing parking. One other thing I might bring up is and I'm not exactly sure where 17033 the Plymouth Road beautification committee is but we would be more than willing to plant some additional trees along Plymouth Road or along Merriman Road as a possibility. Mr. Alanskas: That would be nice for you to do that but that is not on the site and our law says we should have 15% and when this gentleman says we have raised it from 9-1/2%to 11%that is only 1-1/2%. When you first before us we had 14% now we've got 11%. My thought was if you weren't asking for the ATM machine would you have any parking problems at all? Mr. Eagle: Actually the current ATM machine where it stands is because it is a walkup currently. Mr. Alanskas: Now it will be a drive-up. Mr. Eagle: That is correct. It requires those customers who use it, it requires them to park. So the drive-up ATM will help up a little bit and it will take a couple of cars off that western parking lot. Mr. Alanskas: But you will have more traffic into your bank by using the ATM because it won't be just for your customers it will be for anybody that wants to use an ATM. Mr. Eagle: That is still the current situation. Mr. Alanskas: But they are walking, not driving. v.. Mr. Eagle: They are parking and walking to the ATM, mostly. Mr. Alanskas: My thought is that if you have it so they could just drive up to it, you will have a lot more traffic. Mr. Eagle: We hope so. Mr. Alanskas: That is why you are doing this. Mr. Eagle: We are also doing it for security reasons. Mr. Alanskas: That is why we are asking for more landscaping because I for one commissioner don't think 11% on that site is enough. Mrs. Koons: On the same vein as Mr. Alanskas with a drive-thru rather than a walkup ATM, isn't that going to help your parking by one or two spots? Mr. Eagle: I was sort of thinking that as I said it. Mrs. Koons: Because when people wait for the ATM they sit in their car and wait. I know a lot of people don't like to use the walkup ATMs anymore. You may have solved your landscaping by taking one or two spaces back. 17034 Mr. Eagle: If that is the case, and if that is the way the Planning Commission is looking at this, my recommendation would be to take a parking space off the south property line. Because then depending on how many employees we actually have working on any given day it will allow us extra parking for our customers. Mr. LaPine: I realize first of all that First Federal has been in that location for a long time and it has always been kind of a bad location because of Plymouth Road. They widened the road there consequently you have improved that situation to some degree. When you talk about the 10 employees, you probably have some part time employees so you don't really have 10 full time employees. Mr. Eagle: It depends on the day. Mr. LaPine: Friday, I can understand or 15th of the month or the 30th of the month and mostly on Fridays you probably would have a problem there. The rest of the time we don't have that big of a problem. Maybe we can just eliminate one of the spots and you would have a spot open in the back that isn't used to alleviate that. Mr. Shane: There is one other thing to do, I don't know whether it would gain a whole lot by it but the parking lot to the west of the building where it says "off street parking 11", the drive that takes care of those parking spaces, I think is about 24 feet in width. What is the minimum width of a drive isle that we can get away with, to the staff? Mr. Taormina: That would depend on the depth of the individual stalls. Mr. LaPine: The stalls have to be 20 feet, because that is our ordinance. Mr. Taormina: Because of the tight conditions on this site I am not sure they are conforming in that regard. The parking stalls are each about 21 feet. Mr. Shane: If you could take the driveway down to 22 feet you might gain an extra 3 feet along that sidewalk but that may not be worth the trouble. Mr. Taormina: In considering where to add the landscaping, one of the recommendations that we would make would be that it be combined with one of the other islands so that we don't create a very small area of landscaping that would not be maintained necessary, or difficult to maintain. That would pretty much identify the areas adjacent to the landscape beds either at the northeast corner of the site of at the southwest corner of the site as probably being the two best areas to consolidate landscaping. Mr. Eagle: I could make a suggestion that perhaps we could agree on. I think the bank would be happy to landscape the southwest corner, which we already show a triangle of landscaping there already. We could increase that to include the — parking spot next to it. 17035 Mr. Alanskas: How much do you think that would increase it by doing the parking space 10' X 20', Mark? Mr. Taormina: It would be 10'X 22' plus a small area in addition to that so about so probably about 240 square feet. Mr. Alanskas: That would help. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Mr. Piercecchi: How many square feet is there of the landscaping of that building. Mr. Shane pointed out you can probably get a 4'X 75', two or three hundred square feet there. How would that impact the percentage? Mr. Rudzinski: The existing landscaping is currently 2,514 sq. ft. The proposed drawing shows 2,940 sq. ft. Mr. Eagle: If I may, that western parking lot if you drive is pretty tight. I would suggest before you folks move to do that you might want to really take a look at that because it is a fairly tight parking spot. Mr. McCann: What three spaces were in the last plan? Mr. Rudzinski: We had an island shown here and what we did we narrowed this down to just ATM traffic and put three parking spaces there. Mr. McCann: So you added three spots in that island? Mr.Rudzinski: To maintain the current parking. Mr. McCann: Basically that is cement and the front of the parking area is all cement? Mr. Rudzinski: Yes. With a tree in a planter. Mr. Eagle: Let me just confirm something here for my own benefit. The center island with the tree in it is cement? Mr. Rudzinski: Yes. It is not included in our landscape calculation. Mr. Eagle: Sounds like a relatively easy solution to me. Mr. McCann: That creates some there. Mr. Eagle: That is approximately 25' X 30', or 23' X 30'. Mr. Shane: You are on the east side of the building? Mr. Eagle: Yes. 17036 Mr. Shane: That is right here. Mr. McCann: We are going to lose one space and if we went to two spaces there and then had a greenbelt around both it would give you a center area. I don't know if we can have a U-shaped greenbelt area around two spaces or not. That would bring you up to your 14% and only lose one spot. Mr. Rudzinski: The bank is hoping that they could keep the parking closer to the main intersection where it is visible so people can see it. Mr. McCann: That is where the greenbelt looks the best too is near the main intersection. People walk by and they see a prettier building. Mr. Eagle: It is also closest to the front door which makes it most accessible to the customer. Mr. McCann: Actually isn't the west side a little more accessible? You've got a walkway, you don't have to cross in the traffic. Mr. Eagle: That is correct but the front door is on the north side of the building at the east wall. Mr. McCann: East wall? Mr. Eagle: But you are correct. If you go from the west lot there is no traffic to cross. Mr. McCann: That is where you have the handicap? Mr. Eagle: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Have we come up with a consensus here? Mr. McCann: I've got my idea of what I would like. Elaine has her idea of what she would like and they've got their ideas what they would like. Mr. LaPine: I would like to see if they could get one space right here and bring this down and increase that. We're only going to get 10'or 12'. Well either way. Mrs. Koons: Can I give it the emotional shot. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved it was #7-136-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-6-8-20 by Nordstrom Samson Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to relocate the ATM on the bank located at 31441 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, be ,r,, approved subject to the following conditions: 17037 1) That the Site, Floor& Elevation Plan marked Sheet A1.0 prepared by Nordstrom Samson Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered ro. to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the Landscape Plan shall be revised to provide for a minimum of 14% of the total area of the parcel and that the revised plan be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to review by the City Council. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shane: Is the plan going to be revised prior to going to City Council? Mr. McCann: Are you making an alternative resolution? Mr. Shane: I would like the resolution not go to City Council until the staff has worked it out. Mr. McCann: Do you want to make that an amendment to the resolution? Mr. Shane: Correct? Mr. McCann: Does the maker agree to that? Mrs. Koons: Fine. Mr. McCann: The co-maker? Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to that. Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: You brought up a good point about the landscaping here and it seems like there are a lot of areas that can't be massaged here. Wouldn't it be more prudent if we requested an additional site plan with more landscaping, at least up to the 14.4%they started with? I think, Mr. Chairman, that the prudent decision here, inasmuch as there is no panic here to get this resolved, would be to table this matter and I am going to offer a motion to table, Mr. Chairman until we get a different layout and hopefully with more landscaping. 17038 Mr. McCann: Is there support for his tabling motion? Mr. Hale: I support that but I don't know how we can have two motions on the floor. Mr. McCann: This would be an alternate motion. We have to vote on this one first then. If there is no discussion, please call the roll. Mrs. Koons: What are we voting on? Mr. Alanskas: For tabling. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-6-8-20 by Nordstrom Samson Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to relocate the ATM on the bank located at 31441 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-6-8-20 be tabled. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Hale, Piercecchi NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine, Koons, Shane, McCann ABSENT: None �... Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, will the Secretary call the roll on the first motion? A roll call vote on the first motion was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Koons, Shane, McCann NAYS: Hale, Piercecchi ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council once you have complied with our request to bring it back up to at least 14% of landscaping. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Greenbelt Review Application by Pierson Center requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 32625 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to remove it from the table? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was 17039 #7-137-99 RESOLVED that, Greenbelt Review Application by Pierson Center requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 32625 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section be taken from the table. New Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. For the record, I received a letter dated July 23, 1999, addressed to the Planning Department regarding the greenbelt review at Pierson Center. American Management and Leasing would like to request that the Planning Commission table our July 27, 1999, meeting until the September 21, 1999 meeting. Hopefully this would allow time to contact a professional to consult with us in preparing our new proposal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. The letter is signed by DT (Dawn Taylor). Is there a motion? Mr. Shane: So moved. Mr. Hale: I support for indefinite tabling. Mr. McCann: O.K. Until we come back with a plan. Do you agree with that Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: I sure do. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was #7-138-99 RESOLVED that, Greenbelt Review Application by Pierson Center requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined •�.• in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 32625 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, the Planning Commission does here recommend to table to date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 786th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on June 8, 1999. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved, it was #7-139-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 786th Public Hearing &Regular Meeting held on June 8, 1999 are approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Koons, Shane, McCann, Hale NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Piercecchi Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 17040 Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 787th Regular Meeting held on June 22, 1999. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was '.. #7-140-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 787th Regular Meeting held on June 22, 1999 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the 381st Special Meeting held on June 29, 1999. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved it was #7-141-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 381st Special Meeting held on June 29, 1999 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 789th Regular Meeting held on July 27, 1999 was adjourned at 8:25 P.M. /' Michael S. Hale, Secretary ATTEST: I /? l_._. 4 > Jmes C. McCann, Chairman /rw