HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-07-23 15075
MINUTES OF THE 728th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
Now
On Tuesday, July 23, 1996, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
728th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas
Daniel Piercecchi R. Lee Morrow
Members absent: James C. McCann Patricia Blomberg
Messrs. H. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also
present.
Mr. Engebretson 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 and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The
Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating
petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna
Application by Mouna Harake requesting approval for the installation of a
satellite dish antenna for property located at 19251 Southampton Drive in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Engebretson: From a procedural point of view we need a motion to remove this from
the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-137-96 RESOLVED that, Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Mouna Harake
requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property
located at 19251 Southampton Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, be
taken from the table.
15076
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on Southampton Drive just off Gill Road
between Seven and Eight Mile Road. Since the study meeting they
have downsized their original proposal. They are now proposing a six
foot diameter satellite dish. It would be pole mounted, and the height
of the total, including the dish and the pole, would not exceed seven
feet in height. It is still located approximately at the same location it
originally was but the petitioner has proposed to add landscaping to his
site plan to help screen it from the neighbors. There are two trees
behind the satellite dish. The dish will sit approximately in the middle
of these two trees to help screen it from the neighbor to the rear. The
petitioner is proposing to add another evergreen tree and some bushes
to help screen it from that neighbor. He also is proposing to add a
semi-circle of trees near the satellite dish to help screen it from the
neighbors to the west. If need be, he also has consented to add some
landscaping along that property line of these neighbors to the west.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, regarding the screening for the neighbors to the west, was
there any discussion about corresponding screening for the other side
of the dish that faces out across the street?
'N"' Mr. Miller: No he never mentioned anything like that. He was basically trying to
screen it for the neighbors.
Mr. Morrow: I think when we were out there site checking it there was some
discussion about that but because of the pool and the offset he probably
was reluctant to talk too much about it. He did indicate, at least as I
recall, that should it be necessary, he would probably do it. There
might be some landscaping around the pool.
Mr. Alanskas: When visiting the site Saturday, I was surprised at the trees that are
there right now. One was leaning at an eighty degree angle like it was
almost dead. The other two are not that healthy. My question to the
petitioner, if these trees died and had to be removed, would you put up
trees of the same height that those are now because they are not in that
healthy of a condition?
Mr. Harake, 19251 Southampton Drive: Which trees?
Mr. Engebretson: The ones to the rear of the satellite dish location.
Mr. Harake: The older trees?
15077
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Harake: Yes we can replace those if they die.
Mr. Alanskas: With the same height trees because that would be an expensive
proposition because of how tall they are?
Mr. Harake: Yes, those are about 15 feet high.
Mr. Alanskas: Yes, so if those died, you would replace them with the same height
trees?
Mr. Harake: Yes we would.
Mr. Alanskas: And that would be a condition of the resolution.
Mr. Morrow: I have no problem with what Mr. Alanskas said as far as replacing them
but I think we would need to replace them with those that would be tall
enough to cover the dish but not necessarily 15 feet high.
Mr. Engebretson: Say a minimum of ten feet.
Mr. Morrow: No,just to cover it. I know where Mr. Alanskas is coming from but a
Now 15 foot high tree is a pretty good size tree to try to screen the dish.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I noticed at the study meeting of July 16th it was noted
that two neighbors had made it known that they were against having a
large dish antenna within eyesight of their backyards. Has there been
any change in that?
Mr. Harake: Yes we have letters from both of them.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you give those to Mr. Shane please.
Mr. Piercecchi: So both of the adjoining neighbors who would really see it have given
approval for that dish, is that correct?
Mr. Engebretson: It appears so. I would think Mr. Piercecchi that based upon the
landscape plan presented, that apparently took care of the neighbors'
concerns off to the west. Is that correct?
Mr. Harake: Yes.
15078
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-138-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Mouna Harake requesting approval for
the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 19251
Southampton Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Mouna Harake, as revised,
received by the Planning Commission on July 23, 1996, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That should any current or subsequent trees die for any reason, that they
be replaced by trees high enough to screen the satellite dish from the
neighbors.
for the following reason:
1) That the proposed satellite antenna is designed and located such that it
will not have any detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
'410.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#163-96, to hold a public
hearing on the question of whether the vacant parcel zoned R-5 north of
Wadsworth, east of Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 (Parcel
Y1a3a2) should be rezoned from R-5 to R-2.
Mr. Engebretson: I am looking for a motion to hold a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-139-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#163-96, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not
to rezone lands lying east of Stark Road and north of Wadsworth Avenue in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to R-2.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
15079
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#594-96, to hold a public
hearing on the question of whether the proposed amendment to Section 18.50D
of the Zoning Ordinance regarding political signs should be further revised to
provide that the maximum area of a political sign shall not exceed 16 square feet
or eight feet in height, and whether written permission should be required to be
obtained from the property owner on undeveloped commercial or
undeveloped manufacturing property.
Mr. Engebretson: I am looking for a motion to set a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-140-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #594-96, and Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Now Section 18.50D of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for additional
control over the placement and size of political signs.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 727th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on July 9, 1996.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#7-141-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 727th Regular Meeting& Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 9, 1996 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
15080
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Engebretson, Morrow
NAYS: None
``r. ABSENT: McCann, Blomberg
ABSTAIN: Piercecchi
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-8-9 by
Don Summers requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct two office
buildings on property located at 15130 Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 20.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Levan between Five Mile
and Jamison right across from St. Mary Hospital. The petitioner is
proposing to construct two office buildings. One building will be
11,400 sq. ft. in size, and the other office building will be 9,000 sq. ft.
in size. Both buildings would be situated toward the center of the
property. The buildings would set side by side, approximately 50 feet
apart and be connected by a 4,300 sq. ft. lobby/waiting structure.
Accessibility to the site would be achieved by a divided drive off Levan
Road. Parking would be located around the whole building. They are
required to have 237 parking spaces; the site plan shows 238 so they
meet the parking requirements. Two trash dumpsters are located on
site, one at the northeast corner of the site and the other one at the
southeast corner. Landscaping, they are required to have 15%, and
they show 23% landscaping. The petitioner is proposing to substitute a
greenbelt along the east property line and the south property line for
the required protective wall because it abuts residential.
Mr. Engebretson: Unless I missed something, but I understood there was to be a wall
separating the residential property on the east side.
Mr. Shane: That is true. There will be a six foot high masonry wall along the east
side, and it will be returned 60 feet along the north side. I believe you
were talking about 40 feet last week but he has agreed to go to 60 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't mean to dwell on it but I thought I just heard you say they
wanted to put a substitute greenbelt there. There are a lot of plantings
but there will also be a wall?
Mr. Shane: The substitution of the greenbelt will be on the south property line.
Mr. Piercecchi: Scott, on the south wall, is there not now a wooden fence there?
15081
Mr. Shane: There are residential homes along there and there is a wooden wall.
Mr. Piercecchi: Does that satisfy the requirements of the ordinance or should that also
be a masonry wall?
Mr. Shane: There will be a 20 foot greenbelt which will replace the requirement for
the masonry wall along the south side.
Mr. Piercecchi: It will be retained as long as it stays in condition?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess my memory is failing me but I don't remember that wooden
wall or fence going the entire length of that property. I know that the
first neighbor off Levan has a wooden fence.
Mr. Shane: I don't know if it goes the full length but there is a wooden fence on
the property line.
Mr. Engebretson: That is what is bothering me. We talk about it as though it exists along
the entire property line, and now it seems it exists on part of it, but the
reason there is consideration of waiving the wall is based on the fact
there is a fence there, and it is either there or it's not there, and if it is
Nil"` not there, then I fail to see the logic of waiving it. I understand why we
would waive it if the fence exists totally. I need someone to clarify
that. Maybe some of the neighbors are here that can fix that or Mr.
Summers can.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I brought up the wooden fence Mr. Chairman, wooden
fences generally have limited life and a masonry wall generally is
considered permanent.
Mr. Engebretson: We raised that issue at the study session and Mr. Summers indicated
the problem they would have to install a masonry wall butting up to
that fence. They would have to take that fence down to build a
masonry wall and I don't know if there is support from the
neighborhood to do that but maybe Mr. Summers can answer that.
Mr. Summers: Along that south wall the wooden fence goes along the first house that
borders the property, and everything else is chain link fence from there
on to the back. It is a combination. You have a wood fence, then it
goes chain link fence from there back bordering the south.
15082
Mr. Engebretson: Is it safe to assume Mr. Shane that each of those neighbors were made
aware of this process through official notice, the abutting property
,,`, owners?
Mr. Shane: No, the abutting property owners are never notified in a site plan
approval process, but that 20 foot greenbelt does have a three foot
berm as well as heavy evergreen and landscaping along there. The
ordinance permits a greenbelt in place of a wall. This is what the
petitioner has chosen to propose on that south line.
Mr. Engebretson: So we have been depending on the neighbors, through word of mouth,
to become aware of what is going on here. Mr. Summers do you have
anything to add?
Steven Summers: I am with Twin Valley Corporation, the developer of the property.
Based on last week's study meeting we put together a color rendering
of the front elevation of the building. There are really three main items
here. We have the brick; the dryvet, which is a border along the entire
perimeter of the building, and of course the shingle roof. Based on
that, we are going to lean toward the red brick mode here and kind of
an earth tone dryvet. I have a sample of the dryvet with me if you
would like to see it.
Mr. Alanskas: H, that 60 foot wall along the north, is it going to be staggered or all
Nar" one height?
Mr. Shane: I think he is going to do it all one height. The only reason for
staggering it is when you bring it all the way out to the street, that is
when you stagger it.
Mr. Alanskas: So it will be the full six feet?
Mr. Shane: It will be the full six feet.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Summers when this dryvet is installed, are each of these individual
layers applied serially? You apply one, let it dry, apply another, let it
dry, etc.
Mr. Summers: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: H, do we require flame retardant polystyrene? There is a difference.
Mr. Shane: I am going to say probably although I am not an expert in that line.
The Building Department would set those standards but I have a feeling
that is probably correct.
15083
Mr. Engebretson: Anything else Mr. Summers?
Mr. Summers: I think Mr. Shane explained the north wall. I do know that the
neighborhood committee on the east side was looking into possibly
having us coloring the wall facing them, and we are willing to paint it
but not maintain it.
Mr. Alanskas: How did they get an outside patio that says lunch area? If they are
going to eat out there, what are they going to do with the refuse, the
lunch bags, etc. so it doesn't go into the parking lot and residential
area?
Mr. Summers: With the two dumpsters, hopefully they will carry in their leftovers and
take them into the building. For the outside lunch area itself we could
provide a trash receptacle.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposal?
Robert Biegas: I live on the east side of the development here. I am just curious. On
the construction of the wall he mentioned that it was poured. Is it my
understanding you are still going to put a pattern in the wall or is it
simply going to be poured?
Mr. Summers: It will be a simulated brick pattern, which you might see around town.
It gives it a brick look.
Mr. Biegas: Regular brick or more like a block?
Mr. Summers: Regular brick and it is poured with panels and when you stroke the
panels off, you get a simulated extension of brick.
Mr. Biegas: He also mentioned about painting, I believe, our side of the wall. We
haven't decided whether we would like that or not. We haven't really
discussed it. I guess we can decide that at a later date. It doesn't have
to be written out?
Mr. Engebretson: Not tonight but why don't you do this. Why don't you meet with your
neighbors and be prepared to take a stand on that when the City
Council hears this matter because at that time they will be looking for
specific commitments from the developer. Like tonight you have heard
them say the color would probably be this, and the brick they are
leaning toward that, etc. and that is okay at this point but the point
being if this were a smaller site, we would have the final determination
15084
here, and if that were the case, we would not let this matter come to a
final conclusion until every last detail was worked out to everyone's
,`, satisfaction. In this particular case, because you are not prepared to
take a position as an individual or as a group, it is not a problem
because there is another step. You may want to call the City Council
office tomorrow and give them your name and phone number and make
sure you are given notice of when they deal with this matter so you can
make your thoughts known, representing either yourself or your
neighborhood, and that would be the deadline as to when you would
have to make a decision.
Cecelia Coffey, 15099 Woodside: My concern is about the garbage. I am also concerned
about that wall on the north end that now my understanding is it is
going to be 60 feet rather than the 40, is that my understanding?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes ma'am.
Ms. Coffey: I am concerned about the garbage because I just want to know if that
garbage dumpster leans right against the wall.
Mr. Engebretson: There is an enclosure there madam that will surround the dumpster. It
will be on a pad, and it will be surrounded with gates closing it off from
view, and you won't even be aware of its presence.
No.. Mr. Shane: It will be at least 20 feet south of the proposed wall. You will have the
dumpster enclosure, the landscaping and then the protective wall
between you and the dumpster.
Ms. Coffey: How high is that? I just wondered is it visible over a six foot wall?
Mr. Summers: Generally not but it may be depending on the angle you are looking at
it, but dumpster walls are a little higher than six feet usually.
Mr. Shane: In addition to that you will have some landscaping surrounding it.
Ms. Coffey: I wonder how often do they empty a dumpster?
Mr. Summers: I would say at this facility probably twice a week. It can be scheduled
any time also.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, I believe that we would be authorized to put some
restrictions on the servicing of that dumpster, wouldn't we? We don't
want at five o'clock in the morning to have a truck in there lifting that
up. We could say it has to be serviced between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m.?
15085
Mr. Shane: You could do that. Besides that I think you will find an operation like
*N. this is going to be 99% paper.
Ms. Coffey: I don't believe it is all paper because I do work for physicians and there
is other refuse.
Mr. Engebretson: The medical waste should be contained inside the building.
Ms. Coffey: There still is waste, diapers and blood that goes on the paper.
Mr. Engebretson: What would you like for us to do?
Ms. Coffey: Nothing. I just want to verify that garbage is not going to be flying
over into my yard.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't think you have to be concerned about that.
Ms. Coffey: There is a cover on it?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes.
Ms. Coffey: When it is emptied, is it one of those where they lift the entire garbage?
'gl"' Mr. Engebretson: Probably. We will make sure it isn't emptied when you are sleeping.
Eda Biegas, 15043 Woodside: That is directly behind the proposed buildings. I was at
the study meeting last week and I was wondering if the landscape plan
had changed at all since last week?
Mr. Engebretson: In what regard.
Ms. Biegas: The plan I saw last week, is it the same plan?
Mr. Shane: Yes with the exception of the north wall item.
Ms. Biegas: They talked about lowering the lighting last week. I am concerned
because according to the plan it looks like the light is going to be
directly behind my bedroom window, and it is my understanding it is
going to be on a timer to turn it off by eleven at night.
Mr. Summers: Yes it is going to be on a timer set to go off at eleven o'clock.
Ms. Biegas: If ten o'clock is a better time and the building is cleared, and the
lighting is bothering us, who do I call?
15086
Mr. Engebretson: We are going to do better than that for you. We are going to make
'i.w sure that those lights have shields on them that prevent the light from
shining onto your property. They will be down directed lights, and if
that fails, then we will ask the Inspection Department to get that
remedied. We will make sure that is in our resolution here, if this is
approved, to make sure you have some protection because it is a point
well taken.
Ms. Coffey: Will they still be going off at a certain hour?
Mr. Engebretson: We are going to find out what their hours of operation are and we will
say an hour after they close or some particular time, whichever occurs
first.
Ms. Coffey: Thank you I appreciate that. I realize they will be shielded but the way
the view is from my window, we will still see the light so if it does go
off by a decent hour that will be acceptable.
Mr. Engebretson: We will make sure that happens. Mr. Summers do you have any
problem with any of the issues you just heard?
Mr. Summers: No problem. I am in agreement with Mr. Shane about the extension of
the wall. We have no problem with that although aesthetically we
`ow would prefer not to have a wall on the north side, we are going to go
ahead and do it because that would be the neighborhood's concern.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the neighbors had valid concerns there and if that puts their
minds somewhat to rest, then I think it is the right thing to do. We are
appreciative of the fact you are doing something you don't really have
to do but it is the right thing to do, and you agree.
Mr. Morrow: We talked about the lights, I was going to ask Mr. Summers what he
feels would be a time to turn off the lights because we are backing up
to a neighborhood.
Mr. Summers: I can tell you that more than likely this facility will be vacated by nine
or ten o'clock at the very latest because it is not an all-night clinic. We
operate another place and we are gone by nine o'clock, so by eleven
o'clock I see no problem.
Mr. Morrow: Could you live with ten o'clock?
Mr. Summers: I would have to talk it over with the doctors and the owners.
15087
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to have it on that extra hour if it is not necessary. I think
it is reasonable to say an hour after closing. It leaves the employees to
spend time after they close to do whatever they have to do and still
leave on a fairly timely basis and still have lights. I wouldn't want to
go an extra hour at night if it is not required. I guess that is something
that maybe can be resolved between now and when the City Council
looks at the final plan.
Mr. Summers: I would like to add that there will be some soffit lights. Those we like
to keep on for security for the building itself. They will be placed in
increments across the building. Those I would like to keep on.
Mr. Morrow: We are talking about the 20 foot lights.
Mr. Summers: Those will be shut off
Mr. Engebretson: Give me reassurance that there is no fluorescence involved in that
lighting you just described.
Mr. Summers: More than likely we would like to use something that would last and be
efficient.
Mr. Engebretson: But your objective is to go down on your building and not go out?
�•• Mr. Summers: This is for security.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-142-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 96-6-8-9 by Don Summers requesting approval
for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct two office buildings on property located at 15130
Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated June 21, 1996, as revised, and which shall be
further revised so as to provide for parking lights which have a maximum
height of not to exceed 20 ft., which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan dated July 15, 1996, as revised, and which shall be
further revised so as to provide for the extension of a 6 foot high masonry
protective wall for a distance of not less than 60 feet along the north property
line, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
15088
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 Building Elevation Plans dated July 1, 1996 which are hereby
approved shall be adhered to
5) That the trash dumpster areas are to be enclosed on three sides with the
same brick used in the construction of the principal building and the wooden
enclosure gates, when not in use, shall be maintained and closed at all times;
6) That the greenbelt along the south property line shall be substituted for the
protective wall required by Section 18.45 of Zoning Ordinance#543.
7) That all lights in the parking lot shall be extinguished at 10:30 p.m. or one
half hour after the closing, whichever comes first.
8) That the trash shall be picked up between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m.
9) That the walls shall be poured walls, simulated brick, and painted on the
neighbors' side according to their agreement.
sow. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-8-12 by
Trade Vine Party Shoppe requesting approval for all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the existing commercial building located at 27455 Six Mile Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Inkster and Rougeway Drive. It is the site of the Trade Vine Party
Shoppe. They are proposing to construct a 600 sq. ft. addition to the
front of the building. The addition will extend the whole store front out
10 feet. The existing building is 2400 sq. ft. so once this is completed
the entire store will be 3,000 sq. ft. in size. Parking, they are required
to have 16 spaces. They do show it on the plan. Since the study
meeting this plan has been revised. They did have it drawn up so they
would have to share some of Mammoth Video's property, some of
their drive to get into their parking spaces. They were unable to
receive a letter of easement to use that property so they revised the
plan so with the new parking layout they do not need to use any of the
15089
adjacent property. They are all obtainable from his property, so he
meets the parking requirement. Landscaping, there exists no
landscaping on the property at the present time. They are proposing to
add landscaping to the front. The trash dumpster is located in the
corner behind the store. The construction of the new addition will be
all brick.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add whatever comments
you care to.
Jay Nannoshi: He explained everything to you. That is what I plan to do. You asked
me for brick so I did. I couldn't get the letter, like he said, from my
next-door neighbor so we did it ourselves.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you own that property?
Mr. Nannoshi: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: We were very much concerned about your access to your rear parking
there, and since you weren't able to solve it the way you originally
intended, the fact that you solved it another way, I guess gets the job
done so we will be able to act on it. We were concerned that based on
what was presented to us originally, we would not be able to act on it
without that letter of agreement but it appears you have taken care of
`�•- that. You have shown us the brick.
Mr. Alanskas: Now that I know that you own the property, the parking lot between
you and Mammoth has big deep holes in it, two of them, and then the
very back lot is in pretty bad condition. Have you thought about taking
care of that parking lot?
Mr. Nannoshi: That is what I am trying to do.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to repave it?
Mr. Nannoshi: Everything.
Mr. Alanskas: On Saturday there was at least 10 to 20 garbage bags laying in the
back.
Mr. Nannoshi: That is not my property. That is Mammoth Video's property.
Mr. Engebretson: As I look at that orientation on that site plan there, the disarray that
you are referring to is actually behind the empty lot to the west of his
building. It is not on his property. We are agreeing with you that it is
15090
not on your property but we are making sure we know where it is. Mr.
Shane, I think it would be appropriate for you to inform the Inspection
Department that it would be appropriate for them to visit that site just
""' to the west of him. It is really in terrible condition with overgrown
weeds, tires and trash bags everywhere. I am sure you would like to
see it gone too. It is not a good situation.
Mr. Alanskas: But you are going to take care of the lot?
Mr. Nannoshi: That is what I am trying to do.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-143-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 96-7-8-12 by Trade Vine Party Shoppe requesting approval for all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing commercial building
located at 27455 Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the Site, Landscaping and Building Elevation Plan prepared by
Architectural Design& Construction, as received by the Planning
Commission on July 23, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
Noir
2) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped and also
repaved.
3) That the total of all window signage, permanent and temporary, covers
not more than twenty(20) percent of all the glass area of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: Although it may seen redundant, I request that a friendly amendment be
included which stipulates that no more than 20% window signage be
employed at any time. The reason for this Mr. Chairman, this facility is
constantly in violation of 18.52, Section (g)2a., which limits signage to
20% of all windows. I have seen this facility with sometimes practically
100%, and I want that put in the motion to make sure this petitioner
realizes he should adhere to that stipulation.
Mr. Nannoshi: I really only have 20%, whatever is in there. They have come and
checked it twice. After that it was going to be 20%.
Mr. Engebretson: It will be in the proposed approving resolution, so there is no possible
misunderstanding. You apparently already knew what the requirements
are but now Mr. Piercecchi has included it in this resolution so there
15091
can't possible be any misunderstanding, and we would ask that you
please comply with that.
N`"' Mr. Nannoshi: No problem.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Wonderland Auto Wash requesting approval for a ground sign for
property located at 29067 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt and Garden. They are proposing to erect a new ground
sign. This site is allowed one ground sign at 30 sq. ft. They are
proposing one ground sign at 40 sq. ft. so it is over the size allowed
therefore they had to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance. They
have; so what is before you is what was granted a variance. Also there
is a non-conforming 64 sq. ft. pole sign on site. This sign will be
removed and this sign will take its place. The proposed sign before you
tonight is 40 sq. ft. in size, 6 ft. in height, 8 ft. across and also sets back
from Plymouth Road 6 ft. This is what the Zoning Board granted so by
virtue of the variance this is a conforming sign.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the petitioner and he can make whatever comments are
appropriate.
Ron Borrie, 29781 Richland: I really don't have anything to add but I guess I would like
to add something after the vote is all done.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you want to tell us why you are using the color scheme that you are
on that sign?
Mr. Borrie: That one right there, we have two different types of services. We have
to compete with all the $2 car washes that are out there but we are a
full-service facility so the colors we basically copied off Shell Oil
Company. It is to try to distinguish the two different services. We
want to attract the customers with the $2 wash but we also want to let
them know that we also do full service and detailing. That is why the
two different colors on the sign.
Mr. Alanskas: What are your hours and how late are you open in the evening?
Mr. Borrie: Until eight o'clock.
15092
Mr. Alanskas: Sundays also?
Mr. Borne: Until five o'clock.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-144-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Wonderland Auto Wash
requesting approval for a ground sign for property located at 29067
Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Chapman Sign Inc. dated April 23, 1996, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and
2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond the hours of operation of
the subject car wash facility.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Now sir you have the floor. Let me anticipate, you would like the
seven days waived?
Mr. Borrie: That's exactly what I was going to ask. The reason why I am asking
that the seven days be waived, we would like to try to see if we can get
on the Council meeting tomorrow because our other sign has to be
removed before we can repave the lot. We are going to repave the
whole lot, and by the time they make the sign, the asphalt place is going
to be closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-145-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of
Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the Sign Permit
Application by Wonderland Auto Wash requesting approval for a ground sign
for property located at 29067 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
36.
Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
15093
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 728th Regular Meeting
r..
held on July 23, 1996 was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Rkkid\ •Nr ; •\)14)"-7
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
P
ATTEST: ( I A "
—
Jack Engebretso' , Vice Chairman
Ig