Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-05-23 14145 MINUTES OF THE 704th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 23, 1995, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 704th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Jack Engehretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg William LaPine Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, 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 say 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. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-2-14 by Outback Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor seating area to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Engebretson: This was an item that was tabled at a previous public hearing so procedurally we need a motion to remove it fLom the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #5-91-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-4-2-14 by Outback Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor seating area to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, be taken from the table. S.. 14146 Mr. Elgehretson: Mr. Nagy do we have anything new? Mr. Nagy: We have no new correspondence other than what we already have in the record. Now Mr. EngPbretson: Then we will go to the petitioner. We understand that you weren't able to be with us at the regularly scheduled meeting for various reasons. Mike Fuhrman: There was a mix-up of when we should be there. I talked to Joe Taylor and he told me we should be here tonight at 7:30 p.m. I apologize for missing that last meeting. Basically what we want to do, I have a diagram here. (He passed the diagram out to the Commissioners) . We would like to build a fencing area around the front sidewalk of the building and around the east side of the building. We would put three tables out there serving basically appetizers while people wait for their table for dinner. Mr. Engebretson: So there wouldn't be meal service out there? Mr. Fuhrman: If someone requested meal service, then we would do it, but we would only have an appetizer menu out on the table. Obviously we would do whatever our guests would like us to do. If they would like to eat dinner out there, we would serve them dinner. We are also working on being able to serve cocktails out there and that is why we are enclosing that area so we can do that. Mr. LaPine: I guess I am a little confused as to what you intend to do. The sidewalk is a public sidewalk where anybody can walk. I guess I have no real big objections to the east side because there are no Nor stores on the east side, but on the north side of the building, are you going to block off the whole sidewalk? Mr. Fuhrman: No. If you walk out our front door and look to the east, the rail will be in the front but it won't be blocked. The gate will be at the east side of the corner where you said there are no stores in case there was a fire or whatever to access. That is why we have that gate on there. We would not close it at any other part. Mr. LaPine: Right now you have benches on both sides of your door. Those benches will go and there will be outdoor eating in those two areas too? Mr. Fuhrman: No. We will leave the benches there. The only places we will have tables is on the side. We will just have three small cocktail size tables. Mr. LaPine: There will be no serving of cocktails, food or anything in the front of the building facing the parking lot? Mr. Fuhrman: What we want to do is if people are waiting outside, is to have 14147 the ability to serve them cocktails so they can sit out there and have a cocktail while they wait. Mr. LaPine: There will be no tables? Mr. Fuhrman: No. Mr. LaPine: The only place you will have tables is on the Past side? Mr. Fuhrman: Exactly. Mrs. Blomberg: When I was visiting your site, I noticed out back of the restaurant your grease pit, and it had an open detached top, which I felt to be a safety hazard. Mr. Fuhrman: I have been working with those guys on keeping it put down. If it is detached, it shouldn't be. Mrs. Blomberg: It was detached the day I was there. Mr. Fuhrman: Was it standing upright? Mrs. Blomberg: It was not connected at all. It was even kitty-corner. Mr. FUhrman: I will have to take a look at that. That should be attached. If it is not, obviously I will cover it up because we want that covered up. Mr. Alanskas: When you say a fence, how high will this fence be? 4r- Mr. Fuhrman: Approximately I would guess about four feet. There would also be a little ledge where people could stand and set drinks on the ledge or plates if they were having an appetizer out there so we are probably looking at about five feet. Mr. Alanskas: What type of fencing would it be? What type of wood? Mr. Fuhrman: It would be a fire retardant wood obviously. Mr. Alanskas: What color will this fencing be? Mr. Fuhrman: We are going to paint it white. Mr. Alanskas: Will there be any lighting out there at all? Mr. Fuhrman: No more than we already have. We currently have some recessed lighting up in the eaves. Mr. Alanskas: We show in our notes 24 seats that you would be having there. Is that wrong? Mr. Fuhrman: Yes. We will probably have 12. Initially they were looking at 14148 putting in six tables and I felt that was too many so we were just going to go with three. Mr. Alanskas: So you will have no more than 12 seats at any time? Mr. Fuhrman: At the tables but we would have the benches still. Mr. Morrow: John, does this diagram suffice for going along with the waiver use? It is kind of sketchy at best as far as placement of the tables and benches. Mr. Nagy: We like something a little more detailed like what is on the easel. Mr. Shane: We have a large drawing that is something like that. It is a picture of the floor plan of the building with the fenced in area shown. Mr. Morrow: I guess what I mean is if you look at the interior, we see where all the tables are. Mr. Nagy: We do have a drawing as part of the original submission. The petitioner presented the drawing. Mr. Morrow: There are no tables facing the Five Mile side? There are just benches? Mr. Fuhrman: No. We have three benches. Mr. Morrow: There is no entry by the front door? Mr. Fuhrman: No. What we might do is put a different door on there so the service could come out the side to serve the three tables right there as opposed to walking through the restaurant and out the front door and around the side of the building. Mr. Morrow: I just didn't know if that was what would go forward with the waiver. Mr. Piercecchi: We understand the original request was for 24. Are you changing that to 12? Mr. Fuhrman: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: So if it is approved, you want a motion to state that it is for 12? Mr. Fuhrman: Yes, three cocktail tables. Mr. LaPine: I want a clarification from John. The motion says something about the maximum number of seats to be located outside the 14149 building is 12. Would you consider people sitting on the benches consuming drinks or food, as seats for customers? Mr. Nagy: Yes. `. Mr. TaPine: Then it is more than 12. Mr. Fuhrman: You could probably fit five people on each one of those benches. We have three benches out front. Mr. LaPine: What is going to stop someone from standing up and drinking or eating? Mr. Fuhrman: I understand what you are saying. Chances are people will. Right now when the weather is nice, people are standing outside in front of the building waiting for their tables. Mr. LaPine: I guess the point here sir is we have to set down a maximum number. If it is 12 seats on the east side of the building, we have to say no more than 12. Maybe the number should stay 24 and that would suffice for both sides. Mr. Fuhrman: Right. I see what you mean. We do have a bar inside where people wait and we have a waiting area inside but when the weather is nice people obviously don't mind waiting outside and they will sit on those benches. Some of them will stand up. Mr. Alanskas: If you get real busy on the weekend, we don't want to see 30 or 40 people standing outside drinking when you are only entitled to have a total of 24 in both areas. Mr. Fuhrman: I don't want people crowded into that front area either. Mr. Alanskas: You can't have more than a total of 24 both on the east side and the two benches. You can't have 24 standing outside and then 12 on the other side. Do you understand that? Mr. Fuhrman: Right. Maybe we need to increase that number because I have to believe there will be more people that will walk outside. Mr. Engebretson: We are dealing with a lot of maybe's and questions here tonight. Mr. Fuhrman: Right, because like on Saturday, it would be hard for us to tell you there will only be 24 people standing out there. Mr. Engebretson: I don't know if we have enough information here tonight in an orderly enough way to deal with this issue. John, I would like to ask whether or not the liquor service outside on that public walkway is permitted under normal circumstances? Mr. Nagy: Not without first having his license approved. 14150 Mr. Fuhrman: We are working on an agreement with the LCC. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have enough information. There are just too many ifs and buts about it. I move that we table this '414111, motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #5-92-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-4-2-14 by Outback Steakhouse requesting waiver use approval to add outdoor seating area to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Beatrice Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23 to date uncertain. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: McCann, Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #883-94, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether certain property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Victor Parkway should be rezoned from PO III to a more appropriate zoning classification, such as PO I. slaw Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller has put a very elaborate map up on the easel, and the map is multi-colored and it supports the underlying proposition here as to whether or not to conduct public hearings to deal with the zoning in the Victor Corporate Park that does not necessarily reflect the current use in some instances or planned use in others, so the purpose of this petition here is to set a public hearing to consider whether or not that zoning is proper and if not, what it should be changed to. I am looking for a motion to set that public hearing. Bob Gutkowski: I am the General Manager of the Embassy Suites Hotel. I would ask that the Planning Commission provide us with a copy of the notices when the public hearing is going to be held. We just happened to find out about this at the last City Council meeting that this petition was in the study committee meeting. Unfortunately, we were not aware of it. You know our position on the C-2 and our involvement with the Victor Corporate Park. We wish to continue that involvement and we wish to be notified of changes within that zoning classification. Mr. Engebretson: You certainly will be. All we are doing here tonight sir is to put the wheels in motion to establish a public hearing. It will 14151 take place sometime in the future. I am not sure based on the buffer that is in there whether you would automatically receive notice but we will make sure that you do. Now Mt. Nagy: They will definitely be given notice. They are within the notification area. The zoning of their property is being adjusted as well so they definitely will be notified. Mr. Gutkowski: I know there was a study committee meeting regarding that issue. We unfortunately missed that. Mr. Engebretson: What has happened the City Council has sent it to the Planning Commission to establish this public hearing to determine whether or not the rezoning should occur. There has been no action taken. We are simply setting the wheels in motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #5-93-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #883-94, 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 property located north of Seven Mile Road, east of the I-275 Freeway, from POIII, C-4III and PO to POI, PO, C-4III, and POIII. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to update the Future Land Use Plan. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #5-94-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend the Future Land Use Plan so as to reflect recent zoning changes at various locations throughout the City. AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. 14152 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, 'tor, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a letter received from Providence Hospital requesting to withdraw Petition 93-3-8-2 by Providence Medical Center requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to add an entry canopy to a building and to construct an access drive on property at 20321 Farmington Road in Section 4. Mr. Engebretson: I am looking for a motion to accept the petitioner's request to withdraw. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #5-95-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request by Providence Hospital and Medical Centers dated May 3, 1995, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 93-3-8-2 by Providence Medical Center requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to add an entry canopy to a building and to construct an access drive on property at 20321 Farmington Road in Section 4. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is withdrawal of Petitions 95-1-2-1 and 95-1-2-2 by Landform Engineering requesting waiver use approvals for a full service restaurant and a Class C License to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #5-96-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to take no further action and thereby close their files on Petitions 95-1-2-1 and 95-1-2-2 by Landform Engineering requesting waiver use approvals for a full service restaurant and a Class C License to be located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. 14153 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is withdrawal of `r. Petition 94-6-2-21 by Gibraltar Construction Group requesting waiver use approval to construct a Builders Square store on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #5-97-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 26, 1994, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to take no further action and thereby close the file on Petition 94-6-2-21 by Gibraltar Construction Group requesting waiver use approval to construct a Builders Square store on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-8-8 by Marathon Oil Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a service station on property located at 37416 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This is the gas station that is located at Seven Mile and Newburgh. Right now there is an existing gas station on the site. They are proposing to demolish the site and build a brand new gas station. The gas station would be 2411 square feet in size. It will be fully brick on all four sides. They also are proposing to construct a new pump island canopy, which will be 24 feet in height. The ordinance only allows them to have 18 feet so they are over what is allowed. They have received a variance for that from the Zoning Board of Appeals so they are conforming in height for the canopy. They are also proposing signage. Right now they have a 25 square foot blue Starvin Marvin wall sign to be located on the service station. They are also proposing two Speedway logo signs to be located on the east and west elevations of the canopy, and a 48 square foot ground sign to be located on the corner of the site. The signage is in excess of what they are allowed so therefore they needed a variance, which they received, from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Based on that they are conforming on signage. Parking and landscaping both meet the ordinance. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is with us this evening. I think before we proceed we need to remove this from the table. 14154 On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #5-98-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-4-8-8 by Marathon Oil Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance *4110, #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a service station on property located at 37416 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Ted Blum, 3015 Pepperpike, Findlay, Ohio, 45840: I am here representing Marathon Oil Company, who is proposing to rebuild the Speedway location for our Emro Marketing subsidiary at the intersection of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads. I will go through a little of the history of what we have developed here. We worked carefully to develop this site plan with the Planning Department, Building Department, beginning with traffic development, something that would represent the importance of this intersection to the City. We went beyond what we normally try to do with our buildings. We originally proposed a brick building on four sides, as Mr. Miller stated, bricking our trash enclosure, and proposing a brick ground mount sign in place of the 12 foot high sign permitted by the ordinance. At that time we went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and got a variance to permit a height of 24 feet for our canopy and also to permit additional signs on the canopy. Since that time we have met in study sessions in here at the Planning Commission meeting to resolve other issues. We have revised this Nifty have to show what we have been able to do to this point. We have bricked our canopy columns, which was a suggestion of the Planning Commission. We studied other items that were proposed. Looking at our canopy we agreed to remove one of the signs which we were granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The original color of our roof was darker than this. We changed the shade of blue on the roof to a lighter shade. At the last meeting, from what I understand, the largest remaining issue we had was still the height of the canopy. We did go back and sharpen our pencils, looked at that carefully, and discussed it with levels of our management as to what we could do to try to reduce the height of the canopy. Upon doing that, we believe, still making it manageable, we can reduce the height of that canopy by a foot. We are allowed 24 feet from what we received from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Our highest point is at this corner where we are at approximately 23 feet and we have looked at, through very careful study and discussions with our management without compromising what we are trying to achieve, we could bring it down another foot, another 12 inches. Trust me we did go pretty high up to get permission to do that. We have also tried to work with people in the City, the Building Department, the Planning group, as well as taken into consideration all comments we received from you, and assure you we have penciled all the 14155 comments we have received to the higher levels of our company regarding every aspect of the site plan, what has been discussed so far. We hope you will look favorably upon this proposal and give us a favorable recommendation to go on to the City Council. Nos. I would be happy to answer any questions or discuss any of these items with you. Mr. McCann: Mr. Blum, one of the things that we discussed last week with the staff, they were going to try to get hold of you, I don't know if they did or not, was the possibility of lowering the structure slightly so you don't have a four foot descent, which creates a lot of the height on your canopy. Did you look at that possibility? Mr. Blum: Yes that was one of the items we did look at, the grading, and we do have some limitations on it. We graded this the most efficient way we could. Some of the limitations that we do have are existing heights. One of the things we are doing, we do have certain points that are fixed. We have to drain to the lower portions of the existing site so we do have certain fixed points. Where we are using tanks that are already on site, those points are fixed. It was a matter of building up but we are required by the Department of Natural Resources to have a certain amount of cover over our tanks, so we looked at other ways to refloat the canopy height and we sharpened our pencils carefully and we can take it down another 12 inches. Mr. McCann: Does that mean you are taking it down front 16 feet at the entrance of your store to 15 feet? *4111. Mr. Blum: From 16 foot 6 inches to 15 foot 6 inches at the store, so we would be reducing it 12 inches there, which would also reduce it 12 inches across the entire canopy. Mr. McCann: One of my concerns during the past week was as I drove around I started looking at the height of bridges underneath the highways, and I was on my way out to the Wixom area and I was on I-96 passing under Beck Road. The height of that bridge is 14 feet 4 inches. If I-96 is a superhighway in the local area and can handle all truck traffic, why would you want to be higher than any major bridge in the area? Mr. Blum: As we said before, part of the reasoning for that is we do have vehicles that do pass through there. We have had garbage trucks hit our canopies before. We do have vehicles that do go through there and also it is because of our hip roof. We can only lower the height so far before we start interfering with that roof. If we have to pull the canopy back, we can't provide coverage for the customers from underneath our canopy at our dispensers all the way to the building. Mr. McCann: So you don't have to have anything above 14 feet for your canopy, it is just haw it is going to meet your new building? 14156 Mr. Blum: I can't tell you exactly what the maximum height of a truck that goes through there is. I don't know at what point they start posting those heights on the highway system around here but we have established a height for vehicles to pass through there in addition to providing coverage to our customers so they have coverage all the way from the fill-up area to our building. Mr. McCann: At this point you are asking that 22 feet be the limit? Mr. Blum: Twenty-two feet for all practical purposes. Mr. Piercecchi: I wanted to clarify the exact numbers. The original was 20'6". That is going to 19'6" now at the building? The height of the canopy? Mr. Blum: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Out towards Seven Mile Road, it goes from 23 feet down to 22 feet. Correct? Mr. Blum: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: One question I had, it kind of puzzled me. In looking at your drawings half of where the pumps are is in cement and the other half is in asphalt. Why is that? I am talking about your driveways. Mr. Blum: Actually I have our designer here, Rick Maurer. He may be able to answer that question better than I can. 'to" Rick Maurer: I am with Marathon Oil also. To answeryour Company question, we provided enough concrete to allow the cars to park and fuel. If there should happen to be any gasoline spills, it will not eat through the asphalt. The only part that is not concrete is between the dispenser islands and the building. It is a big enough area that it is a big cost savings for us not to have the concrete there. It is not necessary. Cars aren't fueling there. That is really the only reason we don't have it there. Mr. Piercecchi: I just thought it was rather strange that you had it half and half there. Mr. Engebretson: Let me follow up on that. Is that process employed at all of your new facilities? Mr. Maurer: At most of them. There are some sites where there is a minimal amount of asphalt and when it gets down to eight foot width, it is just more economical for us to just concrete the whole thing. In this case it looks like it is about 16 feet so it would be most efficient for us to use asphalt. Mr. Engebretson: I have been to a number of your facilities recently in connection with this rase, and actually I don't remember seeing asphalt 14157 mixed with concrete at the locations I have been at but I haven't been looking at it either. I have been looking at canopies and signs mostly. Mr. Maurer: It is pretty much a standard procedure for us. Mr. Engebretson: Is there significant cost savings to put an 18 foot wide strip of asphalt in versus concrete? Mr. Maurer: There is enough. At a point it pretty much doubles the price. Mr. Engebretson: Give me an order of magnitude in terms of dollars. Mr. Maurer: I don't have the figures in my head. Mr. Engebretson: Just roughly. Mr. Maurer: I would say at a point where the width starts getting around 8 to 10 foot, that is when the cost of asphalt would be a lot cheaper because of the forming of the concrete. There is a lot more work that goes into pouring concrete than there is with asphalt. Dollar wise, I don't think I could stand here and say that. That might be a better question for Ted. Mr. Engebretson: It is not particularly pertinent, just curiosity more than anything. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Maurer, along that same line, during the site renovation will we look forward to all new asphalt and concrete or are we going Nifty to be using portions from the old site? In other words, in site checking we noticed some low points out by the Newburgh area where I assume the trucks drop the gas in and we saw standing water out there. I just want to get an idea if it is going to be totally renovated or are we going to be working with old concrete? Mr. Maurer: A11 pavement will be replaced whether it be asphalt or concrete. Mr. Morrow: So a complete new surface for the whole site. That sounds very good. Mr. LaPine: The Haggerty/Eight Mile site, how high is that canopy at that location? Mr. Blum: That would be 16 1/2 foot clear. Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, getting back to the sign. I noticed at that location on their canopy there are no signs whatsoever. No Speedway, no big S. We had a big discussion about the Starvin Marvin sign, which I don't think is necessary, not at that location. What makes Farmington different than Livonia that you need these signs here but you don't need them over there? vr.. 14158 Mr. Blum: At the Novi location there, their ordinance prohibits all signs but one sign. At that location we have the one sign there, and their ordinance prohibits any other signs. I believe you can go to any service facility there and none of them have any signs. N` Mr. LaPine: Now Iget to thequestion, you are allowed 100 sq. ft. sign. You went to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they gave you 126 sq. ft. What is the hardship here that you gave the Zoning Board of Appeals that you needed 126 sq. ft. when you have another station that hardly has any signs, just a free-standing sign? Here you don't have any competition. You are not going to have any competition. The corners are taken up already. You are a mile away from any gas stations. You have really a captured audience there. I just don't understand why you need all those signs at this location. Mr. Blum: To the best of my knowledge we do have competition. It may be on the other side of I-275. That is considered part of our competition. There they allow no signs period, other than what we have up front. The reason we had for the signs here was in particular with this location with the speed limits here that we wanted to have people be able to recognize the location. It is true. We do want them to know it is Speedway. If you take a look at the color rendition, I don't think a Speedway on either side, at only one time you can see just one Speedway sign. Mr. LaPine: I can go along with your two Speedway signs, but the S I just can't see what that does. "liar detail, Blum: I think we discussed a little bit previously, maybe not in great detail, but that sign is for Starvin Marvin, which is our convenience store operation, and since we do offer features like paying at the pump, a new feature that we are putting in at our facilities, we do want to encourage customers to also use our convenience store operations. Normally, the sign will be put out front. We would go with a gold post sign, which would advertise the Starvin Marvin there. It is a considerably larger sign, much taller, much bigger square footage, and we have proposed this ground sign instead, which is much less obvious. We do want to let people that are on our site be aware that we do have the convenience store operation there too particularly since we are offering a convenience at the pump for our customers. Mr. LaPine: Do I understand now that the only thing that is going on that canopy is the word Speedway? Mr. Blum: One on each side. Mr. LaPine: And the S is gone? Mr. Blum: The S at this location is gone and that removes another 11 sq. ft. from the signs. 14159 Mr. LaPine: You are going to brick them and then you are going to cover the brick with the same type of signs that you have at the one at Eight Mile in Novi? Mr. Blum: The dispensing instructions that are required by the state will be on the canopy columns. Mr. Piercecchi: When will you start this construction at this particular site? Mr. Blum: Certainly as soon as possible. Of course we have to go through the City Council and get all the permits from the Building Department. We would hope that we could start by the end of summer. Mr. Piercecchi: The reason why I ask, if you recall at the study meeting our Chairman pointed out what we consider some real deficiencies in that area where you are in violation of the ordinance by not having your rubbish containers behind walls and having merchandise outside the building. Those are definitely in violation of our ordinance and you assured us that you would take care of it, and Sunday it was still the same. Mr. Blum: I will address that as best I can. All of those comments were passed on to people in our management. I probably haven't studied this as close as you but I do believe that they did go out and clean up much of the area. We have gone out, particularly with our landscaping, and tried to clean that up. The outdoor merchandising, I believe for the most part, is now in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Service stations are permitted outdoor displays of oil related products. Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with you. Oil products you are allowed to have at your pumps but our ordinance, let me read to you "Outdoor storage of rubbish and junked equipment or parts is prohibited unless such rubbish, junked equipment or parts are stored adjacent and to the rear of the principal building and are enclosed by a masonry wall." That is Section (11) . Section (12) "No part of any parcel of land used for gasoline service station purposes shall be utilized for outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise;" That is Coca-Cola and that kind of things. Will you please take care of that? Mr. Blum: Yes sir I will. Mr. LaPine: One of the questions I had at the last study session was, who is going to maintain the landscaping? As I told you before we have two new facilities coming in that are going to be well landscaped, well taken care of, who does your cutting? You were going to find that out for me. Mr. Blum: Sandy Blomquist, our District Manager, is here and she should be able to tell us who will maintain the landscaping now and after we rebuild. 14160 Sandy Blomquist: I am with Ebro Marketing Company and we do have an outside contractor, a landscaping company that services the facility now, and that is probably who we will have in the future. , y Mr. LaPine: How often do they cut the grass? Ms. Blomquist: It depends on the growth, and during the summer months it is every week and during the lull, it is every other week. Mr. LaPine: Do you intend to plant flowers or anything like some of the other stations do at this location? Ms. Blomquist: No. Mr. LaPine: You are just going to have what you have there now, the shrubs? There are some very nice stations that plant flowers and really try to spruce up their locations. Because of the location of this station, because of the fact there will be two very nice buildings across the street, I am just curious. You don't intend to do anything like that? Ms. Blomquist: That is not part of our plan to put in any flowering plants or anything, just the greenery and shrubbery. Mr. LaPine: This is going to be all underground sprinkler system, correct? Ms. Blomquist: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Is that going to be on a timer? '411' Ms. Blum: Yes we would put it on a timer. Mr. Ehgebretson: Just a point of interest here, your competitors do plant flowers in many instances and they even get awards for doing that. I am a member of the Livonia Roads Beautification Committee. Ms. Blomquist: We can certainly look into that. Mr. Engebretson: If you are interested in being good corporate citizens, it is a great interest to the City that you do that throughout the community. With this new facility going in right across the street from two fantastic facilities, it would be nice to see a little of that interest. If you are worried about competitors for the signs to be concerned about a competitor a mile or two away, then maybe some of these other things might be helpful. I want to add to Mr. LaPine's comments regarding what goes on out in Farmington where there is no signage. I happened to be in the Flint area yesterday and on the way up noticed a Speedway station a number of miles south of Flint, so on the way back I stopped and took a look. They have signs everywhere. They have S's and Speedways on the canopy. They have Starvin Marvin. They have 14161 boards that they can put specials on. They have junk everywhere. Apparently that community doesn't have any standards. Farmington Hills has very strict standards and Livonia somewhere in between. What concerns me is Livonia standards have not been fulfilled from Speedway's point of view in terms of some of the violations that Mr. Piercecchi pointed out and I am really disappointed in that, but we need to get on with this particular site plan approval here. I agree with Mr. LaPine that the Starvin Marvin sign is unnecessary. I find it hard to believe that anyone could go in there and fill their car up with gas and not be aware there is a convenience store right behind them. That is just standard type of marketing for fuel these days. I think the Speedway signs which would then be within the ordinance on the side of that canopy, the canopy becomes a sign. The height of that canopy really does get your attention as you drive by these tall canopies. I would look at that to be the last compromise at this level would be to approve it as proposed tonight with the exception of the Starvin Marvin sign. Mr. Alanskas: Because of the height of the canopy, what is the wattage of all the recessed lighting? Haw bright is that going to be? Mr. Blum: It will be illuminated, 400 watts. Mr. Alanskas: Each one is 400 watts, and you are going to have how many lights there? Mr. Blum: I guess we would probably have around 22. `. Mr. Alanskas: This is a 24-hour operation, so they would be on all night? Mr. Blum: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Anything you want to add sir? Mr. Blum: Nothing other than just to thank you for your time and to let you know we are trying to improve our location here and hopefully we can live up to some of your high specifications with our new facility. Mr. Engebretson: We would like to thank you also. You have been extremely courteous and cooperative and I think that we have made the facility better than it was when it first came in here, and that wouldn't have been possible without cooperation on your part. For that we are very appreciative. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #5-99-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-4-8-8 by Marathon Oil Company 14162 requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a service station on property located at 37416 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Drawing No. 7773-1A dated 5/30/95, as revised, by Marathon Oil Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Drawing No. 7773-4 dated 5/30/95, as revised, by Marathon Oil Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Drawing No. A-4 dated 4/21/95, as revised, by Marathon Oil Company is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the exterior of the building shall be constructed out of brick on all four sides; 5) That all roof-top mechanical units which can be seen by the public shall be screened or painted a color to match the building; 6) That the columns that support the pimp island canopy shall be constructed out of brick that match the brick of the service Now station; 7) No outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site, however the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump island only, of oil based products as permitted in Section 11.03(a) of Zoning Ordinance #543. 8) That no interior window signage shall be permitted for this service station or its convenience store; 9) That the trash dumpster enclosure gates, when not in use, shall be maintained and closed at all times; 10) That the Sign Package by Marathon Oil Company received by the Planning Commission on 6/2/95 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except the "Starvin Marvin" sign shall be eliminated. 11) That the elevation of the canopy shall not exceed 22 feet. 14163 Mr. Morrow: Just a point of clarification that the revised roof blue color has been incorporated as part of that plan so it can't be mixed up when it comes time to roof it so we don't get the lighter blue. It is part of your plan now? `. Mr. Blum: Yes. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engehretson NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Site and Elevation Plans by Pattah Investment in connection with Petition 95-1-8-2 to construct a commercial building on property located at 29250 Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Miller: This is the petition that was approved back in January of this year. The site is located at Joy Road and Middlebelt. They have a shoe store on the corner and this building surrounds that site. They have revised their site plan. The original site plan showed the enclosed trash dumpster at the rear of the building and they are moving that to the northeast corner of their site. By moving that, it allowed them to put in a drive-thru-window in that area. The original plan had the drive-thru window on the Past elevation. Now that becomes a loading area. (Mr. Miller presented the new elevation plans) They added a tower over the entrance with a metal roof. They extended the glass area on the south and west elevation. Because of the new drive-thru area, they have added a canopy so cars can be covered as they drive to the window, and also a metal type of awning or canopy over the door. The building will still be brick on three sides with the rear painted block. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. Would you come forward sir and make whatever comments you feel are appropriate. Joseph Rokicsak, 36586 Pinetree: I am the builder of the project. Basically now it is going to be a Rite-Aid Drugstore. They changed the design from the original one that was originally submitted that was going to be a Perry Drugstore. The architect is here to explain the architectural details he had to add. I brought along brick samples again so we can get the right color of the brick. There are three colors. If you want to pick a different color this time, that is fine. Mr. Engphretson: Let's hear from the architect. 14164 Ted Schollenberger, 607 Middlesex, Grosse Pointe Park: I am the architect for the project. As was mentioned, originally the plan you approved was for a Perry Drugs. Sometime after that approval, Perry was purchased by Rite-Aid, which necessitated us to go back and make some revisions to the plan. The elevations that you see are the Rite-Aid building standards, which we basically had to comply with. However, you had dictated brick veneer so that modified their plan somewhat. What you see today is a plan that is kind of a hybrid of their standard, however using the brick veneer which you had requested. As Joe mentioned, we do have some brick samples. Any of these three samples are acceptable to the owner and to Rite-Aid Corporation. Other than that, I think we pretty well summarized the changes. The pharmacy has moved to the rear of the building. The loading has moved to the side and otherwise it is just the elevation changes. Mr. LaPine: At the last meeting I thought we had requested some kind of drawing. Someone mentioned it looks like a silo. That still bothers me. They were to bring in pictures of other locations. They presented the pictures of other locations. Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, this is the first time that I have encountered a drugstore where we have a drive-thru. Is that something new or are they around Michigan? Mr. Rokicsak: There are a few stations in Michigan. A suggestion was made by the handicap code that it is difficult at times for someone who is handicapped to come into a store, go to the drug counter, order their drugs, wait until their drugs are prepared and then *l"" come in. Originally they were intending on adding this as part of the handicap revision to the federal law. You are going to find it now with most of the drugstores now that come in so someone can call in that is handicapped and drive up to the window and get their drugs. It is not limited to handicapped people. That was the intent of putting in a drive-thru. Mr. LaPine: I was just curious. I will tell you why I am curious. It seems to me that the object for a drugstore, or any store, is to get you into the store. While you are waiting for your prescription to be filled, you are walking around the store and picking up other items. I was just curious as to why, and I can understand the reasoning for it. Let me ask you this question, if a handicapped person calls in ahead of time and wants some other items, can they get those and pick those up at the same window? Mr. Rokicsak: I assume they would but I really can't answer that. Mr. LaPine: As far as you know, it is basically for pharmaceutical items. Mr. Rokicsak: Right. 14165 Mr. Alanskas: For your drive-thru window you have like a canopy. Now this is a large canopy where you can drive a car through? Mr. Schollenberger: If you look at the side of that building, you will see a canopy on the side. Mr. Alanskas: I know but it goes for like 10 to 12 feet where you can drive a car through it. Mr. Schollenberger: It will be the same situation. Mr. Alanskas: Your overhang, will that be brick also or will that be wood? Mr. Schollenberger: Yes this area will also be brick. Mr. Morrow: Is this not going to be known as Perrys? Mr. Schollenberger: That is correct. It will be Rite-Aid. Mr. Morrow: So it will no longer be Perry. Mr. Schollenberger: You will see that throughout the area. Mr. Morrow: I was going to ask that but I didn't know if it was germane. Mr. Schollenberger: As of August 1st. Mr. Morrow: Do they offer home delivery or is this drive-up window a happy medium between coming into the store and home delivery? Mr. Rokicsak: They felt this was a better option than having delivery people have cars and the liability of running back and forth. Mr. McCann: Do you have a liquor license or are you going to be attempting to get a liquor license? Mr. Rokicsak: That is Rite-Aid's call. I don't have anything to do with that. Mr. McCann: Nobody here has any idea? Mr. Rokicsak: No. Mr. McCann: If and when liquor goes in, will it be able to be sold through the drive-thru window? Mr. Rokicsak: No. Mr. McCann: You don't care if we put that in the minutes, this restriction? Mr. Rokicsak: No not at all. Mr. McCann: We shouldn't have any problem restricting that, should we John? 14166 Mr. Nagy: No, if and when they ever do apply, we would have to deal with a waiver use because the zoning right now would prohibit it. For this facility to sell beer, wine or liquor, a waiver use approval would be required. At that time I think it would be appropriate for you to recommend that it be restricted in connection with Nftw that petition. This is a site plan petition where the other is actually a land use. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #5-100-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised Site and Elevation Plans by Pattah Investment in connection with Petition 95-1-8-2 to construct a commercial building on property located at 29250 Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan defined as Sheet No. SP-1 dated 1/11/94, as revised, by TXS Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plan defined as Sheet A-3 dated 4/12/95 by TXS Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planting materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; Now 4) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped; 5) That all signage shall come back before the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Belle Isle Awning, on behalf of Auto One, requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial building located at 28735 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Miller: This is the old Henderson Glass company building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Harrison and Garden. They are proposing to install a canopy. Right now the building has a mansard roof along the front facade and they are proposing to construct a canopy over that facade on half the building. The canopy will be blue, and the sign area on the canopy will be 45 sq. ft. , which they are allowed by the ordinance, so it is a conforming sign. They are also aware that only the sign area of the canopy can be back-lit. 14167 Mr. Engehretson: I believe we told the petitioner it wasn't necessary for him to be here tonight. Mr. Morrow: Is the orange and yellow indicative of the color it is going to be Mr. Engehretson: No. Mr. Morrow: Where did we get the orange and yellow. Mr. Miller: That is haw the existing building is now. Mr. Morrow: I don't remember it being that color. Mr. Miller: I think that is from the copy machine. Mr. Morrow: That is a separate issue. I was just curious. Mr. Miller: At the study meeting you requested to know what color he was going to paint his building because he was talking about striping it but he submitted a rendering that just shows the whole building will be painted white. Mr. Piercecchi: Scott, was there any mention of updating the landscaping around that area? Mr. Miller: No because they usually don't do that with signage. Mr. Piercecchi: It is an improvement, the white building, but this is a chance we may have to upgrade the landscaping. Mr. Engebretson: Maybe they can handle that at the Council level. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #5-101-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Belle Isle Awning, on behalf of Auto One, requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial building located at 28735 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Belle Isle Awning Company, received by the Planning Commission on May 5, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the entire building is to be painted white as presented to the Commission. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14168 Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Chapman Sign, on behalf of Genghis Khan Mongolian Restaurant for one wall sign for their unit located in the Laurel Park Place Mall in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller: This is the new restaurant that just received waiver use approval. It is located on the east elevation towards Newburgh Road. They have a separate entrance from the mall. They are requesting one wall sign at 63 lineal square feet. They are not allowed a wall sign because they are not a principal tenant of the mall so they had to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, which they did. They were granted one wall sign at 63 square feet so they are conforming with this variance. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. Michael Polsinelli: This evening I have with me Mr. Mike Yu and Harold Chapman of Chad Sign Company. Mike is our tenant for Genghis Khan, which will be the exciting new concept, the Mongolian Barbecue at Laurel Park Place. Mike and his family are 15 year residents of the City of Livonia. They own three houses and they are very excited, as we are, to develop this new concept in Laurel Park. We think it is going to be a tremendous attribute to the mall. The proposed restaurant is currently under construction. It is in the Parisian expansion to the northeast. It has a separate exterior entrance to the east as Mr. Miller explained, as well as the mall entrance. It has approximately 63 foot of frontage on Newburgh that if this building were a free standing building in the City of Livonia, it would be allowed the signage that is being requested this evening. In addition, this request is consistent with and similar to the previous restaurants that have been before you, D. Dennison's and Max & Irma's. In fact, the size is almost identical as was determined in the Zoning Board meeting. The colors have been changed to match the colors of Max & Irma's and Dennison's signs. It will be a red internally illuminated individually lit. The letters at the top have a green sign box at the bottom. I also have a picture of the frontage showing the location of where the tenant space will be, the 63 lineal foot of frontage that exists in that location. As Mr. Miller said we have been before the ZBA, have received the appropriate variance. We have been before this body as well as Council and have received site plan approval for the elevation change and the restaurant. Mr. Engebretson: We will let the sign man come up and talk to us about the specifics of the sign. Harold Chapman of Chapman Signs: This sign will be neon illuminated with a red plexi-glass face, aluminum returns on the sides. It will be done in good taste with quality work. Mr. LaPine: Mike, those two lions, is that going to be part of it? 14169 Mr. Polsinelli: Yes that will be part of the elevation. We determined at the IBA that those were landscape amenities. Mr. Alanskas: The second sign below that, will that just say "Restaurant"? Mr. Chapman: "Mongolian Restaurant". Mr. Engebretson: John, the drawing we have isn't dated or anything. Is the prepared resolution referencing the drawing that we were given a couple of weeks ago? There is a date mentioned in the approving resolution. I am just wondering if we are looking at a current plan. Mr. Nagy: We will check it. Mr. Engebretson: We discussed last week the relative sizes of those letters and I think we came to the conclusion that the bullet signs, as Mr. Chapman referred to them, are something less than approximately half the larger signs at the top. They may have appeared bigger. I guess I am just looking for Mr. Nagy to verify that everything is in order here, and I think he has done that. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #5-102-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Chapman Sign, on behalf of Genghis Khan Mongolian Restaurant for one wall sign for their unit located in the Laurel Park Place Mall in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Package by Chapman Sign Inc. , received by the Planning Commission on May 10, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; as well as subject to the following additional conditions required by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) The sign is to be red lettering, with the background of the sign a dark green. Further, the sign shall not exceed 63 sq. ft. in area; 2) This approval is for this petitioner only, and this business only. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14170 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 704th Regular Meeting held on May 23, 1995 was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION ,1 \, `�,- \( \`f (( R. Lee Morrow, Secretary j C , . ATIES`I': j�L GT, t 7,4 i4:�"JaEflgebrrson, Chairman jg