HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-10-04 13671
MINUTES OF THE 691st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
%ft'' LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 4, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 691st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 15 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann William TaPine
Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg C. Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: Jack Engebretson
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing 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. Morrow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven
Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step up and tell us your reasons
for this request.
Art Carmichael, 19450 Haggerty Road: I am two entities. Professional
Consultants is a consulting engineering firm. We are
mechanical engineers. We design heating, ventilation,
plumbing, air conditioning systems, etc. for buildings. I
also am the general partner of Haggerty Road Investments,
which is our family, my wife, my children and myself. We own
13672
the building, and my company rents it. When we moved out to
the area 17 years ago it was a dirt road, hilly with deer and
quail. We still have the field mice. It was quite quiet.
Today I am slowly being engulfed by commercial. Right across
the street is Home Depot. There is a tentative plan for the
ML to become C-2 around me. The traffic pattern is so
horrendous. We don't have a high profile. We are very law
profile. We go to our clients' offices. We have no
off-the-street traffic coming out of a business like a doctor
might or a bank might or whatever, so we are thinking that it
is getting so busy around that area that we are better off to
go to someplace like Victor Park where there is office space
available and it is quieter, and let this become some other
use that has a high profile that needs all that promotion,
which we don't. Right now when we look out our windows we see
trees. In short order we will be seeing asphalt. We are
thinking if it is going to become C-2 around us, and we have
C-2 on the corner, we have C-2 across the street, we might as
well be C-2 along with it and develop this property better
than it is right now. When we moved out there we had no storm
sewer. We are still on a septic tank. We have a a dry well
in the ground. I talked to the Wayne County Road Commission
and they will allow me to take our parking lot if we regrade,
whatever we do, into the storm sewer along Haggerty Road on a
restrictive flow basis, meaning under a light rain it would
flow out directly, but under a heavy rain we would be ponded
on the parking lot but ultimately drained totally.
Mr. McCann: Tonight we are dealing with the zoning only.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Carmichael, is your investment company working with any
timetable as it relates to moving your business?
Mr. Carmichael: None whatsoever.
Mr. Morrow: Is it your intent to develop your site C-2 yourself or to just
get a conforming zoning to what is in the mill now?
Mr. Carmichael: I would probably do it myself.
Mr. Morrow: Haw large is the site?
Mr. Carmichael: .79 acres.
Mr. Morrow: A question to the staff. Could that site support a C-2
classification?
Mr. Nagy: There isn't a whole lot of uses that could go on that property
but to say there isn't one, I would say you could find one but
it is not sufficiently large enough for a restaurant for
instance. If you look at the corner and see what Macaroni
13673
Grill is situated on compared to this size, it is
substantially smaller. It is highly unlikely to be developed
by itself.
Mr. Morrow: It would probably be more of a C-1 operation if it didn't join
the abutting property. As you indicated earlier, the property
around you is under a rezoning request.
Mr. TaPine: Mr. Carmichael have you had any conversations with the owner
of the ML property, who is now trying to get it rezoned to
C-2, about selling this parcel to him?
Mr. Carmichael: He has made some overtures to us, yes. Nothing concrete yet.
Mr. rapine: It would seem, from a practical point of view, that would
probably be the best solution.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, whose obligation is it to remove the brush and high
grasses from in front of that site? It is totally being
overgrown with vegetation.
Mr. Nagy: The property owner.
Mr. Piercecchi: Any explanation why it is such a mess?
Mr. Carmichael: Because we are engulfed by the vegetation around us. We have
put down various things to control growth and to no avail.
When the ML around us develops, the thought I had was to
develop ourselves to be consistent with them.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking off Haggerty Road. You can't see your fence.
Mr. Carmichael: I agree with you.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-1-18 closed.
Mr. TaPine: I will make a tabling motion primarily for the reason the ML
parcel is still in the Committee of the Whole of the City
Council. Until such time as we know what the City Council is
going to do with that parcel, we will table this and make a
decision after we see what the Council does with the other
parcel.
On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-167-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-8-1-18
by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property located
on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the
13674
Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 94-8-1-18 until
date uncertain.
N"' FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Carmichael, what we have done is currently there is a
pending petition before the City Council to change the zoning
of the land surrounding you from ML to C-2. What we have done
is table this until we get direction from the City Council.
If that property is going to remain ML, it may not be
appropriate to have yours go to C-2, so we are going to wait
to see what they do. Once they do something then we will have
a better understanding of where yours will fit in with the
surrounding property. The staff will be notifying you as soon
as we get word from the City Council.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-1-20 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #365-94, proposing to rezone property located on the
north side of Six Mile Road west of Inkster Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 12 from P to C-2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
`ow zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. McCann: We will go directly to the audience because this is a petition
by the Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this petition?
There was no one present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr.
McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-9-1-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-168-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-9-1-20
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#365-94, proposing to rezone property located on the north side of
Six Mile Road west of Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
12 from P to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-9-1-20 be approved
for the following reasons:
13675
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
existing zoning on adjacent property.
2) That the proposed zoning district is compatible with the current
use of the property.
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-8-2-27 by Bogart's Billiard Cafe requesting waiver use approval
to operate a full service restaurant in conjunction with an
existing billiard hall facility located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal.
We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal and
'4111' Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objections to
this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the
Inspection Department stating the proposed operation of a full
service restaurant at Bogart's Billiard Cafe will not change
the parking requirements that currently exist, nor will it
create any additional deficiencies at this site.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step up and give us your reasons
for this request.
Larry Wathen: I live in Livonia. Food service has always been part of our
business plan. We wanted to get the billiard operation up and
running a profit so it could pay for other things. It is now
time to add food service to the services we offer in our
facility simply to accommodate our customer base. What
happens a lot is we find people are leaving our facility,
perhaps going to Westland or Farmington Hills or another
community to do the exact thing they they could be doing in
our building, have something to eat and play some billiards.
Mr. Alanskas: What hours would you say you would have the biggest flux of
traffic? In the evening?
13676
Mr. Wathen: Probably our peak hours would be from five o'clock to
midnight.
Mr. Alanskas: Wouldn't you think that most of your customers when they come
to play billiards would have already eaten?
Mr. Wathen: A lot of them certainly but people eat more than once a day.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say full service restaurant, what do you plan on
serving there if this went through?
Mr. Wathen: I want the flexibility to do anything we deem necessary. What
we are going to start with is a limited menu offering bar
food such as hamburgers, french fries, tuna fish sandwiches,
etc.
Mr. Alanskas: But not sit-down dinners?
Mr. Wathen: No. In all probability we would never become that.
Mr. Alanskas: It will strictly be a fast-food type of thing so they could
have a hamburger, french fries or coney island while they are
playing billiards?
Mr. Wathen: Exactly.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you aware of how many establishments there are that sell
food in house along Plymouth Road? Are you aware there are
over 30. At what level do you think we reach saturation on
'oar- Plymouth Road?
Mr. Wathen: I frankly don't know. I don't see that my operation is going
to hinder or add to the food services available on Plymouth
Road. Some of the restaurants I go to on Plymouth Road I will
still go to on Plymouth Road because I can get a good sit-down
dinner at a reasonable price. We are not going to offer that.
Mr. Piercecchi: The original use there that was granted to you by the Zoning
Board of Appeals allowed you to sell snacks and soft drinks.
Correct?
Mr. Wathen: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you plan to seek further licenses?
Mr. Wathen: Yes we do.
Mr. Piercecchi: You plan on going beyond that?
Mr. Wathen: Yes sir. That is a couple of years down the road but that is
in our business plan.
13677
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wathen, just for clarification, following up on Mr.
Alanska's questioning, what do you provide now and what do you
plan on providing if you would be granted the waiver for the
Nifty restaurant?
Mr. Wathen: At present we provide cold sandwiches which we purchase from
an outside source and have delivered. Frankly, it is
inefficient, expensive and not real appetizing for our
customer base. Also, we have been doing this for over two
years and people get tired of all you have to offer is a ham
and choose sandwich. From that we would jump to hamburgers,
chccseburgers, some kind of salad, chicken fingers, finger
food, typical bar food.
Mr. Morrow: So you would say billiards or pool is your primary use.
Mr. Wathen: It is our basic use.
Mr. Morrow: Normally I think of a restaurant as a primary use. In other
words you either have a restaurant which is the primary use or
another primary use. Basically it appears you are requesting
to have two primary uses for your facility, and along with
what Mr. Piercecchi said if there is an area in the City that
is over served with restaurants, it is certainly Plymouth
Road. I think the number he gave you was probably
conservative when you take in effect the whole of Plymouth
Road. Is it your attempt to remain in business as a billiard
parlor?
Mr. Wathen: Yes it is.
Mr. Morrow: I ask because as you know waivers run with the land. You
could leave tomorrow and that property could become a
restaurant and would be limited to perhaps seating, but one of
the things we have to be aware of as Commissioners is if we
grant a waiver of use, it becomes a restaurant use and it
could in fact not be a billiard parlor any longer, it could
become a restaurant.
Mr. Wathen: I have a ten-year lease so I will be there for the next ten
years at least.
Mr. Morrow: What I am saying is you could move your pool operation
tomorrow and set up a full blown restaurant to service the
area. That is just a point I want to make. I am not saying
you are going to do it but this is one of the considerations
we have.
Mr. spine: The letter you wrote you say food service has always been part
of our business plan. I am curious about something. When you
got your waiver to put the billiard hall in there, did they
know that in the future you wanted to have a full service
restaurant in there?
13678
Mr. Wathen: Everyone I have ever discussed this with I have been very open
about it. My billiard room is like most of the up-scale
billiard rooms in the country today. They are three faceted.
They primarily offer billiards, adult beverages and food. In
any context some of them the most important aspect of the
business will be adult beverages and food and billiards as a
third. Some of them food will be the primary motivating
force, then alcohol and billiards third. We are primarily a
billiard room. We cater to the professional billiard player.
We want to add food service. If and when we ever ask for and
start adult beverages, that would be number three on our list
of services that we offer. We are primarily a billiard room.
Mr. rapine: I guess what I am curious about is you say in your letter it
has always been in your plans for food service but the Zoning
Board of Appeals granted you as a condition that you could
serve certain food in there. That leaves me to believe that
is what they thought was going to be here, just a small
operation. It says here you sell deli sandwiches, pizza,
nachos, potato chips, soft drinks. I don't think the Zoning
Board of Appeals knew at the time that you wanted to put in a
full service restaurant and basically that is what you are
asking for now a full service restaurant. The point that
bothers me, as Mr. Morrow brought up, is the fact that once we
grant that waiver use, you have a ten-year lease but that
doesn't mean anything. People walk away from leases. If
somebody else moves in there they can operate a restaurant and
as has been mentioned here by a number of Commissioners, we
are saturated with restaurants on Plymouth Road and that
creates a problem for me. On the other hand, if somebody knew
that eventually we were going to have a restaurant in there, I
think it should have been before the Planning Commission and
not before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Wathen: You keep saying full service restaurant. It is not my
intention to be a full service restaurant. We don't want the
kind of kitchen that someone can come in and order filet
mignon. We don't want that. If I wanted to do that I would
have gone somewhere and opened up a restaurant to start with
and I would not have invested a quarter of a million dollars
on a billiard operation. I have a quarter of a million
dollars invested in Bogart's Billiard Cafe without food
service capability. Food service capability is going to run
me about $30,000. I think those figures alone will tell you
where our emphasis and our concerns are. We are a billiard
room and we are always going to be a billiard room whether we
have food service or not. Our primary emphasis and our time
and energies are spent on the core portion of our business.
The core portion of our business is billiards. We have been
losing a certain amount of our customer base to other billiard
operations around the City of Detroit in the last two years,
and we are just losing them for one simple reason, you can get
a hamburger and an order of fries. It is the American way.
13679
Mrs. Blomberg: You said that later on down the road you would like to serve
adult beverages. What exactly do you consider adult
beverages?
�.. Mr. Wathen: Beer.
Mrs. Blomberg: So we are not looking at a full service restaurant, we are
looking at a bar?
Mr. Wathen: Yes, in a couple of years.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-8-2-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#10-169-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-8-2-27
by Bogart's Billiard Cafe requesting waiver use approval to operate
a full service restaurant in conjunction with an existing billiard
hall facility located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
26, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 94-8-2-27 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote
and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not
over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being
proposed.
3) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the
adjoining uses of the area.
4) That this area of the City is currently well served with restaurant
uses similar to that which is being proposed.
5) That there is no demonstrated need for additional restaurant usage
in the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: I am going to vote against the denying motion. I don't think
this affects the other restaurants in there. Although I am
not in favor of any alcohol being served there, that is not
13680
before us tonight. Basically he already has the seating and I
don't think it will change the type of crowds that will go in
other restaurants in Livonia. It is only for the customers
that are now attending this business. I don't think it is
unreasonable.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, TaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: Engebretson
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before
it.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 690th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on
September 20, 1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-170-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 690th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 1994
are hereby approved.
``.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-8-19 by Providence Hospital requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a medical clinic on property located
on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road
west of Newburgh Road. It is 17.15 acres in size. The
petitioner, Providence Hospital, is proposing to construct a
new medical clinic on this property. The medical clinic will
be 68,000 square feet in area and four stories in height.
Also as part of the proposal the petitioner would like to
landbank some of the parking area required as landscaped area.
Before they could do this they had to go to the Zoning Board
to get a variance because this landbanking would make the
parking deficient. They have gone before the Zoning Board and
they were granted a variance for deficient parking. Based on
the size of the building they are required to have 729 parking
spaces. They are proposing to have 490 parking spaces
13681
available for the patients and 243 spaces will be landbanked
or kept as landscaping. This is a total of 733 so they have
enough parking for the site. The landscaping is 60% including
`r. the landbanking or 47% if you take away the landbanking. The
elevation plans show that the first story of the four story
building will be stone with the remaining stories brick. The
landscape plan shows they are proposing to have a five foot
berm along the southern portion of the property which is
adjacent to the residential property to the south and this
berm will be five feet in height with about a 38 foot base and
will run along the back of the property. Because they have a
greenbelt here they are proposing to substitute that for the
required protective wall.
Mr. Morrow: Scott, the parcel at the corner of Newburgh and Seven Mile,
the wetlands on that property, doos that fall within the
Providence Hospital parcel or is that part of the undeveloped
parcel?
Mr. Miller: I am not sure. The petitioner can explain that but the way
the map looks they have mitigated wetlands on their property
and I believe some of the wetlands go through their property.
Mr. Morrow: We can pursue that with the petitioner.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present tonight? Would you please come down
and update us on the changes that you made since last week.
Charles Bisel: I am Director of Facility Planning and Construction for
Providence Hospital: I have with me Joe Siekirk, who is our
architect with MAS Associates, Inc. We also have
representatives from the hospital that will be involved with
the operation of the building if you have questions in that
regard. Since we came before you last week we have made some
changes. Joe is going to put the color rendition of the site
plan up on the easel. As indicated we are going to have a
five foot high earth berm that will be landscaped and sodded
in a 35 to 38 foot wide band that runs across the southern and
western edges of the property, as well as the landbanked area
will be landscaped so we will have quite a green space that
separatPs our parking and building facility from the adjoining
neighborhoods. The portion on the corner, which is just under
2 acres I believe, is owned by another person who we have been
dealing with. It is the same person we purchased the property
from and we have the first right of refusal in terms of
purchasing the property. As a matter of fact, Jack is coming
into my office on Thursday to talk with us about a possible
picking up of that parcel. We also made some changes across
the northern side of the building in terms of a protective
wall that separat s and screens the receiving area of the
building so that architecturally that is protected, as well as
the landscaping on the adjoining property will nicely screen
that. The rendering that Joe just put up is the first time we
13682
have shown this in public in terms of what the building will
look like in three dimensions. As you can see it is very
handsome. It is four stories high. The lower level will be
14.1. cast stone or granite material. The upper floors will be a
warm brick. The roof is a metal standing seam in a light
green color and, of course, there is glass where glass wants
to be in terms of the inside areas. The building is
approximately 35-40% outpatient facilities made up of X-ray,
laboratory, pharmacy, cardiology units, an urgent care
facility and physical therapy. The balance of the building
will be made up of physicians' office practices, the largest
amount of which is Providence based and is already in the City
of Livonia on Farmington Road just south of Eight Mile in the
Certified Realty building. They will be moving down here and
will comprise the better part of one of these floors. The
balance of the building will be leased out to other
physicians. I should mention this is the first of a series of
joint venture opportunities that we have as Providence with
the Catherine McAuley Health System and the name Mission
Health will be the indicator for what will take place as part
of that joint venture. It is really an exciting opportunity
for us to come into the community and provide better health
care facilities and opportunities than we have in the number
of years we have been a member of your community. We made
some changes to the rear elevation. (He presented the rear
elevation) We think that has added something very nice to the
building. It really gives us two front facades.
Mr. Alanskas: On your rendering there we don't see any identification of
\r. Providence Hospital. Will that be on the building?
Mr. Bisel: We will be coming back to you with our more precise sign
program. Right now, as I mentioned to you, this is a Mission
Health facility and we are in the midst of developing the
corporate identity logo program for exactly what that is going
to look like and what that is going to say. That will appear
on the building with some other information that will identify
the four hospitals that will make up that Mission Health. I
assume we will be coming back within a very few months once we
have gotten that formally adopted by the hospitals.
Mr. Alanskas: John, being this is going to be a medical facility, will the
City get 100% taxation?
Mr. Nagy: The City will get taxes on the portion that is leased out for
doctors' offices.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bisel, I want to get it on the record because we discussed
it before, that berm is going to be high enough so the
residents that are at the rear will not be able to see the
parking lot. Is that correct?
13683
Mr. Bisel: Yes.
Mr. TaPine: Will there be plantings on top of that berm?
Mr. Bisel: Yes and no. We have some indicated along there. Whatever is
necessary and whatever is required, we will provide.
Mr. TaPine: That portion of the berm that is going to screen the
residents, there is no way that can ever be cut into as part
of additional parking if you should need it?
Mr. Bisel: That was the agreement that we made with the Zoning Board and,
of course, you at an earlier basis.
Mr. LaPine: One other question I have, could you just give me a feeling of
on what would be your busy day, how much traffic would be
generated at that facility?
Mr. Bisel: We have a Traffic Study that was produced for us by
Goodell-Grivas, Inc. , and they indicated a very minor amount
of increase in traffic. I think it was 3%.
Mr. LaPine: I am just curious. What I am trying to find out is will there
be 200 cars a day coming into this facility, 150 cars a day?
Do you have any indication of that?
Mr. Bisel: At the peak hours it would add 72 cars at this intersection of
Seven Mile and Newburgh between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
,so'' Mr. T. Pine: How many cars would be coming into your facility at this peak
time of the day?
Mr. Bisel: 72 cars in an hour.
Kurt Kuhn, 37516 Kingsburn: I am one of the houses on the south side there.
After reviewing the landscaping plans that were submitted
yesterday to the City Planning Commission, the plans show that
there are approximately three trees per lot. These trees are,
based on what their plans are, 6 to 7 feet high and only 3 or
4 feet wide. They are called Austrian Pines. I don't know
how large they are going to get and how wide around they are
going to be but for 80 feet to only have three trees in my
back kitchen looking out on that building, I don't feel that
is sufficient. There is already an existing easement for
drainage of water to my backyard, and how it looks at this
particular point in time is the trees are planted in between
the landbank and the easement. If they are 6 to 7 feet tall,
and I don't know how tall Austrian Pines are going to get, I
am a little concerned that the proposed five foot berm may not
be high enough. Let me address them in a little more detail.
The three Austrian Pines provided is not adequate to maintain
whatever amount of privacy we have or will have left in that
13684
particular area. I brought some pictures of landscaping taken
by the Laurel Park mall which shows approximately 7 trees or
so, which I feel would be minimum per lot to maintain a fair
level of privacy. As I said, four doesn't make sense. To
plant a six foot tree on the bottom of a berm that is only
going to be five feet high, what does that do? It only adds
one more foot. My back area is approximately two feet off the
ground so it doesn't provide any type of barrier whatsoever.
The proposed height of the berm is only five feet. I would
like to see it go to six feet. The wall that the Zoning Board
of Appeals made the variance for was going to be a six foot
wall and I am proposing that it go up to six feet instead of
five. In talking with people in the Planning Commission as
well as another person in City Hall today, there is something
called the 4 on 1 rule, for every 4 feet you go horizontally
you go up 1 vertically. That is so a riding lawn mower can do
that but there is also something called 3 on 1, which you can
also do as well and obtain a six foot berm. One of the
questions that was brought up was is there going to be
landscaping on top of the berm as well as around it. That is
also one of my concerns as well. I didn't see that. I saw
trees in between the actual landbank and the easement. There
are two other things. The snow removal. I am concerned with
where they are going to put all the snow in terms of flooding
in that area. I don't know if you are familiar with that but
there have been places in the area that have flooded, and with
good rain there is some high standing water from two or three
days ago. The final thing I have to say are the hours of
construction. I would like to know when those hours of
Swap construction are going to be. Can you tell me that at this
particular point in time?
Mr. McCann: We will answer all the questions all at one time.
Mr. Kuhn: I am concerned about the amount of noise that will be
generated from the equipment and the times of the operation.
This project is definitely a major undertaking and will
command a lot of noise. I can even hear the highway from my
bedroom with all the doors and windows shut. I would like to
suggest a starting time of 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. After that
I don't feel I would be able to tolerate noise at that time.
I understand there are construction schedules and weather
changes and whatever coming into the winter season but I also
feel I don't need to hear trucks at breakfast time nor do I
want to hear trucks at six o'clock when I am sitting down to
eat dinner. I do have pictures if you would like to see these
pictures of what is existing at Laurel Park just down the
road. (He presented the pictures of the Commissioners) This
is what I would like to see. I would not want to accept the
proposed landscaping at this particular point in time unless
some changes are made.
13685
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner like to respond to that.
Mr. Bisel: We do have with us this evening a representative of the
landscape architectural firm, Grissim/Metz. He may want to
join me to speak to some issues on the landscaping. Again, we
would be more than willing to work with whatever is necessary
to provide the necessary screening, etc. We feel we have
certainly attempted to do that with the landscaping that is
shown. The choice of the pine tree, the coniferous tree,
maintains its fullness year around versus a deciduous tree
where it drops its leaves, so for half a year you reduce your
screening opportunities. With regards to the height of the
berm, what we recollect is we have the option of a masonry
wall or the berm, which was recommended by this group. In
both cases it was a five foot high dimension so we feel we
have adhered to that. Again, the five foot height and the
30-35 foot width gives us the opportunity to maintain it and
keep it neat and tidy. In terms of hours of construction, the
standards hours are pretty much 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. or 3:15
p.m. We don't expect construction much beyond either one of
those two hours. The project right naw is set up and
scheduled to be built on a normal construction basis versus
any type of double shift or what have you. We do have a
target completion date that we would like to adhere to, which
is the full 12-14 months of construction, so there may be
opportunities that come about because of material deliveries,
etc. that don't come on time when we may have to push that but
I think generally speaking we can say it will be a 7:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m. program. As far as the snow removal, we will of
`tar course be removing the snow for safety purposes on both the
driveways, parking lots and walkways and we would simply push
that snow to the sides allowing windows, etc. as required. I
believe your Engineering Department will certainly have a lot
to say in terms of the approval of the on-site drainage
system, which we will be submitting as part of the working
drawings for approval, so we don't feel it will be a problem
in that regard either. I hope that answered the questions.
Mr. Morrow: I think one specific question he asked, could you give us an
idea of the size the Austrian Pine will eventually grow into?
Paul Andres: I am with Grissim/Metz Landscape Architects. We specified the
Austrian Pine at a six foot height which I believe is your
ordinance requirement, and that tree will mature to
approximately 30 to 40 feet in height at a growth of
approximately 12 inches per year.
Mr. Morrow: What about the width?
Mr. Andres: I would say 15 to 20 foot range, maximum.
Mr. Morrow: So we are talking 40 feet high and roughly 20 feet wide?
13686
Mr. Andres: With about 12 inches growth per year.
Mr. Morrow: That was a specific question he had and I just wanted to make
sure it was answered.
On a motion duly made by Mr. I.Pine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-171-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-19 by Providence Hospital
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a
medical clinic on property located on the southwest corner of Seven
Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission on
Sept. 16, 1994 by Nowak & Fraus Corp. , is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan, dated Oct. 4, 1994 by MAS Associates
Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and that the
landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
3) That the Elevation Plans dated Sept. 29, 1994 by MAS
Associates Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
`44.. 4) That the parking spaces for the entire medical clinic shall be
double striped.
5) That the landscape materials shown around the berm shall be
increased to more adequately screen the proposed development
from the neighboring residential homes, such additional
landscaping to be determined by the City Planning Department.
as well as subject to the following additional condition required
by the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) The lawn area and permanent berm, which will be 30-35' in
width, 5' in height and will be landscaped, are to be
sprinkled and properly maintained at all times.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment. I think they have done an admirable job in
presenting this and I certainly hope something works out where
Providence Hospital and Catherine McAuley would become the
benefactors of the parcel on the corner of Newburgh and Seven
Mile Roads.
13687
Mr. rapine: I would like to echo that. I think it would be great if they
could buy that corner. They are building a beautiful facility
here and I am worried about whoever buys that other parcel.
We may have something that may not be compatible with this so
let's hope you are successful in getting that parcel.
Mr. Alanskas: I just wanted to tell the neighbor to the back that regarding
those Austrian Pines, believe me if they are watered they will
grow between one to two feet per year. They can go as high as
65 feet so you will have plenty of treatment back there.
Mr. Kuhn: I am concerned with the 14 years it will take them to grow. I
am concerned about 1996.
Mr. Alanskas: You will be pleased.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-8-20 by S. Casadei requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at
8891 Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller: This is right on the corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads. The
petitioner is proposing to construct a 45,700 square foot
neighborhood shopping center. The building will be "L" shaped
with storefronts facing out towards Newburgh and Joy Roads.
Parking for this site, they are required to have 293 parking
spaces and they are providing 306 parking spaces, so they are
over what they are required to have. Landscaping, they are
`o . required to have 15%, the site plan shows 16% so they are over
on landscaping. The elevation plans show that the shopping
center will be constructed out of brick with stone accents
along the front of the store faces. The landscape plan shows
there will be a wall constructed along the residential
district, which is to the back of the property, with trccc
planted along this wall area as well as out in front and at
parking spaces.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department
stating they have no objections to this site plan but they
want us to note that the storm sewer outlet for the site is
restricted by a recent Westland-Livonia Drainage Agreement
setting forth the conditions for storm sewer systems in
Livonia which outlet to the City of Westland. Accordingly, it
will be necessary to detain storm water runoff on-site for the
subject shopping center area. Finally, a six foot wide
sidewalk should be required along the Newburgh-Joy Road
frontages.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, I noticed this evening we received a new set of data
showing the greenbelt had been eliminated and a wall replacing
13688
it. Initially on our write ups we had a 16% landscaping. Did
that change it by getting rid of the greenbelt and putting a
wall there?
Mr. Nagy: No, the percentage will stay the same. What was graded in back
of the building where the greenbelt was on the residential
side, has now been substituted on the public side next to the
road, so it is a re-allocation from the back of the building
to the front of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: When I looked over the site Sunday morning, I was going to
recommend tonight that the greenbelt be eliminated and a wall
put up. If you recall John, some of those homes are on a very
high slope. I think we should possibly consider going the
maximum on the height because they are up several feet.
Mr. Nagy: The wall height is measured from the commercial side of the
property. The purpose of the wall is to screen the noxious
fumes, lights and glare that is emanating from the commercial
property so the establishment of the grade is taken from the
finished grade of the parking lot, the height of the wall. On
the residential side of the wall it might be a different
elevation altogether because obviously they are not going to
be able to go upon the neighboring property to adjust those
grades, so in some cases you may have a wall higher on the
exposed residential side than you do on the commercial side.
In some cases the screening wall is actually going to act as a
as a retaining wall.
Mr. Piercecchi: So as far as a six foot wall, if you have homes sitting on an
elevation of this nature, wouldn't it be more beneficial to
our residents if we gave the maximum height of that wall, like
say seven feet? Is there a problem with that? It is a
beautiful neighborhood as you all know.
Mr. Nagy: I really think that was the reason why we wanted the
vegetation in there in addition to the wall was to obtain
additional height over and above the wall to soften the effect
of the building and make it a more pleasant view for the
residents rather than have a stark wall of seven foot. The
combination of the wall and the landscape materials accomplish
that objective.
Mr. Piercecchi: So you think the six foot wall is more than adequate?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please identify himself and give us your
reasons for this request.
Michael Boggio, 255 S. Woodward, Birmingham, Michigan: I am the architect. I
will start out with the landscape plan that is before you to
13689
discuss the one question in terms of percentage of landscaping
on site. Our previous plan that we looked at during the
study meeting, prior to suggesting the construction of the
wall, had the landscape area along the rear property lines
`r"" that abut the residential at 15 feet in width and the
landscape area along both Newburgh and Joy Roads at also 15
feet in width. We have now, with the installation of the
masonry wall, made the greenbelt along the wall 10 feet and we
have increased the front yard greenbelt along both roads to 20
feet. So we basically re-allocated five feet from the back of
the building to the front. In addition to the wall, we tried
to locate back where there would be homes, groups of three
trees that would further screen the back of the building from
the residential properties, so we are doing both the wall and
the landscape treatment. In addition to that, by
re-allocating some of the space, some of the planting islands
that were in the parking lot have actually gotten a bit larger
also. So I think overall from our initial plan the
landscaping here has benefited.
(Mr. Boggio presented the elevation plan) The building is
going to be a brownish earth tone type of brick. All of the
facades will be brick. We won't have any dryvet or metal
siding or anything in terms of the facade. We plan to add to
the quality look of the building and the custom feature by
adding some limestone trim and medallions to further enhance
the architectural style. We are planning on the fronts along
the entire building a green metal canopy. It will be a
sloping canopy as well as on the tower we would match the same
*ft. metal canopy with a metal roof. That will help to again
customize the exterior and will completely hide any HVAC units
from the road, and we propose to screen any HVAC units from
the residential site also so none of that will be exposed.
We have also tried to, within the rendering, depict the types
of landscaping that would be within the islands of the parking
lot. You can see most of these islands are pretty well
realistic. The parking lot will have more than a sufficient
number of tree plantings and planting islands within the
asphalt itself so we are very happy with that also.
There were a couple of other questions that were brought up
last time that we wanted to discuss. There was a concern as
to trash pickup and loading, etc. , the hours of operation of
those kinds of things, and the owners have agreed that they
would limit the hours of loading the trash from 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. The Engineering requirement in terms of increasing
the sidewalk, our plan now shows the sidewalk with the
standard five feet. We have no problem with going to six feet
in width. I would be willing to answer any other questions.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Boggio, we compliment you on amending your site to install
the combination of wall and landscaping in lieu of the
13690
landscaping itself, and I am sure the shopping center will be
first rate. My only concern is obviously the neighborhood as
it surrounds the site. You have addressed the hours of pickup
�.. of the dumpsters, which falls within the working hours. The
only other question I have is because of the proximity to the
houses, the height of your lights. I know they are downlit
and I see you have it on the plan here it says it is 20 foot
high on a 2 foot 6 inch concrete base. Does that mean it will
be 22 feet, 6 inches high or does that mean it will be 20 feet
high including the base?
Mr. Boggio: The standard pole height is 20 feet plus the base so as it
stands right now it will be 22 1/2 feet.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I bring that up is, as you well know, the lights
are very close to those neighbors and I am certainly no
lighting expert but I would certainly call upon you as the
architect to bring those poles down as much as you can to
limit the amount of light, although it will not be shining
directly on the homeowners, it will still be a patch of light
in there until I assume nine or ten o'clock at night. I feel
the lower the better. That would be my concern but I don't
have an answer. Maybe you could give me some insight.
Mr. Boggio: We could probably go to an 18 foot pole and make it a total of
around 20 feet. I don't see that as a problem. We have
indicated the type of fixture that is commonly known as a shoe
box type of fixture that can be aimed completely downline.
All the poles are basically in front of the building. In the
back of the building we would have some lighting but that
would be located down around 9 or 10 feet high so that we
won't have any spillage.
Mr. Morrow: That is my main concern, not so much in the front yard as in
the service area in the back.
Mr. Boggio: We have indicated some wall-mounted lights at certain
locations and on the back wall typically we use the same type
of shoe box light and the beam of light is aimed down at the
base of the wall so there is no spillage of any sort into the
residential area.
Mr. Alanskas: There is one light that would be on the west side of Joy Road
that does appear to be the 22 1/4 footer and I believe there
would be some homes directly behind that.
Mr. Boggio: I don't think knocking those down to 18 feet would be a
problem.
Mr. Morrow: Make it as low as you can. Does the staff think that would
help?
13691
Mr. Nagy: Sure. We will make that modification on the notes.
Mr. Alanskas: We discussed at the study meeting, you were talking about
possibly doing this in two phases. Would you explain that to
''"'
us.
Mr. Boggio: Presently, we consider Phase I as constructing approximately
27,000 square feet of space fronting Newburgh Road and then
there is an additional 18,000 square feet of space that would
be constructed as a Phase II type of construction once Phase I
is full or nearly full.
Mr. Alanskas: When do you plan on having Phase I completed?
Mr. Boggio: We would plan on hopefully beginning construction this fall
and having Phase I completed around mid-summer of 1995.
Mr. Alanskas: By that time you should know if you have clients to go into
your Phase II.
Mr. Boggio: Yes and perhaps Phase II could start before then. As we said
at the study meeting, there is a fairly strong commitment for
a major drugstore, major video store, major pizza chain, and a
major hair cutting facility so that well over 50% of Phase I
is presently spoken for.
Mr. Alanskas: On your rendering there you show trccs 40 to 50 feet high.
What are the height of the trees that are going into this
facility? How high are they going to be when you first put
`m. them in?
Mr. Boggio: We have called for deciduous trccs. We haven't called a
height on them. We have called for the deciduous trees to be
2 1/2 inch caliper burlap tree. Different type of trees we
have are Norway Maple and Green Ash. Those would probably
start out in the range of 12 to 14 feet high.
Mr. Alanskas: Those are very sloping trccs. Will all your landscaping be
irrigated?
Mr. Boggio: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Including the treesin the back?
Mr. Boggio: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I have one question. You are talking about the six foot high
brick texture poured concrete screen wall. Can you explain
that to me?
Mr. Boggio: It is a concrete wall but the forms that they use to pour the
wall are textured and they look like a split face brick and
brick joints, etc.
13692
Mr. LaPine: What is the color of the brick that is on the building?
Mr. Boggio: The color of the brick on the building is a brownish earth
tone.
Mr. Tapine: Is there any way that concrete can be colored so it blends in
with the building?
Mr. Boggio: You can precolor concrete. We are presently looking at a
couple of other alternatives for that wall. They do make some
prefabricated walls that are precolored, etc. , and they are
prefabricated and go into the ground differently than a poured
concrete wall. We weren't settled on one yet so we didn't
want to commit to anything but we are looking into the
possibility of installing a precolored masonry wall.
Mr. LaPine: A precast concrete wall, that isn't the type where you have
stool beams?
Mr. Boggio: No.
Mr. Tapine: Have you ever thought about making this a brick wall to match
the building?
Mr. Boggio: We thought about it, but the cost.
Mr. rapine: You are putting a lot of money into this facility and it would
make it look a lot neater.
Mr. Piercecchi: This poured wall, is it identical to the one at Five Mile and
Merriman area, which I think is one of your facilities?
Mr. Boggio: I am sure it is. Unfortunately it is gray color concrete but
the texture and size of the brick, it looks like simulated
brick from a distance. It looks like a gray brick wall.
Mr. McCann: You are going to have landscaping going all the way down to
the eastern most edge and your western most edge around the
wall. I am wondering about the visibility of the wall to the
people on Newburgh and Joy.
Mr. Boggio: We have a 20 foot greenbelt on both sides. We actually
indicated the wall stopping back 20 feet so it would help
vision. We have planting in the greenbelt but we have tried
to leave a triangle of vision on either side and we would use
law plantings in this area so the vision along either side was
not totally blocked.
Mr. McCann: I like your plan but it troubles me to see a concrete wall out
there next to a nice brick building.
13693
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. rapine and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-172-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-20 by S. Casadei
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial center on property located at 8891 Newburgh Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as number 1 dated Oct. 3, 1994 by
Michael A. Boggio Assoc. , is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as number L-1 dated Oct. 3,
1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. , is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to; and that the landscape materials shall be
installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as number 2 dated Oct. 3,
1994 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. , is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to
4) That the parking spaces for the entire shopping center shall be
double striped.
5) That the color of the screen wall shall match to the extent
possible the brick color as used on the shopping center
structure.
6) That the hours for trash pickup shall be restricted to the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. as committed to by the
petitioner.
7) That the height of the light poles shall be no more than 18
feet with a base of 2 1/2 feet.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-8-21 by Kamp-DiComo Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the auto
dealership located at 32570 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This is the Tennyson Chevrolet dealership located on the
north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Mayfield
Avenue. Tennyson Chevrolet is proposing to add a 1,000 square
13694
foot addition to their existing building. This will help
renovate the interior of the dealership. Because this
building is deficient in front yard setback, prior to them
coming before you tonight the petitioner had to go to the
Zoning Board to be granted a variance for adding on to a
non-conforming building. They have received the variance so
they are in conformance due to the variance. In addition to
their addition, the petitioner is also proposing to add new
landscaping along the front of Plymouth Road in front of their
property. This will include new curb cuts, facade and
landscaping in certain areas. The addition will be
constructed out of block. The existing dealership is brick.
Once it is completed the dealership will be completely painted
white with chevy blue accents on the building.
Mr. Nagy: The Fire Marshal in his letter dated September 26, 1994
indicates that they have no objections to the proposal. The
Inspection Department in their letter of September 27, 1994
indicates that they have reviewed the site plan and the
existing building is currently non-conforming by virtue of a
deficient front yard setback. The proposed addition to the
existing building will not create any additional building
deficiencies. Additionally, the applicant has been to the
Zoning Board of Appeals and has been granted relief from the
requirements of Section 18.21(a) of the Zoning Ordinance for
this addition. The proposed addition will require five
additional parking spaces for the site, and the total number
of vehicles to be displayed or stored, as well as landscaping,
'tor approval
subject to a recommendation by the Planning Commission and
approval by the City Council. The Engineering Department
similarly indicates that they have reviewed the site plans and
recommend that a six foot sidewalk be placed across the
frontage of the site. The locations of the planting areas
should take into account the location of this sidewalk
requirement. Further, it is recommended that all existing
asphalt parking areas be removed from the Plymouth Road
right-of-way. The Traffic Bureau stag in their letter that
they have no objections to this site plan.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come down and explain your
proposal.
Dan DiComo: I am representing DiComo Associates. With me is Mr. Kip
Tennyson from Tennyson Chevrolet. I would like to put a
rendering up clarifying some changes we have made in our
proposal. What I would like to do first of all is explain
what we are doing with our proposal and to explain some of the
things that happened at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
and then get into some of the changes that we made from the
study session. Again, I would like to stress that there is a
lot more happening here than just a small addition. We are
trying to keep in touch with what the City is trying to do in
13695
line with Plymouth Road and update it. Mr. Tennyson has
allowed us to not only renovate his showroom and do a small
addition but also to treat Plymouth Road with a little respect
'�.. and to enhance what we feel greatly an existing situation.
What we are doing is along the road right now there are
presently no curb cuts, or I should say one long curb cut the
whole length of this property, over 400 feet. What we are
trying to do is create traffic patterns where if somebody is
coming to the facility they would only be able to turn into
designated locations. Obviously our main entrance is curbed
on both sides, and what we are hoping to do is provide
customer parking where there used to be used car display so
the customer, as they come in, they see the showroom and
display and then they head to the customer parking and walk
over to the present facility. We are removing all these areas
where you see designated in green, removing asphalt and
replacing it with landscaping. This gray area is a brick
paver patio or extension of the existing showroom. The
existing showroom is not going to be enlarged in building but
it will be enlarged to encompass exterior spots for
presentation of new vehicles. This proposed brick paver area
will match the showroom tile work so it will appear as an
extension of the showroom.
Once again, some of the things that happened at the Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. There is a main Chevrolet sign
there right now. What we are doing at the present time is we
are proposing to remove this sign entirely to take this
rosy existing large pylon sign and move it further away from the
building so as to anchor the piece of property so as you are
driving from the east you would have a designation as to where
the property starts, and also with the signage on the building
where that property ends. The same thing if you are heading
west along Plymouth Road. So we are eliminating one of the
large pylon signs, actually moving it further down, and that
has been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
One other thing I would like to bring up that we have done
since the initial review with the Planning Commission is the
intent behind the renovation of this is not only to enhance
Plymouth Road but to enhance the business. One of the items
that was brought up was the fact that a lot of the cars are
displayed in and around the front of the showroom right now.
The intention behind this addition and renovation, again which
includes refacing of the entire facility, is to try to bring
the new car customer along to the front of the building. We
are creating a new front entrance with a four foot overhang so
people will recognize this as the front of the building. We
are also allowing an extra wide brick pavered area here which
is 26 feet from the building face to where the front of the
brick pavers are so the remaining vehicles could be able to be
parked in front of the building, which would be six to eight
13696
feet away so as people park and come to the showroom they
would come to the front of the building as opposed to the
existing door. In keeping with that idea what we have done is
basically taken out an area of approximately two to three
parking spaces and landscaped those so we are able to display
new vehicles to the west side of the building and a few at the
east portion of the building and along the east wall where we
would have the vehicles parked outside of the road
right-of-way area. We are trying to make sure this whole new
renovation of the facility is visible for the people driving
down Plymouth Road so it is a little more pleasant, and also
for the new car buyers so they will be able to look in and see
all the new things that are happening within the showroom. I
think we have addressed the number of items that were
discussed last time. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Morrow: I heard something about a sidewalk. Is that illustrated on
the plan?
Mr. DiComo: Presently right now what we have we are adding this sidewalk
against the brick paver type of sidewalk. We have a sidewalk
proposed to go here. We have called for a five-foot wide
sidewalk. This area in the front, which is again used for
new car vehicles, it is not going to be a parking area for
patrons. You will have the new vehicles parked here. We are
allowing a four to six foot wide area behind the vehicles. It
is not a continuation with this. We are trying to get the
people closer to the building and off the road right-of-way.
Mr. Morrow: Was there anything said about in front of the used car sales
as far as any type of sidewalk in that area?
Mr. DiComo: Actually what we are hoping to do again is limit access into
this area so there is not much confusion. It is a hard
surface but it is not proposed or designated as a specific
sidewalk.
Mr. Morrow: I guess that was one of the things I was leading up to was if
there is any way while you are reworking that area to build in
similar to what you did in front of your customer parking. I
don't mean sodding the area but something along those light
poles there in the way of greenery. If that would be an
alternative, as it would come up and abut with the easterly
landscaped area similar to what you have behind the paver in
front of the customer parking. That would be something I
would certainly like to see done. Secondly, did the Zoning
Board of Appeals address the portable sign by the service?
Will that be removed or will that remain?
Mr. DiComo: To be honest with you I am not familiar with the portable
sign. Maybe Mr. Tennyson can answer that.
13697
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tennyson, specifically we looked at all the signs on your
building and the pylon, and the one sign I didn't see
addressed was in front of your service area. You have like a
,`, portable sign that is on a stand there and addresses some
service specials that you have. I view that as a sign. Will
that be removed or is that part of your resolution?
Christopher Tennyson, 19299 Linville, Grosse Pointe: Truthfully, I never even
thought of that. That is a temporary sign.
Mr. Morrow: So it is temporary and will not be a part of the site?
Mr. Tennyson: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: I heard it mentioned to our Planning Director you were
eliminating all the asphalt up to Plymouth Road.
Mr. DiComo: That was the recommendation in one of the letters. I am not
sure what department it was.
Mr. Nagy: It was the Engineering Department.
Mr. Piercecchi: How does that recommendation sit with you?
Mr. DiComo: That would limit the tusiness obviously as it presently runs.
Obviously, with the building sitting so close to the Plymouth
Road right-of-way, if we were to start all over, the building
had been built in the early 50s and at that time it was a
y` proper setback, but if we were to start all over with this
facility obviously it would be set further back. We would be
able to invite customers into the property and to set up the
whole layout as far as how new and used cars are displayed and
how the flow through the property would be. At the present
time, due to the boundaries and the limits of the facility, we
have to virtually step off the entire piece of property for
purposes of safety and vehicle theft, etc.
Mr. Piercecchi: How much asphalt will there be there?
Mr. DiComo: What we are doing presently all these areas in green are being
removed. We are removing approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of the
existing asphalt . We would like to leave some of this area
so the facility can work as it does now where a few people can
pull up on the weekend. A lot of people like to shop without
talking to a salesman. This site does not allow people to
come onto the site after business hours.
Mr. Piercecchi: So they would park in those spaces there.
Mr. DiComo: Because of the bad traffic flaw right now with one continuous
curb cut, we are obviously trying to limit that so they come
in and are back from the road so when they pull back out they
will be facing the right direction.
13698
Mr. LaPine: Scott made a reference to the new addition as block and then
the whole building was going to be painted white. I thought
you told us at the last meeting that you had some material you
`y were covering that with.
Mr. DiComo: The actual physical construction is a masonry base with steel
joints on top of it but the entire facility is going to be
covered with plaster.
Mr. TaPine: That is what I thought you said at the study session. I have
an objection to the vans parking there. Are we going to be
able to limit it to vans the size of small vehicles like you
mentioned?
Mr. DiComo: Yes. We tried to show our intention of keeping it clear and
open by permanently eliminating some of those areas where they
can gather. We will definitely not put the large vehicles in
front.
Mr. TaPine: The building to the rear, which is your collision shop, which
you have that sign on, which is huge, is that going to be
eliminated?
Mr. DiComo: That is going to be eliminated.
Mr. TaPine: So there won't be any signs on that building at all?
Mr. DiComo: Correct.
Mr. TaPine: In the front you have customer parking. I think there are
seven spots there. What happens when you have an overflow?
Where do they park?
Mr. DiComo: Actually right now this entire area has been set up for a
different flow of traffic where used vehicles park here and
here. (He pointed this out on the plan) Obviously, since this
is going to be used more as a driveway, we would probably
allocate this area and leave this area open for customer
parking.
Mr. TaPine: That will be striped so they know they can park there?
Mr. DiComo: We can do that.
Mr. LaPine: I know I have been in a dealership when a lot more than seven
people have been in there, and therefore I don't think seven
is enough to take care of the patrons. They have to know
where they can park, and one of the reasons I lean toward what
Mr. Morrow was talking about getting rid of that asphalt
because the tendency is to park out there, which I think you
are trying to eliminate so you get a better traffic flow. I
think you have to show some additional parking.
13699
Mr. DiComo: I think designating more spaces is an easy task at this point.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tennyson, being you are so tight for space, has there been
`, any thought on the west side of the building to obtain that
barber shop?
Mr. Tennyson: Not really. It would be nice.
Mr. Alanskas: Just a thought.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-173-94 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-21 by Kamp-DiComo Associate
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the auto dealership located at 32570 Plymouth Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission on Sept. 21,
1994 by DiCono Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2) That the Landscape Plan received by the Planning Commission on
Sept. 21, 1994 by DiComo Associates, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to; and that the landscape materials shall be installed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
3) That the Elevation Plan received by the Planning Commission on
Sept. 21, 1994 by DiComo Associates, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
4) That no vans shall be allowed to be parked and exhibited in front
of the showroom along Plymouth Road.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make a comment. Mr. Tennyson has been a long
time corporate resident of Livonia. I am glad to see this
improvement. I think this will really improve the view from
the City and I think the Plymouth Road Development Authority
will be glad to see it, and I am glad to see it coming around.
Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-9-8-22 by McDonald's Corporation requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
restaurant located at 15399 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 14.
13700
Mr. Miller: This is a McDonald's restaurant located on the west side of
Middlebelt north of Five Mile Road. The petitioner is
proposing to add a 925 square foot playspace addition to the
existing restaurant. To make room for this addition, the
existing drive-thru lane approach will be made narrower and
brought in to about 12 feet in width and will run past the new
addition around the building. Also, the drive will be widened
in the front area approach to allow traffic to also go into
the parking spaces to the north of the site. The playspace
addition will house a children play area and game area for the
children which will include tubular slides and tunnels. It
also will house new barrier-free restrooms. The elevation
plan shows the new addition will be five feet higher than the
existing building and will be constructed with scored block
treated lumber and insulated glass.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he has
no objection to this proposal. The City Engineer similarly
indicates that their office has reviewed the plans and have no
objection. The Inspection Department indicates they have
reviewed the site plans and it is in compliance and since
there will be no additional seating within the playscape
addition, no additional parking would be required.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present. Please come forward and give us a
description of what you are intending to do.
Frank Martin: I am an architect with Dorchen/Martin Associates, 29895
`. Greenfield Road, Suite 107, Southfield: Unfortunately, last
week you had a study session and Scott Powlus from McDonald's
visited with you. I was at another meeting here at the Zoning
Board of Appeals on another issue. Scott happens to be in
Chicago this week at McDonald's for some training, and I had
prepared with him the site plan and some elevations for him
when he came to that meeting, so he and I had discussed your
planning session. In fact, I think I delivered to your
offices prior to the weekend some revised site plans and
elevations based upon some discussions. I brought along a
colored board and some photographs that might help.
As was mentioned in the introduction, the addition is to the
north side of the building. The drive-thru lane continues as
it did before. However, what we were able to do is remove an
existing landscape island and actually relocate it back a
little further so that we can widen out this approach so when
traffic comes in you can go straight ahead to the drive-thru
or you can turn and go through the parking lot. We didn't
lose any cars in doing this. We actually picked up some
landscape area. In addition, we picked up one additional
barrier-free space. There were only two there before. We now
have three that comply with ADA and Michigan Barrier Free. I
brought along some existing photos so you can see where it is
going to be placed.
N ..
13701
As was mentioned, the intent of this addition is to create an
enclosed 365 day-a-year space for children to use instead of
an outdoor play space. You have seen these around at
McDonald's and other facilities. We ourselves have been
involved with quite a few of them. In this particular case,
because we were limited in the amount of space available, the
addition is about 21 feet in width and about 42 feet in depth.
It allows us to put a playspace area of tubes and crawling
tubes, activities for children under four feet high.
In addition, this particular facility is an older McDonald's.
It has been there a long time. It could use some help. To
try to modify the restrooms that are within the facility to
make them barrier free would be a difficult task because the
kitchen is limited. We can't bump out the back, so we thought
a solution would be to provide two barrier-free restrooms
within this facility, which would do a couple of things. It
would first of all allow children within the playspace and
parents to use the facility there and would also give us a
male and female barrier free restroom, which really complies,
and we think would then be a good faith in terms of meeting
the ADA requirements, even though they did whatever they could
within the existing facility.
The other thing with regard to the addition, there is no room
for seating within this addition. There is no plan to put
seating in. We have 89 seats within the facility. As a
matter of fact, we may lose one or two tables because of one
Sow of the proposed accesses that we have for the facility. We
have an existing exit door at the rear of the facility. That
would continue to be there and we have another exit door out
of the facility. We have another access door through an
existing window that is on the side of the facility.
We think it will be a good addition to this particular store
and to the neighborhood for the children. If there are any
questions, I would be glad to answer them.
Lee Morrow: At our study session there was some talk about a drive around
the front of the store. I am certainly glad to see you retain
that.
Mr. Martin: I forgot to mention that based upon your discussions, that
by-pass lane, which would have ideally helped the situation
for McDonald's and customers because of the traffic flow
within the site, it would have taken out landscaping but it
would have also caused an intersection with three drives. I
agree with you that this plan better addresses the fact that
it is still 60 foot back and that has not changed. I think
the other issue is barrier-free wise and I think that helped
in terms of changing that.
13702
Mr. Morrow: That was Mr. McCann's concern. The only other thing, the site
is in very good shape, in other words the housekeeping is very
good, except you have one dumpster sitting outside your
enclosure. Is that something temporary? If that is going to
be permanent, we would like to see it screened per the
ordinance per code.
Mr. Martin: I forgot to mention that with me tonight is Terry Alexander
from McDonalds. He is Operations Manager. Maybe he can
address that situation.
Terry Alexander: I am Operations Manager for McDonald's, 2000 Town Center,
Southfield: I don't see a problem with that. If it is a
matter of putting some type of an enclosure on the dumpster,
that will not be a problem for us.
. So in other words the dumpster will remain?
MrMorrow:
Mr. Alexander: Right.
Mr. Morrow: You would probably have to show it on your site plan and then
build it per our specifications.
Mr. Martin: If we find out from Operations the people that run that
particular store, if we find out that does not have to be
there, it will be removed. If it has to be there, we will
show it on our site plan as being screened.
Mr. Morrow: It appears you almost have a compactor behind the screen wall
`r. as opposed to a dumpster.
Mr. Alexander: The compactor behind the screen wall is their primary
compactor. The one you referred to is probably a recycled
dumpster. It is not a requirement but we just have it there
for recycling products.
Mr. Alanskas: John, what percent of landscaping do we have on this site at
the present time?
Mr. Nagy: We are in the 15%. We just didn't put it down.
Mrs. Blomberg: I just was curious as to why the playland was five foot higher
than the building.
Mr. Martin: The McDonald's Corporation has essentially gone through an
evolution with playspaces and as you know they have been
outside, and then they have been inside, and they have been a
couple of levels high and children like them, but they have
been very successful. There are two manufacturers of
playspace equipment. One is called Omni and another one is
called Softplay, and they essentially put equipment in Leaps
and Bounds and Discovery Zones, etc. They have created a
13703
three level playspace that requires about 16-17 foot of
height, and in order to do that you need about a building that
is 20 feet high within the structure. You don't want to
architecturally, mechanically, you don't want to cram these
'4111. playspace units to the underside of the structure. This looks
like a gymnasium inside and kind of playful. To constitute
trying to give children and customers a variety of playspaces,
the units are getting a little taller and consequently the
building is having to accommodate that. The typical McDonald's
facility is about 17 feet high from the ground to the top of
the double mansard. This is about 21 foot, 8 inches. It is
about 4 foot higher. In most cases these playspaces go on the
front of a facility so you end up seeing more of the playspace
than you do here. In this case you see more of the
restaurant. In my perspective sometimes that is more
acceptable to communities than having it on the front because
then it seems like all you have is a playspace and no
restaurant. In this case the height is a factor of the
equipment that is being placed inside. It is not meant to be
taller because we want it to be the highest point in town. It
is just because that is what it ends up taking.
Mr. Piercecchi: Most of my questions have been answered but I would like to
compliment you Mr. Chairman. You did bring the drive-thru
bottleneck lane to their attention and it was removed. I
think it was a good thing for McDonald's and a good thing for
the City of Livonia.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and
�,.,. unanimously approved, it was
#10-174-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 94-9-8-22 by McDonald's
Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to the restaurant located at 15399 Middlebelt
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, received by the Planning Commission on
Sept. 30, 1994 by McDonald's, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan defined as A-1 dated Sept. 28, 1994 by
McDonald's Corporation, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Vice 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 RJM Sign & Lighting requesting approval for one wall
13704
sign for the restaurant located at 34359 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: This is the Senate Coney Island that is located in the Stark
Plaza Shopping Center on the corner of Plymouth and Stark
`'�► Roads. The petitioner is proposing one wall sign for the
front of their building. This restaurant already has an
existing awning sign on the building and because it is in a
shopping center the business is only allowed one wall sign so
this becomes a non-conforming sign. Normally they would go to
the Zoning Board before they would come to you but when this
restaurant expanded in 1990 one of the conditions of that
approval was that no new signage would be approved for this
expansion. Because the Zoning Board cannot override a Council
resolution, they must come back before the Planning Commission
and then City Council and then the Zoning Board before a
variance can be granted. The existing awning sign is 45
square feet. The new signage would be 83 square feet.
Because of the frontage of the building they are only allowed
110 square feet so if you combine both signs they are over
what they are allowed. They are also proposing to add two 18
foot neon strips along the building of the new addition of the
restaurant that would match the color to the proposed signage.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner p1Pase step up and tell us your reasons
for this request.
Bob Schmitz: I have a business at 34147 Schoolcraft in Livonia. Mr.
Dimopoulos feels he needs a sign on that wall because if you
look at the building, you cannot identify that building from
`. the street as to what is in there, mainly because of the
greenery on Plymouth Road. He feels since he has added those
two additions on the Stark Road side he feels he is in
definite need of a sign there.
Mr. Alanskas: John, with that new addition, does that also go with the
square footage of the sign or is that not included?
Mr. Nagy: The 110 feet does include the new addition.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you actually need that neon tubing across the new addition?
Mr. Schmitz: Mr. Dimopoulos would like to add that to that addition along
that side of the building to identify his building from the
rest of the tenants that are on that property there. He feels
the only way to do that is to run a couple of neon strips down
there.
Mr. Alanskas: How bright would that be?
Mr. Schmitz: Not very bright. We are going to put it into a fixture so it
is not predominant so it won't be as bright as it normally
would be.
Mr. Alanskas: So it is not just neon tubing. It is encased into a fixture.
How far does that fixture stick out from the wall?
13705
Mr. Schmitz: Probably about 5 to 6 inches.
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed that the waiver use approval did not include any
additional awnings. Are you aware of the damage to the awning
\r► that you have on that site?
Mr. Schmitz: I pointed that out to him the other day. He is going to have
that fixed. I also mentioned to him that when he first came
in here he should never have put a sign on that awning. He
told me he needed the awning to keep the sun and lights out of
there. I told him he should have petitioned for a sign and
put it up on the wall so you can see it because if you come
down from the west side of Plymouth Road going Past, you don't
know what is in that building.
Mr. Piercecchi: It doesn't seem to be affecting your business.
Mr. Schmitz: That is true but he still feels people come in to his business
and they can't find the place.
Mr. rapine: I just don't understand the two strips of neon. I can
understand the sign. Even if these strips line up with that
sign so it looks like like one long strip going across there I
could understand to make it look balanced but to me you have a
sign here and two strips of neon over here. I think we can
eliminate that and just give him this sign here and that is
going to give him exactly what he wants. People are going to
be able to see the sign coming from east going west. I just
don't see where this accomplishes anything. If this was lined
`, up going all the way across it would make sense but being
below the sign, I don't think it does anything.
Mr. Schmitz: He brought that up to me. He feels that by having those
strips of neon there it shows how far that restaurant runs.
Mr. LaPine: Do you understand what I am saying. If this neon were lined
up with the sign and went all the way across, it would look
like one long strip. This doesn't seem to make sense. That
is my personal opinion.
Mr. Alanskas: You couldn't possible raise the sign you wanted and move it
over 30 feet so it is over your door between the two
buildings?
Mr. Schmitz: He wants it on that main section of the building, the highest
elevation of the building, so it can be seem coming west on
Plymouth Road.
Mr. Alanskas: From the last letter of "restaurant", from the "t", how many
feet do you have from there to the edge?
Mr. Schmitz: I am not really sure. We are going to move it to the center.
I can move that down to the end.
13706
Mr. Alanskas: Couldn't we do that John?
Mr. Nagy: Of course.
Mr. Alanskas: If you moved that sign over towards that entrance door, it
would show that is all one building.
Mr. Schmitz: He feels since he has taken these buildings over, he wants to
add this strip of neon. That is his idea to put this in to
show the people that this restaurant runs from here down to
here.
Mr. Alanskas: I think if you just take that sign and move it as far as you
can to the right towards the other building, it would show the
whole building is Senate Coney Island.
Mr. Schmitz: As I said this was his idea not mine.
Mr. Alanskas: If that sign could be moved to the right.
Mr. Schmitz: There is no problem moving that.
Mr. Morrow: I would just make a comment that I heard at the study session.
I was a little concerned about the size of the sign but after
site checking it I can agree with the petitioner, you can't
hardly see anything as far as signage on that building. I
think Mr. Alanskas' idea is a good idea of moving it down,
which would give you a little more relief from those trees on
Plymouth Road.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, by moving it along next to that neon, does that
count as part of the signage?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Schmitz: This is the Stark Road side.
Mr. Morrow: When you are viewing it coming down Plymouth Road it is hard
to see the Stark Road side because those trccc are there. The
further back you move it the better chance you have of seeing
it.
Mr. Schmitz: I have no problem with that.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-175-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by RJM Sign &
Lighting requesting approval for one wall sign for the restaurant
located at 34359 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33
be approved subject to the following conditions:
13707
1) That the Sign Package by RJM Sign & Lighting, received by the
Planning Commission on Sept. 19, 1994 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to; except for the fact that the neon tubing
strips will not be permitted and that the subject sign shall
fir► be reduced to no greater than 55 sq. ft. in area so as to be
in compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements, and
moved to the edge of the door for better visibility.
2) That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Mccann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 691st Regular
Meeting & Public Hearings held on October 4, 1994 was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R. Leo Morrow, Secretary
AT EST. r. ti.. �• ;' ( � �ti�—
J C. McCann, Vice Chairman
I
I
j9