HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-02-22 13291
MINUTES OF THE 679th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
•\r►
On Tuesday, February 22, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 679th 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 Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Raymond W. Tent Robert Alanskas William LaPine
Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei
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
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. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-2-3
by Dearborn Federal Credit Union requesting waiver use approval to
construct a credit union office to be located on the southeast corner of
Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Engebretson: This is an item that was tabled at our last public hearing. We
need a motion to remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-41-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-1-2-3 by Dearborn Federal Credit Union
requesting waiver use approval to construct a credit union office to be
located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: John, do we have any correspondence regarding the status of this
petition?
13292
Mr. Nagy: We have received no additional correspondence from City
departments.
Mr. Engebretson: The reason this issue was tabled was that there were a number of
issues that needed to be worked out between the petitioner and the
neighbors that immediately abut this property. There were at least
three or four issues that I recall. I guess we should start by
asking the petitioner to come forward and tell us how you resolved
those issues, and in fairness I think if there is no objection I
think we would certainly want to give the representative of the
neighborhood the opportunity to give their perspective as to what
kind of progress was made. In all cases we would begin by asking
you to give us your name and address for the record.
Gary Cooper: I am with Cooper Designs and I represent Dearborn Federal Credit
Union. I am the architectural consultant. I was here last week at
your last meeting. The action on the site plan was tabled, I
think, primarily because the adjacent neighbors felt that they
really hadn't had a chance to review the plans or were that
familiar with them and wanted the chance to discuss the proposed
development with the Dearborn Federal Credit Union. We met with
the neighbors for a short period of time after our meeting two
weeks ago. We presented the plan in more detail and answered
questions. We also set up a meeting the following Tuesday in which
we discussed in greater detail their concerns, presented the plan
in greater detail, and then revised the site plan. I believe you
have the revised site plan in front of you, which addresses some of
the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. (He then presented the new
site plan to the Commission) The changes in the site plan that was
revised and resubmitted really addressed strengthening that buffer.
There isn't any change beyond that in terms of relocating the drive
or the building. You can see the plant material is almost double.
These evergreens are for immediate screening. We have
substantially increased the deciduous trees on the west side of the
berm which we think will help screen views from the upper stories
of the residences. In response to the residents' concerns we have
increased the height of the berm. Our changes have been
substantial in re-enforcing what we thought was a very substantial
landscape buffer. I am sure some of the neighbors still have
concerns about the development. Some of the concerns address
traffic which we don't feel we can do anything about. One of the
major concerns, which I passed on to the Planning Department, is
they are concerned about people exiting the drive-thru banking not
being able to make a left hand turn, therefore swinging back into
the service drive towards the housing development and then coming
out and making a left turn further down the road. I think the
thought of vacating this right-of-way should be pursued with the
neighbors.
Mr. Engebretson: What would that accomplish? How would you propose vacating that
right-of-way?
Mr. Cooper: To close off this entry and I think in terms of fire protection we
could put a re-enforcer in there for emergency fire truck access.
13293
Basically trying to close off that entry to the housing
development. Those are basically the changes. If there are any
questions, I can answer them.
_tiww_ Mr. Alanskas: Did you raise the height of the evergreens?
Mr. Cooper: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: How high did you go?
Mr. Cooper: The minimum size required by the City of Livonia is five feet, I
believe. We would be willing to plant seven to eight foot trees.
Mr. Alanskas: Eight foot sounds good.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't recall sir whether the question came from the neighbors
or someone on the Commission as to the location of the drive-thru
window. What did you do about looking at the possibility of
relocating that?
Mr. Cooper: Several of the neighbors brought that up. Obviously that is one of
their major concerns that the drive-thru banking happens to be on
the east end of the building, which is in close proximity to their
homes. We explored several alternatives and we didn't feel that
anything worked substantially better than this in terms of
developing this site for the credit union. I would agree that the
relocation of the drive-thru banking to a corner position or some
other position on the lot would be in the best interest of the
neighbors. At the same time the bank strongly believes that this
is the best traffic flow and the best location for the drive-up
banking in this particular site configuration.
Mr. Engebretson: Can you show us an example of some of the alternatives that you
considered?
Mr. Cooper: I don't have any drawings with me but I can tell you that the
neighbors requested that we look at providing drive-up banking at
this location. (He pointed the location out on the plan) That was
a primary concern. I think you can see the circulation would flow
through much as it does now but then it would have to flow west
along the north side of the building, have drive-thru lanes in this
position and then turn back onto Newburgh. It wouldn't be possible
to exit the site this close to the intersection and therefore we
would have a very large loop.
Mr. Engebretson: So you have some drawings, you just don't have them with you?
Mr. Cooper: We did rough sketches in our office to look at different
alternatives and talk to the owner about and we feel we have the
best arrangement for this particular site.
Mr. Engebretson: How far from that home shown on the board, what distance would
there be from that property to the drive-thru lanes?
'irr.
13294
Mr. Cooper: I believe it is 93 feet from the property line to the pass-by lane.
It would be another 12 feet to the structure. That home is 39.41
feet off the property line so it would be 93 feet plus the 39.41.
r11„ Mr. Engebretson: One of the concerns I have is, as you are well aware you sat
through a public hearing for a waiver use hearing last week
regarding another credit union in another area, and the Planning
Commission recommended the denial of that proposal based primarily
on the failure of that proposal to meet all the waiver use
standards, all of which have to be met in order for a proposal to
receive a waiver use to be granted. One of the issues has to do
with noise and noxious fumes, etc. in support of Section 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance, and I am just wondering, I am not saying we
have that problem here but that was one of the problems we had that
night. I only use that to refresh your memory that it is a point
of concern that we have in all these kinds of cases and that we are
not singling you out for harsh treatment here. I am just wondering
if you have taken into consideration what the impact of that would
be 150 feet removed from your facility and I am sure you have
looked at the Zoning Ordinance and you are aware of what the
requirements are to gain this waiver use. What thought process
have you gone through on that and what risk do you think you have
in taking the position that that is the only spot the drive-thru
can function satisfactorily? Are you willing to put the project up
or down based on that particular drive-thru location?
Mr. Cooper: That is a long question. I think if the Planning Commission feels
that they would like to see alternatives that are explorative, they
certainly have the option to table it again rather than deny
,,- approval of this particular site plan. We would, I think, urge you
to do that and we could have more discussions with your Planning
staff about what the options are. I think as a waiver use we have
come in here and gone far beyond what most developments would have
done in terms of establishing a very substantial buffer. I don't
think we have ever been involved in a project that had this
commitment to separating a use from the existing residences. At
the same time, I have to bring up what would happen if this was
developed under the office zoning. We could develop within 15 feet
of the property line if this were an office use instead of a credit
union use. I think all said and done this is a very nice
development for this site. I think the reaction we got from the
majority of the neighbors was very positive. I know they still
have concerns but we think we have a very good site plan and would
hope that you would pass it tonight.
Mr. Engebretson: Well I must say sir that you make valid points, that you have
done a really first class job in tending to the needs of the
neighbors, and I guess the only question I have is to what extent
have you considered reworking the proposal to completely eliminate
this point of concern, and the question as to whether or not you
had other sketches available, not necessarily renderings of this
quality but other sketches just to give us some better
understanding as to what some of the challenges are there. They
might be very useful. I don't want to dwell on it. I do want to
commend you on doing a very credible job in dealing with the issues
Nem.- that we raised.
13295
Mr. Tent: Mr. Cooper, I want to compliment you. I think you have done a
great job there with the suggestions that we made. I was concerned
about the buffer and you certainly addressed yourself to it. I
think you overextended yourself with the landscaping. You have
taken care of the headlight concern, which really was my concern.
I am sure you had a dialogue with the neighbors. With the dialogue
you had, which I want to compliment you again because I saw you
discussing the problems in the auditorium after the last meeting
and I am sure you met with them again at whatever location they had
designated, what was their concern about that drive-thru facility?
Was that a major concern? Was it one or two people that were
talking about it or would you say a majority of the people living
there had a problem with it?
Mr. Cooper: A good number of them are here in the audience and I would like to
defer to them during the participation part of the evening. I
think the women that live in this particular house are most
concerned about traffic and they have difficulty getting into their
service road now. They feel the drive-thru exiting at this
location is going to contribute to an already difficult problem but
I think that is a problem that exists on Seven Mile and Newburgh
and that no matter what gets built here it is going to contribute
to that to some degree. Their concern is primarily that, although
with them being the closest to the drive-thru I am sure they have
some concerns with the drive-thru as well. Like I said they can
speak for themselves.
Mr. Tent: What was your feeling of their general response? Was it pretty
well positive?
Mr. Cooper: I think it was very positive from a lot of people. I think
neighbors from across the street also came. Again, I don't want to
presume to speak for them but I think a majority was in favor of
this particular use and that they feel it is a very good use
compared to what they could get if it was developed under the
office use.
Mr. Tent: And I agree with them.
Mr. Morrow: I certainly will look forward to hearing from the neighbors. I
know at our original briefing on this particular petition, one of
my concerns was to see if it would work coming on the other side of
the facility. We think we have a good location there for you and
we think the Dearborn Federal Credit Union will be a welcome
addition to the City of Livonia; however, you had indicated earlier
that you think you have a very good plan. As one Commissioner I
would like to at least explore a little bit more to see if we can
turn it into an excellent plan. You have certainly gone that extra
mile on landscaping and maybe that will be the only way we can go
because with scheduling problems we never really had the
opportunity to sit down with you at a study session and one
question I would like to ask you is did you ever talk to the staff
at all about the flipping of the drive-thru on the west side
because these people are professional staff and sometimes they have
13296
some ideas that might work for you as well as your client. That is
all I want to say is I am pleased with what I see. I am just
trying to see if there is any way to make it perhaps a little
better.
vow
Mr. Cooper: If I could just make a comment. It was either you or somebody at
that end of the dais that commented that they didn't want this
elevation of the building to appear like the back door of the bank.
They really wanted the north elevation to present a front door.
Mr. Morrow: That has never been a concern of mine. It might have been somebody
else. I think as far as the building itself, it is first rate.
The working of the site is my only concern.
Mr. Cooper: I will point out that if we move the drive-thru either on the north
side or this side, we are still going to have at peak times the
traffic back up in the same location. We might be moving some of
the traffic maybe 100 feet from where it is now but it will still
always back up in the same general location. That is only at
occasional peak periods but the drive-thru location won't be
terribly much further away from the residences as it is now. The
other factor that we are concerned about is that the appearance of
the drive-thru bank, if it is placed in this location, is going to
be the prime image that is presented to the public and then
everybody that comes to the intersection will perceive the bank
through the drive-thru windows. I think that is unfortunate and we
would certainly like to avoid that.
Mr. Morrow: You make a nice point. I am not disputing that.
low
Mr. LaPine: I was the one that was concerned about the front of the building
and I still feel that way. Let me ask you, the peak periods for
the drive-thru would be approximately what time?
Mr. Cooper: The bank keeps very good records on their existing facilities.
They are located in Dearborn. They are primarily related to people
who are exiting work and cashing a check at 5:00 p.m. on Friday or
early Saturday morning. That is when their peak period is there.
They don't feel they know how this is going to operate yet because
it is their first suburban branch. They think people, rather than
come immediately on Friday afternoons and the 15th, are going to do
their banking here at different times because it isn't going to be
that quick check cashing thing.
Mr. LaPine: Monday through Friday, what is the time of your operation?
Mr. Cooper: 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine: So basically speaking, if the residents of this subdivision are the
same, most of the traffic would be through there before the people
are home at five o'clock?
Mr. Cooper: That is what we anticipate. The majority of traffic is at lunch
hour until two o'clock.
13297
Mr. LaPine: I am not saying that everybody in that subdivision works but
basically speaking most families in Livonia are two-working
families so that is a concern for me. I would like to see it moved
and I brought it up at our last meeting but I understand what your
problems are. I don't think it will be that much of an impact on
those people during Monday through Friday. What are the hours on
Saturday?
Mr. Cooper: Ten o'clock until two.
Mr. LaPine: Which could create a problem especially in the summer when the
families are home and out in their backyards. Monday through
Friday I don't see that as a big problem. All the landscape area,
is that all sprinkler system?
Mr. Cooper: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is no objection then I would like to see if someone
would like to represent the neighbors and give us their perspective
as to what their current views are on this proposal. Without
redoing the public hearing we would like to address the new issues
please.
Jerry Mazur: The neighbors have asked me to make a few points. I am the third
house from Seven Mile and have a large area backing up to their
property. I would also like to, along with you gentlemen, praise
what they have done. They have done a fine job with landscaping in
this second phase of the drawing and they were very hospitable in
inviting us to attend the meeting. It was a pleasure to work with
`, them. We anticipate it will be a continued pleasure. Two things I
would like to mention. One I mentioned at the last meeting and
hadn't really gotten a firm response to that. It is the question
that was just asked and that is the anticipated flow of business.
I have to assume that there was a study completed prior to the
design of the building otherwise you would have six lanes or three
lanes instead of four lanes so there has to be some kind of study
as to what type of traffic they anticipate. I think the neighbors
are just interested in seeing if that study has been done and what
the results of that are.
Mr. Engebretson: We will ask them that.
Mr. Mazur: Secondly, it was brought up by yourself and a few of the other
gentlemen, we do appreciate what was done here but once again, as
you mentioned it, an optional layout of the property possibly
taking the building and having it face west or the corner or
something else to allow a more effective flow of the drive-thru as
is done in similar locations throughout the City here. I know
there is one at Six Mile and Newburgh, which is on the corner, and
landscaping and that sort of thing. I guess I agree and understand
with the current position of the building, to move the drive-thru
is not a good idea and we are just wondering now, after mentioned
here, was there a thought of revising the location of the building
*rm.
13298
to face west or the northwest corner. Are there opportunities like
that?
Mr. Engebretson: Those are two good questions. Anything else sir?
Mr. Mazur: That will do it.
Mr. Engebretson: Either Mr. Cooper or a representative of the credit union, if you
could please address those two issues.
Steve Jaskowski: I am from Dearborn Federal Credit Union. As far as the location
of the drive-up and the amount of traffic that we anticipate there,
again as Gary said, this is something that is new to us, coming
into a suburban area, going into a residential area. We know how
the drive-up lanes are used at our present location and we know
what the number of cars are. That is why we have four lanes in
order to move the cars through and get them through quickly. What
this is going to do, what the impact is going to be on this
location, we honestly don't know. We are located in Dearborn
primarily around Ford Motor Company facilities and we can tell you
what that is going to be but exactly what it is going to be in this
location, we don't know. We do things like we put security guards
there on the peak times with the drive-up. They are not security
guards in that matter. They walk the cars and they pass out
slips to the people to make sure once they get up that we hurry
them through. We do these type of things only in the essence to
get them through so they aren't sitting there. As you can see with
the drive-up here, we have had experience at some of our other
branches where the cars are lined up on the road. We did this
__ purposely so that we avoided that. We did not want to create
traffic problems. That was one of the reasons why we have done it
in this manner. We are concerned with that and we are concerned
with being good citizens and being good neighbors. We have tried
to address the things that we think are going to be problems but we
really don't have any evidence of what exactly we can expect here.
Mr. Engebretson: Can your architect comment as to how many cars he would
anticipate being able to stack in that particular configuration you
have there so you don't stack cars out on Newburgh Road?
Mr. Cooper: I don't think we have done an exact count. I think you could
probably stack 50 cars easily. Not that we anticipate that.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Cooper. Well then just to kind of reinforce the
gentleman's question, and we accept the comment you make that you
really don't know, but I guess the question is how did you settle
on four rather than three or five lanes? You must have some idea.
Mr. Jaskowski: Basically based on what our facilities, two of our largest
facilities are in Dearborn, and again with the fact we anticipate a
lot of business but we are doing this hoping we can move the cars
through here so we don't have a stacking problem and we don't
experience a lot of cars sitting there. Again, not that I am
trying to plead ignorance but we really don't know and we don't
r..
13299
have anything out in a suburban area to know that this is going to
be a lot of cars or not a lot of cars.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you want to add anything regarding the orientation of the
drive-thru or do you feel you have said all you want to say on
that?
Mr. Jaskowski: Again, what we have experienced from our other branches, that is
why we created that queue line strictly to house the cars and keep
them off the road to avoid a safety problem.
Mr. Morrow: Just one question. Do you have any sort of a ratio as to the
number of transactions done inside the facility versus the number
of transactions done in your drive-thru? In other words, we are
caught up here where we think all the business is going to be
through the drive-thru and nothing is going to be done inside the
facility. You have a fairly substantial parking lot there.
Mr. Jaskowski: About 75% inside and 25% outside. We again address that by one of
the mandates that we gave the architect was that there was at least
a 100 car parking space. Again, hoping for that type of business
in this area but again we want to utilize the inside. We are going
to put twelve offices in there for lending facilities, etc.
Actually to bring people in to cross-sell them and to get them into
other things is to get them inside the facility.
Mr. Morrow: I suppose if your stack-up is too great, they may park and go
inside. I just want to keep it in scale.
Mr. Tent: A question to either H or John. We have the Comerica Bank up at
Six Mile and Newburgh. In other words, it is a banking facility,
etc. and I am sure they do a lot of drive-in traffic. Comparison
wise how would those two stack up in size for a banking facility
for drive-up customers?
Mr. Nagy: I only hazard a guess that they are really dissimilar. One is a
full-service bank where the credit union's operation is somewhat
different. I think their services to their customers tend to be
different.
Mr. Tent: What I am meaning is their drive-thru window.
Mr. Nagy: Comerica Bank is not really designed in that situation. The only
bank that I can think that has a similar southwest corner location
would be First of America at Six and Haggerty Roads. Their
drive-up windows are on the west side of that or on the Haggerty
Road side of their building, which would be like the Newburgh Road
side of this building.
Mr. Tent: Let's use that as an example.
Mr. Nagy: I believe there is a window right at the building wall and there
are two drive-thru lanes and the capacity for an additional two but
they are on the west side of their building as opposed to the east
side of this building.
*4r.
13300
Mr. Tent: To your knowledge have we ever experienced a problem with the
stack up?
Mr. Nagy: No problem.
Iftw
Mr. Tent: So that would be similar?
Mr. Nagy: That is the only one I can think of that would be a parallel
situation.
Mr. Tent: That was a concern I had about the stack up and the traffic, and
being familiar with their facility in Dearborn they do monitor the
traffic and make certain the cars are not projecting out into the
street. By doing this wraparound lane the way they have I can't
see where they would have a problem with that many vehicles
standing in there with exhaust fumes and what have you penetrating
the area. Also with the landscaping and the way they put it
together I think they have contained themselves very well so from
the traffic standpoint I really don't see that much of a concern if
we use these two facilities as a comparison.
Mr. LaPine: I have just one question. You have four drive-up windows. That
doesn't necessarily mean those four drive-up windows are going to
be utilized every day. You use those windows as needed. You have
tellers working inside. If the stack up starts you may open up one
drive-in. If business gets better you open up two. If it gets
better you open three. Some days you only need one all day. Some
days you may need four all day. Is that correct?
,,. Mr. Jaskowski: Yes sir. Generally all we have open is two on a daily basis and we
open the rest of them as the amount of traffic is necessary.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Cooper if he would address the issue of
the screening of the HVAC equipment that we discussed last time.
We wanted some assurance that it would be completely screened from
Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Cooper: It will be 100% screened from any location.
Mr. Engebretson: Now you are on the record. It is guaranteed.
Mr. Cooper: The drawings we submitted showed that.
Mr. Engebretson: Last time you thought it was and now you are sure?
Mr. Cooper: I was sure last time I just didn't express myself.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Cooper, did you bring brick samples tonight as far as the
color?
Mr. Cooper: Yes I did. (He presented the samples and passed out a handout) I
hope you can appreciate the fact that it is very difficult to
render a drawing to be exactly like what you want.
Mr. Alanskas: You are talking three different colors as far as the brick instead
of all one brick for the entire building?
13301
Mr. Cooper: Right.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the reasoning for this? Is it for visibility so the people
can see the building better?
1411..
Mr. Cooper: No, it is a very large building. I think you would be surprised.
The banks that you guys mentioned are very small in comparison to
this. This bank is probably three times as big as either one of
those two banks. It is such a long building. It is almost 200
feet long and then with the drive-thru it is about 250 feet long.
We really feel if we just had solid brick there you would have a
boring building. It would almost be like a warehouse in a sense.
This really begins to divide the building into the top and the
bottom. It adds interest. It adds a little texture and these
lines and patterns go through in the windows. They go in and out
of the recesses in the building. I think it is going to add some
nice variety to the building that you wouldn't ordinarily have. I
think you can see on the sample there is some banding on that
building and I think that alleviates what could have been a very
tall, stark facade.
Mr. Alanskas: Around the windows you show a blue shape. Would that be blue also?
Mr. Cooper: What we are proposing is a blue/gray window framing system and a
blue/gray shingled roof.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Cooper, not to dwell on the plan but you made a couple of
comments that disturb me. When you were describing the brick
samples, you say it will be this brick, this brick and this brick
,Nair and then you come back a few moments later and you say the brick
will be in the range of this, that and the other one. I am not
quoting you exactly but do you see the point of concern. Are they
the brick colors or aren't they?
Mr. Cooper: Well what I would like to say is I have never had a community that
asks for you to pick a brick at the time of site plan submission.
What I would like to say is it is difficult at this time. Right
now we are asking for site plan approval so we can find out whether
we can build this thing. If you tell me next week that I have to
put the drive-thru window at the other end, then I have to redesign
the whole building. The selection of bricks usually comes late in
the process. It comes when you are developing contract documents,
which is about six to eight weeks away. What I would like to do is
be able to commit to a range of colors and commit to staying within
that range but I can't say that this brick is affordable. I can't
say it will be available at the time of construction.
Mr. Engebretson: We understand that. On the other hand you need to understand
that when things are done in ranges sometimes we end up with really
undesirable end products. I won't mention any by name but there
are several around town that came out to be something entirely
different than what was expected even though we thought we had an
understanding of what the colors would be. This is not something
reserved for this particular proposal and I hope you don't take any
13302
of this personally because this is standard procedure to scrutinize
these types of plans. This is a significant intersection. This is
a high visibility intersection. I am sure that is one of the
reasons you are there. We are certain that you are going to do the
%ow very best thing for your client but we want to think that the
neighbors' and the City's interest are coincident with your client
so the object of this is to just get a little better understanding
of what we are dealing with not to make life difficult for you or
your client.
Mr. Tent: The comment you made about the brick structure and the colors of
the building, our Chairman here pretty well identified our feelings
on it. I have a question to you now. For instance, this plan as
it is approved now, in other words we buy it, we like it because
this is the only shot we get at it. The rest of the times you have
to go through Inspection, Engineering, etc. but basically what you
are showing us today is what you are selling us and this is what we
are going to buy. Take the time now and pick out the colors of the
brick that you are going to put in this building if this were
approved and then let us know what it is going to look like.
Mr. Cooper: I have already done that. I will use those colors there. I can't
say it will be exactly that color brick. We can probably get those
colors in a variety of different bricks. If we are going to make a
significant change, let me submit that you would have to approve
that change before it could be made. At the time of the building
permit we would be glad to provide a sample at that time of what we
know we can afford, what is available. If it differs from this
sample, then you have the option to reject it.
Mr. Tent: Well when you say what you can afford, in other words at this point
you know you can afford this building, this is the building you are
proposing, and these are the bricks that you are going to sell us
on. In other words if this were all approved, this would be the
brick construction you would have. You couldn't come back at a
later date and say we overestimated and we can't pay that much for
the building. We would like to down size. This is what I am not
in favor of. In other words, what I look at now and what you are
showing us is the thing I want to say yes I, as one Commissioner,
am interested. But I don't want you to show us one thing and come
back six months later and say we overestimated it. We can't build
it. We have to cut it down in size. We have to cut back on our
brick construction, etc. Then that is a different ball game and I
am disappointed.
Mr. Cooper: I don't think cost is going to be the overriding factor. Brick
selection is a very difficult thing. There are a lot of
intricacies involved, availability, shipping dates, that kind of
thing. We may find that this brick takes ten weeks to deliver and
we don't have ten weeks to start to build. I am not trying to
equivocate but I would bet any architect in my position would be
saying the same thing. We are presenting to the best of our
ability what we are proposing to do. We are committing to this
tonight but I can't say that a certain brick is the exact brick
`r.. that they will be able to use on the building.
13303
Mr. Tent: Not to belabor this but you have seen other buildings here within
the City and they have come before us and they have gone through
the same procedure and they said this is what we are going to put
up and they did. Those that changed their minds, they became a
`�,.. problem.
Mr. Cooper: We have no intention of changing our mind at this time but it is a
long way from when the building is going to be constructed.
Frankly, I think this is a very handsome building. I think the
color is a little pinker than it really is and I think we are
trying to shoot for that. We have done a rendering and we have
brought samples. We have done our best to show you what we are
trying to do. At the same time you asked for this, you don't
provide any design guidelines in your site plan documentation
requirements. What are acceptable colors? Where do we start in
terms of meeting your requirements?
Mr. McCann: Sir, you intend to use close to those colors if not those exact
colors, right?
Mr. Cooper: That is right.
Mr. McCann: Good. That was easy, three words or less. I am going to make an
approving resolution because I think number one, they have
demonstrated tremendous commitment to the City between the
greenbelt, the layout, the amount of the greenbelt, the type of use
it is going to be. In many ways it will be less intense than the
possible office use in there. I think he has demonstrated it is
going to be a very attractive building and I think it is an
Nior appropriate location in the City.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and supported by Mr. Tent, it was
#2-42-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on February 8, 1994 on Petition 94-1-2-3 by Dearborn
Federal Credit Union requesting waiver use approval to construct a
credit union office to be located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile
and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
94-1-2-3 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 2 dated 1-18-94, as revised,
prepared by Quinn Evans, Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 3 dated 2-18-94, as revised,
prepared by Quinn Evans, Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to and the landscape materials shall be installed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter
be permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 4 dated 1-18-94
prepared by Quinn Evans, Architects, which is hereby approved shall
be adhered to.
13304
4) That a Landscape Greenbelt as shown on the approved Landscape Plan
shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section
18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 and shall be constructed along
the property line abutting any residential zoning district.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 9.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
##543, as amended.
Mr. Tent: I am supporting this petition because I think they have done a
great job and I wasn't trying to give them a hard time on this
brick selection. I know this will be a successful venture and that
is why I am giving it my support.
Mr. Engebretson: I am going to pass the gavel to Mr. Morrow. I am going to try
for a substitute motion here. I do not oppose this proposed use
philosophically and I do want to give proper credit to the
`tor petitioner and to his architect for their efforts to be cooperative
with the Commission and most particularly with the residents in
regard to all the things they have done but I would like to make a
motion to put this off for one week to give recognition to the fact
that what we do here is forever and to take one more week to make
sure that we have really wrung all these issues out, in my
judgment, is not a hardship. I think we would all feel better if
we could have one more crack at this at a study session, a more
informal session. That is my proposal to table this to the next
study meeting and then a final vote two weeks from tonight. At
that time I will be prepared to support the proposal but for now I
would like to have that one last chance just to make sure that we
understand what we are getting and to make double sure that we have
done everything that we can to minimize any intrusion of any form
upon the residential neighbors to the east. That is my motion and
I hope there will be support.
Mr. Morrow passed the gavel to Mr. McCann.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Morrow, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
94-1-2-3 by Dearborn Federal Credit Union requesting waiver use approval
to construct a credit union office to be located on the southeast corner
of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, the
City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition
`oir 94-1-2-3 until the study meeting of March 1, 1994.
13305
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: Tent, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann
ABSENT: Fandrei
Mr. McCann, Acting Chairman, declared the motion failed.
Mr. McCann passed the gavel back to Mr. Engebretson.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason why I denied the tabling resolution was because I think
the plan is correct. I think possibly trying to take the exit area
and move it around to the west or north would be a mistake because
it is coming towards Newburgh and Seven Mile Roads. I think the
ingress where it is, is proper. I think it is a good plan and as
long as we have those colors in the brick I think it would work out
very well.
Mr. Engebretson: Since you opened it up Mr. McCann, I would like to make a further
comment. I think the issue of the drive-thru facility is really
critical. I believe there are several first-class banking
facilities in our community that have drive-thru facilities far
less visible than this one and I guess my point is I guess I don't
see a need to have that drive-thru facility either on Seven Mile or
``. Newburgh. I point out the Manufacturers Bank at Five Mile and
Newburgh has their drive-thru facility on the side but tucked away
from everything. I guess I would have hoped that we would have had
an extra week that the staff could have done a survey of other
drive-thru banking facilities in the area, and to have a good
feeling that we really gave it the very best shot. I would have
hoped that you would have felt the same way about that. With
regard to Mr. Cooper being concerned about the process here, I just
want you to know sir you ain't seen nothing yet because when you
take this to the City Council you will be talking about brick
colors, you will be making commitments, and it is only fair to you
to make you aware all along the way that the process is consistent
here and there and when you get off to the big show you will have
been better prepared having gone through all of this.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Cooper, I think you have done an excellent job. You have
covered all the bases and when you do get to the big show, remember
you came to the little show first and we gave it a pretty good
shot. As far as I am concerned I think you put the best use for
that particular corner, you have addressed the issues and I, as one
Commissioner, don't anticipate you will have a big problem with the
City Council.
Mr. McCann: Just briefly, since it was my motion for approval, I want to
express why I feel the way they have done it is appropriate. The
13306
other locations, to get this with any type of satisfactory view
from the main roads, you have to bring the parking lot, the cars
around the front of the building to get good flow without having
the people in the parking lot walk through the drive-thru and to
avoid having them walk through the area where the cars are going to
go to the drive-thru without avoiding having a parking area or
driveway in front of the building to the main roads. I think this
situation was the best. I think they did take a large piece of
property so that they could keep it well over a hundred feet from
the neighbors, which I think was enough.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann, call the roll on the approving resolution.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a letter from Juile
Alkarawi requesting an extension of Petition 92-10-2-46 by James
Staniforth requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant within an existing building located on the east side of
Merriman Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
23.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Julie Alkarawi: I am the owner of the building at 13976 Merriman. I am here
tonight to ask the Planning Commission to extend approval of the
limited restaurant that was approved in February of last year for
several reasons. First of all, I was under a lot of financial
problems last year because after the City approved the sign for Jim
Staniforth, my tenant backed out from the deal because he couldn't
meet most of the requirements of the City and it appears he went to
a different City with less requirements and higher rent and opened
his business as I understand within two months or so. Losing my
tenant really let me face bigger problems because I continue paying
two heavy payments, one for the empty building after he left and
the other one on my business. This building I bought I was forced
to buy. I didn't buy it because I wanted to. I was under a law
suit that was against me and against the City of Livonia and most
of you knew about it at that time. So to get over this problem I
bought this building. In fact, I still owe the City a lot of money
but I got myself in bigger debt. Plus what happened after he
backed out. Within a month or two they started construction on
Merriman from Schoolcraft up to Six Mile which took all summer long
and really this hurt me a lot. I struggled to make those two
payments plus to pay the taxes for two buildings. I am here trying
really to stand on my feet with your help to give me a chance to
rent because last year I couldn't rent it. Besides all of this I
have my personal payments. I have two sons going to college. I am
helping them pay their college tuition at the same time. One other
thing I want to point out, as much as I wanted to have my building
appear better from the outside, last year I couldn't do anything
because of my financial situation but now I am intending to do so
`r.. when the weather gets better.
13307
Mr. Morrow: This is a question to you or to the staff, the waiver of use if it
were to be extended, would the same conditions, the same
constraints that we placed for that waiver, would that remain in
place or would it just be a waiver use in place that pretty much
r`„ what fit that could go in?
Mr. Nagy: The waiver use that you approved, unless you modify those
conditions, would still be in full force and effect. You can
extend it for one year with the same conditions and for the same
reasons that you previously approved.
Mr. Morrow: That was my concern. I just didn't want to let the use run with
the land and open it up to perhaps some other things that we
wouldn't be as happy with but I recall the petition. We labored
hard and long and we are certainly not here to work a hardship on
anybody but I just wanted to know what our position was as it
related to the conditions that we placed on it.
Mr. Tent: Ms. Alkarawi, do you have a tenant in mind now?
Ms. Alkarawi: Yes I do have somebody interested in it.
Mr. Tent: Could you share their name with us at this point?
Ms. Alkarawi: Right now I can't do that unless it is approved but he approached
us like he wanted to start like a Subway with carry-out and limited
seating, which is less than what Blimpie wanted at the time, much
less.
Mr. Tent: Are they aware of the conditions that were imposed on the previous
waiver use because you indicated now they were too stringent for
the other restaurant owner and he couldn't abide by it and backed
out. Does this one realize what those conditions are?
Ms. Alkarawi: I think he is aware of what the City wanted. I explained it to him
and he came and approached the City at the same time. He is aware
of most of the things the City wanted.
Mr. Tent: You made some commitments at that time too as to the things you
would do to your store, the ice machine and all those things. Are
those still in effect?
Ms. Alkarawi: Yes.
Mr. Tent: So this is identical with the petition that was proposed before?
Ms. Alkarawi: That is correct.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, would we have privy to revisit all that information
before we took any action? We are just doing an extension now.
Mr. Nagy: You are just doing an extension to the same extent you previously
did with all the plans, the requirements for the parking lot
improvements, the landscaping, the restriping of the lot. All
those would still be in full force and effect.
13308
Mr. Tent: So they would have to come before us one more time?
Mr. Nagy: No, this is it. Those previously approved plans would be extended
for one year.
No` Mr. Tent: So they are asking for this extension for one year. In other
words, if we were to say yes we will extend it for a year and it
was unanimous or however the vote went.
Mr. Nagy: If the new tenant, whoever it might be, should come to the
conclusion that for some reason they want to change a building wall
or alter it, then they would have to come back. Any modifications,
any changes, we bring those back, but right now until someone else
comes forward and says we want to modify it, what you are extending
are the previous approvals, previously approved plans and those
conditions as they are.
Mr. Tent: Now I am going to ask the hot question. Could they go to the ZBA
next and forget us completely and ask the ZBA to waive all those
conditions and put a restaurant in?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Tent: We have had situations like that before where they bypass the
Planning Commission. In this condition they definitely could not
waive anything that we had approved to that point without coming
back before us and that would be a condition?
Mr. Nagy: Right.
No . Mr. Engebretson: So madam when do you think you will be getting those college kids
or whoever is going to put the stain on that building? Last year
you thought by mid-summer you would have that done and we
understand that you had a lot of disruption there last year. Do
you think this summer we might see that by the middle of the year,
July or June?
Ms. Alkarawi: One hundred percent I assure you this will be done.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask you about those signs you have hanging on the
side of your building. You have about six signs there, some of
which don't serve any real particular useful purpose and some may
but they don't appear to be legal signs so you might want to take a
look at that.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-43-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated February 13, 1994 from Juilie
Alkarawi requesting an extension of Petition 92-10-2-46 by James
Staniforth requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant within an existing building located on the east side of
Merriman Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the
Nolo. date of this resolution subject to the same conditions as originally
imposed for the following reasons:
13309
1) That the use of the subject property for the intended use will
substantially improve the building and the site.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a
public hearing to determine whether or not to amend the Future Land Use
Plan so as to change the designation of certain described properties so
as to have the Plan reflect recent rezoning actions of the City.
Mr. Engebretson: Any discussion needed here? John, do you have any comments to
make?
Mr. Nagy: We are just trying to, as in past practices, keep the Future Land
Use Plan current with the development plans and the Commission's
goals and objectives for the community development. We are taking
a periodic review and bringing it forth for your consideration.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess it would be appropriate at this point to refer to a
conversation I had recently with Council President Joe Taylor
regarding the Master Plan, not only the map but the verbiage of the
Master Plan. We have heard recently several business and several
residential citizens make reference to the fact that they had
checked the Master Plan before purchasing property, etc. and in the
conversation I had with Mr. Taylor we both agreed that it would
probably be very appropriate to include in the verbiage reference to
the fact that it is subject to change as the years go by as
contrast with something that can be relied on irrevocably, you know
*4111. public
Something to take into consideration when we hold this
public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-44-94 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 change the designation of certain described
properties so as to reflect recent changes of zoning.
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.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-1-8-1
by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a one-story commercial building on property at 34957 Plymouth
Road in Section 33.
13310
Mr. Engebretson: This is another item that was tabled at our last public hearing.
We need a motion to remove it from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-45-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-1-8-1 by Medora Building Company requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to construct a one-story commercial
building on property at 34957 Plymouth Road in Section 33 be taken from
the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: John, do we have anything additional from the staff?
Mr. Nagy: There is no additional correspondence from City departments
or the public although we do have revised plans.
Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner come forward and present those plans.
Dave Plumley: I am the President of Hydra-Flex. I reside at 36611 Mallory in
Livonia. For those of you who may not know anything about my
company, we started the business eight years ago in Livonia. I am
a Livonia resident. It has always been my intention to keep the
business here in Livonia. The building that we are proposing is
approximately 16,000 square feet. Initially we plan to occupy
11,000 square feet and lease out the remaining 5,000. We intend
this to be a permanent location for us and we plan to fully occupy
Nor
the building within the next five years. We were here a month ago
and based on your recommendations we have made some revisions to
our original proposal. At this time I would like to introduce Tom
Crabill, my builder, to go over those revisions and answer any
specific questions you may have.
Tom Crabill: I represent Medora Building Company and as Mr. Plumley said
approximately a month ago we were tabled and there were certain
suggestions made by the Commission regarding this project and how
we can better serve the community. (He presented the revised
plans) Just a few simple notes. The architects had drawn in a
five foot sidewalk. We changed that to a six foot City sidewalk,
which is the requirement. Mr. Alanskas, I believe, addressed the
mechanical equipment not being shown as being properly screened.
We have indicated that on this drawing and can assure you that any
mechanical equipment visible from the road will be one hundred
percent screened. The dumpster enclosure I don't believe was noted
with the correct materials. We would install that enclosure with
the same six foot high brick texture poured wall material as the
screening wall between the residential area and this proposed site
would be. The screen wall, the last twenty feet that was brought
up at the Zoning meeting, I have had a chance to talk to Mr.
LaForest. He has granted us permission to extend the wall. The
wall currently is masonry, approximately six feet high. We were
13311
proposing to have a poured wall. My suggestion would be to
terminate the poured wall at this point and continue with the
masonry wall similar to what Mr. LaForest currently has behind his
building. There was a question regarding landscaping. In order to
increase landscaping, as well as parking, we have eliminated the
truck well at the rear of the building. We picked up, I believe,
about seven or eight spaces and we took out of that, I believe,
five spaces and converted that to extra greenbelt area. The east
elevation was brought up by Mr. Alanskas and after discussing it
with the architect, they agreed that because of the location of the
transmission building next door, it would be advisable to dress up
that east elevation. It is on a zero property line so we are not
allowed to have any windows there but we felt by bringing possibly
split-facing around and also carry these accent bands along the
entire east side of the building. That is just a suggestion on my
part. We felt it was an economical decision and because of the
fact we can't have windows on that east elevation, we felt that
carrying the dryvit around would not be consistent with the look of
the front of the building. Of course we would be open to any
suggestions from the Commission but this is what we felt was the
best answer to resolve the problem. There was also a question by
Mrs. Fandrei regarding handicap parking which was located over
here. We had that moved to the center and also noted that all
landscaped areas will be irrigated. That is all I have unless
there are any questions.
Mr. Engebretson: You did a first class job. Any questions?
Mr. Alanskas: What color is the building going to be?
'4111. Mr. Crabill: At the last meeting I brought some paint samples in. I apologize
for not having them again tonight. I did change the color of the
rendition to better simulate the samples that we brought in. I
don't believe there were any comments regarding the samples. This
is a close approximation to the colors. I would be glad to provide
anybody with the exact colors. Again, as you already heard tonight
it is something that we haven't actually sat down and picked out
but I can assure you that we are going to make every attempt to
make that decision in good taste.
Mr. Alanskas: It is a very attractive looking building. It is a nice color.
Mr. Crabill: Then if everybody likes these colors, I will make them those
colors. It is lot easier for me to pick a paint chip to match the
colored pencils than it is for me to get a colored pencil to match
the exact color.
Mr. McCann: I was concerned about this building last time. I think you have
done a wonderful job. After our conversation though I got the
plans in the mail and I looked them over and the northeast corner
you show a greenbelt between the building and the front green area.
On the plans that the City received, it doesn't show. It shows
that it is a 20x20 open parking space for turns. Is there a reason
for that?
13312
Mr. Crabill: Correct. Originally I believe the architects, we wanted to put in
as much landscaping as we could and I think it was your suggestion
that we do this originally. When we sent the plans to be revised
the architects felt we would need that space for turning around and
then after reviewing the site plan with you verbally you indicated
Now that you wanted to see that and my reply to the architects was put
it in.
Mr. McCann: I saw this tonight and to be honest with you, because we deal not
specifically with you, but there are times when they put in turns
for ulterior motives and I am looking at that 20 foot by 20 foot.
To me that is two spots right up front for parking, which is fine
except that you are not going to have any way of backing out. If
you leave a 20 foot by 20 foot space there people are going to use
it for parking no matter what you do. That is going to be two
parking spots that won't be good for backing around anyways. If
you give them eight foot of greenbelt, twelve feet is enough to
turn. Cars will be able to drive in and then get out and you are
still going to have an eight foot greenbelt and it will keep people
from parking there. Twelve feet is not deep enough to park. Am I
too far off on this John?
Mr. Nagy: No your logic is good.
Mr. McCann: I think you have done a wonderful job but I would really like to
see that on the plans.
Mr. Nagy: Before we approve the minutes and release them we will have the
appropriate revised prints to reflect that.
Mr. Crabill: So this plan is what you want to see?
Mr. McCann: That is wonderful. I just don't want two more cars parking there.
I think you have done a wonderful job with the building and I am
just in full support. I just want to see that.
Mr. Crabill: I think that particular change is something you don't have and the
other change you don't have is the split-face brought around the
east side of the building.
Mr. Engebretson: So if you could clean that up by this time next week. If you
should fail to do that or change your mind, then we have the option
of not approving our minutes, in which case we are right back to
where we are.
Mr. Crabill: So am I to understand, assuming we are approved tonight, then we
would have seven days to do that. Would that cut into my building
permit application time?
Mr. Engebretson: I don't think so.
Mr. Crabill: I know they want us to wait five days. At this point time is of
the essence.
Mr. Engebretson: There is a seven-day time period to approve the minutes, at which
.,,,` point then it becomes an officially approved project.
13313
Mr. Tent: John, on the revised drawings can we show the split-faced brick
also and also the accent band.
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-47-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
94-1-8-1 by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a one-story commercial building on property at
34957 Plymouth Road in Section 33, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan, defined as SD-1 dated 2-21-94 by
Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except for the fact that access gates will be added to
the trash dumpster enclosure;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as A-2 dated 2/21/94 by Thomas W.
Kurmas & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except for the fact that the large truck well overhead door,
defined as the southern most door on the west elevation, will be
removed.
as well as subject to the following additional condition granted in the
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped areas,
including the adjoining right-of-way.
`rr
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I think you would agree that these folks have done a
really first-class job with this proposal and I guess I would like
to ask you to correspond with Mr. Fegan and ask him to visit the
site just to the east of this. We are going to come in here with
this beautiful facility next to a building that has considerable
need for some attention and I think the Inspection Department
should get out there pronto and see if they come to the same
conclusion. I think it works in everybody's interests, including
the petitioners.
Mr. Morrow: I'll support that.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-2-8-2
by Rally's Hamburgers, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a structural canopy on the restaurant located at 33500
Plymouth Road in Section 28.
* Mr. McCann left the meeting at this time.
13314
Mr. Miller: This is the Rally's Hamburgers restaurant that is located on the
north side of Plymouth Road just west of Farmington Road. They are
proposing to construct an addition in the form of a canopy to the
east side of their building. This canopy will cover the six tables
'411m. The
was just recently approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The canopy will be 23 feet in width and have the same color
painting and have the accent neon striping through it so it will
match the existing building.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Ron Nelson: I am with Rally's Hamburgers. Our local address is 23077
Greenfield Road, Southfield, Michigan. If I could, we brought
along some pictures of canopies very similar to this. It is a
little larger scale than what we are proposing here. Of course, we
are here tonight seeking your approval of this matter. We have
already visited with the Zoning Board of Appeals and have been
granted all the necessary variances with a few conditions to
proceed with this project. As Mr. Miller pointed out this is the
existing area here where the canopy will be. The plan shows eight
tables on it. We have been reduced down to six tables per the
Zoning Board of Appeals. The reason we are seeking this is
basically compared to our market averages this store was down about
15% this past summer in sales and the market that we are in with
the hamburger business nowadays and the price wars, on our return
of investment 15% is a considerable amount of money. We believe
this will help boost up those sales for our summertime customers
providing this facility. Any questions I can answer?
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nelson, are you one of the original petitioners when they chose
that location?
Mr. Nelson: No I came on last November. I was at one of the final Planning
Commission meetings but I kind of walked in at midstream on this
project.
Mr. Tent: Well if you could bring me up to speed as to what has happened. I
know I was on the Commission and there was quite a bit of
controversy about this location for a Rally's type of operation.
The approval that we recommended at that particular time was, in
fact, I believe we even denied that petition. It went before the
Council. You went before the Council and they approved the
petition but they said there would be no outside services. Now I
see where you do have outside services. You are asking for tables
out there and a canopy. How did that all come about?
Mr. Nelson: I guess not being here during the initial process, the two walk-up
windows are a standard part of our building.
Mr. Tent: The walk-up windows we had no particular problem with at that time
but we had problems with outdoor seating, in other words this
wasn't going to be a facility where people could sit outside and
eat. The Council mentioned, at that particular time, if I remember
correctly, a two-year moratorium.
13315
Mr. Nelson: I think it was a year that we were going to be able to come back
and revisit the matter of the outdoor dining.
Mr. Tent: But you didn't come back and visit us. You went to the ZBA. Is
that what you are saying?
Nkaw
Mr. Nelson: That is what we were instructed to do because of the variances that
were required to seek those first.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, in this particular case if we took any action here today
on this, could we make any stipulation that this petition has to go
to the Council and not have ZBA have the final jurisdiction on this
particular zoning matter. The way I am looking at this thing now
is we are developing a circus up there with all the canopies and
the colors and that is just one Commissioner but I think the more
we add to it the more we are going to distract from that location
and I certainly would hate to see the ZBA give another waiver and
say you go ahead and put up one of these canopies and add some more
signs and some more color to it.
Mr. Nagy: The action by the Zoning Board of Appeals does not preempt
requirements by the zoning ordinance for Planning Commission review
and approval nor the Council's review and approval. They went to
the Zoning Board of Appeals because the previous approval was for a
drive-thru restaurant only and drive-thru does not allow any
customer seating whether it is inside the building or outside the
building so their only remedy to overcome that restriction of the
waiver use approval was to go to seek relief with respect to the
use question by the Zoning Board of Appeals but it did not preclude
their action from the Commission's requirement of approving any
\rr alteration in the site or any alteration in the building footprint.
That is why they are here before you and in turn will go forward to
the City Council to alter that site plan to allow for the canopy
and the change in site to accommodate the outdoor seating area as
well.
Mr. Tent: In other words, there is one more step in this process?
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely.
Mr. Tent: It can't be dismissed?
Mr. Nagy: ft can't be negated by any action of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent: Then I guess I asked my question prematurely. We have a letter
here from the Department of Public Safety. I guess we didn't read
it did we?
Mr. Nagy: Go ahead and read it.
Mr. Tent: This is to Jack Engebretson, Chairman of the Planning Commission
and it is dated February 16, 1994, Petition 94-2-8-2, Rally's -
33500 Plymouth Road: "Dear Sir: In reference to the captioned
petition which was granted a variance by the Zoning Board of
13316
Appeals, the Police Department recommends that the Planning
Commission deny this site plan, as submitted, for the following
reasons: (1) The set-back of the canopy over the eating area is
deficient by 16 feet, thus placing the closest edge of the eating
area approximately 77 feet from the roadway as measured. (2) The
Now' crosswalk to the building from the eating area creates a conflict
between the patrons and vehicles utilizing the drive-thru service
on the east side of the building. (3) The off-street parking plan
is deficient by 18 parking spaces." Yours very truly, John B.
Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. That is all I have at this
time Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nelson: May I address the letter from the Traffic Bureau?
Mr. Engebretson: Certainly.
Mr. Nelson: This is our standard operating procedure with the side patios.
Every store in this market has this facility with the exception of
Livonia because of the circumstances. Even the patrons still have
to cross this lane so it is happening right now and we operate 500
plus stores across the United States and haven't had an accident
yet.
Mr. Alanskas: The biggest thing I have, of course, is the safety factor and I
just think when you have a canopy over that area you make people
want to stay there more than just eating and getting out of there
in the summertime. With Plymouth Road and people turning left
there they have to zoom in there. It is just a possible thing
where you could have a problem by someone getting hit by a car and
I think by adding a canopy, you want people to stay there more
often. I think it is a bad mistake. I think they are best to
leave it the way it is. What percent of business can you get by
this, the canopy as opposed to not having a canopy?
Mr. Nelson: On a typical store in the summertime period about 25% of our sales
are done through that service window so it is roughly 75%
drive-thru and 25% sitting outside. The canopy, I guess, is
something we were going to offer the City as something to dress
this area up a little bit more. Our standard patio consists of a
table that we have here with an umbrella over the top of it. We
think this is something a little more upscale. It is a little
nicer for this area.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, is a tabling resolution always in order?
Mr. Engebretson: It certainly is.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I say that is at first blush I am really not in favor of
it because I am not sure what the hardship was that the Zoning
Board worked on and listening to Mr. Tent, but I would at least
like to have the benefit of taking a little bit closer look at that
to site check it, etc. so I would like to offer a tabling
resolution so we can spend a little more time on this.
13317
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Tent and unanimously approved, it
was
#2-47-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
Nowtable Petition 94-2-8-2 by Rally's Hamburgers, Inc. requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a structural canopy on the
restaurant located at 33500 Plymouth Road in Section 28, until the study
meeting of March 1, 1994.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Next week we will meet at 7:30 upstairs on the fifth floor. We
will discuss it further at that time and John at that time will you
please have available for us copies of the Zoning Board of Appeals'
minutes of the meeting where they discussed this and also would you
help us refresh our memories as to what the conditions of this
approval were a year ago both here and at City Council level,
mainly with respect to our own conditions. We will let the Council
deal with theirs.
Mr. Tent: Could we have some of the Council's input too?
Mr. Nagy: We will bring you the minutes of both meetings.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-2-8-3 by Larry W. Woehlke & Associates Architects requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a one-story commercial building
on property at 20215 Middlebelt Road in Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Seven and Eight Mile Roads or more specific it is just
north of Clarenceville High School. They are proposing to
construct a multi-tenant commercial building. The way the parking
is laid out, they meet the requirements as long as they are under
four tenants in their building. Landscaping, the requirement is
15% and it works out to be about 13% so they are deficient in
landscaping.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, was the parking right on the nose?
Mr. Miller: Yes the parking is on the nose. They needed 43 parking spaces and
that is exactly what they have. The dumpster is located here and
there is also a multi-tenant building next to it and the way they
have this configured at it will kind of flow into each other. (He
presented the building elevations)
Mr. Engebretson: What if they have four tenants Mr. Miller? What would that do to
the parking requirements?
Mr. Miller: Four is fine. If they go over four then they would be deficient in
parking.
13318
Mr. Engebretson: How big is the building?
Mr. Miller: Just over 8,000 square feet.
Mr. Engebretson: So the probability of going more than four is slim to none.
'm. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Miller: You would have to ask the petitioner.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you say the properties would be connected?
Mr. Miller: If I am not mistaken the owner owns both properties and the way
they have it configured I think they want to make it so it looks
like it is the same piece of property with two buildings on it.
Mr. Engebretson: I presume sir you are the architect. Would you care to add any
comments to what Mr. Miller said?
Larry Woehlke: What we intended here was to eliminate possibly a couple of parking
spots at this point so people who might be here and want to come
here would not have to go out on Middlebelt Road. Strictly a
convenient type thing. The dumpster presently for this property is
in this corner. We would pull that and move it to this point so
traffic could come through and still not have to go out onto
Middlebelt Road and utilize this property back here for parking.
Mr. Engebretson: So we have the dumpster serving both buildings on the perimeter
of this new building.
Mr. Woehlke: No sir. This dumpster that we moved from here to here is serving
—'4611r this building. We have a dumpster serving this new building over
here. So there is a dumpster for both buildings.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand that but they are both on the perimeter of the new
building if I understood what you just pointed to.
Mr. Woehlke: Yes sir that is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Then my statement stands that both dumpsters are on the perimeter
of the new building. Let me try again. The existing dumpster
serving the existing building where is it going to be located.
He pointed out the location of the dumpster next to the new building.
Mr. LaPine: I have two questions. Number one, is this building the same width
as the existing building to the north?
Mr. Woehlke: This building has steps in it. The existing building to the north
is shown right here.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any reason why that building isn't moved to the north and
connected with the other building so it looks like all one
building? What was your reasoning not doing that?
''rr.
13319
Mr. Woehlke: The owner did not want to do that. He did not want to connect it
and make it a total strip building, which would be 250 feet long or
so.
Mr. LaPine: My second question, do you have any potential tenants?
Mr. Woehlke: He has been working with three that I know of, one that has been
contemplating taking 4,000 square feet. Other than that I am not
sure. Mr. Allie is here if you care to ask him.
Mr. LaPine: Because of its proximity to Clarenceville High School, I have a
problem if there is a party store going in there, a pizza place,
ice cream parlor because all they do is make an area where high
school kids can congregate and cause problems. I have a problem if
any of those types of businesses are going in there.
John Allie, 19500 Gary Lane, Livonia: We have been in that immediate area for 20
years now and we have an excellent relationship with Clarenceville
High School, and before I put anything in I have to call Dr.
Skrocki at the school and we kind of discuss anything that might be
difficult at all for the school system because as I indicated we
have been there a long time and we want to be good neighbors. Your
point is well taken though. We don't really want a situation that
would create a problem for our business, which is immediately north
of the proposed building.
Mr. LaPine: You know what happens. They go in there and buy pop and pizza.
You are going to have garbage all over the place. Plus it is a
place where the kids congregate and that usually leads to problems.
At this time you don't anticipate that type of an operation?
"Its.
Mr. Allie: At this time I don't.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Allie, you had indicated that you had one potential tenant and
that he would like 4,000 square feet. What type of tenant would
that be?
Mr. Allie: It was a gentleman that was in the bingo supply business. Most of
his business is done in the rental area and he had indicated an
interest in using the front of the building to sell party type
supplies and merchandise like that.
Mr. Tent: It would be more or less a rental type operation?
Mr. Allie: He would just use the front as an office and the back would be
accessible for his merchandise to move it in and out.
Mr. Tent: When you say office, do you mean an office that would enhance that
type of rental business or an office of some other nature.
Mr. Allie: No you are correct. It would enhance that type of rental business.
He indicated he would like to put supplies in there as well but
truthfully we do not have him on the dotted line.
13320
Mr. Tent: It is interesting because you mentioned the rental of bingo
supplies and all that. Up on Six Mile we have an operation like
that where they lease an operation over there and they teach
dealing and Las Vegas type gambling. It was a school and I was
just wondering would they be doing the same thing in the back room?
Mr. Allie: No sir.
Mr. Tent: That is the only firm tenant that you might have at this time?
Mr. Allie: Yes. I did have someone else that was interested but I would
prefer not to mention it.
Mr. Tent: John, are there any uses that wouldn't be permitted that they would
have to come before us. If this commercial was granted, could they
put anything in there other than the restaurant?
Mr. Nagy: The property is zoned C-1 so therefore they couldn't have a full
service restaurant even if they were to go through the waiver use.
The maximum they could have would be a limited service which would
be 30 seats or a carry-out with 12. Over the counter carry-out is
permitted but if they put seats then they have to come back for
waiver use. If they put in a convenience store and want to sell
beer and wine, those are subject to waiver use approvals. They
need a 500 foot separation between the school site and their
proposed use. It is doubtful they would comply with that
separation requirement given the proximity to Clarenceville High
School. You have a lot of control.
Mr. Tent: For the C-1 that we are concerned about, we would have control
`tour where we wouldn't have to worry about something coming in that
would cause a problem.
Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, on your rendering there where would the rooftop
units be on your building?
Mr. Woehlke: The rooftop units would be located near the rear of the building.
There is a parapet approximately 2 1/2 feet tall in the front.
Hopefully it should screen it. If it would not, they would be
screened.
Mr. Alanskas: They would definitely be screened?
Mr. Woehlke: Either with the parapet or with screening.
Mr. Alanskas: Screened 100%?
Mr. Woehlke: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, you mentioned you were considering changing the site plan to
eliminate a couple of parking spaces to allow the two properties to
have traffic crossover. Is that reflected on your site plan? Is
that what you are requesting approval on?
Mr. Woehlke: Those two parking spots are for the existing building.
13321
Mr. Engebretson: Are they shown as parking spaces on the plan?
Mr. Woehlke: No sir. I have that shown as a connecting driveway right now.
�. Mr. Engebretson: So the parking space count was not including those spaces? You
have taken that into consideration?
Mr. Woehlke: The parking space count for this building does not include anything
north of that line. That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Are the parking spaces that abut the new building actually
allocated to the north building? Now I understand about the
dumpster back there.
Mr. LaPine: The construction, what is it? Is it a brick building the same as
the other building? What is it constructed of?
Mr. Woehlke: This portion will be brick. This portion will be a dryvit type
system, if you are familiar with that.
Mr. LaPine: Then it is all windows down below?
Mr. Woehlke: That is all glass below.
Mr. LaPine: And brick below the windows?
Mr. Woehlke: Brick below the windows, yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: What kind of signage? Are you going to have any signage on the
outsides of those buildings?
Mr. Woehlke: I am sure there will be but that would come when the tenant comes
in.
Mr. Engebretson: Are you planning to proceed with construction prior to obtaining
firm tenant arrangements or are you waiting for leases to be signed
before you commence construction?
Mr. Allie: I would prefer to have at least 50%.
Mr. Engebretson: But then you will build and complete the entire building all at
once?
Mr. Allie: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: If there is nothing else then a motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-48-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
94-2-8-3 by Larry W. Woehlke & Associates Architects requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a one-story commercial building
on property at 20215 Middlebelt Road in Section 2, subject to the
following conditions:
13322
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan, defined as sheet No. P.1 dated
1/24/94 by Larry W. Woehlke & Associates Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that access
gates will be added to the trash dumpster enclosure and the 45
degree angle parking to the rear of the building will be 21 ft. in
`"' length with an aisle way of 16 ft. as described in Section 18.37 of
Ordinance #543;
2) That the Elevation Plan, received by the Livonia Planning
Commission on 2/4/94, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That based on the parking provided on the subject property, no more
than 4 tenants will be permitted to occupy this building at any one
time.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 679th Regular Meeting
held on February 22, 1994 was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
}
Ja es C. McCann, Secretary
ATTEST „ '¢-�—
``' Jack Enge etson, Chairman
jg