Loading...
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