Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-06-07 13462 MINUTES OF THE 685th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 7, 1994, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 685th 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 Robert Alanskas William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. Shane, Ass't. 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 `'r.• 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 Revised Site Plan in connection with Petition 94-1-2-2 by Building Committee, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a new credit union facility to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Golfview Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, did you plan to present the present proposal? As I understand it the Council has approved the waiver use but the site plan normally approved in conjunction with a waiver use was held in abeyance. That is my understanding that we are now dealing with the final site plan. Mr. Nagy: That is the correct understanding. The Council did approve the waiver use and with respect to the site it approved the building footprint only. There were several other conditions attached to that approving resolution but the site plan per se was not approved, and it is coming back to you pursuant to the office service zoning district regulations for your review and recommendation, which will be forwarded on to the City Council for their final disposition. 13463 Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Mr. Miller: Part of the Council resolution was that the rear area would stay wooded and that is shown on the site plan. They also have a berm along the south and the east side of the parking lot. This was required by Council. The teller drive-thrus are reduced from four to three. Because of the berm they took out ten parking spaces. The drainage will go out in a direction that will flow into the existing Bell Drain. It is on an angle to flow into that. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, is that at the eastern most portion of their property? Mr. Miller: Yes, that is what they show on the site plan. Mr. Morrow: The property to the south is to be left in its natural state? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Was there anything other than an understanding? Was there some sort of a legal document to that effect? Mr. Nagy: The Council required that the rear greenbelt area now indicated on the site plan will always remain a greenbelt. The petitioner will enter into a deed restriction for a conservation easement or other legal instrument to prevent any further construction or usage of that area. The petitioners, through their attorney, have met with our law office and they are in the process of preparing a conservation easement. The document has been prepared. It is waiting for a final review `r•► by our law department. Our City attorney is on vacation. It is being protected through a conservation easement. Mr. Morrow: So it is stronger than just a mutual agreement. Mr. Nagy: Not only through the site plan approval process but also by the easement document which the City will have an interest in. Mr. Engebretson: I think Mr. Kropf has some additional information on that. Rodney Kropf: I have prepared a rough draft of a proposed easement that will run with that piece of property forever. Certainly it will be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the City. Mr. Engebretson: There was some question at our last meeting as to the height of the berm on the eastern portion of that property. Mr. Nagy: The landscape plan has been revised to provide a continuous five foot berm throughout the entire length, not only on the south but also where it turns and comes along the Past property line, and also the plan has been revised to indicate 13464 that there will be a full irrigation system for all the landscaped areas. The only other thing I would add is the building itself has been downsized so much from what the Council originally approved, from 4,400 square feet to 3,600 �.. square feet. There was no other change only the elimination of one of the drive-thru lanes and teller window. There was also a reduction in the overall building size itself. Mr. McCann: To the architect out there, you look like you disagree. Bill Minahan: At our last meeting I think we discussed the five foot berm going 30 feet around the edge, and you asked that I look at that and find out if we were capable of doing that. With the 225 feet of frontage of the site and the size of the building and the planned expansion of the drives that are necessary to move the cars out there, we have some concern about whether this is really what we should be doing to meet the intent of all the discussions we have had up to this point. In order to maintain a five-foot berm with a plant area, we are going out about 20 feet at the base of that berm. The berm is shown right now at five feet tapering down to a three foot height with evergreen arborvitae type plants on top of it. I have two concerns. First of all, the width of that berm being as wide as it is, begins to encroach in the building area that we have and the drive area that we have as it comes around the corner. The second concern, which I think is more important, is that you are getting into an area where you are talking about a security concern for that drive-up area. We are beginning to encapsulate that drive-up area to a point where it is blind back there now. At three feet it may be blind as well but we have at least the advantage of not having such a wide, high berm right towards the end of that as it wraps around. I guess I would ask for some discussion on it to see what your feelings are as to what you want us to do. Mr. Engebretson: Would you clarify what you mean by blind? Blind from what point of view? Mr. Minahan: What is happening is that the drive-up is in the back and as that berm comes around it is beginning to completely shield that whole area. We want to have at least some visibility back there in order to maintain a safe environment. I am not so sure we do even with a three foot berm, to be honest with you, but my concern is height when we get to a five foot berm. Mr. Engebretson: Where does the sense of security come from in having a lower berm than a higher berm? Mr. Minahan: The possibility of being able to at least see back there. Mr. Engebretson: Who would you see? 13465 Mr. Minahan: People using the drive-up. The police as they drive by prefer to have some visual access back into that area so there isn't someone waiting and lurking in the darkness to possibly cause a problem. Mr. Morrow: What plantings are on top of the berm? You mentioned arborvitae. How thick are the plantings? Mr. Minahan: Arborvitae, as you may or may not be aware, when that matures you get a strong, year-around, visual block with it. Mr. Morrow: Some of those can go eight to nine feet. Mr. Minahan: They can get very high. Our hope would be this, that in order to maintain those things you trim them up a little bit. If we can keep the berm low enough and we have enough visual access underneath it, we are going to get at least the perception of a view. I am not convinced that we are going to have much of a view at all. In terms of security issues, if you can maintain a perception there that there is an openness, that many times will deter anybody from going back there and creating problems. Mr. Morrow: What is the distance between the berm and the residence to the south? How many feet? Mr. Minahan: I am really talking about the berm on the Past. The residents on the south, we have that conservation area, dense, thick, wooded area plus the berm of five feet, plus planting areas. As it comes around to the east side, where that vacant land is Nom. located now, that is where there was some concern expressed. Mr. Morrow: So you are saying it is facing vacant land right now? Mr. Minahan: That is correct sir. Mr. Morrow: We have that separation and we have a three foot berm that would screen must headlights. Mr. Minahan: The headlight screening, we have met the spirit of the problem here with the three feet. Mr. Morrow: So we are really not concerned about the residents so much as uniformity? Mr. Minahan: That is not exactly true. There was some concern on the part of the residents on the other side of the access road into the development that they could see across the access road, through the vacant land, over the berm to the building. Mr. Morrow: I got the picture. Thank you. 13466 Mr. LaPine: John, what did you say the new size of the building was? Mr. Nagy: 3,360 square feet. It originally was approved at 4,400 square feet. Mr. T. Pine: The plan I have from May 19th was 3,360 and the plan today is still 3,360. The other question I have, I notice here you are not going to sod. The grass area is going to be seeded? Mr. Minahan: That is correct. Mr. Lapin: The worry you have about security, it was my understanding at the last meeting that at this point in time you are not going to have any 24-hour ATM, so where is your concern now? Are you looking at the future? Is that what the problem is? This is only open during the day. Mr. Minahan: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: The odds of something happening on that corner during the day, I think, are kind of slim. I am not saying it isn't going to happen but I think it is kind of slim so I don't understand where the problem is. I could understand if you were going to have a 24-hour operation where people could drive in at night and get cash. That could be a problem. I would have to agree with you but as of now you don't have that problem. I don't understand why you think the berm is going to be a problem. Mr. Minahan: Let me just quickly review the security issues involved with buildings like this. We are talking about real and perceived. Nor. Real issues involve holdups, and these businesses get held up. Perceived is what kind of an environment are we developing that encourages or discourages any potential for that kind of a problem? We are dealing with cash here. These businesses are held up at all times of the day and night. We cannot simply say that because it is a nice, bright, sunny Saturday afternoon somebody is going to come in and hold this business up. We have to develop an environment that discourages that or at the very least allows for regular police protection being able to see in. I agree with you that I think the likelihood is slim but I don't think we are prudent in our development of this project unless we plan for that eventuality. Mr. LaPine: If there would be a holdup here, it would be a holdup of the individual going to the individual kiosk to get money, correct? Is this the type where you will have the tubes that shoot in? Mr. Minahan: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: So they wouldn't be robbed in the bank. The individual would be robbed in the car getting their money. r.. 13467 Mr. Minahan: Mr. TaPine, you would be amazed at the way these things get held up. We have clients of ours that actually have robbers come up to a kiosk unit, hold a gun at the bullet-resistant glass and demand that money be sent through the tubes. We have had customers, members of credit unions and banks, held up at the kiosk unit by somebody rushing the car as the tube comes in. There are a multitude of ways this can happen. Mr. rapine: I didn't know that. Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, looking at the site plans you have here I would say the five-foot berm is over 95% so only a small area, would you say about 25 to 30 feet, will be tapered down? Mr. Minahan: You can see that even on this plan trying to show a five-foot berm with a 20-foot base to ensure that the plantings on the top stay alive, we are encroaching over the property line. We can't do that obviously. Mr. Alanskas: What I am saying is that small area being three feet should not be a problem. If it would ensure the safety, then I would recommend that it does stay at three feet and that would solve the problem that you are talking about. Mr. Engebretson: If there is no one else wishing to speak to this, then a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-103-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend "4410. to the City Council that Revised Site Plan in connection with Petition 94-1-2-2 by Building Committee, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a new credit union facility to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Golfview Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 5-10-94 prepared by Building Committee, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 5-19-94 prepared by Building Committee, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 3) That the Landscape Plan dated 6-2-94, as revised, prepared by Woods-Moynihan, Inc. 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. for the following reasons: 13468 1) That the submitted plans are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance in every respect. 2) That the submitted plans are in accordance with the conditions set forth in Council Resolution #319-94. Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make would be if I am looking at the correct plan it says berm at east side to be 5 feet high where possible. I think we are going to tie that down to 3 feet for how many feet? Mr. Nagy: Just on the east side where it overlaps the property line. Mr. Morrow: Just so we get that down on the site plan. Mr. Tent: On this conservation easement that we are talking about to protect the wooded area, would it be appropriate to have that as part of the resolution? Mr. Nagy: It is because we refer to the Council resolution. Mr. Tent: I mean is it covered or should we document it also? Mr. Nagy: It is covered by the reference to the Council resolution in your approving resolution. Mr. Tent: It is implied that it is. In other words, legally if they decide to go ahead and do something with the back part, there is no way of getting out of that easement? *'`' Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. Engebretson: Before I have Mr. McCann call the role I would like to explain why I am going to vote no. I am sure this is going to be a successful resolution but I am more convinced than ever that the special and general waiver use standards required for this facility have not been proven to be complied with, and while I know that is not the issue here tonight, I just don't want my fingerprints on this development so I will be voting no in a symbolic way realizing that it isn't going to make any difference. Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment. I have been completely negative against this proposal and I thought it was poor planning in its original location, and I believe at this point now that by the credit union being moved over closer to the westerly position, by its scaling dawn, by its landscaping and what they have done the conservation easement, etc. , I think at this point its use would be proper because as we discussed before, and I was concerned, they could have an office building there or something else and it wouldn't be as appealing as what we have here now. While I was negative 13469 before I think the architect should be commended. They have done a good job with this. They scaled it down so I am going to support this petition. .. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, raPine, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: Engebretson ABSENT: Fandrei 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 94-4-2-10 by Danilo Josifoski requesting waiver use approval to remodel an existing building in connection with a proposal to operate a full service restaurant and banquet hall on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street and Ryan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Miller: This is the former restaurant site of La Bordeaux. Some of the concerns from the public hearing and the study meeting have been addressed. The parking lot will be resurfaced and restriped to improve it. Landscaping has been beefed up to 15%. The property line will be used as a greenbelt and has been increased by 3 feet. The outside elevations will be cleaned up and power washed. The site plan also says that the roof top mechanical equipment will be screened. The existing non-conforming sign has been taken down. I believe that is basically some of the problems that were addressed. *4111. Mr. Alanskas: Scott, two things. At our meeting you did not know what the colors of the canopies were going to be. What are the colors going to be? Mr. Miller: I don't know if the petitioner can answer that. Mr. Alanskas: Number two, how many canopies are we talking about? Mr. Miller: That hasn't been answered yet. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to know those things before I could vote on it. Mr. Engebretson: We will ask the petitioner to come forward and perhaps address that question and some of the other items that were held over from our last meeting. Mr. Philips: (He presented a duplicate of the color board) The canopies will basically go where the arched areas presently exist in the front of the building. There are presently four arched areas. Those will be covered with canopies. They do not extend out into the sidewalk. The intent is not to be real 13470 illuminated. There would be a single stripe that would go across the face of each one of the canopies. There would be no signage or logos on the canopies at all. Again, the intent is just to keep some color on the canopies themselves. The existing building is rather neutral and the intent of the canopies again is to add a little color. The shingles are gray. There is some fieldstone in front and also some reclaimed brick. On the side, as you turn the corner, this would be facing the east property line. Again where there presently exists a slight arch would be a canopy that would project only a foot or so and then further down where the new entrance door would go would be a legitimate canopy that would stick out and form a cover for the patrons coming in that would extend approximately six foot or so out in front of the door. The colors that are represented there, basically the door areas, the main entrances would go with the darker green color. Some of the trim around the windows would be the neutral beige color and then the rear of the building would be the subtler green color that is represented here. Mr. Engebretson: In all cases that canopy presentation that you are showing us is to be uniform with all the canopies on both sides of the building. Is that correct? Mr. Philips: With the exception that this one canopy would extend much further. Mr. Engebretson: It extends further but the color scheme is the same. '4011, Mr. Philips: Yes that is correct. Mr. Alanskas: The landscaping on the east side hugging the building is in very bad condition. Will that be replaced with new landscaping? Mr. Philips: I think the most current landscape plan added some additional landscaping to that area. Mr. Alanskas: You were going to add to it but that area is in very bad shape, so will it be replaced with all new landscaping? Mr. Philips: The existing landscaping in the front of the building and along that side will be replaced. There were five items when we were here. One was the paint color. The other one was the awning colors which we just addressed. The other one has to do with parking lot light fixtures which I submitted a sample of that, which is basically what is known as a shoe-box light fixture that will direct lighting downward. Mr. Engebretson: Does it meet the standards John? Mr. Nagy: Yes it does. Mr. Philips: The hours of operation. Mr. Josifoski said it would be from 10:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. The restaurant would be closed on 13471 Monday. The hall would be as booked. The final area of concern was the screen wall. Again, at the prior session that we had, the informal session, there were some of the neighbors there. What we did at that meeting was explain that basically Now there are two neighbors that ahit the easterly property, one abuts about 290 feet of the property, the other one the back 60 feet or so. It was the desire of the immediate neighbor that has the majority of the adjacent property not, in fact, to have a screen wall but he opted for the landscaping that was put there. The neighbor for the remaining 60 foot would prefer the screen wall. Our feeling is that in that immediate area of the last 60 foot, there is an area there that is bermed. I know some of the Commissioners said they would try to view the site. I have been out there. Mr. Josifoski has been out there. The view that may get some headlights between some of the landscaping that is there would hit probably the garage area first before the house. The house is tucked behind the garage. Our feeling is we would opt to stay with the landscape plan as proposed and feel the natural area would be better than the constructed masonry wall. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-104-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 17, 1994 on Petition 94-4-2-10 by Danilo Josifoski requesting waiver use approval to remodel an existing building in connection with a proposal to operate a full service restaurant and banquet hall on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street and Ryan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-2-10 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 5-16-94, as revised, prepared by Joseph Philips, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 dated 4-11-94 prepared by Joseph Philips, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and such approval shall include the exterior building color scheme as illustrated on a color board dated 5-23-94. 3) That the landscaping which includes the substitution of a greenbelt in lieu of a protective wall along the east and south property lines as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That the total number of customer seats in the restaurant shall not exceed 197. 13472 5) That the parking lot lights shall be as depicted on the Area Lighting brochure and marked 17R as submitted by the petitioner and shall be mounted on poles no higher than 20 feet. 6) That any signs proposed to be erected shall first be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-2-11 by Lorrine B. Salan requesting waiver use approval to operate an arcade with mechanical amusement devices within the Livonia Mall shopping center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-105-94 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-4-2-11 by Lorrine B. Salan requesting waiver use approval to operate an arcade with mechanical amusement devices within the Livonia Mall shopping center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller do you have anything new? Mr. Miller: The petitioner submitted a listing of his machines. Mr. EngPhretson: Scott, the list that was submitted by the petitioner in the last week or so dealt with the matter of our concern with some of the machines having some pretty graphic violence and those 13473 kinds of issues, and it is my understanding now that all of the games are passive and at least do not deal with a lot of violence or any other undesirable characteristics in any way. Mr. Miller: Correct and there are only 25. Mr. Engebretson: And we have reduced the number to 25, which is the number permitted in this size facility. Mr. Miller: Right. Mr. Nagy: Mr. Chairman, for the record on May 26, 1994 we received a letter from a Joseph Medved of 14102 Blue Skies, Livonia, Michigan indicating his opposition to the proposed use. Even though it is after the public hearing I would make it a part of the record. Mr. Engebretson: Did he indicate what his opposition was based on? Mr. Nagy: He indicates that he is writing to express his opposition to the proposed arcade in the Livonia Mall. He personally does not think that this type of business would add to the value of Livonia. Furthermore, he wants us to be aware of an incident that occurred outside of a similar establishment in Fast Lansing, Michigan. At this particular establishment there was a shooting involving teenagers. He is concerned that an arcade may draw unsupervised teenagers from Livonia and other communities. Please vote no on this proposal as it will help to keep Livonia a safe community. fr.. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Why don't you come forward sir and add whatever comments you feel are appropriate. Sir, would you just confirm for the record what we just discussed relative to the change in the lineup of the games as originally presented in contrast to what your current plans are. Mr. Kuhn: The big change is that we are not going to put violent games in there. It is going to be a more family-oriented type arcade. Mr. EngPhretson: Haw firm of a commitment is that? Mr. Kuhn: It is firm. Mr. Engehretson: I see Mrs. Hildebrandt behind you listening to all of this. She is a witness. Those were the issues. The hours of operation, as I recall, were also a matter of concern. Has that all been worked out satisfactorily? One or two hours after mall closing hours? Mr. Kuhn: Yes sir. 13474 Mr. Engebretson: And that is acceptable with Mrs. Hildebrandt? Mr. Kuhn: Yes sir. `�- Mr. Morrow: I would just like to comment that I think the petitioner and the mall worked diligently to bring the use in conformity with some of the thoughts the Commission had and I want to thank you for it. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make the comment that I was very much opposed to your proposal. I am very appreciative of the changes that you have made. Secretary McCann, while he doesn't represent us as an attorney, because he is an attorney he pays special attention to people's constitutional rights when it comes to making sure that we don't trample on them and it was pointed out that it would probably be inappropriate to include in our resolution such rigid requirements relative to the game formats that you have. We realize that you are going to have to change them from time to time, but we still feel very, very strongly about the issues that we have discussed in the past, and frankly I will defer to Mr. McCann's expertise on that matter, but I am going to depend on Mrs. Hildebrandt as being judge and jury and with a lot bigger hammer and I don't think she has any different view toward the diminishing of the well-being of the Livonia mall than we do. We have a common interest there. So without trampling on your rights sir, the lady behind you is going to be the enforcer from my point of view, and with that I will be able to support your proposal, whereas without that I couldn't. 4011. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #6-106-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 17, 1994 on Petition 94-4-2-11 by Lorrine B. Salan requesting waiver use approval to operate an arcade with mechanical amusement devices within the Livonia Mall shopping center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-2-11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Floor Plan/Storefront Elevation Plan marked Sheet P-1 dated 4-12-94 prepared by Jon Greenberg & Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the total number of mechanical amusement devices shall not exceed 25. 3) That the hours of operation shall not extend beyond 9:00 p.m. except on Friday and Saturday when the hours may be extended to no later than 11:00 p.m. subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for such extended hours. o.. 13475 4) That the subject area shall be soundproofed as required in the Zoning Ordinance Section 11.03(s)(5) . 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 11.03 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: The reason I proposed that this petition be approved is I certainly appreciate the fact that the petitioner did work with us so closely and he was flexible enough to see what our requirements are and he was going to be cooperative. I feel this will be a successful operation and something we need. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine Nos. ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 684th Regular Meeting held on May 17, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-107-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 684th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 17, 1994 are hereby approved. Mr. EngPhretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Ventura Properties, Inc. requesting approval for three wall signs for the building located at 17800 Newburgh Road in Section 8. 13476 Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Newburgh between Six and Seven Mile Roads. They are requesting three wall signs for their one building, which is conforming with their variance they received from the Zoning Board in April. So this is a conforming sign package. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, could you comment on the characteristics of the sign and how they compare to each other, etc. Mr. Miller: The signs will not be illuminated. They will have a gold type of lettering and they will not be the same size but they will be in proportion with each other so they will look as if they are all the same size and type of signage. Mr. Engebretson: The materials and colors are all the same? Mr. Miller: Yes, they will be gold. Mr. Engebretson: Is Mr. Ventura here? Mr. Ventura: We are hopeful that you will approve our sign package as presented to you. We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have on this. Mr. Alanskas: Is the lettering in the window going to stay on or come off? Mr. Ventura: The letters that exist in the windows today or the ones that appear on the drawing? Mr. Alanskas: On the drawing. Mr. Ventura: The ones that appear on the drawing are not accurate. Those letters will not be affixed to the building. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Ventura is the building completely occupied now? Mr. Ventura: It is. Mr. Engebretson: It is a beautiful building. You have done a nice job there. Mr. Ventura: Thank you very much, and you may note that since last meeting the repairs to the parking lot have been accomplished that were asked about and we are still probably 30 days away from doing the finish coat on the parking lot. Mr. Engebretson: Did we talk to you about double striping to protect people's doors? Mr. Ventura: Not to me. Mr. Engebretson: It is not part of this issue here but it has been our practice recently to request property owners to double stripe to 13477 define their 10x20 bays to protect to the extent possible doors being damaged, and the double striping does really position people better. Mr. Ventura: I believe Mr. Chairman that may be our plan but I can't be `'l•• certain because the only thing that is presently striped are the handicap spots and they are double striped. We are waiting until we put the top coat of the parking lot on to do the finished striping, but based on what we have done so far, I have to assume we will. Mr. Engebretson: If it is not there, we would sure appreciate your doing that and your tenants and your customers would appreciate that as well. Mr. Ventura: I agree. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-108-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Ventura Properties, Inc. requesting approval for three wall signs for the building located at 17800 Newburgh Road in Section 8 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Package by Ventura Properties, Inc. , received by the Planning Commission on May 18, 1994, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. `r.. as well as subject to the following conditions (which were required by the Zoning Board of appeals) : 1) The signs are not to be illuminated; 2) At no time shall a ground sign be erected on this property. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Signcrafters requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at 17187 North Laurel Park Drive in Section 7. Mr. Miller: This office building is located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive between Six and Seven Mile Roads and between Laurel Park Drive and I-275. This office building is called on their site plan Phase II. They are requesting one wall sign to be located on top of their building. Because they already have oversized address signage, as we call it, this is in excess of what they are allowed. They are allowed 100 square feet. 13478 This will be 88 square feet so they have gone to the Zoning Board and received a variance for excessive signage. So this is a conforming sign. Mr. Engebretson: As I recall at a previous meeting we had some colors on this. ` . Is it dark blue? Mr. Miller: I don't know the exact color but it looks like a dark blue. Mr. Engebretson: Let's ask the sign man to come down and bring us up to date. Sign Man: It is a trimmed cap letter. The internal portion of the letters are light to reflect any of the neon. The faces are a dark blue. Mr. Engebretson: I think you mentioned that each letter has its own. . . Sign Man Transformer and neon. Mr. Engehretson: It will be a real first class sign. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-109-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Signcrafters requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at 17187 North Laurel Park Drive in Section 7 be approved subject to the following condition: ``.• 1) That the Sign Package by Signcrafters, received by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1994, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. as well as subject to the following additional conditions (which were required by the Zoning Board of Appeals) : 1) At no time shall additional signage be erected on this building; 2) In the event Alexsis, Inc. , vacates this location, the sign is to be removed immediately. 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 94-5-8-12 by Bridgewell Construction requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to develop a condominium project on property located at 28050 Seven Mile Road in Section 1. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road 13479 between Middlebelt and Inkster. It is the old D.A.V. property. They are proposing to develop a 25 unit condominium project. Each unit will be two bedrooms. Parking required for this is 2 1/2 cars per unit. Each unit will have a two-car garage plus a driveway area that could hold two cars, "tow which takes care of the parking requirement. From the last study meeting there have been some changes mostly because the Fire Marshal has looked over the plan and he had some problems with it. At one time there was a cul-de-sac at the end of this road. It has now been changed to a T-turn type of turnaround so the fire trucks could come in here and turn around. This was allowed so that the units could be further apart. In the first proposal each unit was about 10 feet apart. They are now 14 feet apart, which the Fire Marshal liked better. The road now is at 24 feet. The Fire Marshal required that so the trucks could bypass the cars. One side of the road will be dedicated so no cars can park. It will be a fire lane so fire trucks or emergency vehicles can get up and down the road. The petitioner also in this T-turn has provided parking along the edge of this T-turn. There are also 4 parking spaces between this unit and this unit. (He pointed this out on the map) Mr. Engebretson: So while each individual unit taken in total had already met the parking ordinance requirement, now we have enhanced that by adding those 4 near the center. Mr. Miller: I think the petitioner is deterring people from parking on the road just so emergency vehicles can be up and down. The front elevation of each unit will be brick. The side will be about r.. one third brick with siding the rest of the way. At the study meeting the petitioner explained that because of the closeness of each unit and because this will be brick, it will be perceived as the whole unit is brick. Mr. Tent: The Fire Marshal expressed some concern for safety of the development? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Tent: I believe they addressed them all. Could you tell me about the totally brick side elevation? Mr. Miller: He required that if they were to stay 10 feet. At 14 feet he didn't have a problem. Mr. Tent: They are going to retain the bricking as we discussed. Mr. Miller: Yes they are not going to change the elevation. Mr. Tent: And about the windows being staggered? 13480 Mr. Miller: Because of the 14 feet, because in an R-1 district most houses are 14 feet apart, the Fire Marshal had no problem with that either. Mr. Tent: Then they did address the major concerns? Mr. Miller: Yes with the units further apart and the road widened. Mr. Engebretson: I think the plan is greatly enhanced as a result of that. Mr. Morrow: Will the units have basements? Mr. Miller: Yes they do. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, would you like to turn it over to the petitioners and let them make whatever comments they wish to make. Ron LaCasse: I am with Bridgewall Construction, 30777 Northwestern Hwy. , Suite 101, Farmington Hills, 48334. Basically we have revised the site plan to meet the Fire Marshal's needs. We have enhanced the front of the homes with the brick as far as coming down the street and seeing the full garages with the brick. We have cooperated with the City totally in putting this together. If there are any questions, I will be happy to answer them. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #6-110-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend `ar to the City Council that Petition 94-5-8-12 by Bridgewall Construction requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to develop a condominium project on property located at 28050 Seven Mile Road in Section 1 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet C2 dated 6/7/94, as revised, by JCK & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plans, defined as Sheets A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5 dated 5/5/94 by Bridgewall Construction, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet Li dated 6/7/94, as revised, by JCK & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 13481 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 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 94-5-8-13 by William Roskelly requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a small commercial center on property located at 9627 Newburgh Road in Section 31. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Ann Arbor Road. They are proposing to construct a small retail center on this property. Based on parking and the floor plan that was submitted with this, it will be a four tenant building. Parking, they were required to have 35 spaces, which is exactly what they have. Landscaping, they are required to have 15% of the total area. They have 21% so they are conforming in landscaping. I know just from the study meeting the property owner is building this for his wife to have a dance studio in it. The color rendering submitted shows it will be a greenish roof with a gray building elevation. Mr. Engebretson: Before we go to Mr. Roskelly Scott, where are the handicap spaces on that site plan? Mr. Miller: (He pointed out the handicap spaces) There are two. I believe that is all they are required to have. Now Mr. Engebretson: So they are basically at the end of the building where they have access to that sidewalk. Mr. Miller: There is also a ramp between them to the sidewalk. Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I would like to revert back to the site plan. As I explained at the study meeting perhaps the first question would be, why the inconsistency in the configuration of the property? The majority of this land was purchased from the City of Livonia. This existing home was purchased by the client so he could square this portion off. It was then suggested and he attempted to buy the existing single family home shown here. At that time it was for sale but by the time he called, someone else had purchased it and it was not for sale. The reason I am explaining that is because over here we have a shopping center, here we would like to, if we are successful be building this, and you have this one little island of an existing home that lies mostly in the right-of-way. Mr. Engebretson: Excuse me Mr. Roskelly you said the home lies mostly in the right-of-way. Could you explain that? 13482 Mr. Roskelly: The City purchased the land because of the widening of Ann Arbor and Newburgh. This became surplus land so as you can see the location of this home and the right-of-way line, it is actually encroaching into the right-of-way. \r. Mr. Engebretson: So at some future time that could become a problem. Mr. Roskelly: True, and I think conscientiously I told my client if we recall we have a 75 foot setback to the building line. If, in fact, that will prevail, and it would, this is the only portion of usable land on this parcel. (He pointed this out on the plan) But unfortunately he was unable to get it so therefore we proceeded. We, first of all, wanted to build a larger building. Unfortunately because this could not be purchased we resorted to this. Mr. McCann: The existing home is still there correct? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. McCann: Is there a dividing wall between the two? Mr. Roskelly: No, the existing home actually lies in here and that will be demolished. Mr. McCann: What about the property that was for sale? Is there a house on it? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. `r.. Mr. McCann: Located between your property and their property. Mr. Roskelly: Yes we are really creating an island. Mr. McCann: Is there a wall between it? Mr. Roskelly: No sir because it is all zoned C. Mr. McCann: Including where the home is? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. McCann: Is there any type of barrier Mr. Nagy that is required even though a residence is there and existing? Mr. Nagy: By operation of our zoning ordinance there is not the usual requirement for a screen wall. As was pointed out, even though it is used residentially it is actually in fact zoned commercial. The Future Land Use Plan calls for that area to be converted to commercial so therefore there is no requirement, no standard in the ordinance that says that area should be screened with a protective wall. There is some 13483 landscaping that has been provided at the end of the parking lot to try to make the compatibility between the interim use of the residents and this but there is no hard screen per se. Mr. McCann: How far is it between the parking lot where you are building Mr. Roskelly and that person's home? Mr. Roskelly: The nearest home would be approximately 8 to 10 feet between our property line and the nearest corner of the existing home. Mr. McCann: What I am more concerned with, how much between your parking lot? Are you going to have 8 feet between the cars pulling and parking from this guy's house or are you going to have 30 feet? Mr. Roskelly: Actually we do not have parking in this area. There is no parking contiguous to that property line. Mr. McCann: So you will have some separation between your parking and your customers and this person's home? Mr. Roskelly: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: What about the dumpster? Mr. Roskelly: The dumpster is located in this extreme back corner and, of course, there is an existing masonry wall there now. Mr. McCann: Is there an enclosure around the dumpster? Ntor Mr. Roskelly: Yes a protective enclosure as per City ordinance. I suggest it be of the same material as the building. Mr. McCann: You suggest or is that on the plans? Mr. Roskelly: We indicate that it will be per City requirements. Mr. McCann: Is it all sprinkled? Mr. Roskelly: It will be sodded and/or landscaped and all these areas will be irrigated. Incidentally for what it is worth, no rooftop units will be exposed. When you get into our elevations you will see that all the units will be hidden under the roof so there will be no projections whatsoever that has to be guarded or fenced, etc. As was mentioned before it will be owner occupied by Bunny's Dance Studio. We have two frontages on Ann Arbor Trail and Newburgh so we have shown two faces with a green tinted glass with white split masonry unit. I think as the rendering shows it will be very attractive. We have shown enough exit doors and windows to accommodate perhaps the future three, two or one added tenants. Personally I think it is a 13484 beautiful building and I would hope you would find it the same. Mr. McCann: Are all four sides going to be this white color? Mr. Roskelly: No just the two. The back two walls would be normal regular block. Mr. McCann: Is that going to be cemented in? Does it look like a block when it goes up like that? Mr. Roskelly: I would have to say yes with the exception that it is a split block that gives you these highs and lows. I call it a split-block masonry unit. Mr. McCann: So the north wall and the east wall are the ones that are going to be this material? Mr. Roskelly: Yes the exposures to Newburgh Road and Ann Arbor Trail. Mr. McCann: John, is anyone going to be seeing the other side wall? Is that going to be out of view for most of the public or are you going to see that coming up Newburgh? Mr. Nagy: Not so much from Newburgh. Perhaps the view of the west wall as you were to drive Ann Arbor Trail might have some exposure, ultimately when the house is removed. When the non-conforming house is removed, that might have some exposure. Mr. Roskelly: It certainly would be a painted masonry wall. Mr. McCann: I am just wondering if you are going to have an exposed wall at some future point, you are obviously putting a lot of money into this, the difference between your masonry block and regular block may be justified in maintaining the future value of the business. Mr. Roskelly: I don't believe it would be overcumbersome if we turned the corner and went a certain way but I don't know if we should go all the way around the whole building, but I can appreciate your comments if we, in fact, went a portion along this wall. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-111-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 94-5-8-13 by William Roskelly requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a small commercial center on property located at 9627 Newburgh Road in Section 31 subject to the following conditions: 13485 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/2/94 by Basney & Smith, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/2/94 by Basney & Smith, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 5/6/94 by Randal J. Cizek, AIA, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That based on the parking provided on the subject property, no more than 4 tenants shall be permitted to occupy this building at any one time; 5) That the spaces in the parking lot will be double striped; 6) That all signs shall come back before the Planning Commission for approval; 7) That the masonry unit will be wrapped 10 feet around the west side of the building; 8) That the trash enclosure shall be of the same material as the building. for the following reasons: 1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; Nor 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 685th Regular Meeting held on June 7, 1994 was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION 4 J. - C. McCann, Secretary rr,,,, ATTEST: clOk 01 C '14 ,✓t, ! Jack Engebrtson, Chairman '\ jg