HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-10-0218797
MINUTES OF THE 832nd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 832nd Pudic Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas
William LaPine Linda Dolan
Members absent: Dan Piercecchi
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, were
also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a pefilion on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective
seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the
professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The
staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions,
which the Commission may or may not use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-08-0146 S&N Development Co
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
2000-08-01-16 by S&N Development Co., LLC requesting to
rezone property known as 19250 Victor Parkway located on the
northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Victor Parkway in the
Southeast%of Section 6 from POI (High Rise Professional Office
-6 stories) to OS (Office Services).
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
18798
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence. The letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 6, 2000, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We would
like to point out that it is our understanding that Mr. Shamie will be
responsible for investigating wetlands and 100 -year floodplain
information per our meeting at the offices at Orchard, Hiltz and
McCliment, Inc. We trust this will provide you with the information
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Kevin Biddison,
Biddison Architecture & Design, 27750 Stansbury Blvd.,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Now, before you begin, we all understand that this is a zoning
change, not a site plan, but we do appreciate you giving us a
general idea of what you're intending to do.
Mr. Biddison:
I'll go very quickly for you. I just want to dear things up. The site
as Mark stated is a very fight, very small, constrained site. The
existing retention pond for the Victor Corporate Park sets here.
There is some existing wetlands area because ofthe pond's age
that has encroached into this area. We've been through quite an
extensive process with the DEC and have received approval and a
permit to extend a retaining wall and fill a small portion of that
wetlands to allow us to at least get to the portion of parking for
20,000 sq. R. We're roughly 10,000 square feet per floor. We feel
that because of the tightness of the site, to try to go to a third
story, is really not practical. With the residential across the street,
I think its really a better fit for the second story as opposed to the
three story. We will be exceeding all the landscape requirements
oflhe City. All of the existing evergreens and signage that is at
the corner now will remain. Most of that is actually outside the
property line here, so all of what is green will stay on the site. This
gives you an idea of the building— brick and glass. We will be
meeting all of the requirements of the Victor Corporate Park. I
worked in Victor Corporate Park previously so I'm well aware of all
the restrictions and materials and setbacks. For signage, we're
proposing a monument sign which would fall on the Victor
Parkway side, not on the Seven Mile side. And relative to any
other signage, we would meet all the requirements of the City. We
have all of our approvals from the DEO. With us tonight we also
have Chuck Reed from the Michigan Stale University Foundation,
18799
who is the current owner of the property, in case you have any
questions as to how they perceive the property being used. They
have supported us through this. It's been a long trek but I think
that we can provide really a great looking building that will ft in
nicely with the rest of Victor Corporate Park. I'd be glad to answer
any additional questions that you might have regarding this facility.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
The retention pond that's there now at Victor Parkway... are you
going to be draining into that pond or are you going to have your
own drainage?
Mr. Biddison:
No, we will be using that pond. We have worked with Vidor
Corporate Park Association, with the Engineering Department of
Livonia, and with OHM who will be the engineers for the project,
and we have all of our approvals from the Association. We meet
all the criteria for the 100 -year flood plain. So we've worked all of
those details out, and we are ready to move forward with
engineering as soon as we have approval.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there going to be a single lessee in this building or is it a spec
building?
Mr. Biddison:
It is a spec building. I'm sure Mr. Shamie would love to have a
single lessee if that's possible, possibly two, one for each floor. If
one is available I think that would be his choice.
Mr. LaPine:
The third question I have ... you say you're going to abide by all
the restrictions of Vidor Corporate Park. Most of the buildings are
kind of a rust color brick. Is that what this is going to be?
Mr. Biddison:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
I've not noticed buildings in there that have bands around it like
you are showing here — this red band. I dont want to think that
Christmas has come early but it looks like a little Christmas
package.
Mr. Biddison:
This is a red brick that would be in keeping with the bricks that are
there. In fad, we have already shown the brick to the Association
and they have approved the material for the project if it is to go
forward.
Mr. LaPine:
OK. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions?
18800
Mr. Shane: Is it because of the existing pond that you are able to mitigate the
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for building
heights that would be consistent with existing developments
in the Victor Corporate Park; and
3. That the proposed OS zoning dassificalion is more realistic in
terms of the carrying capacity of the subject property than the
existing POI zoning classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Even though we have the site plan, like Mr. McCann said, we are
only addressing the rezoning tonight. We have a lot more
questions on your site plan. Will that come back to us later?
Mr. Biddison: Thal is correct.
wetlands?
Mr. Biddison:
Itwas actually because itwas a very small area, less than a third
of an acre, that we were looking to encroach upon and that is an
unrestricted element by the DEQ.
Mr.Shane:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
If there are no more questions from the Commissioners, I will go to
the audience. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to
close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-147-01
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition
2000-08-01-16, submitted by S & N Development Co., LLC,
requesting to rezone property located on the northwest comer of
Seven Mile Road and Victor Parkway (19250 Victor Parkway) in
the Southeast%of Section 6 from PO I to OS, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2000-08-01-16 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for building
heights that would be consistent with existing developments
in the Victor Corporate Park; and
3. That the proposed OS zoning dassificalion is more realistic in
terms of the carrying capacity of the subject property than the
existing POI zoning classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Even though we have the site plan, like Mr. McCann said, we are
only addressing the rezoning tonight. We have a lot more
questions on your site plan. Will that come back to us later?
Mr. Biddison: Thal is correct.
18801
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2001-08-01-09 William Roskely(Rosedale)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-08-01-09 by William Roskelly requesting to rezone property
known as Rosedale Gardens Lots 1137 to 1146 and Lots 1167 to
1176 located on the west side of Cranston Avenue between
Orangelawn Avenue and West Chicago Road in the Northeast''/.
of Section 34 from PL (Public Land) to R -1A (Single Family
Residential, 60'x 120' minimum).
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence. The letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 6, 2001, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal or the legal description contained therein. Itshould
be noted thatpublic utilities are currently available for the parcel,
although the sanitary sewer currently runs through the middle of
the property and may need to be rerouted depending upon the
design of future development. We trust that this will provide you
with the information requested." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent oflhe
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Roskely, 33177 Schoolcmft, Livonia, Michigan 48150. The land that
we're discussing is Rosedale Gardens Sub No. 4. The platwas
recorded and improved in 1926. It contained Lots 835 to 1176. All
of these lots were at that time slated and zoned for R-2 and almost
all these lots were 40 feet wide. I purchased 20 forty foot wide
lots. In 1965, the City decided to change the zoning of land owned
by the City and/or School to PL. Al that time, the school occupied
this portion of land. Since that time, the school was removed and
the land is presently zoned PL. Although I will point out that I think
it was 1964 when the zoning changed, it was a mass change of
zoning meaning all lands that the City owned and all lands that the
school owned, the zoning was changed from whatever
18802
classification itwas to PL. I do not believe that neither this portion
of land nor Kleinert Park has ever been dedicated as a public park.
I think it's only a symbol of rezoning that the City chose to use. I
submit that now that the school is gone and that all of the
improvements are there for single family homes, and the intent
from day one was that this should be residential single family lots,
as illustrated by in excess of a thousand lots that are all single
family and most of them 40 feet wide in Rosedale Gardens. If we
go to Rosedale Meadows to the south, there is another in excess
of a thousand lots. I presented to you an overall drawing
indicating eight 65 fool lots in width and 275 fool lots in depth. I'm
fully aware that at this point in time, I'm assuming of course that
somewhere along the line the City of Livonia would reopen
Hubbard Road. I also would like to point out that in the event they
so chose not to, then certainly I could not proceed to have those
lots fronting on a vacated road. But in my opinion so that I may
have the flexibility of working with the Council, and I am working
with St. Michaels and the City, it's very possible that some
changes will be made and certain portions will be left as open
space. But in the interim, I am in the hopes that this Planning
Commission would please recommend a zoning back to R-2 and
certainly then in different committees, etc., in meetings, we will
determine exactly how many parcels I would eventually be able to
build on. But under no circumstances would any site be less than
65 by 120 feel. With that I'm open for questions.
Mr. McCann: Your request is that we should understand that you have
discussions going on with certain council members and Sl.
Michael's and that we should forward it to them unknown. I guess
what I'm looking for you to say is, "Okay don't worry about it; we'll
take care of it down the road" And I'm supposed to make a
recommendation based on that fact. It makes it very difficult for
me. One of the concerns I have is the vacating of Hubbard Road.
Have you talked to the City Attorney or the Planning Department
or have you gotten a report from anyone whether or not the City
has considered doing that?
Mr. Roskelly:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Roskelly, if you went to R-3, how many homes could you put
on there? Instead of 12, could you put six or seven?
Mr. Roskelly:
I would say between six and eight.
Mr. Alanskas:
The question I have is, when the school had it they were talking
about eight homes, and now you want to go to 12 even though in
18803
the R-1 you have the room. It seems like a very tight package. I
was wondering if you went to a larger rezoning, R-2, R-3, if it
wouldn't be so congested ... that it might be feasible.
Mr. Roskelly:
I am of this opinion: First of all I'd like to point out, to drift out a
moment, I believe that Rosedale Gardens is the most prisfine
subdivision in the City of Livonia. I have two sons living there; I go
there quite often. Its a beautiful setting; they're beautiful homes.
And I will be in the posifion to have homes built, I will adhere to the
architectural standards, etc. Now to answer your quesfion about
R3, I suggest not. My suggestion would be that if I could have
eight 65' by 130' lots, that would leave a portion of this land to be
open space which could be either used by the City or Sl. Michaels.
But I believe right now I have the flexibility so that I can have
certain meetings and input, but I would say this —that if it's
rezoned, I would like to have it go back to R-1 with the restriction
that not more than eight buildable lots would be permitted if you
could do that. But I need the flexibility. We have several options.
For instance, when you come in off of Hubbard Road from West
Chicago at this time, there is no turnaround as you go to the north.
There are four houses on one side of the street and DePalma put
in a condominium with three homes, which don't really fit in that
area in my opinion. They are beautiful homes but not what I would
build. There is no legal turnaround in that area and I suggest that
it's possible that if through negotiations with the City I would be
permitted to go into Hubbard Road and put in a legal turnaround
cul-de-sac with a 50' radius, I could perhaps have two lots facing
Hubbard Road and six on Cranston, which would leave the other
portion as open space. But I do need the flexibility at this time and
you certainly understand that, even if it's zoned R-1, I cannot build
these 12 houses because I have no frontage on Hubbard Road. I
have to negotiate with somebody for something but I do feel that I
would like to keep as much open space as possible and keep the
lots 65' by 130'.
Mr. Alanskas:
If you cant build 12 homes, why did you make this plan to show
12 homes?
Mr. Roskelly:
I suggestthat the reason is that it is my ultimate desire, and if I go
through the Planning Commission and City Council, and cannot
resolve this, then certainly thatwould put me in the posifion to go
to Circuit Court. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Roskelly, do you see the position we're in? As the Planning
Commission, ourjob is to make recommendations to the Council.
But because we don't know exactly what you're going to vacate, if
you're negofiafing with people ... I think basically what should
happen here, you have to go through all your negofiafing and all
18804
the different things you think you can door cannot do, then bring a
plan in and say this is my plan. Then we'll vole on the zoning. I
don't see how we can say yes and then pass it onto Council and
let somebody else do all the spade work. That's our job.
Mr. Roskelly:
I was a planning commissioner in Redford for about 12 years. It is
my beliefthat as a planning commissioner, I am concerned with
land use. In my opinion, I believe, that this land had always been
intended to be single family residential 40 foot lots, which is what
80 percent ofthese homes in that area are built on. I'm offering
and certainly realize as a professional surveyor that we cannot
build on anything less than 60 feet. In that case, I feel as though
my submission at this point is the one that I suggest you either
recommend approval or denial and I implore you so I can confinue
on with my quest.
Mr. Shane:
I think I understand you to say that you would be satisfied with
eight lots.
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Shane:
Which would eliminate 3, 4, 5 and 6 on Hubbard Road.
Mr. Roskelly:
If the situation is that the City does want a cul-de-sac ... The
other option I would have is to front four on Omngelawn and four
on Cranston.
Mr. Shane:
Lots 1 and 2, which are the two that have access on Hubbard now,
a portion of Hubbard ...
Mr. Roskelly:
Lots 1 and 2 do not have a legal access. Along with this land is a
portion of vacated road which is 43' by 109.66'. That really is not
an adequate entrance or exilfor those parcels.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. But a 50' cul-de-sac isn't a normal cul-de-sac either, but its
befler than what we have here.
Mr. Roskelly:
Actually, its acceptable by engineering standards. The City of
Livonia has used that in the past.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. What I'm leading to here is personally I don'tthink you're
going to be able to develop lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 because I dont see
the City vacating Hubbard Road. But maybe the best thing we
could do, if we were inclined to, is rezone the rest of it with the
130' you wanted in depth or maybe a little more in depth.
18805
Mr. Roskelly: Being that Hubbard Road is a half mile road and better known as a
collector street, I suggest that we look at the enure mile of this
property being Rosedale Gardens and Rosedale whatever -the -
other -one -is. This is the only piece of road that has ever been
vacated in the entire square mile. It's a 86' half mile right of way
which is always known as a collector and designed as a collector
street. I submit that it's very possible that the road could be
opened.
Mr. Shane: I'm not disagreeing with it from a planning standpoint, but because
of past discussions on this property, people wanting this area as
open space ... that's where my doubts come in, whether or not
the City would eventually vacate Hubbard Road even though it
might not be a bad idea from a planning standpoint. So all I'm
saying is that if you're satisfied with one through eight lots along
Cranston Avenue for six of them and along Hubbard for the other
two and you work out a cul-de-sac, then you've almost got what
you wanted. Should Hubbard Road be opened up, then those
other areas could be developed because if you look len feet off
from those lots, you're still left with 120' whether you or somebody
else could develop those lots should Hubbard Road be opened up
Mr. McCann: Any other questions?
Ms. Dolan: I just have a question. If you're trying to vacate Hubbard Road ...
I've been out at the park and I've looked at the ball field there.
And I noticed that all at the streets are very narrow, and I know
there's a lot of traffic that goes back and forth to St. Michaels and
also the playing field there. And I notice that there are benches
that are sitting almost on the street where the kids play ball. And I
guess my question is, if you vacate Hubbard to build homes there,
what is that going to do to that park area?
Mr. Roskelly: You mean if you reopen it? It's vacated now. I agree with you
totally. In fact, St. Michael's football coach asked me if they could
perhaps utilize some of my property because they had so many
children on the teams that they would put their bags there, etc, etc.
So I understand what you're saying and I suggest that it's one of
the options I have, and I am imploring this Board at this time to
either approve R-1 zoning or deny it.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition this evening? Please try and keep it within two
minutes per person. Thank you.
18806
Jan Afonso, 9918 Hubbard. I live about 250' north of the property in question. I'd
like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Planning
Commmission tonight and to participate in this public hearing. Itis
indeed a privilege. One year ago, the Livonia Public Schools
came before the Planning Commission also asking to rezone this
same plot of land for a new housing development. Mr. Roskelly
was there at that time also but he was wearing a different hat that
night. He introduced himselfthen as the School Board's engineer
and consultant on the Rosedale property. I must admitthal I'm
confused by how he went from being a supplier and vendor to the
school system paid by our school taxes to being the one and only
bidder in a context in which there was no public bidding process.
Mr. McCann: Ma'am, I'm going to do this foryou and for everybody else in the
audience. Tonight, it's not an issue between you and the school
board, between you and the Council or anybody else. The issue
before us tonight is what is proper zoning to fit in this area. I'm
going to ask you to keep on that thought as well as everybody
else.
Ms. Afonso:
I appreciate that. I'm concerned this evening that a decision by
the Planning Commission to support rezoning of this propertywill
be an announcement to developers throughout the City that it is
now open season on public land in the City of Livonia.
Mr. McCann:
This isn't public land.
Ms. Afonso:
I appeal to you therefore notto endorse this process with your
recommendation to rezone our public land. I'll jump then to my
statements that do relate to the zoning decision I believe.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Ms. Afonso:
I wish thatthis was not upon us again but it is upon us once again
to prove our case, why we believe this land should remain public
land and why we ask that you uphold the public land zoning of the
property. Al this time I feel better prepared. I've learned; I've
gathered data; I've studied the process; and I stand before you
tonight ready to work with you and the City Council to defend the
citizens' interests in this case. I have for you a report on statistical
data relating to our request that you deny or you not recommend
the rezoning of this public land. I believe it's very relevant to the
question at hand. I have a copy for each of us and I will give it to
you as I finish. It touches on some points that were made by the
Planning Commission the last time. Mr. La Pine, I'm forever
grateful to you for pointing out to us that you felt that our area of
the city lacked open space and needed open space much more
than it needed new homes. This comment by you launched me on
18807
a search for data to back up what you had very wisely pointed out,
so I studied the public land, the City's parkland and school use ...
Mr. McCann:
First, we requested each person keep it within two minutes.
Ms. Afonso:
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of that.
Mr. McCann:
That's all right. You're malting some valid points I think for the
whole audience and I do want to hear you. But I want one issue
straightened out before we go any further. Mr. Roskelly, could you
please approach the podium? My understanding from the School
Board and from prior conversations, is that you are the fee holder
of this properly. It is in private possession at this time and it is no
longer publicly held. Is that correct?
Mr. Roskelly:
I have a warranty deed from the school in mine and my wife's
name only. Yes.
Mr. McCann:
So whatwe have is privately held and owned land.
Ms. Afonso:
That's zoned public land.
Mr. McCann:
Its zoned public land but it is not public land. The City has no
ownership. Nowwhalwe are up here doing is telling a private
owner what he can do or not do with his land. Under the law,
everybody has a right to use their property in a reasonable
manner. What we have to determine is what is a reasonable use
of this land within that area. That is the issue before us tonight.
He has to pay taxes on that property just as you have to pay taxes
on your home. He has to maintain that property, cut the grass and
make sure it is safe for other residents in the area. He has private
ownership of that land. Therefore, we have to have that
understanding that he has a right to use it in a reasonable way
within the area.
Ms. Afonso:
Yes, then I'm simply going to relay data -related issues in the City
of Livonia zoning ordinance that's relevant to zoning decisions.
The ordinance states decisions are to take into account such
issues as safety, the welfare of the community, tax assessment
and uniform land use pattern and tax assessment basis, to create
a favorable environment in which to rear children (I'm reading from
the ordinance now directly), to allow for vehicular parking, parks,
public requirements that lessen congestion, disorder and danger
which often inhere in unregulated municipal development to
prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of
population; and to assist in carrying out the Master Plan of the City
of Livonia. So my data relates to issues of density, open space,
18808
safety and the Master Plan which are part of the zoning ordinance
of the City of Livonia.
Mr. McCann: That is correct.
Ms. Afonso: Thank you. So in this report you will find data related to open
space parkland in the City of Livonia, and your ordinance allows
you to take these things into consideration when you make
recommendations regarding zoning. It was, in fact, even truer
than I had ever expected. We have 1300 acres of parkland in the
City of Livonia; 75 of these acres fall south of the freeway. In
other words, 6% of the City parkland falls south of the freeway
where the most densely populated neighborhoods of the City are
located. Families in southern Livonia share park space at the rale
of 106 families per acre as opposed to nine families per acre in the
northern third of Livonia. And I'm sure you are aware, that 150
more housing units are to be added to Section 28 immediately to
the north of our section. And Section 28 has no public parkland at
all, so those 150 homes will be coming down to use our open
spaces and our parkland as well. With respect to density, you are
asked to consider conditions of overcrowding and population
density, and I please ask that you do so. The study of census
data, which you'll find in this report, also shows Mr. LaPine to have
been correct in stating that this is a highly congested area.
Section 34 has more people, more children, more families and
more housing units than any other section in the City of Livonia,
and all of these figures and statistics are well over twice the
Livonia average. We are very densely populated already.
Mr. McCann: Did you take into account the county parkland? Its part of the
park area down there. Whether Livonia owns it or not, it's still part
of the park area.
Ms. Afonso: I also did nottake into account parklands in areas that bordered
the north or the east or the west of Livonia. I looked at City -owned
parkland on the parkland map from the Planning Commission
which was supplied to me. I added up the acres. I have had
these statistics in the hands of the City and through the public
hearing with the City Council and have welcomed anyone to talk
with me about how the statistics were derived. And I would be
glad to.
Mr. McCann: I listened to you when you spoke to the Council.
Ms. Afonso: I'm glad. I'm bringing these things up now because this issue is
being heard again, and I want these things logo into the record as
a new package.
18809
Mr. McCann: Ma'am, what we have is a situation where I want a recommen-
dation from you, not why the City needs parkland. If you want to
bring that issue up to the City Council and tell the City Council they
should buy more parkland, that's a very valid argument. Those
figures come right into play and they are very important to bring
before the Council. We have a choice. This is going to be
rezoned either residential, multi -family residential, office,
commercial, industrial. This is privately held land now. We can't
force somebody legally to own public land and take care of parks.
So the only issue we have is to either condemn the property or
buy it through a condemnation process from the individual, which
is something that the City would have to show that it has a need
and I'm not sure we could show that need in a court of law to
actually take the property under those circumstances. Or we have
to give him a reasonable use within our zoning ordinance. Now,
what I need from you is information as to why it should be R-1, R-
2, R-3, condominium or office or commercial.
Ms. Afonso:
I'm trying to give you information that I believe justifies upholding
the current zoning of the land.
Mr. McCann:
Thats what I'm trying to explain. I'm not going to lel you talk any
further about holding up this public land. We have no legal
authority to make a private owner keep public land. We can't do R.
We dont have the right to do it. No matter what you say and no
matter what figures you give us, we cannot deny him the right to
use the property in a reasonable method. If it's not suitable for
building, that's another issue that would come up in site plan use.
But we cannot leave privately owned land under public zoning
without purchasing the property from him. We don't have that
authority.
Ms. Afonso:
Are you allowed to consider issues such as density?
Mr. McCann:
No. We are only into the zoning process as to how it should be
zoned.
Ms. Afonso:
I guess I read the zoning ordinance differently then. Forgive me.
Mr. McCann:
I understand your confusion. It's that you think we have the right
to make this some use other than a private use. We don't. It's a
private use. A private owner owns it.
Ms. Afonso:
I'm simply asking you to uphold the current zoning and not
recommend a new rezoning. I'm trying to give you some
additional reasons to do so. Are you allowed to consider safety?
18810
Mr. McCann: In making a zoning request, we always look at it. What do you
think it should be zoned?
Ms. Afonso: I think the current zoning should be upheld.
Mr. McCann: I'm going to go to the next person in line. Is there someone else
wishing to speak?
Rick Rainville, 9928 Hubbard. I live on the street that we're talking about. I do
attend Sl. Michael's. I'm very active there. And I will discuss this
with the new priest that we have and make sure that he is notified
of the full situation. If its the case that this is going to be zoned for
one of those purposes that you mentioned, then let me suggest
this for the future. That you take all these properties within Livonia
that are going to be farmed out to developers, these surplus
properties through Livonia Public Schools, you put them in the City
inventory for parkland, freeze them, and not make them available
until such time that they are needed. Please write that in the
MasterPlan. Do you not have influence on the Master Plan?
Mr. McCann: Mr. Rainville, we do not have influence overthe Livonia Public
Schools. That is a separate entity. We have no influence over
them.
Mr. Rainville:
I understand that.
Mr. McCann:
That was not owned by the City; we had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Rainville
What's the process for that?
Mr. McCann:
Go to the School Board. If the School Board owns the property,
that's who you have to direct your comments about freezing their
property. If you want to talk about freezing the parkland of the
City of Livonia, you need to lake that to Council. The issue before
us is what the proper zoning should be for the privately held
property in this area. That is the issue tonight. I'd love to tell you
guys I have enough money in my own pocket to buy it for you and
make a park down there. I think it would be a wonderful gesture.
But I don't. The stock market didn't help me.
Mr. Rainville:
We did offer though. And we put a bid in that's higher than the
one that the developer put in.
Mr. McCann:
That's wonderful but I had no authority in that. That's an issue
before the School Board. I understand your fmslrefions, but we are
not the tribunal that can handle your concems. We have one issue
tonight. What should be the proper zoning for this property? This
land was originally going to be R -1A from the history that I've been
18811
given before it was turned into public land. Now I dont know if
that's an appropriate zoning for this any more. Maybe R-2, maybe
R-3, maybe something else. But it's in private hands now— out of
my control. What is the zoning that you think should go there and
why? That's what we need from the audience tonight.
Mr. Rainville:
I just want to make sure I understand correctly. You have no
influence over an irresponsible property owner. Is that correct?
Mr. McCann:
The irresponsible property owner - I dont know if you're talking
about the current owner, the former owner ...
Mr. Rainville:
Both.
Mr. McCann:
No, I don't have control over either one of them. All I have control
over at this meeting tonight is to try and go through what is before
us and make a reasonable determination as to what the future use
of this property should be. It appears that it should continue to be
at least residential in some form. I can cut out the industrial, the
commercial, the multi -family, all that. But what is the proper
residential use?
Mr.Rainville:
Thank you for your time.
Mr. McCann:
Ma'am, name and address.
Kimberly Emmons,
9915 Hubbard. I don't quite know where to begin. I'm a little
taken aback by all that I've heard so far this evening in the short
time that this meeting has been held. As far as what to do with the
property, the zoning and what not? Whatever it takes; whatever
needs to be done with that zoning, with that property, to keep it
just the way it is now. That's what needs to be done.
Mr. McCann:
We cant do that.
Ms. Emmons:
Well, that's up to him because it's my understanding its his
property. And sir, I'm appalled that you would even consider
putting that road, Hubbard, through. I don't know what kind of
relationship you have with your family, I would not ....
Mr. McCann:
Ma'am, I'm not going to let you go there. You came up here to
address the Planning Commission not Mr. Roskelly.
Ms. Emmons:
Okay, then I wont involve him.
Mr. McCann:
All right.
18812
Ms. Emmons: I will address the issue of reopening Hubbard Road. That's part of
what he's introducing, correct?
Mr. McCann:
That's what he said might be a possibility working with the Council.
I have no idea. That's never been before us. It's not before us
tonight. Although that is a concern of ours if we were to later learn
that it was going to be reopened, then that might make an impact
on how we decide to rezone that. That's one of our issues.
Ms. Emmons:
I appreciate the fad that you would consider that.
Mr. McCann:
I don't believe that he would be able to get that vacated portion
reopened on Hubbard.
Ms. Emmons:
I wish that reassured me. I hope that it doesn't happen. It's a
dangerous thing to do as far as I'm concerned. We have two
children, an elementary schooler and a high schooler. There is an
incredible amount of traffic on that street. There are times of the
day, and I am literally saying, you cannot drive down that street
there is so much traffic. And to open that road from Orengelawn
down to West Chicago, I think is just a huge mistake. So if it does
come to that, please will you consider that and not do it? But the
land needs to stay open like it is, bottom-line. That's all I have to
say.
Mr.McCann:
Thankyou.
Julie Noble, 9906 Hubbard. I would just like to clarify something. Mr. La Pine had
suggested that Mr. Roskelly come back with a plan in terms of
what the lots would be and then the Planning Commission could
make a decision. You're talking about reasonable use. Is that a
possibility tonight? Because it sounds as if the petitioner is really
pushing for a decision tonight, and then he mentioned going to
court. I dont know if that's connected but it sort of felt like it tome.
I guess if its a possibility to gel more information in terms of what
his plans are so that you could make a decision in terms of zoning
and reasonable use, that makes more sense. Is that a possibility?
Mr. McCann:
It is a possibility. We do have certain constraints. There's an
ordinance that requires us to forward zoning issues to the City
Council within 60 days of the fling. I believe this was filed on
August 29. 1 think the Planning Department got it about a week
later. There are some areas as to when it's certified by the Clerk's
Office and reviewed. We have a little extra time, bulthalwould be
60 days from approximately that period of time we would have to
act on R.
18813
Ms. Noble: I would just like to speak in favor of that because as I hear the
different
proposals, I feel like I'm in a shell game and I'm not sure
what is really being proposed.
Mr. McCann:
I understand. I think everybody came here with certain
understandings and I'm trying to make it dear that it would be nice
to have the authority to do what you're requesting, but we dont.
Ms. Noble:
I'm not requesting anything specific with land, only to have the
information so an informed decision can be made. I was
wondering whether the up or down needs to be made tonight as
Mr. Roskelly would like and you're saying no.
Mr. McCann:
As we say, tabling is always in order.
Ms. Noble:
Okay, so you could have the information you need to make that
informed choice?
Mr. McCann:
Right. If we believe that there's not sufficient information
presented or new issues that are brought forward, we have the
right to table it.
Ms. Noble:
Thank you very much.
Susan Gibson,
9615 Hubbard. I am whalwe've been calling a 100 footer. I'm
within 100 feel of the property. I would just like to suggest that if
you have any influence about not opening Hubbard to please use
R. With regards to your own zoning ordinance which dictates that
safety issues should be a concern ... with Kleinert being so close
to Hubbard, there are safety cencems.
Mr. McCann:
I believe there are, yes.
Ms. Gibson:
I would just like you to please induce that in your decision. Thank
you.
Richard Kent,
11040 Ingram. I have a planning background. And I wasn't going
to speak tonight but I have a question
for you, Mr. McCann.
Based on what you said, I believe
I'm confused because what you
said was that, correct me if I'm wrong and I hope I am, that since
this gentleman bought this land, which was public land, but now
the zoning of public land is no longer valid, and that it has to be
changed to a different kind of zoning, either one of the various
residential, commercial or whatever, so that automatically if an
individual buys public land, that the zoning is due for a change.
Well my understanding is that the zoning goes with the property.
And this gentleman or any
person that buys a piece of property
buys it with the zoning that
it has and that there is no automatic
18814
necessity or right at all for change of zoning when you buy
property. He bought it with a designation of Public Land and he
has to petition for a change ofzoning which can be denied. You
may not think that this is appropriate zoning, but that's a different
issue than whether he has a right to automatically have a change
of zoning, and I don't think thafs the case at all and I think that
was implied by what you stated. Was it not?
Mr. McCann:
I think that you'll find that what I said is that it is under private
ownership now and we cant maintain it as public land under
private ownership for public benefit. I've gone through this with
the City Attorney and he agrees with our position that once it is no
longer publidy held, that we can no longer maintain it as a public
land within the City.
Mr. Kent:
I can see that the City may not wish to do that because of the
expense, but this gentleman, couldn't he sell it to the City of
Farmington Hills if he wanted or some other public body or sell it to
the City of Livonia, or sell it to the state, or any other public entity
that would want land that's zoned public land. Wouldn't that be
possible?
Mr. McCann:
I don't think so, no.
Mr. Kent:
Well, it may not be likely, but would it be illegal?
Mr. McCann:
But that's not the case. You'd have to go through the uses
permitted within public land which include municipal civic center
purposes, municipal or other governmental buildings, outdoor
publicly owned or leased recreational uses, educational buildings,
public service buildings, public use heliports, cultural service
buildings, accessory uses necessary or incidental to the above
principle uses. It does not go within those uses.
Mr. Kent:
But this gentleman could then hold this property until Wayne
County decided they wanted to buy the land. Is that not true?
Mr. McCann:
No, it is not true because the courts would find that you are wrong.
The courts found that if he has it, he's paying taxes on it, he has a
reasonable use to the land. It's a long case history. Mr. McGee.
Michael McGee, 11041 Arden in Rosedale Gardens. currently am President of
the Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association. Mr.
Chairman, I'll try not to get into a debate. First of all, I passed out
a bit of a handout that I would like to go through. It is very similar
to a presentation that we made to the City Council, specifically on
the zoning question. This paper has nothing to do with anything
else except zoning. I want to say that as a precedence. I really
18815
don't intend to get into any other issues. I will observe that what
you are saying tonight is something we can all understand. This is
a big petition for our neighborhood. It's the third time in the last 20
years that we've had a petition more or less like this. I think I said
last year before this body that maybe this is the most significant
development petition we've had in our neighbor in the last possibly
50 years. So naturally feelings are going town very high on all
sides, and l think that's just part of the process. Wetrynottobe
unreasonable people or uncompromising people. We were very
hopeful that in the last zoning petifion there might be a
compromise and we thoughlthalwe had one worked out. So
we're really not against compromise. We are willing to work with
you and St. Mike's and the City Council and Mr. Roskelly and with
whomever to try and work out a reasonable compromise. I also
want to say something nice about Mr. Roskelly since he has taken
a few slings and arrows tonight. We certainlydon t agree on
necessarily all the points ofwhal it is he wants to do or even any
points. But l do wantto say forthe record that Mr. Roskelly caries
himself professionally and has a very professional manner in
which he wants to treat this. We appreciate that and we look
forward to having a constructive dialog with him. Let me start with
the hand out and without wanting to be confrontational, I would
respectfully disagree with the Chairs characterization of what the
City may or may not do on the zoning. I think that the question is,
we have a piece of property that bears a zoning designation and
there's a petition to change it to a different zoning designation.
How does any Planning Commission, City Council, or any other
planning body, come to a judgment about whether zoning should
be changed? I'd like to spend the first part of that paper talking
about what the standard is for everybody, notjust in Livonia but
every place in the State of Michigan, talk about those standards
and then what I'd like to do with your consent is talk about how
those standards in our view apply to this particular pefifion.
Mr. McCann: Before we go there, I reviewed this. I've looked at these
questions. You're an attorney; you've reviewed this forum and
you're prepared for it. We also have legal counsel through the
City. Ifwe're going to get into whether or not there is a taking in
this issue, whether or not he's paid taxes and has a reasonable
investment in this, whether or not it was privately held property by
the school under a public land use, whether that use is no longer
valid to the school and therefore they sold the property to a private
individual and does that private individual have rights, those are
issues for the court. If you want to table this meeting so that we
can have Mr. Kavanagh respond to basically a legal argument, we
can do that, but I'm not going to get into a legal debate here with
you tonight.
18816
Mr. McGee: Mr. Chairman, I dont intend to get into a legal debate. Really I
don't want to do that. Its my impression that this is a duly called
public hearing for the purposes of hearing about a zoning petition.
You and other members of the Commission and for that matter I
have sat through public hearings where lawyers sometimes make
presentations. I know a lot of people don't like lawyers but I don't
know that generally speaking we are not allowed to make our
presentations at public hearings.
Mr. McCann: If you believe that the proper zoning for Mr. Roskelly to maintain
the property and to keep the property as public land, I guess
you're allayed to make that argument and we'll listen to why he
should keep the public land for everyone else's benefit.
Mr. McGee: Iappreciatethat. What l wantto sayfirstis that there are rules
that apply to a rezoning petition in any case. And you've heard
Mr. Kent suggest one of them, which is that any time that there is
zoning, it's going to be presumed to be valid. The fad that it is
exists carries with it a certain presumption that it's good and
therefore in this proceeding it's up to the petitioner to show that
they have a reason for the change. Some of that change has
been suggested. But I think I want to keep in mind that the
question is not, in my view, whether or not what's proposed is
appropriate. The question before a Planning Commission or City
Council is whetherthe currentzoning is inappropriate. And the
Chair suggested some reasons why it may be. But that is the
question and it's up to the petitionerto make that case. How can a
petitioner argue in favor of rezoning? I think ifsfairto say
generally that there are five general classes of arguments people
make when they appear before you. (1) They might try and argue
that their change is consistent with the Master Land Use Plan of
the community. That's one that's frequently made. (2) Is the
change consistent with the way the property is adually being
used or the way it has been used over a long period of ti me?
(3) People will say that circumstances have changed from what
used to be. There used to be RUF zoning atthe comer of 7 Mile
and Newburgh. That was changed to residential because with the
passing of time, it no longer made sense to have agn cultural
zoning in that part of the town. (4) As the Chair suggests, is there
a taking? The petitioner might say you are tatting my property
from me by not giving me the zoning that I want. (5) Is there
some relevant precedent for the petition? That I believe is the
standard. We might disagree on whether the elements are
satisfied here, but I think that's the test that everybody goes
through. Now taking those elements and applying them in our
view to this petition one at a time, is this change to an R-2 zoning
consistent with the Master Plan? Certainly not. The Master Land
Use Plan, at least since 1975 and perhaps earlier, has shown this
18817
property under a community service designation which is
somewhat akin to Public Land. I suppose it might also be satisfied
with a Nature Preserve or that type of a zoning classification
where I think we do have a couple examples atwhere that's held
privately. More to the point as well, the 1995 revision to the Land
Use Plan, which the Planning Commission approved and which
the Council approved, includes as a specific goal an effort to
preserve sufficient open space by preserving existing parkland
and acquiring additional open space when a deficiency exists in
close proximity to adjacent residential areas. That's what the Land
Use Plan says. That's not somebodys opinion. (2) Is the change
consistent with intention and actual use? Mr. Roskelly has said
this property was always intended to be used as residential.
That's the way it was originally platted. The problem with that
position I think is that immediately after that plat was approved, the
property owner at that time, Mr. Sheldon, basically abandoned that
plat at least as it regards to this particular property. And that can
be shown through ad nauseam the transfer papers and the
building and use restrictions and so on that attach to this properly
over the years. The fad is, it's never been used ever, except for
agricultural before anything was put there, for anything other than
simply call it public land, open space, call it what you will, but
certainly not for some other use. Again, that's a matter of 74 years
of unbroken history where we haven't had a residential use there.
(3) Have the surrounding circumstances changed from what was
expected back at the time when the plat was done in 1926-27?
We would say no. This neighborhood has developed exactly the
way everybody intended twould develop. Warren Sheldon laid it
out; itwas going to be intensely residential with some pockets of
open space. That's what was anticipated. That is what's
happened. We would point out that we think this area qualifies for
what's called a neighborhood park under the National Recreation
Standards at five acres between the Klienert Park and this
property, that's approximately the right size. That's the opposite,
by the way, in terms of do things change over time with, for
example, the Seven and Newburgh example that I gave eadier. If
the City had tri ed to say to a property owner out there that it was
never intended that the northwestern part at Livonia would be
developed as residential and therefore you're not going to get your
zoning, of course that would be silly. That was the intention tithe
way it would go. Similarly in our case, our area developed exactly
as everybody intended. And this property and adjacent property
were not intended to be given over to what was already a dense
residential. Can the property no longer be used in its current
zoning which is I think the point that the Chairman is making— Is it
ataking? Again, our view is, no that's not right. Thatthisis
perfectly legitimate to be held in some sort of zoning classification
18818
Mr. McGee: I grant that just because we don't like something, it shouldn't be
changed. But the problem I think with the position that you're
announcing is ultimately the zoning is controlled by who buys the
property. If I may, what is the difference between what you're
saying and my home in this same area, which is presently zoned
residential. It's a corner lot and has some nice exposure on two
comers. Suppose I decide to sell it to a hardware store. I think
what I'm hearing is that if the hardware ...
which retains its open character whether that's public land or a
nature preserve or something else.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. McGee, this is the issue before the Planning Commission. It
no longer fits under the PL. The PL circumstances have changed.
It's no longer publicly owned land. It is no longer being used by
the School Board. It no longer fits in our PL district. The zoning
doesn't ft anymore. The circumstances have changed. There is
no basis for keeping it under a PL zoning. There is no section
within the PL zoning that we can attribute this to. So how can we
tell someone, and we keep coming back to this, that we know it
doesn't ft in our zoning ordinance; we know the current zoning is
not appropriate because there is no section within that PL zoning
that fits under private ownership unless the City leases the
property from him and uses it for some use or the school system
leases the property from him, but at this point that's not before us.
The only thing before us is privately held land that has a PL
designation. It does not ft within the PL district.
Mr. McGee:
If I may, I think there are two potential answers to that. The more
narrow answer is, if PL is not right— and I don't have a view about
that, I haven't looked into it— if PL is not right but if everything else
that we are saying in terms of the history of the property as having
been given to community -type uses and is consistent with the
Master Plan and so on and so forth, if all that's right, then the
answer is it should be given a different zoning classification that
isn't PL but isn't residential that manages to maintain its open
character. That's one answer I could think of.
Mr. McCann:
That's what we're here for. What is that zoning? That's what we
asked all night We no longer can leave it in PL. This is a public
hearing to come up and give us suggestions of what it should be.
You haven't done that.
Mr. McGee:
Well, if you force me to suggest something, I'll suggest something
like Nature Preserve or Open Nature Preserves.
Mr. McCann:
Nature Preserve is for publicly owned land. We can't change the
ordinance because you don't like it, Mike.
Mr. McGee: I grant that just because we don't like something, it shouldn't be
changed. But the problem I think with the position that you're
announcing is ultimately the zoning is controlled by who buys the
property. If I may, what is the difference between what you're
saying and my home in this same area, which is presently zoned
residential. It's a corner lot and has some nice exposure on two
comers. Suppose I decide to sell it to a hardware store. I think
what I'm hearing is that if the hardware ...
18819
Mr. McCann: A hardware store is privately held land. The analogy doesn't work
It's privately owned land. Your analysis right here is perfect for it.
Is it a reasonable use? Yes. Has it been used as a home all
along? Yes. Does it comport and fit safely in the neighborhood?
Yes, it does. The hardware is not going to come in. We deal with
this all the time as you did on Council, Mike. And I realize tonight
is a difficult situation for everybody. I'd love to be able to say the
City can afford to buy it and we have it in the budget. But that is
not an issue. Its not publicly held land. Il doesn't fit in the PL
district regulations. It does not fit in the Nature Preserve
regulations. I need to come up with a recommendation to Council
as to whatwe can legally do. And you know thaljust to come here
and stonewall them when we know it's wrong, we're going to end
up in Wayne County Circuit Court. The City's going to pay his
attorney fees, going to pay him for the loss of the use of the land,
and the residents are going to lose twice. And he's going to gel
exactly what he wanted.
Mr. McGee:
I promised l wouldn't debate so I'll try not to debate. We do think
there is a cooperative endpoint polenfiallylo this process. I don't
want to lose sight of that.
Mr. McCann:
Ihope so.
Mr. McGee:
On the other hand, we simply want to get our side of it into the
record is really what it amounts to. I understand I probably am not
going to convince you and you may not be able to convince me.
We'll agree to disagree, and I'm almoslfinished. The business
about taxes — the fact of the matter is, I'm not aware that taxes
have ever really been paid on this property since it's public land.
And that substantially undercuts any property owner's ability to say
I'm entitled to the rezoning because I put a lot of money into this
over the years.
Mr. McCann:
Do you think he'll have to pay taxes now? Do you think he'll have
to cut the grass?
Mr. McGee:
Most likely. Is there precedence? There are two precedents
within the relatively recent past. The one I won't go into. Last
year the Council did deny in substantial parts approving a smaller
portion of this. That is precedent. Secondly, the Planning
Commission itself back in 1980 heard a very similar petition from
the then owner, which was the Public Schools. The Public
Schools evidently at that time had entered into a potential
purchase agreement. They actually hadn't closed on the properly,
but they made a petition to change the rezoning of the adjacent
Klienert Park to R-1, much as what we have here. Atthattime,
18820
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the petition.
They did so for four reasons: that the rezoning would remove an
open playground area which was utilized by the neighborhood;
that the rezoning would provide a residential use of land which
was needed to maintain park and open space and pointed out this
area was 25"' out of 36 at that time in the ratio of parka rid to
population; that the rezoning of the lands would provide for adding
population while reducing the open space in the most heavily
populated neighborhood in the City; and that it was in conflict then,
as now, with the Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. McCann: Who owned the property back then, Mike?
Mr. McGee: I think I already said the petitioner was the Public Schools. My
suggestion would be that it shouldn't make a difference to the
zoning whether the property is sold the day before the public
hearing or the vote on zoning or the day after. The zoning really
shouldn't tum on that point.
Mr. McCann:
How can I change the book, Mike? How can I say that it's not
publicly held land before us? It doesn't fit within the zoning
ordinance any more. You're asking us to do something that we
dont have a right to do.
Mr. McCann:
I appreciate the comment. The view of our Association is that we
think not enough has been shown to support a rezoning; therefore,
it should be denied. At the same time, I'll repeat what I said to
begin with, that we're hopeful that with all parties working
proactively, we might be able to yet reach a good solution to this.
And then we will not have any more public hearings.
Mr. McCann:
Ma'am, you've already spoke.
Ms. Afonso:
I just want to ask a question. If the petitioner had never come
before the Planning Commission, what would that land be zoned
then?
Mr. McCann:
Eventuallythe City would have to review it ourselves, I believe,
because it's inconsistent zoning. We do that all the time. We'll
look at the Master Land Use Plan, other zoning around the City
and we try and clean up the zoning maps to appropriate zonings.
Geoff Turbiak,
9345 Idaho. For what it's worth, I'd like to support the R-1 zoning.
I feel this is a great piece of land with a lot of potential. I feel that it
is still close to parklands, Mies Park I believe is just south of there.
I feel that Mr. Roskelly has the City's best interests in mind and his
lot sizes and how he wants to develop it. So for what its worth, I
would like to convey my expressions of R-1 zoning on this land.
18821
Mr.McCann: Thankyou.
Tim Bailey, 9826 Cranston. I live across from the school or the ex -school, the
Rosedale property. I've been there for 13 years and it has been
my observation that the former school property has been a big part
of the lives of all Livonia residents. And it has been that way for
75 years. And I think that just the simple fad that it's been used
as public land is good enough reason to deny that rezoning
tonight. So I ask this Board here to please deny this rezoning
tonight orto table it. I don't see any reason to approve this plan.
We don't even have a photograph to look at as farm whatlots.
And we're not even sure what lots he's talking about. Now it
should be obvious that it's a very emotional evening here and its a
very emotional subject that we're dealing with here. Quitefrankly,
I feel somewhat intimidated to come forth after all I've heard. I'm a
little disappointed from what I hear from my public servants here
quite frankly.
Mr. McCann: We are not public servants. We're residents of Livonia.
Mr. Bailey: Are you not paid? Are you not making a salary tonight?
Mr. McCann: Yes, there is a minimum monthly ....
Mr. Bailey: Well, I expect to be treated with a little bit of respect when I come
to this podium because, let's face it, this is a very intimidating
situation. And as people were being scolded tonight and corrected
and made to obeythese rules, people were walking outthe door.
And that's a disappointment when people do not participate and
cannot participate in their government.
Mr. McCann: My point is notto intimidate and I apologize if I have been
overbearing in certain areas. Everybody tells us that they would
like to keep this as parkland. I would like it to be park, but as part
of my training ... I'm an attorney. I look back at what I learned in
my property classes and what individual rights are with regard to
property. If we can change it, the Council who has much greater
authority than we do, has the authority to look at purchasing the
property within the City or looking at other avenues or working with
the developer toward other potential uses. They have that
authority. We are here to evaluate whether or not this privately
held land now is appropriate zoning for R-1, which is brought
beforeus. I said it over and over again, that's whatwe have to
look is. Is this a potential? Now I understand it would be nice to
keep it as public lands, but we dont fl within the public land
section of the thing. And if we can figure out another way, I'm
more than glad to listen.
18822
Mr. Bailey: Well, I guess I have a hard time accepting the fad that we have to
obey these hard cot rules that you keep announcing and cutting
people off with and not allowing them to speak. I don't know why
you cannot take into consideration how this land was acquired,
how much was paid for it, and what the safety, and the density,
and all these others things ... I don't understand why you carat
take that into account as you make your decision here tonight.
Mr. McCann:
I dont believe I said that. I said safety, all those issues, go into
the proper land use. We do look at those.
Mr. Bailey:
I thankyou for yourtme then and I'll excuse myself.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Alan Wakenhut, 11300 Cranston. Like everybody else, I'm shocked at what I'm
hearing. Mr. Roskelly bought this property knowing the opposition
and all the problems that came to this. He says he has a warranty
deed. Does he actually have possession of the property? Has
money changed hands?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, if you have a warranty deed you have paid for the properly.
You have insurance on it I'm sure and he has all the liability that
you have with your property.
Mr. Wakenhul:
Mr. Roskelly brought up his surveying experience. I have a fair
amount of surveying experience loo. My father used to be
associated with Mr. Roskelly. He presented a very open plan. All
these options — a cul-de-sac, open Hubbard back up. The City
owns Kleinert Park. I was very involved in that several years ago
when the School Board wanted to put houses there. We
circulated petitions against it. The City traded other property for
Kleinert Park. The City look ownership. I doubt very much if you
could get Hubbard open. But he's got a lot of options out here—
eight houses, twelve houses, a cul-de-sac. I don't know how you
can pass zoning with anything that wide open. I would think he
has to come in with a firm plan of this is what I want to do. That's
what I would request, that you table this until he at least comes up
and shows you the respect of giving you a firm plan of what he
wants to propose. He threatened he'll take us to court. Well, that
may be. That shouldn't defer you from making the proper
decision.
Mr. McCann:
I agree with what you've said.
Mr. Wakenhul:
Thank you.
18823
Mr. McCann: Seeing no one else, I'm going to dose the public hearing. Mr
Roskelly, you have the final word.
Mr. Roskelly:
Just couple remarks. Mr. McGee spoke of the restrictions that
Sheldon Homes put on this land back in 1925 or some 70 years
ago, indicating that those lots that were reserved for school were
not being considered. But along these same set of restrictions,
which I have a copy of, it indicates that at any time it was no
longer used for a school, it would revert back to its original zoning
which is R-1. So I think Mr. McGee indicated that the Sheldon
lands donated 10 of those 20 lots to the school. The other 10 the
school bought. But the restrictions indicated that when it was no
longer school property and there is no building there, it would
revert back to R-1. But those restrictions are now moot because
they are over 35 years old and they were not re-recorded or
reinstated. The only other thing I'd like to say is, if we speak of
what should be, and again Mr. McGee eloquently gave you four or
five reasons, he neglected to tell you that perhaps the most logical
rezoning on this parcel is what's contiguous on three sides of this
land—R-1. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas:
There are so many things going back and forth. We knew it was
going to come to this, and naturally we are not going to approve
an if -come situation. This has to be tabled. Even though we're
going to table, I still think that when we get to our next meeting,
this belongs with the City Council because from what I've heard
from Mr. Roskelly this evening, is that he's had discussions with
the City Council where he may want to do this or that, and I would
bet in a bombshell that when we have our next final regular
meeting, that there is no way we can even approve this as R-1.
Thank you. I have a table motion.
Mr. McCann:
The next agenda has already been set so it would be the 30r" of
October or the 13" of November. Mark do you have the dates? It
would be the 20r" of November?
Mr. Taormina:
If I may, I would suggest that the item be placed on the October 16
agenda for the following reasons ...
Mr. McCann:
There was something else coming uplhat I need totalk to you
about. The October agenda will not be available.
Mr. Taormina:
I was not aware of that. I would just point out though that tabling
this beyond October 27, we would look to have the petitioner
recognize that would carry past the 60 days in which we have to
make a recommendation on the petition.
18824
Mr. McCann: I discussed that with the City Attorney. He's brought new
information with regard to the expansion of Hubbard Road. In
order to put the site plan in tonight with the new information, we
can continue beyond the 60 days according to the City Attorney.
Therefore, the October 16"' meeting will not be available, so we
can either do it on October 30" or November 20"'.
Mr. Taormina: Either or.
Mr.Alanskas: The20r"of November.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-148-01 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition
2001-08-01-09, submitted by William Roskelly, requesting to
rezone property known as Rosedale Gardens Lots 1137 to 1146
and Lots 1167 to 1176 located on the west side of Cranston
Avenue between Orangelawn Avenue and West Chicago Road in
the Northeast%of Section 34 from PL to R-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-08-02-09
be tabled until the next Regular Meeting of November 20, 2001.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2001-08-0244 Joe's Produce Company
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-08-02-14 by Joe's Produce Company requesting waiver use
approval to utilize an SDM license in connection with an existing
fruit and vegetable market located on the north side of Seven Mile
Road between Shadyside and Mayfield in the Southwest%of
Section 3.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. It first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated August 20, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
18825
the proposal or the legal descriptions contained therein at this
time." The letter is signed by David Lear, P. E., Civil Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated August 22, 2001, which reads as follows: This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
operate an S.D.M. license in connection with an existing fruit and
vegetable market on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated August 24, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal to operate an S.D.M. license. We have no objections to
the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wes McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 23, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest ofAugust 16, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
The submitted plan is not accurate as depicted. The area north of
the building depicted as grass is actually eight parking spaces. (2)
The parking area north and east of the building requires
maintenance, repair and resealing. The entire lot requires double
striping. (3) A barrier -free parking sign is missing on the east side
of the building. (4) A waiver from the City Council will be required
as this proposed use is within 500 feet of an existing SDM use
(Hellenic Bakery). This Department has no further objection to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
C. R. Charest, Jr., 32437 Five Mile, Livonia, Michigan. I'm an attorney
representing and appearing on behalf of Joe's Produce Company.
We are asking the Commission to recommend the waiver use
approval that's required to obtain an SDM (Specialty Designated
Merchants) license from the Liquor Control Commission. We're
also asking the waiver of the 500 foot requirement as it pertains to
the existing SDM license which is the Hellenic Bakery. Again,
Joe's wants to introduce good wines and at some time later
perhaps microbrews, that is beers. They proposed initially about
131 feet of shelf space which is in a diagram with the petition.
Joe's is first and foremost a produce company, high quality fruits
and vegetables. They've been a very good corporate citizen for
many years in the community. Joe's does not intend to become a
party store or a liquor or beer or wine store. The purpose of the
wine is to complement existing products which are gourmet
specially foods in addifion to the faits and vegetables. Itwill
enhance the fait baskets and the floral products that Joe's
Produce already provides. We think that Joe's is in harmony with
the neighborhood. Selling wine won't have an adverse effect on
18826
any adjacent property. We think that the parking is adequate and
that the volume of traffic is not going to be increased by any
measurable extent by the addition of wine and perhaps beer. As
to the comments from the Inspection Department, as far as I know,
Joe's Produce is in compliance. If there are other minor things
regarding the barrier -free parking space or certain parking spaces
in the north area of the lot, we will certainly comply and do what's
necessary to correct any violations.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
What kind of controls would you have in regards to selling to
minors?
Mr. Charest:
I believe that it's a requirement of the SDM holder that its
employees that would be selling at the register take a course that's
provided by the Liquor Control Commission. In addition to that,
most of the derks are experienced; they have been with Joe's
Produce for many years. It's a matter of mature adults who are
the head cashiers most of the time. Certainly everybody would be
trained to ask for ID; that's the law.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know a lot of places also have little signs that say you must be
bom before this dale before you can buy alcohol or beer. And I
was just wondering if you were going to have those in the store.
Mr. Charest:
We haven't discussed that particularly, but I'm sure at the
checkout counter we are required, I believe, to post some type of
notice.
Mr. Alanskas:
The store is so busy, you've got people waiting 15 and 20 in a line.
I'm just wondering how your people are going to say "just a minute
I need to see your ID" and slop people going through those lines.
This is going to lake more time for you and give your customers a
little bit less service because they have to wail longer to get to the
checkout.
Mr. Charest:
The majority of Joe's customers are adult shoppers — housewives,
husbands picking up groceries on the way home. The teenage
traffic or the under 21 traffic is very low. People have to use
common sense and that goes into the training that all the cashiers
will have.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, it's probably because you have not had that problem in the
past. Are you going to have signage on the outside of your
windows that you're selling beer and wine?
Mr. Charest:
I believe so. We haven't addressed that but I would guess so.
18827
Mr. Alanskas: If you do that, then you may get some younger people trying to go
in there and purchase and not be of age. Just so that you're
aware of that.
Mr. Charest: We do appreciate that, sir. That's inherent in the nature of that
business, whether by -the -glass establishment or by -the -package
at a store.
Mr. La Pine: In respect to some of the violations. think one ofthem was the
fad that the parking lot needs to be double striped. Well, the
problem we have there is Joe just resurfaced that whole lot last
year. The final coat has not been applied. He was hoping that it
was going to be done this year, but apparently it is not going to be
done this year. When that is finished, then he is going to do the
double striping. There's no doubt aboutthat. He knows that.
Anything else that's wrong there, I thinkthat if it's been brought to
Joe's attention, I'm pretty darn sure he'd take care of it. Secondly
about the beer and wine ... his son mentioned at oursludy
session ... basically he's going to be selling Christmas baskets,
specialized baskets. Most oflhe beer and wine I think is going to
be done through that. Some people are going to pick up bottles of
wine. You know, Joe's been at this location for many, many years.
He's done a fine job there. He's won awards for landscaping; he's
done everything the City's asked for. He has problems there.
There's traffic problems there. The people on Shadyside don't
particularly like the traffic going north on Shadyside. He's got a
sign that says no left tum. Nobody can police that 24 hours a day.
So I think overall if anybody deserves a liquor license after the
many years he's been there, this gentleman deserves it. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Charest: I would also note to the Commission that Hellenic Bakery is a
substantially different type of business. The few times I've been in
there, without sounding negative at all, they have Greek pastries;
they have some Greek wine, some of the fancy the long -necked
souvenr bottles; they have olive oil and breads, olives and things
like this. So it's a substantially different store and from my
investigation, it doesn't appear they do any significant volume at
all of any wine or spirts.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Michael Driscoll, 19229 Shadyside, which is within a few hundred feet of Joe's
Produce. Myself and many of my neighbors are concerned about
any changes that take place at Joe's. I think everybody agrees its
a good establishment, but it's really outgrown its present location.
18828
As far as adding to that location's business by offering other
products like a liquor license, it will continue to make a bad
situation worse. We do have a ton of traffic on our side streets
and it's because of a driveway from his parking lot onto
Shadyside. It causes a dangerous intersection; people cannot
enter their own street making a left hand tum or a right hand tum
very well without having people coming out of that side entrance or
parking lot exit. They can't egress that area very well. People
don't want to tum Teff into Joe's from Seven Mile so they cul
through Gable and down Shadyside and enter his parking lot. So
there's really traffic concerns and parking concerns. Maybe
there's a vacant building like Dannys where this business would
be beftermoved. But that would not be addressed here. Ido
think that some things could be done that would improve the
neighborhood and his business and that would be eliminate all
side street parking. We've got a dozen cars parked on Shadyside
everyday of the week. We have semi -trucks that back down that
road to enter that side street or his driveway from our side street,
and that means at 6 and 7 o'clock in the morning our neighbors
have diesel trucks and large trucks coming though there. That's
not good either. The parking lot is loo small. That's why many of
the employees are parking their cars out on the side street in the
residenfial area. So those are some things that I think the
Planning Commission needs to address. Other than that, I don't
see how they shouldn't have this, but there are these other issues
that I do think need to be addressed.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this pefifion?
Joseph Maiomna, Jr., 33152 W. Seven Mile. Owner of Joe's Produce. I get to
the establishment early in the morning, and we dont tolerate
diesel trucks driving up and down Shadyside. There are a few
employees that do park on the side street, never twelve. I own a
house right behind the store; it was our family home and we rent
this house out. It's not cumently occupied. I park my car there.
We own a fairly large parking lot. I believe that it was 4.8 acres on
this site. We have numerous car parking spaces. We are a busy
store. The reason for the wine is to complement people's dinner.
I don't think we are going to draw additional traffic to Joe's
Produce to buy wine. We are not a destination wine store. We're
an upscale produce market and that's what we'll always be. Joe's
Produce always wants to be a good corporate citizen. We have
been there for 50 years. Anything we can do to accommodate our
neighbor's, we want to do, but I do not see diesel trucks ever
going down Shadyside. I don't see 12 cars parking on Shadyside.
I'm in that area all the time. I don't see traffic up and down
Shadyside. I guess I'm in disagreement with Mr. Driscoll's
18829
comment because I am an owner -operator that is present on site; I
am there a great deal of the day. So that's my comments on that.
Mr. Shane:
I thought I understood Mr. Driscoll to say that the trucks back
down Shadyside. Is that what they have to do when they come in
off Seven Mile? They have to back in?
Mr. Maiorana:
I dont think they have to back in. They pull in but I dont know that
they pull in on Shadyside. And if that is a concem, you can direct
them not to use Shadyside. They could just use the entrance.
Mr. Shane:
That was my next comment. It is possible that you could redirect
them?
Mr. Maiorana:
Absolutely. We're willing to cooperate with our neighbors in any
way that we can.
Mr.Shane:
When they do that, can they go out the same way?
Mr. Maiorana:
Absolutely. Iftheydid loop out Shadyside, it would just be going
right out Shadyside, never going dawn the street toward Mr.
Driscoll's home or any of the residents' homes. It would just be
going right out on Seven Mile. But they can be directed to use the
entrance and not use Shadyside.
Mr. Shane:
That probably would help. This comment about cars parked on
the street. Is there anyway you can direct your employees to not
park there?
Mr. Maiorana:
Yes, I can try to do that. There's only maybe four or five cars that
park there, maybe six at most, but I believe its four or five.
Sometimes people get there early and they want to park close to
the side door.
Mr. Shane:
Obviously he has some legitimate concems, and I'm trying to help
him out here a little bit.
Mr. Maiorana:
Absolutely. We'll take care of those.
Mr. Shane:
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Maiorana:
But I dont think that any of those really have any bearing on an
SDM license.
Mr. Shane:
No, I agree with that.
Mr. Maiorana:
But I am happy to know that there are some concerns, and we'll
definitely take care of those.
18830
Mr.Shane: Thankyou.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else wishing to speak? I will dose the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-149-01 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition
2001-08-02-14, submitted by Joe's Produce, requesting waiver
use approval to utilize an S.D.M. license in connection with an
existing fruit and vegetable market located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Shadyside and Mayfield in the
Southwest%of Section 3, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-08-02-14 be
approved subject to the waiving of the 500 fool separation
requirement set forth in Section 10.03(8)(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance by the City Council for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver
use standards and requirements as setforth in Section 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; and
4. Thatthe utilization of an SDM license will complemenllhe
existing use of the subject property and will provide an
additional service to customers.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Dolan, Alanskas
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: Pieroecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
18831
ITEM#4 PETITION 2001-08-0245 Jian-thong Chen
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-08-02-15 by Jian-Zhong Chen requesting waiver use
approval to operate a full-service restaurant on property located on
the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast %of Section 23.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Taormina: This is in the Northeast''/.of Section 23 which is bordered by Five
Mile Road to the north, Middlebelt Road to the east, Meriman
Road to the west and Schoolcraft to the south. This site is known
as the Mid -Five Shopping Center. The requestthis evening is to
occupy approximately 7,710 square feet ofthe existing vacant
space that was formerly occupied by the Farmer Jack
Supermarketfor use as anew full-service restaurant. In this
particular case, the request is for City Lite, a Chinese buffet -style
restaurant. The amount of space which is presently vacant within
the shopping center is about 30,190 square feet. Therewas a
recent petition that had been sought for the approval to utilize this
space as a second hand retail outlet known as Value World. The
Planning Commission denied that request. The restaurant that is
proposed at this location would provide a total of 248 seats, 208 of
those seats would be in the main dining area. In addition tothat,
there would be a party room which would accommodate
approximately 40 seats. This area does have sufficient parking
available to accommodate the proposed use. There is one
additional full-service restaurant located at this center, the
Outback Steak House. In terms of the exterior improvements that
are proposed as part of this petition, there would be new
entryways and doors added to the east or the front elevation of
this structure as well as new windows being added to the north
side ofthe building. The signage that is permitted for this site is
based on one square foot for one foot of frontage. Because this is
a corner unit, they would also be entitled to a second wall sign that
would be located on the north or the side elevation of this building.
That would be half the allotted square footage so they would be
allowed 52 square feet on the front or the east elevation plus 26
square feet on the north or side elevation. The current plans shoe
a sign that is a little bit larger sign for the north elevafion which
would require Zoning Board of Appeals approval, but as I
understand it in talking with the owner of this center, they would
limit the size of that sign to the required 26 feet. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
18832
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. Ilfirst item is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 6, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal at this time. The following approximate legal
description should be usedin connection therewith." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 6,
2001, which reads as follows: This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a full-
service restaurant on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated September 5, 2001, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the site plans in connection with
the proposed full-service restaurant. We have no objections to the
site plan as proposed." The letter is signed by Wes McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated September 14, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest of August 28, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
The parking area needs repair, maintenance, resealing and double
striping. (2) There are no detailed plans for dumpster
enclosure(s). Plans should be provided to the Commission's
satisfaction. (3) The type of doors detailed forthe front entry (1
and 2) do not satisfy barrier -free accessibility requirements, (4)
We count the number of seats at 256 (208 main restaurant and a
maximum of48in the party room). This Department has no
further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the pefifioner here this evening?
Z. Y. Liu, 4743 Parkside Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan. This is Mr. Chen and he will
be the restaurant owner. Because he does not speak loo much
English, I am going to translate for him if required. Basically, what
we are trying to do is use the 7,710 square feet. Therewill be
interior innovation and establish a full-size Chinese restaurant.
We will be family style and serve lunch and dinner only. I'd be
very happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Alanskas: Is it buffet only or can you sitclown and take a dinner offthe menu
and be served?
Mr. Liu: Mainly the buffet but a litlle bit carry out if someone wants to
18833
Mr. Alanskas: I understand but can you go there and sit down and order off the
menu for a dinner instead of just the buffet?
Mr.
Liu:
Just buffet, no menu.
Mr.
Alanskas:
There is no menu?
Mr.
Liu:
I'm sorry. Yes, you can also pick a dish from the menu.
Mr.
Alanskas:
So you can sit down and be served as a dinner and not have the
buffet?
Mr.
Liu:
Correct.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr.Shane:
How many employees will you have?
Mr.
Liu:
A maximum of 15 people. Regularly 10, weekends maybe 15.
Mr.
Shane:
What are your hours of operation?
Mr.
Liu:
Typically, from 11 in the morning to 10 in the evening. On the
weekends, from 11 to 11.
Mr.
Shane:
Are you aware that there is some opposition from other restaurant
owners to your locating here?
Mr.
Liu:
He says (Mr. Chen) he does not know.
Mr.
LaPine:
From the letterwe have received, I assume he has been in the
restaurant business before in this location, around this area. Is
that correct?
Mr.
Liu:
Yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
So he has operated a successful business.
Mr.
Liu:
Correct, yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
Are you going to be open on Sundays loo?
Mr.
Liu:
Yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
And what are the hours —11 to 11 on Sunday orjusl ...
Mr.
Liu:
From 12 to 10.
18834
Mr. La Pine: Okay. That's all I have Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dolan: He said that he was not aware of other restaurants in the area
being opposed to him coming in. They said that he had an oral
agreement that he would not come in and open a restaurant within
this vicinity. Does he know anything about that?
Mr. Liu:
He says no, no such agreement.
Mr. McCann:
Any other questions?
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one more. Sir, what do you plan to do as far as
remodeling inside; what are you going to do inside the building?
Mr. Liu:
Mainly two things. The kitchen as shown on the plan. The other
thing, in the dining room basically carpel, ceiling, tables, chairs.
Basically that it is. Mainly its interior.
Mr. La Pine:
Is he going to do any renovation on the outside of the buikling?
Mr. Liu:
He is proposing to open some windows as we show on the
elevations. But this is just his thoughts which had to work with City
about size and location; it's flexible.
Mr. Alanskas:
How long is your lease there for—two years, four years, five
years?
Mr. Liu:
Fifteen years.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
If them are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there
anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Michelle Lin, 16660
Quakertown. My family owns the Szechuan Empire
restaurant just one street away from Farmer Jack. Wehavebeen
there for over ten years. And what I see is many restaurants
coming in this area every year. And our business keeps dropping
down. Now it is to the point that it's very difficult for us to keep it
running. The reason we're still staying here is because we have a
15 year lease. This is not because we did not maintain good
service or good food. It's because there are too many restaurants
in the area. I spoke to the other owners of restaurants in this area
and they are all facing the same problem. They say too many
restaurants here and only that many customers here. They are
not doing well loo. If the City puts in another restaurant in this
area, especially that big, like Chinese Buffet, I think we're going to
18835
close down and the other restaurant maybe too. I think we're
going to be suffering and lots of people going to lose theirjob.
This is not good for City. Only you can help us. Please do not
ruin our business. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many can you seat in your restaurant?
Ms. Lin:
90.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Jenny Tong, 8460 Telegraph Road, Taylor. I'm speaking for Mr. Li Zhao Qi from
the address of 33897 Five Mile Road. He is the owner of Peking
Buffet. Because he doesn't speak English, that's why I translate
for him. Is that okay?
Mr. McCann:
That's fine, ma'am.
Ms. Tong:
What he heard before that Mr. Chen say he never live in Livonia,
this town, before, right? Or he never had a restaurant in this area.
He owned the Peking Buffet before January. And he knows in this
area not have much of a people but people keep opening other
new restaurants and the business been hurl, so that's why he
moved out of that restaurant. So he sold his share to this Mr. Li
and now he was promised that in front of a lawyer he say he won't
have any restaurant open within three miles area. We know this
address. That address was within two miles so he broke his
promise. And he has so many people is also witness same area
business and then he doesn't make that much of profit anymore
because of course they had more people to move in to have a
business and then the business goes down. If Mr. Chen has the
other new Chinese buffet that much of a people of a seating set
there; its going to have more people without a job and then without
any business. Now he's trying to want you guys to stop him have
a restaurant open over there. Any questions?
Ms. Dolan:
You said that Mr. Chen owned the Peking Buffet?
Ms. Tong:
Yes, he did before. They are cousins.
Ms. Dolan:
And he denied that?
Ms. Tong:
Yes, he denied and that's why he was very angry.
Ms. Dolan:
And you said that within a three mile ... we have a letter from the
attorney stating that it was a five mile ...
18836
Ms. Tong: Yeah, he promised that but I just came into today. He just
explained to me. He say he promised that in a certain mile he
won't open up a restaurant but of course right now he broke that
promise. He didn't write it down.
Ms. Dolan:
I guess my question is, if you had an attorney present, why didn't
you have the attorney put that in the agreement in writing rather
than make an oral comment?
Ms. Tong:
Because they are cousins and he trusts him.
Ms. Dolan:
You shouldn't trust him.
Ms. Tong:
But we still have witness for a lawyer assuming that he keeps his
promise. Mr. Li, he said, when the time he knows he going to put
a new restaurant in the old Fanner Jack and he spoke to his
lawyer too and his lawyer says, I can be a witness. Before we
think he would do his own job. He say he won't open now and we
still trust him. And now that's why the lawyer writes a letter telling
him that you broke your promise. You should not do that. When
you sold your part of the share, you told us that ...
Ms. Dolan:
I understand that but I was just reading the letter and unfortunately
they said it was orally promised. And I know sometimes orally its
not really a good thing because if you write it down, it protects you
a little bit better.
Ms. Tong:
Yes, but you think if we have a witness it would be better than
nothing?
Ms. Dolan:
Its hard to say.
Mr. Alanskas:
I see your commeroials on TV all the time, and I've eaten in your
restaurant. So I'm presuming that you're doing very well. Are you
aware that in the last two months we've lost two Chinese
restaurants?
Ms. Tong:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
We lost Wing Yees and now we're going to lose Genghis Khan, so
your business should be picking up. That's why in my estimation,
does it warrant putting in another Chinese restaurant whether it's
one, two or three miles? And my answer is yes; it does warrent
that. It's a nice building. It's far enough away from you even
though you're just around the comer, because actually your
business is not Chinese. It's more like a Szechuan. Isn't that
correct?
18837
Ms. Tong: No, they call it a Chinese buffet. The Chinese buffet includes
Szechuan.
Mr. Alanskas:
No, I mean this gentleman's restaurant is more Szechuan food
isn't d? No that's the other gentlemen that has the Szechuan. But
I think in Livonia, the clientele that live here ... the Chinese
people and Japanese ... I think there's enough business for
everybody.
Ms. Tong:
But we think that within three miles, there are more than 10
Chinese restaurants already, and then ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Let me answer your question that way. In the whole City of
Livonia, we have a drug store on this comer, one on that corner,
sometimes one on that comer... and they all survive. They all
do well.
Ms. Tong:
But they got pain ok? They need a medicine or they got to eat
food, they go to some Fanner Jack or whatever. But do you think
that in Livonia, has there that much of a Chinese people eating
Chinese food?
Mr.Alanskas:
lvaries. Thankyou.
Yuan Yi Xiao,
16709 Middlebell Road. Manager of China Kitchen. Wehave
been here years. Right now I heard another Chinese restaurant
come in this area. It's hard for me to survive because I'm not a big
restaurant. Also, I have another friend he just opened Panda
Restaurant on Schoolcraft; it's more carryout restaurant. And only
thing, I don't mind Chinese people coming in the area. The only
thing it's hard for us to survive if you have one big restaurant is
what I'm concerned about it.
Mall Commeyer, 32969 Hamilton Court. I represent the ownership of the
shopping center. I'd just wanted to let the Commission know that
we will address any parking lot issues. The dumpster enclosure is
two or three sided; it can be fully enclosed. So any of the
concems that the Inspection Department has we'll take care of. I
think the other thing I can say, the operator does have another
restaurant. Its in Farmington Hills around the comer from our
office. The building is very nice. The interior is beautifully built
out. They run a good operation. They have been in business
there, actually I dont know how many years. It's been there a
couple of years. Their business is good, and the use is
appropriate for this center.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have any other plans for the rest of the building at this
time? It has nothing to do with this petition.
18838
Mr. Commeyer. Yes, we do. We've signed a lease at the south end of the Fanner
Jack space, 7700 square feet with Dollar General which is a dollar
store, Family Dollar. The balance of the space is in negotiation
with the food store.
David Jacoznick: I'm speaking on behalf of Wing Tar Yu who owns Dale Yee's
Chow Mein on Five Mile and Merriman. Basically I'm going to
keep it short. Business is going to go down. People are going to
lose theirjobs. He has about 15 people working for him; I help
him out from time to time. I'm a good fiend of his family. Business
will go down eventually. It's already started a few days back.
We've been looking at the records and not so many people have
been coming in as they used to. That's pretty much it.
Ms. Dolan: You said thatyour business is declining, thatyou've notice people
haven't come into the restaurant more. Obviously he hasn't
opened up another restaurant yet. I eat out a lot and I see that
there's usually a lot of crowding in the different restaurants. If
you're seeing the restaurant dedine, is there another reason for it
because obviously this restaurant has not opened.
Mr. Jacoznick: Could you tell me any?
Ms. Dolan: No, I'm asking you. Do you know of any reasons why? You said
Ms. Dolan: Have you noticed a decline when other restaurants opened around
you? I mean like the other restaurant owners that are here. I
notice on the letter, their were several, the Peking Buffet, the other
restaurants. Obviously all of them do the same type or style, other
than Peking Buffet; it seems to be the only one that's competing
thalyou noticed thatthe business slowed.
Mr.
Jacoznick:
Right. But it will decrease further too. You can see that, right?
Ms.
Dolan:
I don't know.
Mr.
Jacoznick:
I'm saying that you could foresee that? A possibility.
Ms.
Dolan:
Well, it's kind of difficult. If your business is declining now, its
hard to say if it will continue to decline if another restaurant comes
in.
Mr.
Jacoznick:
But I'm saying possibly, not for sure.
Ms.
Dolan:
Right.
Mr.
Jacoznick:
Besides he's only been open for about a year.
Ms. Dolan: Have you noticed a decline when other restaurants opened around
you? I mean like the other restaurant owners that are here. I
notice on the letter, their were several, the Peking Buffet, the other
restaurants. Obviously all of them do the same type or style, other
than Peking Buffet; it seems to be the only one that's competing
18839
with that. Do you feel that when these restaurants opened, that
they look away your business?
Mr. Jamznick:
A little bit.
Ms. Dolan:
No?
Mr. Jamznick:
Not really.
Ms. Dolan:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I shop at this center an awful lot. In fad, right next door to you is a
placed called the Aquarium, and I'm there quite often. Next door
to Dale Yee's, there was a Karate shop. And that had a lot of
young people in there and mother's went there. So you had their
business. And then down to the left or going west, you had the big
fruit market, Anthony's, and they left. So that mall's got a lot of
empty stores and does not have the traffic that it used to have.
And I think that one's of the reasons that you may have a problem
with business there.
Ms. Jacoznick:
Yes, thank you. Any other questions? OK, thanks a lot folks.
Mr. Yee, 30242 Plymouth Road. I own the New China Buffet. I've been here
about two years ago. This gentlemen, I don't know his name, just
between one miles, doing the same style. The lady asking the
questions, her restaurant is just across the street. So if they open
7,000 square feet, a lot of people could lose job, a lot of business
got hurt, a lot of people got lay off.
Mr. La Pine:
Unfortunately, the restaurant business is a very competitive
business. I think Mr. McCann, our Chairman, can attestto that
because he was in the business. Restaurants survive or die on
their service, their price and their food. If they have those three
elements, they are going to survive. If not, they're going to die.
Now this gentlemen is willing to make an investment in another
restaurant. He may die in a year, maybe the business will just not
work. But the point I'm trying to make, we are not in a position
where we can dictate that we think there's too many Chinese
restaurants in town. Maybe I think there's too many pizzerias in
town. Maybe I think there's too many hamburger restaurants in
town. But competition breeds better prices for the consumer, and
it makes the owners work harder to promote their restaurants.
Mr. Yee:
Yes, we working way hard. And the price is very low.
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me finish. If you find out that this friend's restaurant is giving
you a lot competition, then you've got to find unique ways to attract
18840
some of the customers he has away from him back to your
restaurant. We're not in a position here to say well, we want to
protect all these restaurants because they've been here for two or
three years. Competition is good for everybody.
Mr. Yee:
If you open restaurants, they always serve the same food. Most
people are ... they got a lot of food stuff. If you go same price,
Chinese restaurant food. They say this big, price low. Our
restaurant is small, about 150 seals. They are over 200 seats.
Livonia is small city, not a lot of people you know.
Mr. McCann:
Not seeing anybody else wishing to speak, I'm going to close the
public hearing. Does the petifioner have any last statements?
Mr. Liu:
I just want to make one statement; I talked to the owner. I agree,
lots of cempefilion going on but I think he is waiting to make a
commitment. It's a very big commitment for him because the
lease. I think he has quality food and price. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. If there is nothing further, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and approved, it was
#10-150-01
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition
2001-08-02-15, submitted by Jian-Zhong Chen, requesting waiver
use approval to operate a full-service restaurant on property
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt
Road and Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 23, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petifion 2001-08-02-15 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the proposed restaurant shall be limited to a total of 248
customer seats;
2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated September 14, 2001 from the Inspection Department
shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
- Thatthe parking area shall be repaired, resealed and
double -striped as needed;
- That a new dumpster enclosure, which shall be located
immediately west of the proposed restaurant unit but no
closer to the Five Mile Road right -of my line than the
north wall of the shopping center building, shall be
18841
constructed consisting of brick or reinforced poured
concrete walls with simulated brick pattern and wood
endosure gates which shall be properly maintained and,
when not in use, closed at all times;
That the front entry doors shall be of a type that satisfy
barrier -free accessibility requirements;
3. That wall signage for the proposed restaurant shall not
exceed fifty-two (52) square feet on the east elevation and
twenty-six (26) square feet on the north elevation as
permitted based upon the provisions for an end business of a
business center with exposure along two major thoroughfares
under the sign regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543;
forthe following reasons:
1. Thalthe proposed use is in compliance with all of the special
and general waiver use 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; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Dolan
NAYS:
McCann
ABSENT:
Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
18842
ITEM #5 PETITION 2001-08-0246 Laziza, LLC
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-08-02-16 by Laziza, LLC requesting waiver use approval to
operate a limited service restaurant on the south side of Eight Mile
Road between Middlebelt Road and Brentwood Avenue in the
Northwest''/.of Section 1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. It first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 6, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal at this time. The following approximate legal
description should be used in connection therewith." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 5,
2001, which reads as follows: This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited
service restaurant on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated September 5, 2001, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the site plans in connection with
the proposed fullaervlce restaurant. It is our recommendation that
the two handicap parking spaces cumentiylocated at the far west
end of the parking lot be moved to the center of the complex and a
curb cut/ramp be constructed to allow easier access to the
walkway along the store fronts." The letter is signed by Wes
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated September 13, 2001, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 17, 2001, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The followingis
noted. (1) We believe the seat count to be 60, not 3842 seats
as indicated, and there is much empty area not allocated. (2) Due
to the change in use group for this space, all required entrances
and the space in its entirety must be fully accessible and barrier -
free as though it were new construction. (3) The dumpster
enclosure at the southeast comeris not as indicated. One side is
completely open and the balance is in poor repair. (4) The
existing brick face screen wall ends approximately 60 feet west of
the east property line and approximately 70 feet east of the west
property line. (5) The parking lot requires maintenance, repaving,
18843
resealing and double striping. The landscaping also needs
maintenance. (6) There are dumpsters and debris in the rear
(north) aisle. This Department has no further objection to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Hachem, Bravo Design & Consultant, 6200 Schaefer Road, Dearborn,
Michigan. I am the Design Consultant on this project and behind
me is the new tenant of the new project. As the new tenant, Mr.
Laziza called and asked me to do a carry -out restaurant first for
him, which is acceptable to the City without going to the Zoning
Board orthe Planning Commissioners. Now, afterwe submitted
the plans to the City, Mr. Laziza has decided to lease a different
space within the same plaza, I believe to the west comer of the
building. Its a bigger space; it's twice as much spacewise. Its
approximately 31,000 squarefoot. A third of the space will be
utilized.
Mr. McCann:
Let's back up for a minute before we go any farther. Mr.
Taormina, does this waiver use petition now need to be amended
with the correct site. Is that cored?
Mr. Taormina:
Could you explain once again the change to the location?
Mr. Hachem:
First it was a small unit within the plaza. It's a single unit; it's a 20
x 80. It was almost located in the center of the space of the
building. What we have done is changed the plans and we have
submitted those plans to the City asking for it to be a seated
space, full-service restaurant. We have before you now the
correct site plans — located on the southwest comer of the
building. It's a 32,000 square fool building.
Mr. Taormina:
That was the legal description that we utilized in connection with
this request. Also, the notification that was senllo all ofthe
abutting landowners, orthose property owners within 500 feet --
was measured from the overall site boundaries and nolthe legal
description of the restaurant space itself.
Mr. McCann:
All right, I just wanted to make sure we could go forward.
Mr. Hachem:
As I was telling you, a little over a third will be utilized as
bathrooms and kitchen area along with a front counter. And the
rest of it is going to be utilized as a seating area but limited to, I
discussed it with the owner, he looking for around 40 seats. Just
to let you know, I believe this is the first Indian restaurant to be in
the City of Livonia. I don't know if that's correct or not. I can see
18844
that the Plaza has accommodated plenty of businesses such as
grocery stores, bakeries, and I believe there is a clinic, a doctor's
office on the far east side ofthe building, along with a couple of
vacant spaces. But parking -wise, we foresee that this is a very
adequate plaza to contain such a restaurant and serve the public.
I just want to make it short for all of you so that way you can
eliminate the questions. Business hours will be from 11 am to 11
pm for lunch and dinner. Regarding all the items on the letter sent
by Building Safety, a contact has been made with the owner
regarding all these issues that need to be corrected, and this has
already been agreed on too. So this is comment from the tenant
to me that it has already been taken care of as far as this goes.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
How long is the lease for?
Mr. Hachem:
Five, five and five.
Mr. LaPine:
What kind of a restaurant is this? What are you going to be
serving?
Mr. Hachem:
Basically Indian food.
Mr. LaPine:
You have a store there that sells Indian food. There's a number of
stores that cater to Middle Eastern people.
Mr. Hachem:
Yes, they all come from the same family.
Mr. LaPine:
I assume you did your homework and you think that at this location
you're going to be visible enough to make a go of it. Coming from
the west going east, you're land of hid by the gas station on the
corner. You set back so far from the road, I'm just wondering how
you're going to draw your customers. I just can't believe, because
Igo up this road twice a day, that these businesses that are in
there now draw much traffic.
Mr. Hachem:
Nowadays there are a lot ofways to advertise for your business.
There's always word of mouth, flyers, a commercial on TV.
There's also going to be a sign up front on the north side ofthe
building. Besides, the most frequent customers that visit the plaza
are mostly Indian people. For others, of course, Eight Mile is a
very nice street to advertise for that business as well.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything. I just
want to make sure you guys are successful.
18845
Mr. Hachem: I really appreciate that, but you know all businesses probably take
off in slow motion in the beginning but later on either they make it
or they break it.
Mr. La Pine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a
motion is in order. I'll close the public hearing.
On a mofion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-151-01 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition
2001-08-02-16, submitted by Laziza, LLC, requesting waiver use
approval to operate a full-service restaurant on property located on
the south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Brentwood Avenue in the Northwest''/.of Section 1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Pefifion 2001-08-02-16 be approved subject to the following
condifions:
1. That the seating capacity shall be limited to 60 customer
seats;
2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated September 13, 2001 from the Inspection Department
shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
- That all required entrances and the space in its entirety
must be fully accessible and banner free as though it were
new construction;
- That the existing dumpster enclosure in the southeast
comer of the site shall be repaired and when completed
shall consist of three walls constructed of brick or
reinforced poured concrete with simulated brick pattern
and having wood enclosure gates; and further provided
that any additional dumpsters provided on the site shall be
screened by means of a similar enclosure;
- That the parking lot shall be repaved, resealed and
double -striped and the landscape areas shall receive
needed maintenance;
- Thatthe debris in the rear aisle shall be removed from the
site; and
18846
3. That the handicapped parking spaces currently located at the
far west end of the parking lot be moved to the center of the
complex and a curb cut or ramp be constructed to allow
easier access to the walkway along the store fronts, as
recommended in the correspondence dated September 5,
2001 from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police;
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; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. La Pine:
Justonequeston.Mrs. Dolan just pointed out tome in our notes
here that the menu has not been finalized yet. The petitioner
indicated that it would probably include regular pita sandwiches,
coney islands, soups, salads, Greek and Middle Eastern
specialties. Has that all gone by the wayside? It's now going to
be an Indian restaurant?
Mr. Hachem:
We have mentioned that most ofthe Indian -Middle Eastern type
foods are all similar foods. They come from the same family type,
like shish-ka-bobs, meat -wise I'm talking about; they are all
similar. You can't only call it Indian. They come from a similar
family foodwise. As far as soups, soup has to be served at any
place you go to whether it's Chinese, Indian or American.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you, Mr. Hachem.
Mr. Hachem:
You're very welcome. Thank you.
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
18847
ITEM #6 PETITION 2001-03-06-03 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(Drivellp Windows)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-03-06-03 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution 539-01, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.02
and 10.03 of Article X and Sections 11.02 and 11.03 of Article XI
of the Zoning Ordinance so as to designate drive -up windows for
all types of businesses as waiver uses.
Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment was initiated by the City Law
Department and referred to the Planning Commission by the City
Council on February 7, 2001. The original question was whether
to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to designate drug stores
and pharmacies as waiver uses instead of pernitted uses in
commercially zoned districts. On May 8, 2001, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing and determined that a more
equitable solution would be to classify drive -up window facilities as
waiver uses for all commeroial businesses and notjust for
pharmacies and drug stores. Other communities such as the City
of Troy and Lathrop Village use the same approach and treat
dive -up window facilities as conditional or special land uses. The
proposed language amendment would require waiver use
approval for dive -up windows in the C-1 and C-2 Districts and
would make the use subject to certain conditions including:
1. That the traffic lane serving the drive -up window shall be at
least twelve (12) feel wide;
2. That the turning radius on any curve in the drive -up window
traffic lane shall be no less than fifteen (15) feet; and
3. That a sufficient amount of waiting space, physically
separated from oft -street parking areas and drives, shall be
provided at a minimum rate of at least four (4) car spaces for
each drive -up window or service facility, in addition to the
space at the drive -up window or facility, oras recommended
by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthis petition? Hearing no one, a motion is in order. I will
close the public hearing.
18848
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-152-01 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heading having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition
2001-03-06-03, submitted by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Council Resolubon 539-01, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 10.02 and 10.03 ofAdicle X and Sections 11.02 and
11.03 of Article XI oflhe Zoning Ordinance so as to designate
drive -up windows for all types of businesses as waiver uses, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2001-03-06-03 be approved for following reasons:
1. Thatthe proposed language amendmentwill address the
issue of drive -up window facilities by providing minimum
standards for the safe and convenient access to and around
such facilities;
2. That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
comprehensive language relative to the location and nature
of drive -up window facilities; and
3. That the proposed language amendment is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which,
among other things, is to prated the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#7 PETITION 2001-07-06-08 Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(Time Limit—Add't. Info)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-07-06-08 by the City Planning Commission, pursuantto
Council Resolution 354-01, and pursuantto Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.58 of
Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance to establish a 60 -day time
limit from the date a site plan is approved by the City Council for
the submittal of any additional information, such as landscape
plans and signage.
18849
Mr. Taormina: As directed by the City Council, the Law Department has prepared
an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which, if adopted, would
establish a 60 -day time limit from the date a site plan is approved
by Council for the submittal of any additional information, such as
landscape plans and signage. The time limitation forthe submittal
of new information is being proposed in the interests oflrying to be
more efficient and expedient in the processing of site plans.
Section 18.58, Site Plan Approval, contains a subsection (c)
pertaining to certain limitations placed on the approval of site
plans. The new subparagraph would be added under this section
which would read as follows:
(2) If the City Council approves a site plan conditional upon
the petitioner submitting additional information such as, but
not limited to, revised site plans, landscape or signage plans,
said information must be submitted to the City for review
within sixty (60) days from the date of approval of the site
plan unless more time is granted by the City Council. Ifthe
additional information is not submitted, no building permits
shall be issued by any City department for work or
improvements at the subject site.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-153-01 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition
2001-07-06-08, submitted bylhe City Planning Commission
pursuantto Council Resolution 354-01, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.58 ofArlicle XVIII ofthe Zoning Ordinance to establish
a 60 -daytime limitfrom the dale a site plan is approved by Council
for the submittal of any addi0onal information, such as landscape
plans and signage, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-07-06-08 be
approved for following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendment will provide a time
certain condition relative to the submission of additional
information required to complete the review of a site plan by
the Planning Commission and City Council;
18850
2. That the proposed language amendment would insure the
review of such items is done on a timely and consistent basis;
and
3. That the proposed language amendment is consistent with
the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which,
among other things, is to protect the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
Mr. McCann: Is there discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I know this came up because one time someone did not come in
with additional information within 60 days; he came in a year later.
But I really think it's good to have this information because I think it
will make petitioners be more on a timely basis. Thank you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2001 -08 -PL -02 Rambling Acres Sub
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is
Preliminary Plat approval for Rambling Acres Subdivision (Petition
2001 -08 -PL -02) for a subdivision proposed to be located on the
west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and
Hathaway Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina: This site is in Section 33 which is bounded by Plymouth Road to
the north, Farmington Road to the east, Joy Road to the south and
portions of Wayne Road to the west. The property is located at
the southwest corner of Richland and Farmington Roads. This is
a parcel that is presently platted as part of the Livonia Supervisors
Plat No. 2 consisting of Lots 119d, 120d, 121d, and 122d. The
site area is roughly 2.79 acres and includes 305' of frontage on
Farmington Road and 398' on Richland. These lots were originally
platted with depths of 627' but the westerly 229' of each of these
lots was split off and recombined to forth three lots that lie
immediately west of the subject properly. Thisisimportant
because the further partitioning of these lots by means of any
splits or combinations is not allowed pursuant to the Land Division
Act, and that is why the request before you this evening is for the
establishment of a new plat. The proposed division of this
property would establish four lots. The parcels are presently
zoned RU F. It is the intention to develop these sites all in
conformance with the RUF District regulations which require each
18851
parcel to be a minimum of 21,780 square feet in area. There
would be three sites established with frontage on Farmington
Road and a fourth site with frontage established along Richland
Avenue. As indicated, all ofthe proposed lots do conform to the
RUF District regulations. The surrounding land to the north, west
and south is also zoned RUF. The area immediately east across
Farmington Road is presently zoned R6. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan Amann,
Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton and Amann. We
appreciate the time and effortlhe Planning, Engineering and Law
Department staffs have put into this project. Mr. and Mrs. Tislerics
are present at the back of the room. We think the reports have
dealt with it sufficiently. We're prepared to answer any questions
you might have.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, is it true that because theres only four lots, they will not
need an entrance sign?
Mr. Taormina:
That is cored. The Subdivision and Land Division Regulations
stipulate that the Planning Commission may require an entrance
monument. But in this particular case, I'm not aware of any plans
to place such a monument at this location, and I'm not sure that
its even warranted given the relatively small size of the project.
Mr. Alanskas:
With four lots, I wouldn't think it would be.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, I presume that on Lot No. 4 there's enough area left
over after the stormwater easement to properly construct a home?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we have reviewed the site plan and feel that there are
sufficient envelopes available on each of the sites for homes that
would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Dan Aubrey, 33490 Hathaway. I'm either for or against this. Concerns I may
have is our property adjoins two of the proposed developments as
far as our backyard is concerned. And there is about a 30' section
of woods back there. It's mostly scrub and a few small trees and a
few large trees within that area. I don't know if I'm at the point
where I should be asking whether these things are going to be
developed or not. What about the existing house that is there
now? Its kind of an old farm house. Is that slated to be razed?
18852
Mr. McCann: Mr. Amann, can you answer that question?
Mr. Amann: Actually that's the house that Mr. and Mrs. Tslerics live in. That
will remain on one of the reconstituted lots. We actually vacated
this portion of the previous plat by court order about a year and
two months ago to arrange for this action. That house would stay
there so we'd end up with three additional lots out of that. I think
the plan also reflects the attempt to minimize any impact on the
existing trees or scrub. It will comply with the ordinance as
required, sir.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything else, sir?
Mr. Aubrey:
Do they plan on taking the woods? Putting up a fence? There's
no current fence in the back. Will these homes be single family
homes? Will they own the property and the house?
Mr. McCann:
Yes. If its an RUF district, ilwill be a single family home and I
believe that is the intent as well. But I think under the RUF
districts, it has to be single family residences. CorrectMr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Amann:
The petitioner acknowledges that as well, Mr. Chairman, and
acknowledges that they will be sold to single family homeowners.
Ultimately when they own the property, they will be subject to the
ordinances as to any removal of any trees or anything else like
that. Just as if you have trees on your lot, you can do certain
things within compliance with the ordinance.
Mr. Aubrey:
So it's very possible that the homeowner could remove it all and
put up afence, if its within the current ordinance?
Mr. McCann:
Its always possible. With the value of trees that are placed on
properly, it's generally considered diminishing value if you take
down a tree, especially if you have large lots like these are.
Mr. Aubrey:
Did we establish that these will be mnclrstyle homes?
Mr. McCann:
I don't believe that's been established as to whattype of homes.
Mr. Taormina:
We re not there yet.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
18853
John Rossi, 9401 Farmington Road, which is the adjoining house on one and two
on the plat here. My only concern is that when this was originally
presented, we came down to the City and looked at the
information. They said they would require that sidewalks be put in
around the property. That's the only concern I have, is that I really
don't want sidewalks. We have lilac bushes all along the front of
our house and it would conflict with the neighborhood in the area.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is there a requirement for sidewalks under RUF
zoning?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, that particular requirement may be waived where there
are minimum lot sizes achieved.
And all the lots proposed under
this development exceed those minimum requirements. So no,
sidewalks are not a requirement.
Mr. McCann:
We would have to waive them or would it go to Council?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that's an action that the Council would have to take on
this particular item.
Mr. Rossi:
So I guess I'd be for this change because we do need to have
more houses.
Mr. McCann:
Your statements will be part ofthe record. This is a preliminary
plat and we hold the only public hearing on this. However, it still
will go to Council will it not?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. What we can do is give his gentlemen a phone number
where he can reach us to find out exactly when that item will be
before the Council.
Mr. Rossi:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Amann:
Just in partial response to that. The petitioner will join in the
request for the Council to waive the requirement for sidewalks
there as well.
Mr. McCann:
Ifthere is nothing further, I will close the public hearing. A motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Dolan, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-154-01
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, for
Preliminary Plat approval for Rambling Acres Subdivision (Petition
2001 -08 -PL -02) for a subdivision proposed to be located on the
18854
west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and
Hathaway Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 33, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the
Preliminary Plat for Rambling Acres Subdivision be approved for
following reasons:
1. Thatthe preliminary plat is drawn in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations;
2. That the proposed preliminary plat represents a design which
is compatible tolhe surrounding residential development; and
3. That no reporting City department has objected to approval of
the preliminary plat.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2000-05-08-07 Lakeside Estates Site Condo
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2000-05-08-07 submitted by Lakeside Estates Site Condominiums
requesting approval for an entrance marker and landscaping for
the site condominium development located at 34200 Ann Arbor
Trail in the Southeast''/.of Section 33.
Mr. McCann: This does conclude the Public Hearing section of our meeting
tonight. But we will accept comments for and against petitions on
this site plan section.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between
Joy and Stark. Back in July, 2000, this development received Site
Plan approval as part of the conditions of approval. Itwas
conditioned that the Landscape Plan for the 30' wide easement
along Ann Arbor Trail and an entrance marker come back before
the Planning Commission and the City Council. This is what's
before you tonight. This is a pretty well detailed Landscape Plan
that meets all the requirements of the ordinance. The petitioner
has also pointed out that the detention and forebay area of the
easement conforms with the recommendations of the Wayne
County Drain Commission, which reviewed the site plan. Because
of the overall size of this development, the Commission had to
review it to make sure that the detention fit the development. They
made recommendations of what plant material should be involved
in this area. The petitioner has conformed to that. He's also put a
18855
nice variety of plant materials along Ann Arbor Trail. The 30 R.
wide easement continues into a small park. There is landscape
material going into the park. They are allowed an entrance marker
at 20 sq. R; this is a 20 sq. R. entrance marker. It's made of
natural materials. It also matches the existing sign for Lakeside
Estates Subdivision which is located to the south. These are site
condos but basically it will look like one development. The sign
will be located on the south side of the entrance drive, which is
called Norwich Drive, and will be within the landscaped area on
the south side of the street.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. Itis from the Inspection
Department, dated September 27, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest of September 17, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This petition as submitted will need the following variances from
the Zoning Board ofAppeals for the entrance signage: (a)
Excessive height. Maximum five (5) feet allowed, proposed 5 feet
6 inches tall, (b) Excessive signage area. 20 square feet
allowed, proposed approximately 25 square feet. This Department
has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything additional
that you think we need to know, Mr. Soave?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke. No sir, I don't. If you have any questions, I'll
answerthem.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-155-01 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-0508-07 in
connection with the Lakeside Estates Site Condominiums
requesting approval for an entrance marker and landscaping for
the site condominium development located at 34200 Ann Arbor
Trail in the Southeast''/.of Section 33, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
18856
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 8/20/01
prepared by Arpee/Donnan, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condifion;
4. That the Entrance Marker shown on the approved Landscape
Plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That the Entrance Marker shall not exceed 20 sq. ft. in sign
area or 5 ft. in height;
6. That the brick used in the construction of the Entrance
Marker shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exception; and
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #10 PETITION 2001-09-08-25 National Specialities
(BP Gas Station)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-08-25 submitted by National Specialities, on behalf of BP
Gas Station, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition and renovate the exterior building elevations
of the gas station located 31301 Five Mile Road in the Southeast
%of Section 23.
18857
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Five Mile and
Merriman. The petitioner is proposing to construct a small addition
to the west elevation of the existing gas station. Presently there is
an overhang in this area. Basically what they would be doing is
endosing the overhang. The existing building is 1,917 sq. R. in
size, and the addition would be approximately 150 sq. R.
Presently this is more of a service station where they have service
bays. With this addition, the service station would be able to be
converted into a convenience store. Also, the site plan shows that
a new pump island canopy would be constructed towards Five
Mile Road. Right now the canopy is parallel to the site and the
new one would run along Five Mile. The new canopy would be 30
feet by 100 feet, much larger than the existing canopy. Also, since
the Study Meeting, the petitioner has submitted a cutout of the
proposed canopy. As he stated, it would not exceed 18' in height,
which is the ordinance, and also the canopy columns that support
the canopy would be constructed out of brick. The elevation
shows that the north elevation, or the elevation that faces Five
Mile, would be completely redone. Presently there are service
doors that would be removed. The entrance would be shitted over
a little bitto the east. More picture windows would be installed.
Brick would be installed up to the lop of the windows and the door
all way across. Even on the existing carwash that is on the site,
the brick would be removed and new brick would be installed to
match the new brick of the gas station. Right now there is a peak
roof on the gas station. The petitioner is proposing to use what
they call an ACM panel which is a metal type of panel that would
be more like a parapet wall that would hide this peaked roof. This
would be carried over a little bit to the west elevation. The west
elevation would be constructed out of brick. This would be the
new addition. The rear elevation would match the existing building
which is a painted brick or a block. The ACM panel, or metal
panel, would be carried slightly over to this elevation to enhance it.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Inspection Department, dated September 26, 2001, which
readsasfollows: "Pursuant to your request of September 17,
2001, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) As proposed this site will be further deficient
in landscaping area than was previously existing. Further, there is
no detail as to irrigation of landscaped areas, or how the removed
drive approach will be completed. (2) This plan details no seating
in the restaurant area. If there is any seating, this site would
require furtherwaiver use approval. (3) The distance from the
leading edge of the canopy to the property line should be detailed
as being ten (10) feet orgreatec (4) All construction, fixtures,
18858
counter and doors must meet the barrier -free accessibility code in
its entirety. This will be addressed atplan review. (5) The
petition should be adjusted to provide required barrier -free van
accessible parking closest to the entrance and all parking spaces
must be double striped. (6) Existing asphaltpaving will need to
be repaved. (7) No signage has been reviewed due to a lack of
detail. (8) The landscaping is in disrepair and needs
maintenance. At least two (2) trees are dead and need to be
replaced. This Department has no further objection to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated
September 19, 2001, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed
the site plans and have no objections to the plans as submitted.
One handicap parking space is required that must be individually
signed as per city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wes McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The final item of correspondence is
from the Department of Public Safety, dated September 24, 2001,
which reads as fol lows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with the request to construct an addition
and renovate the exteriorof the gas station located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The
letter is signed by James T. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Beydoun, National Specialties Installation, Inc., 12747 Stout, Detroit,
Michigan 48223.
Mr. McCann: Could you tell us about your proposal?
Mr. Beydoun: We want to renovate the existing station with a little carry -0 t
restaurantwith no seating as Mr. Miller stated. Since we are going
to change the signage on the banner from Shell to BP, we have to
keep a certain image with BP as far as their standard with the
colors on the outside and using ACM materials. I have a sample
of the ACM material. It's usually used on canopies and on high
rise buildings. It's actually aluminum on both sides and I
understand there is some kind of plastic in the center of it. loan
pass that around so you can look at it. This is not the color; the
color should be in green.
Mr. McCann: What kind of cant'-0ut restaurant?
Mr. Beydoun: It's going to be one with no cooking. We're talking to Mr. Pita right
now. Just maybe cold sandwiches or like a sub shop. So its just
more convenience for the customer. They walk in, put in their gas,
pick up a sandwich or something and they can just keep going.
IE:fiSl
It's been done like that all over the stations right now. This is also
part of the requirement that we would have to comply with all their
standards and image.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is this going to be a 24-hour operation? What are your hours
going to be?
Frank Aziza, Dealer. The hours would be filo 12.
Mr. Alanskas:
Seven days a week.
Mr. Aziza:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you going to also keep the car wash there?
Mr. Aziza:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
This color you gave us was a blue. I thought British Petroleum
was green?
Mr. Beydoun:
Right, sir. I said we could not actually get the exact color. That's
only the type of material.
Mr. LaPine:
That's just the composition. That's not the color.
Mr. Beydoun:
No, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
British Petroleum has taken over all the Shell stations?
Mr. Beydoun:
Actually Amoco and BP have merged. BP has taken over all of
the Amoco stations. Shell is no longer in the Wayne County area
so they sold all their stations, and they left it up to the owner of the
station to go ahead and re -brand it the way he wanted.
Mr. LaPine:
So is each individual station in Livonia which is an Amoco will
change over to British Petroleum? Will the owner have the say so
how those stations are renovated or will we have one standard
type that will go throughout the whole City?
Mr. Beydoun:
We have one standard type that is going to go throughout. I am
mainly involved with BP in changing the image on about 120
stations in the area around here.
Mr. LaPine:
So basically when this station is finished, it will be a prototype. So
if any other station in Livonia is going to be changed, it will be
basically the same way.
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes, sir.
18860
Mr. La Pine:
Except maybe they won't have the car wash.
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes, they will not have the carwash and the color of brick they
have on the outside. We'll just have to work things out with the
city.
Mr. La Pine:
Regarding the convenience store, will it sell nonnallywhalgas
stations sell— pop, milk, coffee, sandwiches, things ofthatnature?
Mr. Beydoun
And some candies and chips.
Mr. La Pine:
And you realize that you can't have any outside storage onthis
station?
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to the lighting that we discussed at our Study Meeting,
is that going to be recessed so it's not real bright over your
canopy?
Mr. Beydoun:
Its actually going to be recessed. I discussed that with Planning
and they asked for ilto be recessed. We've already ordered for it
to be recessed.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because lately, a lot of stations have really put some bright lights
up and it's intrusive on the neighbors. Especially in this comer,
you have neighbors behind you. I want to make sure we don't
have that problem here. Are you aware that you cannot put any
pop or anything outside to sell? All you can have is something
that is petroleum based. It's got to be like windshield washer
solvent, anti -freeze, motor oil, but nothing else, especially pop.
Mr Beydoun:
Yes, sir. We're not putting any pop out.
Mr. Shane:
I know you don't have a landscape plan at this time but there is an
area on your site plan where you are relocating existing parking. It
appears as if the existing area is larger than the proposed area?
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Shane:
It seems to me that you don't have to cul it down that far because
you won't need 74' feel between there.
Mr. Beydoun:
The reason we cul that we ...
Mr. Shane:
The side of the building and the landscape area only need to be
62' or so.
IF3,101
Mr. Beydoun: Is this the area you are referring to?
Mr.Shane: Yes.
Mr. Beydoun: The reason we cul it out is because we don't want d to be in a
conflict with the cars that park right here. We don't want them to
back into each other.
Mr. Shane:
It seems to me you could keep most of that area and still
accomplish the same thing. You don't need that much area to
park cars on each side of the aisle and middle.
Mr. Beydoun:
We actually did not cut it much. I believe wejust cutfve feet out
ofit. Actually it's better for the cars to manuever. We closed one
of our approaches here also. We just gave that one away without
you guys asking us for it. Wejust gave it away so it helps.
Mr. Shane:
That's fine.
Mr. McCann:
If you add a few feet there that would be good.
Mr. Beydoun:
I have only one thing to add about the color on the building. We
did some kind of color rendering and this is actually the green that
goes like that. At first, in the beginning we proposed the entire
building to be ACM, and when we came back to the Planning
Commission, they said you would like to see some more brick.
And we went up with the brick, but whom do I need to ask one
morething? Ifit's possible to have atleastthis part hereof panels
coming down instead of just breaking it up with the brick like we
proposed before.
Mr. McCann:
How wide is that?
Mr. Beydoun:
This is maybe 8'to 9'this way and itgoes back another T this
way. So it's not more than 11' or 12'.
Mr. McCann:
What's the purpose of doing that?
Mr. Beydoun:
To keep almost a standard image of BP all over. I do have some
pictures here of some of the other sites.
Mr. McCann:
One of our concerns is that as these Amoco and other stations
change, what are we going to be setting the standard for
throughout the City. How wide is that panel?
Mr. Beydoun:
This one right here? That would actually vary. This is probably
like 8'to 7' in height.
18862
Mr. McCann: It's a pretty wide band to begin with.
Mr. Beydoun: We're trying to cover up that peak ifwe can because it doesn't
even ft with the BP image to keep it up like that. We've already
put up the first BP station on Haggerty and 1-94.
Mr. McCann:
It's not the standard that we're going with in the City. We've had
gas stations come before us very recently, and we are trying to
create an image that they are all brick to the roof line; they have
brick columns around the posts. And as these stations have been
coming in, we've been pretty uniform in requiring that. I thinkthat
could be a problem.
Mr. Beydoun:
Because I was actually asked justto come upwith two fool brick in
the front, and I said no I'll just carry it all the way up to the height
of the windows because it looks a lot better that way.
Mr. McCann:
I understand what you're saying. Are there any more questions
from the Commissioners? Mark, I'm looking through the plans.
How far up does it go on the plans that are submitted to us right
now? The comer is not green. Is that correct? The revised
plans?
Mr. Taormina:
The revised plans show that the brick would wrap around the
lower part of the building across the entire north elevation as well
as the west elevation. The band on the upper portion of the
building would be about 8 feettall. That's how it's shown
presently. And as I understand it, what he would do is remove the
brick that is shown on the northwest corner, at least that portion
facing north, that's about 8 feet in width between the window to the
comer of the building and replace that with the ACM panels.
Mr. McCann:
I lhinklhis is going to be creating standards coming within the City.
We might need to look at this a Iittie closer.
Mr. Shane:
Personally, I'd like to leave that brick and do away with the panel
coming down.
Mr. McCann:
We're trying to figure outyour pictures still.
Mr. Alanskas:
I thought it was a changing station.
Mr. Beydoun:
This is built inside a warehouse in Atlanta when they made the first
station and they want all of them to look like that. thinkthereis
another picture here too if you'd like to look at it. That would
actually show the canopy and the building. You can see the
18863
canopy on that one also. I need you to see the building and part
of the pumps. Maybe I can help you with that picture right there.
Mr. McCann:
He's says he needs 8'. I'm looking at this station —it has about 5';
this station has about 4' of the metal panel on the surface. Now
he's claiming he needs 8'. Is that what you say the ...
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes, mainly because we have to cover up that peak. Now if we
have to do some kind of brick on lop right here and eliminate that
one there to 6 feet and go with two more feet of brick over there,
we'd probably be able to do that.
Mr. McCann:
Ok, I wouldn't want to see more than 6 feet of green. You're going
to be able to see it. The color is going to identify your station.
Mr. Beydoun:
It depends on the station. This thing is going to vary. We can go
up with 2' more of brick. We have no problem with that. And we
can just come up with 6' .. .
Mr. McCann:
Yes, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Just curious. Are each of these panels two feet because you're
shoving four panels above the brick line.
Mr. Beydoun:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Taormina:
So taking the lower panel and replacing that with brick, just above
the...
Mr. Beydoun:
We should have no problem. That should be fine with us
Mr. Shane:
How soon could you get a Landscape Plan done?
Mr. Beydoun:
Actually, we did not know we needed a Landscape Plan since the
landscape was existing. They asked us to just bring it up to 50%.
We could have one for you by Monday if its all right. We can do it
fast.
Mr. Shane:
What I was going to suggest is that I would like to see a revised
Building Elevation Plan and a Landscape Plan at the same time. If
we table this, in two weeks you could have all that done and we
would have a package we could look at.
Mr. Beydoun:
The reason that Mr. Taormina put us on a meeting here, we're
trying to get ahead of the weather here. If we postpone this for
two weeks, then it goes back for another two weeks, its going to
take more time for us to put in the tanks and things like that and
18864
we're going to go into wintertime. As far as revising the plan, I can
have something for you by 10:00 tomorrow morning.
Mr. Shane:
I'm a little concerned about approving the plan.
Mr. Beydoun:
Its onlyjust revising this thing here and we can actually revise this
and put up some brick there.
Mr. McCann:
We can move you along a little faster next time to not hold you up.
But I've got concerns about the type of panel and about the fad
that we really want this to look nice for you and for the City and to
create a standard within the City for the stations that are going to
be coming. This would be a quick item. We'd have you in and
out. Our next meeting is the 16r"; 1 think we could fit it in. Is there
a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-156-01
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-09-08-25 submitted by National
Specialities Installation, Inc., on behalf of BP Gas Station,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition and renovate the exterior building elevations of the gas
station located 31301 Five Mile Road in the Southeast%of
Section 23, be tabled until the next Regular Meeting of October
16,2001.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. We will talk to the City Council about waiving
the 7 -day rule after that to try and move you directly onto Council
just as quick as possible so that it really won't cost you any time.
Mr. Taormina, would you check with the Council Office and see if
that can be worked out?
Mr. Taormina:
Certainly.
Mr. McCann:
Can you leave these copies ofthe pictures with the Planning
Department? They can have them for their review and then return
them when theyre done. Thank you.
18865
ITEM #11 PETITION 2001 -09 -SN -05 Poblocki & Sons (Target)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09SN-05 by Poblocki & Sons on behalf of Target requesting
approval for an additional wall sign for the store located at 20100
Haggerty Road in the Northwest%of Section 6.
Mr. Miller:
This site is located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile and Eight Mile. The existing signage consists of two
(2) wall signs totaling 340 square feet in sign area: east elevation
("Target")— 170 square feet; west elevation ('Target") —170
square feet. The signage permitted for this site under Section
18.50H is one wall sign not to exceed 375 square feet in sign area.
The additional proposed signage is for one wall sign on the west
elevation ("Pharmacy') -56 square feet. The excess signage
consists of two (2) wall signage, 21 square feet in wall sign area.
A variance (Case #9305-07) was granted by the Zoning Boards of
Appeals on May 25, 1993 for the existing signage on the building.
Because the new sign would increase the nonconformity of the
signage, a new variance would be required from the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence. Itis from the Inspection
Department, dated September 26, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 5, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This petition will need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals
for excess number of wall signs and excess square footage.
Allowed is one wall sign of 375 square feet Existing from
previous Zoning Board of Appeals (9305-07) grant are two (2) wall
signs of 170 square feet each for 340 square feet. Proposed is
one additional wall sign of 56 square feet. Totalis excess two (2)
wall signs and excess 21 square feet of wall signage. (2) Also
existing on site is one (1) monument sign at Haggerty Road. (3)
This site is a Control Zone. This Department has no further
objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Newell, Poblocki & Sons, LLC, 922 S. 70r" Street, West Allis, Wisconsin
53214. 1 represent Target Corporation and theirsign issues and
specials and remodels. This site is very peculiar. It has several
hardships. With the natural grade coming on the northbound lane
coming up on the property, you have no visibility. That's one
18866
reason we petitioned for the font and back sign to give us
exposure to the interstate and to Haggerty. The additional
pharmacy sign is in excess, but due to the limited visibility on the
southbound lane coming towards the store, it's the only chance
you have to see it. Normally, we would go with, in certain code
restrictions, with a 24 inch pharmacy sign to gel us right onto the
275. But with limited exposure just to the southbound lane, it was
our recommendation to go with a 30 inch pharmacy sign, unlike
the one at Junction Grove that has a 24 inch pharmacy sign.
Target is not known for competing in pharmaceutical goods. Like
you mentioned before, pharmacies compete because they supply
service to the community at a fair price and convenience. With
this sign, Target would be able to advertising an ongoing and a
new service to the community and their customers. If there are
any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, do you think that a person who goes to your store, if theyre
driving by and see that sign that says "Pharmacy," they're going to
pull in for a prescription?
Mr. Newell:
No, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
Then why do you need it?
Mr. Newell:
Pharmacy is much like when you have a sick child. You
remember where the closest pharmacy is. And the only
identification Target has for pharmacy is on their building. Not all
Targets are known for pharmacies. Less than 50 percent of our
stores have pharmacies now, and all the new stores going into
production get pharmacies. That's how we get every store with a
pharmacy. They cannot do a national advertisement, even a local
advertisement in Livonia. One has a pharmacy, one doesn't.
There's a conflict. So we totally rely on the identification of the
building.
Mr. Alanskas: The problem that I have is that, say a year from now, you have
another service that you want to push. You'regoinglowanl
another sign, and then another sign, and another sign. Then
we've got a building full of signs and you're over compliance right
now. Target always has a big thick flyer every week, and I'm sure
there are going to be advertisements that they now have a
pharmacy in these stores. My thought is that l really dont think
that one is even needed there. We keep getting requests for more
signage and you're not in compliance. Ifwe keep saying yes you
can, we're going to have a city full of signs. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions?
18867
Mr. La Pine: I have just one question. The new addition you're putting on, is it
basically for the pharmacy?
Mr. Newell:
Yes, and storage.
Mr. La Pine:
How long has it been since Target got into the pharmacy
business?
Mr. Newell:
We've been actively putting pharmacies in for the last seven
years.
Mr. La Pine:
How much of your actual sales are from the pharmacies? This
store is not open 24 hours a day.
Mr. Newell:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
So if somebody switched all their prescriptions to Target and they
needed a prescription in the middle of the night and this is the
pharmacy they dealt with, they couldn't get in. Is that correct?
Mr. Newell:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
So how do you handle that? Do you have stores that are open 24
hours a day? An individual runs out in the middle of the night and
has to gel a quick couple of pills in to gel him through for the night.
Mr. Newell:
No. Looking at the marketing, Walgreens, Coslcos, I believe Rite
Aid in the local areas ... they meet that demand. Target's primary
goal is to go into one-stop shopping. You go in, put your
prescription in, you do your other shopping— much like
Walgreens. Walgreens I don't believe is a local chain in this area.
You just say Walgreens, you know there's a pharmacy and other
goods that are pharmaceutical related, household related, and
that's the market that Target is going after — is the one-stop
shopping, convenience, and to compete with Walmarts, Kmarts,
and other big boxes.
Mr. La Pine:
I guess maybe I'm one of the odd ones. We do most of our
prescriptions at one drugstore. It's convenient. Number one, we
know its there. We know it's a block away. I just don't believe
people walk into a Targelslore or a Walmart or even a Kmart that
has pharmacies and say, "Well, I've got
prescription from the
doctor today. I guess I'll buy here." Basically,
they go back to
where they originally buy all their pharmacy things. Nowtheymay
use yourslore to buy over-the-counter stuff because you probably
buy it in big lots and they get it cheaper. I have to agree with Bob.
I dont see how the word pharmacy is going to draw more people
to Target.
18868
Mr. Newell: I guess that's the indication. We're announcing a new and
ongoing service. It's the only advertising they do, and it's their
primary advertising for that particular store because it is an
isolated store. Just like the one on Junction Avenue, obviously
they're busy enough in this area to add another pharmacy at the
Haggerty store. Itis noticeable in other stores that ifwe don't
have the sign advertising, people don't see it because it is behind
rows of pharmaceuticals that are over-the-counter. People don't
notice it or see the convenience of it and they lose business. So
its affects our ability to use the property.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close this hearing. A
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Lapine, itwas
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -09 -SN -05,
submitted by Poblocki & Sons, on behalf of Target, requesting
approval for an additional wall sign for the store located at 20100
Haggerty Road in the Northwest%of Section 6, be denied for the
following reasons
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the
requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has notjustifed the need for any additional
signage for this location over what is permitted by the sign
ordinance;
3. That approving this sign request would set an undesirable
precedent for the area; and
4. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the
City's best interest.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I agree with Bob. I agree we can't put
signs up on every building for every service. We have allowed
other buildings to put up pharmacy signs such as Kmart in the
area. In this case, you're one of the few people that have actual
less signage than the permitted amount. You would be allowed
one sign 375 feet, you have one sign for 340 feet. I would think it
would be fairto allow you to put up one pharmacy sign at 35
square feet. You would be within the ordinance as far as square
footage.
IffI57
Mr. Shane: I agree with that reasoning. I would go along with 35 square feet.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas
NAYS:
La Pine, Dolan, Shane, McCann
ABSENT:
Pieroecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Is there an altemative
resolution?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Lapine, and approved, it was
#10-157-01 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -09 -SN -05
submitted by Poblocki & Sons, on behalf of Target, requesting
approval for an additional wall sign for the store located at 20100
Haggerty Road in the Northwest%of Section 6, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Pobloclti & Sons, as
received by the Planning Commission on August 29, 2001, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fad
thatthe wall sign shall not exceed 35 sq. R. in sign area;
2. That all signage for this site shall not be illuminated beyond
one (1) hour after this store closes;
3. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval; and
4. Thatthis approval is subject tothe petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, will the Secretary please
call the roll.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
La Pine, Dolan, Shane, McCann
NAYS:
Alanskas
ABSENT:
Pieroecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
18870
resolution, as amended. This concludes the Site Plan section of
our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item Section
of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in
prior meetings. Therefore, there will be only limited discussion
tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission.
ITEM#12 WOODED CREEK SUBDIVISON—FinalPlat Approval
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
2. That no reporting City department has objected to approval of
the Final Plat; and
3. That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by
the City have been taken care of.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
approval for Wooded Creek Subdivision by Leo Soave (Petition
00 -09 -PL -01) proposed to be located on the south side of Six Mile
Road between Savoie Road and Harrison Avenue in the
Northwest %of Section 13.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is there any additional information on this petition?
Mr. Taormina:
The proprietor has met all the financial obligations imposed upon
him by the City of Livonia, and we have received a letter from the
Engineering Division indicating that they recommend approval of
the final plat as submitted.
Mr. McCann:
Does the petitioner have any additional information for us?
Leo Soave, 34822
Pembroke. No sir, I don't.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-158-01
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
approve the Final Plat for Wooded Creek Subdivision by Leo
Soave (Petition 00 -09 -PL -01) proposed to be located on the south
side of Six Mile Road between Savoie Road and Harrison Avenue
in the Northwest%of Section 13 forfollowing reasons:
1. That the Final Plat is substantially in agreement with the
Preliminary Plat;
2. That no reporting City department has objected to approval of
the Final Plat; and
3. That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by
the City have been taken care of.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
18871
ITEM#13 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 830TM Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval
of the Minutes ofthe 830h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on August 21, 2001.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-159-01 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 830" Public Heanngs and Regular
Meeting held on August 21, 2001, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES:
Alanskas, LaPine, Dolan, Shane, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Pieroecchi
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 832"d Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 2, 2001, was adjourned at 1106
p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
H. G. Shane, Acting Secretary