HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2012-11-13MINUTES OF THE 1,033 RD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,03V Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Scott P. Bahr Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow
Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor
Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition 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 wrifing, 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 pefifions 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 2012-09-01-05 LORMAX STERN
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2012-09-
01-05 submitted by Lormax Stem Development Company, on
behalf of American Community Mutual Insurance Company,
pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the property
at 39201 Seven Mile Road, located on the southeast corner of
Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 7, from PO (High Rise Professional Office) to C-2
(General Business).
November 13, 2012
25430
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone property located at the southeast
corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads. Its the site of what
is commonly referred to as the American Community Mutual
Insurance Company. In April, 2010, the American Community
Mutual Insurance Company was placed under Rehabilitation
and there is a stipulated order authorizing the Rehabilitator to
sell the real property at this location. The request is to rezone
from the current classification of PO, High Rise Professional
Office, to C-2, General Business, in order to facilitate the
redevelopment of the property. The property is about 9.40 acres
in total area. It includes 715 feet of frontage along Seven Mile
Road and 570 feel of frontage along Haggerty Road. In terms
of the surrounding land uses and zoning, immediately to the
east is the location of the Seven Mile Crossing office complex
zoned PO as well as the Andiamo Restaurant, which is zoned
C-2. To the north is the site of Romano's Macaroni Gnll, zoned
C-2, General Business. Further to the north is the site of the
Paragon Entertainment Campus zoned C-2. West across
Haggerty Road is Northville Township. Al the northwest corner
is the site of Home Depot, and then on the southwest corner is
the site of the High Point development currently under
construction. To the south of the property is SchoolcraR College.
Submitted with the rezoning application is a conceptual site plan
that shows how the site might be developed under the proposed
C-2 zoning category. The plan shows four buildings. The largest
is identified on the plan as Retail "D" and that's 50,000 square
feet shown at the east end of the properly. The next largest is
Retail "C" at 11,382 square feet and that is shown in the
southwest corner of the site with frontage on Haggerty Road.
The other two buildings shown, Retail "A" and Retail "B", are
both 9,939 square feet and 5,000 square feet, respectively.
Retail "A" is nghl at the comer of Seven Mile and Haggerty,
while Retail "B" fronts on Seven Mile Road. Patio areas are
shown on the three smaller buildings next to the footprints of the
buildings indicating a strong likelihood that one or more full
service restaurants would be part of the redevelopment of this
property. Access to the site is shown from both Seven Mile
Road and Haggerty Road near the mid -points of the frontages
along each of these roadways. Parking and ciroulation would
function both jointly and collectively for this site. There is a total
of 462 spaces shown on the conceptual plan, which breaks
down to a ratio of about one space for every 132 square feet of
useable floor area. We would obviously receive more details on
the layout of the retail development and restaurants at the time
a site plan or waiver use is applied for, assuming approval of the
rezoning moves forward. The Future Land Use Plan curenlly
shows the site as Office, which reflects the current use of the
November 13, 2012
25431
property. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll read out the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please.
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 30, 2012, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced rezoning request.
The legal descriptions provided are correct. The address for this
site is confirmed to be 39201 Seven Mile Road. Should this
project proceed to the design phase, the following parameters
will govern the design. Both Haggerty and Seven Mile Roads
are under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. If any work is to
take place in the road right-0f--ways, plan reviewsrpermit matters
will have to be addressed with that agency. The existing storm
water detention area will need to be brought up to current
Wayne County standards. The existing ditch, which serves as
an outlet for the storm water management area, is a natural
water course. Therefore, the City of Livonia will be the review
agency for storm water management. Each new building will
contain a water meter. The Wayne County Sewer Ordinance
requires that any new sanitary sewer become public once it
serves more than one building. The City of Livonia wants to
avoid having to take jurisdiction of additional sewers. For that
reason, the design should have each building take its sanitary
sewer lead all the way to the public sewer. If for some reason
this is not possible, please schedule a meeting with the
Engineering Division to discuss the matter during the early
design stage. We are providing the petitioner, for informational
purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City Ordinances. This
Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and Grease (F.O.G.)
which can be discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to
100 milligrams per liter by weight, unless written approval is
obtained to exceed this amount. This Ordinance also provides
information on grease trap6nterceptor requirements. The
Ordinance can also be viewed on our website at
wwwci.livonia.mi.us." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney,
P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Law
Offices of Gary Bloom, dated November 1, 2012, which reads
as follows: "The undersigned is the owner of the historic building
located at 39040 W. Seven Mile Road. 1 have reviewed the
Notice and want you to know that as the owner, as well as one
of the occupants of the building, 1 have no objection to the
requested rezoning request of the American Community Mutual
Insurance Company building located on the southeast comer of
Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road." The letter is signed by
Gary M. Bloom, Esq. That is the extent of the correspondence.
November 13, 2012
25432
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there anyquestions forthe staff? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Kad Zarbo, Lormax Stern Development Company, 6755 Daly Road, West
Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. Good evening. I'm the Director of
Operations for Lormax Stern Development Company, and we
are the petitioner. I would like to thank the Planning Commission
for this opportunity to speak to you about this rezoning
opportunity. We appear before this honorable Commission for
two requests, the rezoning of this properly on the southeast
corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty. The request, as Mark
indicated, is to rezone from the current high rise office to C-2,
commercial. The property is a multi -story 110,000 square foot
office building. It currently sits on approximately 9.4 acres, and
the office building was home, as indicated, to Amedcan
Community Insurance. With the exception of four to six people
a day, this site is essentially vacant and has been in a vacant
stale for over two years. The property has been on the market
attempting to retrofit for office for a considerable pedod of time
now. This is a fairly unique building, both from its layout and
really from its design. That uniqueness really has presented
some challenges to any potential office user. This is a single
tenant facility and the reason we're spending the time to kind of
illustrate that is because we think that's very important with the
direction that we'd like to take the real estate. We believe that
the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty is functionally
obsolete and economically under achieving. Lormax Stern
Development Company is requesting consideration to rezone
this property, as it is an under -performing asset, from its current
Professional Office to commercial, C-2. We respectfully request
this change for what we believe are very sound business
reasons. Number one, Lormax Stern Development Company
believes that the C-2 commercial zoning is the highest and the
best use of this real estate. Number two, we believe that the
market interest, and that's the driving factor behind this request,
is really what has us here this evening. The retail marketplace
has identified this as a good commercial location. The C-2
commercial would really be a compatible use when you
evaluate the surrounding uses and when you evaluate the land
use pattern. This really would not be a deviation or driven by a
spot user. This request to rezone, we believe, more accurately
reflects really what the current market forces are that are in play
today. We believe that we can deliver an attractive retail site in
a campus -like atmosphere. We believe that we can deliver a
functional retail site. We believe that we can deliver a
compatible retail site. One of the things that we think is very
November 13, 2012
25433
important is that we can produce an asset that will restore the
taxable value both to the City of Livonia and to its residents. We
think in today's climate that is very important. And again, we
believe the C-2 commercial zoning is the highest and the best
use of the property. Also, our plan, and we are in the early
stages, but a sample of the plan was in your package. Our plan
really is a downsizing and it unloads the site. By that I mean
that we are looking to reduce from the multi -story 110,000
square feel to something in the neighborhood of 77,000 -
78,000 square feel. That's about a 30 percent reduction. While
we are here for rezoning, we would like to tell you at this stage
of the game at lead, what our future plans are. We plan to
demolish the exisfing office building. We plan to rebalance the
topography. We will land balance the site. We believe that all
of the requirements for utilities can be met within the site. We
plan, as you can see, somewhere between three and four
buildings - not actually in concrete by any means. We don't
want to get ahead of ourselves, but that's a sample of what we
are looking at. With a successful rezoning, we would plan to
move forward towards the site plan approval process. I would
make the assumption that as you went through your packages,
that you had some questions. I guess one of the questions that
I would suspect you might have is, why would we demolition the
building? What we attempt to do is be proactive in attempting to
answer that question for you. We believe the building as it sits
today is functionally obsolete. Additionally, we believe that
there is enough office space available in this area. We also
have determined and believe that the cost to retrofit the building,
whether it's to sell or to lease, has become prohibitive, and we
think that's why the office market really has and continues to
pass on this location. We also believe that there is some
reasonable salvage value that would offset our cost to rebuild. I
think, as importantly, is that we take a look at what we did at
Livonia Mall. Not only was it about salvage, but it was about
reusing some of the materials that were there. If you can
remember back when we first started that process, the steel
was all reused. We milled the asphalt in position. We look
many of the materials on that site and made sure that they could
be readapted either on the site or knew where they were going
before they left the site. We think that's important today. We
also believe that the removal of this office product from the
market really will enhance the absorption rate in the office field,
and certainly we believe that's important to Livonia. I think the
next question you may have is why C-2 or, probably more
specifically, why retail, and we think there's some pretty good
answers to that also. Certainly Lonmax Stern Development
Company, we develop really only retail and we like to believe
that we do it well. You have a couple examples of that in your
November 13, 2012
25434
community, and certainly we have millions of square feel out in
the marketplace. I certainly would invite you to lake a look at
what we have done and continue to do in the marketplace. But I
think what's important is that we listen to the marketplace.
Really what we're attempting to do is to respond to its direction.
And the interest in this dirt clearly is retail. We think that the
location of this site is very, very important to the retailers. You'll
hear the term "hard corner." This is a hard corner. There's not
a lot of them around. That becomes very, very desimble when
retailers look at their scoring for site selection. The site also has
some unique features, and the site has very, very strong a.m.
and p.m. drive times. By that we mean that the traffic counts for
this site are pretty amazing. I've had the pleasure over the
years to speak to some of you about other locations, and we've
talked in the past about the importance of rooftops. This is not a
site where we're really here telling you that, oh, this site is being
selected for retail because of rooftops. It's the reason that we
really believe this site has some uniqueness. It really is about
the drive time that skews statistically very high, and what we're
finding with that dnve time is this site becomes on a habitrail. A
habitrail is very important to retail, certainly as opposed to site
selection for office. What we're finding is with all of that traffic -
by the way, it's in excess of 27 minute drive times. It's good
statistical information and it tells us that the home to work, work
to home, home to school, school to home, that traffic will be
there and will look to put this type of a user on their habitrail.
The site also has great visibility, and again we would point out
how cntical that is to retail. You might drive by a shopping
opportunity, but you certainly will go to the office in the morning
if its located 100 yards down at the end of a cul-de-sac. This is
maximum visibility and that's why the retailers have targeted
this. Our research also indicates that there are still retail voids
in the trade area and of course our goal is to satisfy those voids
and certainly to continue to enhance merchandising mix. So
really with all of that staled, we would respectfully request a
favorable consideration for this rezoning and certainly would
attempt to answer any questions that the Commission may have
at this time.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Zarbo. A very fine presentation, and now we'll
find out if we have any questions that haven't been answered by
you so far. Does anyone on the Commission have a question or
comment to the petitioner?
Ms. Krueger: This is a big concern of mine, and that's traffic. You mentioned
this being in route to office and work and home and school.
That's a very busy area. How will this site, being commercial
zoning, impact that traffic in the area?
November 13, 2012
25435
Mr. Zarbo:
Again, one of the things that we illustrated is that what you're
looking at, and again, it may not be in the final stage, but the
concept is there. That actually unloads this project. Again, if
you take a look what 110,000 square fool office building would
do, it would put extreme load on a.m./p.m. drive time. Now, if
you go back to my earlier comments, what we talked about is,
we're interested in the a.m./p.m. drive time, but retail doesn't
have that peak load kind of a concept to it. So really, this type
of a site, as opposed to office, would balance that. The second
piece is, certainly whatever is required for improvements on
Haggerty and Seven Mile, we understand we would have to do.
We've seen plans of what's being done across the street. We
certainly have some anticipation. We have met with staff both
from Mark's position and from the engineering, and we believe
that's all achievable. We don't see any of that as hardships on
us as a developer, but I think more importantly to your question,
we don't believe that we will load that traffic. We really believe if
you go back several years when this office building was fully
occupied, there was way more load there than what we will
ultimately end up with on this site. We're really looking at
unloading this site.
Ms. Krueger:
When was the Iasi lime the current building was fully occupied?
Mr. Zarbo:
Two to three years ago is my understanding.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. In my opinion, the traffic has been increasingly worse in
the last two to three years. If this has been vacant since then,
there's more traffic coming from somewhere. I guess my other
question is, are those drive approaches something that you're
considering at this point?
Mr. Zarbo:
The drives are in locations conceptual at this point. They will be
reviewed by the City. I also believe that the County will have
input as it relates to the distance to the signals and tum lanes if
they're required. So that whole concept will be reviewed both
by the City and I believe the County also, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Ms. Krueger:
Backtothe traffic issue, have you done any traffic studies?
Mr. Zarbo:
We have not done a traffic study at this point.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Mr. Taylor:
Do you know all the zoning across the street in Northville, Karl?
November 13, 2012
25436
Mr. Zarbo: I do not
Mr. Taylor:
Thats one of the things that is kind of bothering me, is what's
going on there. If I remember correctly, Schostak had something
like 80 acres there that they look. It just bothers me what's
going to go in there. I know one thing that the rumor is going in,
and I don't think it's a rumor, but it's the Michigan Hospital and
how much more retail is going in there, is what really bothers
me. I don't think we could gel a better developer than Lonmax
Stern. For that piece of property that we're talking about, I'm
just a little worried that it may be a little premature of what's
happening across the street and how much traffic we really are
going to have because whoever you talk to, and your lmffic
study might say, and I know the traffic studies will say whatever
the person who pays for it will want it to say. We've been
around long enough to know that. I'm afraid though that
because we also have rezoned some properly next to Costco
for restaurants. The tenant was three different restaurants and
other retail there. I'm just wondering how busy we're going to
make that corner. Right now, Eight Mile and Haggerty is a
nightmare. I think everybody wants to avoid that if they can.
They line up for half or a quarter mile trying to gel through that
intersection. I just don't know if we're a little premature at
rezoning this piece of property when actually PO is coming back
a little bit from what we're hearing. The office properly is
coming back. Housing is coming back. The cost for housing is
coming back. I'm just a little worried about acting loo quickly on
this property. I think someday it might happen, but right now I'm
not fully convinced that l want to support it. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Zarbo, is Lormax Stern considering seeking a brownfeld on
this property?
Mr. Zarbo:
No. We've had conversations from day one with the City, and
we aren't looking for any type of incentive, grant, whatever the
term would be, because we fully understand that, unlike Livonia
Marketplace, our nickel.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right. The reason I ask is you use the term 'functional
obsolescence" which is a phrase that is obviously very specific
to that type of incentive, so I was just curious. I will say at this
point, like some of the other Commissions, traffic is probably my
greatest concern for this site. It's not often a commeroial
developer comes to us and says that we're going to reduce
traffic in an area. Typically in a retail or commeroial area, those
types of developers want to increase traffic because they want
as many cars as they can get in an area for retail purposes. So
November 13, 2012
25437
traffic is a concern of mine. The other concern is oversaturation
of some of the uses on Haggerty Road. We have of course
turned into something of a premier restaurant rightof-way in
southeast Michigan along Haggerty Road, both in Northville and
in Livonia. There are a number of fabulous restaurants
available to ft just about any palate. The problem is that there's
going to be a point, and I think we're probably going to get there
soon, in which every restaurant that shows up, new restaurant
that shows along on Haggerty Road, is not going to be
successful. Right now every single one somehow manages to
be successful, but there's going to hit a point where we're going
to oversalurate the market, and at some point we're going to
start having failures of restaurants. I kind of have concern at
this point that we may be nearing that oversaturation point, so to
add additional commercial to that area does concern me. Is
there an oversaturation of office in the area? I don't think so.
Not at this point. There is certainly some under use of office
space due to the market conditions, but as Mr. Taylor pointed
out, some of the office developers have indicated to us and the
agents have indicated that there is an increase demand in this
area for Class A and prime office space. Anyways, those are
some comments for now. I was going to ask you a question
why you didn't reconsider maybe redeveloping this as a more
functional office space because of your experience in
redeveloping sites, but it sounds like Lormax Stem does not
really do offices.
Mr. Zarbo: I think there's more to it than that. Number one, again, if you've
been through that building, it is cleady a single user building.
What does that mean? I suppose if you took a look at the way
this building functions, to think there would be a business that
could use this without really gutting it and starting all over again
just doesn't make any sense. I don't know how much time and
money you would exhaust to try and find that single user. One
of the other things if I may, a great point on competition. Its a
strange thing to stand here, but I've told Commissioners across
this country, ignore what I say because the toughest cdteda I've
seen in 30 years is a retailer score card. And they use a score
card for site selection and whatever their criteria is. If their
criteda is 100 and this site gets to 99, they're going to pass. It
really has become a fairly sophisticated science, and we would
just tell you with the amount of retail contacts that we have
across this nation. that's cleady where the interest is. We've got
a project on Seven Mile and Middlebelt. We've got a project on
Six and Haggerty. We really wouldn't be doing this if we didn't
think there was retail interest and certainly wouldn't knock the
building down if we thought it would retrofit from a cost effective
standpoint.
November 13, 2012
25438
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you for that information. I appreciate it
Mr. Bahr:
For my education, you used the lens "hard corner" earlier. I'm
not familiar with that term. Can you explain what you mean by
that?
Mr. Zarbo
Hard comer is basically curb to curb. That term basically
started years ago with the banks and the drugstores. They
believe there is an absolute site selection advantage to being on
a hard corner. As you can lake a look through Livonia, there
are very, very few hard corners lett. Now, that certainly means
more to a retailer in their site selection scoring than it would to
an office user. Again, as I say, you'll gel up and go the office
lomorow almost in spite of where that office building is located,
but you'll pass by a retail location if it isn't convenient to gel in
and out of. I think that also speaks to the traffic. We certainly
wouldn't invest what this will take to build if we didn't believe we
can gel you in and gel you out. Today, it is about convenience.
Its the reason we look the roof off and knocked down almost a
million square fool down the street on Seven Mile because what
the public has told us today is their time is precious. We've got
to gel you in; we've got to gel you out. If we can't do that
successfully, they won't shop there. So we're really driven to
make sure we attempt to salve whatever your concerns are from
a traffic and a flow standpoint.
Mr. Bahr:
A question for Mark, and Mark, I apologize. I should have
asked you this ahead of time, so if you don't know the answer
then I understand. Do you know how the parking on this, what
they're proposing here, and I know we're just looking at a
rezoning, but do you know how it compares to what the parking
is today at that office building?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I do not know how many parking spaces are on the office
properly. I'm not aware that there was ever a shortage of
parking at American Community Mutual Insurance. The
concept development plan shows a slight deficiency in the
amount of parking based on what the ordinance requires. As I
indicated in my report, it translates to a ratio of about 1 space
for every 132 square feet. The problem is, if three of those four
buildings are full service restaurants, those typically park closer
to 1 space for every 50 square feet when you look at the
amount of seating and the number of employees. You probably
have an issue with parking under a scenario that would provide
three full service restaurants. Even with two full service
restaurants it becomes difficult to meet our parking
requirements. From a practical standpoint, that's another issue
November 13, 2012
25439
because not knowing what the 50,000 square fool user is, you
don't know how the peak hours of demand actually relate to one
another. As I indicated, this is all joint circulation and parking
shown on this plan.
Mr. Zarbo:
It certainly would be our plan, if we were to go forward, to meet
all of that criteria. Without giving you exact numbers, I think
what we're showing there is somewhat north of 200 parking
spaces less than what it currently has. Additionally, again, if a
traffic study is required or even suggested, if this is to move
forward, we certainly would be pleased to provide that, or on a
worst case scenario, work with staff to see what's there and to
see what we need to do to freshen from point A to point B to try
to gel you some comfort level with that.
Mr. Bahr:
Another question I have is, do we have an idea what the
vacancy rate is for office space for Livonia, but then also
specifically for that Six to Eight Mile area?
Mr. Taormina:
It depends on category of office, but generally speaking, its up
around 20 plus percent.
Mr. Bahr:
Vacancy?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Bahr:
For the last two or three years, have you been actively trying to
market this property to office users?
Mr. Zarbo:
We have not. We looked at the site because we deal with
retailers all day long, and as we're showing them sites across
southeast Michigan, this just keeps coming up. It just keeps
coming up for all of the same reasons - the hard comer, the
traffic counts, the ability that they believe to fl in this
environment without being dismpfive. So the retailers have
really brought the site to us. This is the second office building
that we've looked at since I've been with this organization, and
again, this is not for us to look alfor office use.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thanks. I'm really struggling with this. I'll be honest with
you because I think you make a lot of really strong arguments
and I share the traffic concerns with the rest of the Commission.
I appreciate your thorough presentation. Thanks.
Mr. Taylor:
Through the Chair to Mark Taormina. Do you happen to know
what's going on the Northville site? How many acres are there?
Is it zoned commercial?
Bradley Scobel, Seyburn Kahn Ginn Bess & Sedin, P.C., 2000 Town Center,
Suite 1500, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening,
councilmen. I'm an attorney. I represent the Receiver of the
Seven Mile Crossing properties. If you don't know, if you look at
the properly, Seven Mile Crossing properties lie directly to the
east over there. There are actually three office buildings and
Andiamo's. I'd like to express some of the concerns that we
have regarding this proposal, most of which you've already
talked about, so I'm just going to briefly menfion them. The two
main categories, again, are traffic and parking. All the people
who know this area already know that this is a horrible
intersection. The problem is we feel that the retail is going to
make this problem worse. In going through this, one of the
things the petitioner had said was the fact that people will pass
by a retail center if It's inconvenient to try and gel in and out of.
Well, that's exactly what we think is going to be created here.
Its already a nightmare that people try to avoid and that brings
me into the next portion that we've got a problem with, and
that's parking. Parking in this corner with traffic both work
together. It's already an issue. We've only been the Receiver
over this property for approximately a month now, and when
we've been there, we've already seen a problem with people
avoiding this intersection by cutting through the parking lot
through the buildings. They cul back and go around to get out
of here. We feel that's going to be worse and that's creating
November 13, 2012
25440
Mr. Taormina:
The development of that property is really under a consent
agreement between the developer, R.E.I.S., and the community.
It is my understanding that the permitted uses allow for a
combination of both retail and office zoning on the property.
The first phase of development, as you indicated, is the office
component involving the University of Michigan facility. Beyond
that, I don't know. I can tell you that the majority of the comer
area will be developed most likely with some form of retail,
whereas the office part is located a little further west along
Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
That was a fine presentation. We're familiar with your firm and
what you've done in the City. We know you have the
wherewithal and the connections to develop that site should we
change the zoning. That's why we're here primarily tonight, to
decide whether or not we want to change the zoning to your
request. If there are no other questions, is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speaks for or against the granting of
this petition? If so, please come to either podium. We'll need
your name and address for the record.
Bradley Scobel, Seyburn Kahn Ginn Bess & Sedin, P.C., 2000 Town Center,
Suite 1500, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening,
councilmen. I'm an attorney. I represent the Receiver of the
Seven Mile Crossing properties. If you don't know, if you look at
the properly, Seven Mile Crossing properties lie directly to the
east over there. There are actually three office buildings and
Andiamo's. I'd like to express some of the concerns that we
have regarding this proposal, most of which you've already
talked about, so I'm just going to briefly menfion them. The two
main categories, again, are traffic and parking. All the people
who know this area already know that this is a horrible
intersection. The problem is we feel that the retail is going to
make this problem worse. In going through this, one of the
things the petitioner had said was the fact that people will pass
by a retail center if It's inconvenient to try and gel in and out of.
Well, that's exactly what we think is going to be created here.
Its already a nightmare that people try to avoid and that brings
me into the next portion that we've got a problem with, and
that's parking. Parking in this corner with traffic both work
together. It's already an issue. We've only been the Receiver
over this property for approximately a month now, and when
we've been there, we've already seen a problem with people
avoiding this intersection by cutting through the parking lot
through the buildings. They cul back and go around to get out
of here. We feel that's going to be worse and that's creating
November 13, 2012
25441
problems. Right now, we are roughly between 65 to 85 percent
in our office space depending on the building. It probably is not
a pronounced issue at this moment because everyone cutting
through and parking there because of the occupancy, but we
are increasing occupancy at this point in time, and this is going
to become a real concern to us. Both of these things, we
believe, will have a negative, a faidy substantial adverse effect
on our ability to operate the property. A couple other things to
mention is the Master Plan and the Future Land User Plan both
identify this properly as office. We believe it is necessary to
maintain this as a very strong Class B office corridor. The
Master Plan correctly notes that it was reserving certain office
spaces right around where the freeways come because that's
where the offices want to be. That's where they need to be.
Retail is a destination location. People will drive for that.
Offices will not. They want to locate by the freeway and that's
the way we attract it. The one thing about this is that it's an
excellent location for office uses. The bigger problem comes up
when we change this use to something that, to be quite honest,
this property seems to be ill suited for this development. We're
not against development. Everyone likes development, but in
this case, the construction of disposable big box stores does not
seem to be the right move for this properly. If we want to
stabilize the area, the best way to do this is to keep this as an
office corridor. The development across the street is also
something that we believe is very likely to increase the
desimbilily of this property for office purposes. With the hospital
offices coming in, it's going to create more businesses, more
office space that need to be by there, and that's one of the
reasons why we feel that if we want to not be short sighted and
look to the long term stabilization, we will be much better off with
having more available office space making this an office
corddor, which will now feed off the development, which if
you've ddven by there, you've seen it has started. There were a
couple questions about what is the desire right now for office
space, and I'd like to invite Henry Nirenberg, who is the
Receiver, to talk a little bit about what we've encountered so far
with concems from tenants and the interest in office property in
this immediate area.
Henry Nirenberg, Seyburn Kahn Ginn Bess & Serlin, P.C., 2000 Town Center,
Suite 1500, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening,
Council. I'm the court appointed Receiver appointed by the
Wayne County Circuit Court over this Seven Mile project.
Generally, I do not appear in public that much. I have my
counselors or my partner do it for me. My job for the last 25
years has been to receive these appointed special projects by
the courts, to go ahead stabilize the situation between the
November 13, 2012
25442
owners and the banks, bring the projects back and restore them
to as much as full occupancy as I can, and then get them ready
for either the owner to come back and take them over, work out
their problems with the banks, or find a new owner. I've been
successfully doing it, and this is a very interesting project. I do it
in the lncounty area. From my experiences, the building that
I've taken over, the Seven Mile project, is a project that we see
is going to come along rapidly and increase the tenancy in
there. The issue has been market pricing. Because of the
issues between the owner and the banks, market pacing is not
getting resolved. Now, my job as a Receiver, and I have the
authority of the Court to adjust market pricing to get the tenants
excited, and I can already announce there's several tenants that
want to expand, pick up more floors, and we haven't begun
marketing. What I find unique about this corridor, as my
counsel has already said, is that Class A, Class B look from that
highway that has the attraction. When I'm in the market talking
to prospective tenants, they identify Seven Mile by that look
already, and they already identify the Amencan Community
building by its unique zigzag looking shape as an icon mark.
That you'll never gel back. There's no other properties that
have the characteristics along Seven Mile that you can repeat.
They are all gone. As the neighbor next door, my interest would
be to preserve that building to gel the synergies between both
buildings to capture and hold onto that market and also, with the
right pacing, build up from Schostak's development because
obviously it is existing market and new financing. We have the
freedom to market price our rents to make it more attractive. So
that's what I'm looking forward to, and it's been a successful
method of operation that we've used to increase tenancies. I
have nothing against the petitioner tonight. Lonmax has a fine
reputation but they are retailers. They are in the retail market.
I'm in the commercial market. I wouldn't be here tonight if I
didn't believe in this. By commercial meaning office market. I
truly believe in this project. I've done my homework when I've
taken this project, part of the problem with the American
Community building, it's been repeatedly marketed to
developers of commercial only. It has not been marketed to
office users. I gained that knowledge by looking at the Lansing
matter that's in the Lansing Circuit Court for Ingham County in
which there is a history on the file of the PA's. All of the PA's,
except for one, failed. They were developers speculating on
this property trying to do retail developments, ran into the bene
problem, which has extensive underground that's the most
complicated engineering scenario. I called up their prior
counsel who explained it to me and it was a logistic nightmare to
go through that berm. So I don't think it's accurate to say that
it's been marketed to an office user. One office user came in.
November 13, 2012
25443
However, when that office user also reported to me, because I
asked why they walked away, is because it was on pricing. It's
a price issue. It is not a market issue. It's a pure price issue.
And office users, theyre out there. It's a beautful building. It
can be done. I'm doing it next door. But if you use deterrents on
pricing not to lel an office building to sale, it's kind of a self-
created problem, and that's what I see. And that was the
problem with Kojaian and his bank. It started to become a self-
created problem, and tenants not staying, tenants not coming.
You know $20.00 a square fool days are gone and you've got to
price back and the projects flow and they're great. And then
with market timing, as the economy gets better, the prices come
back. So l think the comer is a viable project. Its just that it has
to be marketed that way and you can self -create your own
problem. It's a beautiful building. There are people interested
out there, but again, if you want to focus and market to the
commercial retailer out there, then you've created your own
problem. It's not a problem inherent in the economy. And I
gathered that knowledge if anybody wants to look at the court
files from Ingham Circuit Court. It spells it out by every user that
came in. The other thing, there was a question about the retail
chains and restaurant chains. There's a failure just down the
street, the Chee-Burger that sits on the big pad. You're right.
You're hitting maximum capacity, and I guess from my
standpoint, I would like to see that Seven Mile establishes a first
class zone, followed by Northville having a first class day
hospital, another facility where you now have a whole different
look to the city because once the buildings go down, you'll never
get it back, and these are icon buildings that bang up that class.
Theyre valuable. They just have to be marketed and we're
starting to do it next door. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of this gentleman?
Mr. Scobel: My conclusion from what has been said before is simply retail is
easy. Bulldoze a building. throw up a couple pad sites, move on
to the next one. This is nothing against Lonnax Stern. They're
a fine developer and what they do is wonderful. But what we
have to be careful of is that we're not going to place short terms
gains ahead of long term goals. And office property, office use,
will be the best long term gain for the City of Livonia and this
immediate area. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Anyquestions of this gentleman?
Mr. Bahr: I do have one question. What is your vacancy rate at Seven
Mile Crossing right now?
November 13, 2012
25444
Mr. Scobel:
It depends on which building. We have one building, the worse
building is at 65. We have a building at 65. I think we have 73
and 77. And that's actually increasing. We have a number of
tenants expanding space.
Mr. Bahr:
Occupancy rale or vacancy rate?
Mr. Scobel:
Oh, that's occupancy rale.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay.
Mr. Scobel:
The worse one is 65.
Mr. Bahr:
Sixty-five percent occupancy.
Mr. Scobel:
Correct.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thanks.
James Gerber,
C.F.E., Director of Receiverships, Supervisory Affairs &
Insurance Monitoring, Stale of Michigan, 611 West Ottawa
Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909. I'm the court ordered Receiver
for American Community. My direct boss is the Commissioner
of Insurance for the Stale of Michigan. I have worked for the
Slate of Michigan for 31 years solely with the insurance
department. I've also been a Receiver for 16 years, and I liked
to speak in support of Lonmax Stern's rezoning of this properly.
This property has been listed since August, 2010. We have
never received one written offer from that point to this time for
office space from anyone. Let me assure the Commission that
there were people that have been touring the building, looking at
it as office space, but there was no interest in that. It is true
that's not going to be reflected in the Ingham County court
records because every time we show a building, we don't go to
the court and ask them for permission to show the building or
advise them when somebody doesn't put down a written offer.
So basically, at the time that I look over, it might help the
Commission to know there were 350 employees. We are down
to five. At the height of the employment at Amencan
Community, there were 600 employees that came on a daily
basis onto the property. There have been a number of
redevelopment proposals. The first one that fell through was
with Agree Realty, a very fine publicly traded company. We had
another offer recently, towards the end of this last winter, that
fell through, and then we have Lormax Stern. We have lned
very hard to benefit the creditors of American Community. The
last remaining creditor are two funds that invested $30 million of
individual investors cash into Amencan Community. They will
November 13, 2012
25445
not get 100 percent of that money back under any scenario.
This is the last major asset to sell to recoup their funds, and
they have been waiting for over two and a half years for me to
find a buyer. Basically what I'm trying to say is, I am a fine
believer the highest and best use of this property is for retail.
We have tried to maintain the building as best that we can, but
there hasn't been really any interest in @ in office space. I'm
trying to do the best job as a fiduciary under Judge Platt over in
Ingham County to get the highest and best use for my creditors,
in this case the $30 million that was invested by the two parties.
So I think getting it rezoned to a different use than what it
currently is, is my best opportunity to actually capitalize on that
for the benefit of the creditors.
Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions for Mr. Gerber?
Thank you for your presentation.
Chins Brochert, Senior Partner, Lonmax Stern Development Company, 6755 Daly
Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. I'd like to make a few
statements. Our firm has built over 25 million square feel of
shopping center space in the last 25 years. I think that the City
of Livonia has personally, or whatever you would call them, a
municipality, benefitted by our developments. Seven Mile and
Middlebell where we redeveloped the Livonia Mall. I think that
you all know that we did an excellent job with that mall. We did
everything that we said we were going to do with the mall, and
then some. The landscaping is beautiful and we added, well,
we subtracted square footage just like we will be at this
particular development. I want to point out that we do not just
frivolously go after sites on a speculative basis. We have
substantial holdings in the Northville/Livonia area. We know
when we go after a site like the southeast corner of Seven Mile
and Haggerty that we will be able to tenant the property
properly. Our plans, which will come up at site plan approval
because, as you know, we have to go through the City Council,
and then when we go through the process, part of the process is
that we have to submit to you guys and you have to approve our
site plan. At that time, I would like to address all of our
concems regarding traffic counts. We will engage services of a
professional traffic engineer to perform the tests and studies
that will either prove or disprove the viability of our development
and the ability to create more or less traffic in the area. The fact
of the matter is, the building is 110,000 square feet. When it
was fully occupied, there were 650 employees at that site, which
if, in the unlikely event that another office user were to come
into place and occupy the entire space, the chances are pretty
great that there would be 600, 700 people working at the
building. That means that between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and
November 13, 2012
25446
between approximately 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., you're going to
have 650 cars going in and coming out of that parking lot.
That's a fad. There's no way around R. Our retail
developments spread evenly throughout the day the traffic. So
that means you will not have in a two hour period in the morning
and a two hour period in the evening 650 cars going in and out
of that site. They will be spread out all throughout the day. We,
unlike the gentleman who previously spoke, do not look at the
adjacent office in the area as a negative. We look at it as a
positive. Our developments provide a service for all the
residents. Whether it's a daytime resident. meaning that a
person who comes into the area to work at an office building or
a facility, or the residents that surround the area, in this case
because you're on the border of Northville and on the border of
Livonia, you have residents from both communities that are
going to frequent this development. In terms of the development
across the street where the Schoslak's are, they are building a
U of M hospital facility there. I don't know whether it's an office
building or an urgent care or whatever it is, it's supposedly over
100,000 square feet, and there will be ancillary uses there. I
would also like to point out that the retailers, restaurants or other
type of users that would come onto this site, we're not leasing
space to Cheeburger Cheeburger. We're leasing it to retail
tenants and restaurateurs that have hundreds of locations
throughout the county. Not only do we do our research, but
each one of these individual retailers and/or users also do a
substantial amount of research. They also are interested in the
traffic because they're not going to just locate a facility in an
area where the traffic patterns are such that you can't get in and
out of the site. I'd like to close byjusl saying that we still have a
ways to go here. If you grant us a recommendation to the
Council for approval of our rezoning, remember that we still
have to come back before you again for site plan approval
where we will have to demonstrate to you that all of what we
plan to do will be viable for the community, and you guys will
have another choice, another opportunity to look over the plans
because right now we are . its been said this is all
speculative. We are not speculators. We are here because we
have certain plans in mind and we are planning on coming
before you once again with these plans for your consideration.
Obviously, we will have to comply with whatever the
requirementsare. Thank you very much.
Ms. Krueger: I have a question. As you are aware, our Future Land Use Map
shows this property as it's curenlly zoned.
Mr. Brocherl: Yes, I am aware of that.
November 13, 2012
25447
Ms. Krueger:
So I guess my question is, in a nutshell, why do you believe that
a C-2 zoning is better for the City?
Mr. Brochert:
Well, what I believe is that this property is located square
between Six and Eight Mile on a major commercial
thoroughfare. Whether or not it's office or retail, the site is a
very, very viable site. Okay? For our purposes, we're retail
developers. We think that this is one of the best locations for
retail in southeastern Michigan quite frankly. The Haggerty
Road retail corridor is one of the strongest. We are a partner in
the project at Six Mile and Haggerty. We have consistently had
100 percent lease up in the Phase One, and we're in the 90 plus
lease up in Phase Two, where the P.F. Chang is. We're here
because we think that this is a viable opportunity, and I think
viable opportunity for us is a great opportunity for the City of
Livonia.
Ms. Krueger:
Why though?
Mr. Brochert:
What do you mean why? I dont understand.
Ms. Krueger:
Why do you think its a viable opportunity for the City?
Mr. Brochert:
Because we think it's better to have the site occupied and
generating tax revenue for the City than sitting there because I
can promise you that the office market . . . I have many
associates and friends who are office developers who are in dire
straits at this time, and especially up this 1-275 corridor. You
yourselves know what's going on at the corner of Six Mile
between Newburgh and 1-275 north of Six Mile. There is a
substantial amount of vacancy there and that is very similar
office space to what this is. So where you are right now, you're
silting with a property that's generating little lax when we're
going to come in and we're going to create a much larger tax
base for the community.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Brochert:
Sure. Anybody else?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I don't know if you can answer this question or not. The issue of
the bene came up. I think it is a worthwhile question. I didn't
ask it the first time around. Do you plan on grading this site or
changing the site lines of the site to make it better for retail,
because right now as it stands the building is hard to see from
the road?
November 13, 2012
25448
Mr. Brochert:
Yes. First of all, it was mentioned earlier that there was a
substantial amount ... I think I recall it was said that there was
a substantial amount of utilities in that berm. That is actually
incorrect. There are no utilities in that bene that would have to
be relocated or moved. The bene was built up when they built
the office building. Its a boomerang shaped bene. It's
deceiving when you drive on the street because it looks a lot
bigger than it really is. Our plans would be to definitely cut the
berm down because we definitely want to have visibility to the
street. When we create our shopping center, we're going to
have substantially enhanced landscaping than what is there
today, which you'll see when we come through for site plan
approval. Our projects are not bad on the eye. Six Mile and
Haggerty is a very ... I mean all you have to do is take a look
at that development and you're going to have something similar
here as well.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I will say, just as a comment, that when it comes to retail
development, Lormax Stem is certainly a premier developer and
you've done a great job with the former Livonia Mall site, the
Livonia Marketplace, and even Six and Haggerty in Northville is
a beautiful site. We know what we're going to gel when we deal
with you, that's for sure.
Mr. Brochert:
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Bahr:
One other question. As I'm thinking about the Six Mile and
Haggerty site, I've just been driving that condor through my
mind as we've been talking here, and related to the traffic again,
part of the reason the Six and Haggerty site works, I think, I'm
not an expert in your industry like you are, but I think part of the
reason that works from a traffic standpoint is that there's room
at that site to locale the ingress and egress into the site quite a
ways away from the intersection. How does that compare to
this site because as I'm looking at this, and I've not measure
this out but, I'm not as concerned about the traffic coming in and
out of the site as much as I am about where the traffic is coming
in and out of the site relative to that intersection. Is it even
possible for you to do here what you've done at Six and
Haggerty and the Livonia Marketplace and others?
Mr. Brochert:
Well, it's not because of ... the Six Mile and Haggerty site is
almost 40 acres. This site is 9.4 acres. The Six Mile and
Haggerty site has a number of additional means of ingress and
egress and, unfortunately because its only 9.4 acres, we can
only have one means of ingress and egress on Seven Mile,
which we do not plan to change the location of; and we only
have one means of ingress and egress off of Haggerty, which
November 13, 2012
25449
we only plan to move marginally. I might add, one more time,
that in addition to coming before you al site plan approval, we're
going to have to go the Wayne County Road Commission and
get their approval to do any improvements. I can assure you
that we are going to be required to add improvements - accel,
decel lanes to Haggerty for sure and most likely on Seven Mile
as well.
Mr. Bahr: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you Mr. Bahr. I think that's
Mr. Brochert: Okay. Thank you.
Jason Horton, Lonmax Stern Asset Advisors, 6755 Daly Road, West Bloomfield,
Michigan 48322. I'm General Counsel to Lonmax Stern
Development Company. I recently joined the company. It's
been about three to four years now. In my prior life, I retired as
Executive Vice President of REDICO, which I think people here
recognize as the largest office building developer in southeast
Michigan historically for decades and decades. In addition to
that, served myself as Receiver for several landmark office
buildings, high rise office buildings. I just want to make it beef.
This is designed as a corporate headquarters building. It is
economically obsolete. The amount of cost to make it a multi -
tenant is, in my estimation, cost prohibitive. Notwithstanding it's
a landmark like that. I'm frustrated to hear someone thinks, well
it helps their development next door by having an image there.
Well, maybe you should buy it if that's the case, but that
property is going to slay vacant. The first time I went through it,
it was explained to me that dozens and dozens and dozens of
people have been through there. Yeah, you want somebody
who wants 25,000 - 30,000 square feel maybe, but then you've
got to divide up a floor. You have to re -tenant lobbies. Its just
not viable any more unless there's a single corporate user out
there who is willing to take the entire building.
Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Anyquestions?
Jerome Meeker, Summit Commercial, 2900 Wildwood Drive, Southfield,
Michigan. Summit Commercial is the company that represents
American Center in the marketing of the property. I'll be very
brief because I think everything has pretty much been stated,
but the one thing that I specifically wanted to address was the
marketing of the property. It was indicated that it was marketed
specifically to developers only. I'm not quite sure how you do
that. I'd like to patent that if that's possible, but we certainly
marketed the property in the traditional ways through Costar,
November 13, 2012
25450
through office users, through developers, retailers and with
great consistency. We've probably shown the property from
anywhere from 2510 30 limes in close to a two year period and
with great consistency, the predominant interest has been from
developers. We've shown the property multiple times to
potential office users as well, as the general sentiment was that
the cost of retroffling the property to accommodate a multiple
tenant use elevates the properly to a point where obtaining
tenants is not economically feasible. So the balance between
looking at it to retrofit it to do office in comparison to a developer
that's looking at the project to do it as retail, he is looking at
demolishing it and determining, again, if that's economically
feasible. Once he does that to generate clients on a retail level
to make the project feasible. On the other side from an office
development side, the general consensus was the cost to
retrofit the building to make it a multi -tenant use was not
economically feasible because the rents needed to be
generated to do that is not currently in the marketplace right
now. And so we by no means excluded anybody from this
process. We simply received the feedback. We provided to our
client the best offers. They evaluated that and they elected to
go with who we are and where we are today. And everything as
related to office is always consistently less than what a retailer
developer is prepared to bring to the table.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Any questions of the gentleman? Thank
you.
Glenn Cerny, Vice President and CFO, Schoolcraft College, 18600 Haggerty
Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 just wanted to spend a couple
minutes just explaining how vested we are in the property
because of the location of where it is. It's adjacent obviously to
our front door to Haggerty and Seven Mile. We've evaluated it
over the last two and half years because it's been vacant since
2010. We were involved in actually looking at the building at
points in time. We still have interest in the building, but today
we want to talk about the safety of our students and the egress
in and out of our parking lots that are essentially located very
close to where Lonmax is right now. Our north parking lot where
students go out onto Haggerty is very difficult for them to
navigate based on the traffic patterns today. There is elevation
on Seven Mile where its very difficult for people to see from the
intersection as theyre traveling at 35 - 45 miles per hour to see
people coming out. We've had a significant amount of traffic
accidents. I've got the SEMCOG data that I'm going to provide
to your group that provides some of your traffic information that
you guys were asking for in terms of studies because we're very
concerned about the safety of our students going in and out. In
November 13, 2012
25451
order for us to see development on Schostak's side, which is on
the Northville side, and we know that's going to happen. We
know there's a 100,000 square feel of ambulatory care facility.
We know they have another 10 acres worth that they can
develop, and all of the frontage on Haggerty is going to be retail.
So we know there's going to be more ingress and egress. From
our standpoint, safely is a major concern for our students
getting in and out of that facility, especially with the elevation on
Seven Mile. So I think we just wanted to alert you to that and
bring that to your attention. Here's acopy.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of this gentleman?
Mr. Taylor:
Just a statement, Mr. Chairman, if I may. I was wondering
where Schoolcraft was on this. I was going to ask the question,
have they ever been approached?
Mr. Cerny:
We were approached originally in 2010. The price was
significantly higher. We were not interested in a $6 million
figure. As we've seen the development as it went through the
process from developer after developer, and failed developer
after developer, we became very concerned about the vacant
nature of that property because, again, it still represents our
interests. If it isn't maintained, it actually affects us in terms of
our presentation. We were involved in a process about two or
three months before, actually looking at the building and actually
were going in for a bid before it got pulled. So that's all I can
say about that. We were never offered or had the ability to put a
purchase agreement in because it was pulled, and that was
after we had evaluated it with about 10 people in building.
Mr. Taylor:
Of course, we all aware that PO property is not as valuable as
C-2 property, commercial property. So if it stands at PO, it will
probably be the same price, but at C-2, it suddenly rises up
because obviously with the square footage you can rent out
much more at G2. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Any other questions?
Mr. Gerber: I would like to indulge you for just a moment. Schoolcraft was
shown the property even before it was officially listed. They
have been through numerous limes. There have been multiple
offers received on the property, and as I previously stated to the
Commission, I have received no written offer in two and half
years from any party expressing an interest in buying the
property as an office property and that includes Schoolcraft. So
with that clarification, l will nowsildown. Thankyou.
November 13, 2012
25452
Mr. Morrow: I see no one else coming forward. Before I will close the public
hearing, I want to thank both sides of the question. It is a
question of zoning. I think through the conversation we drifted a
little bit off the zoning issue in its entirely and got into some of
the site plan concems, but I have no problem with that because
it's hard to separate the two. I see no one else coming forward
or no other comments. I'm going to close the public hearing and
ask for a motion.
Mr. Taylor: Again, before I make the motion, it is this body's job not to say is
it better for a person to put commercial here or PO. Actually,
what we want to do is what's best for Livonia and the Future
Land Use Plan. As I staled eadier, we couldn't get a better
developer than Lonmax Stern. I just don't think at this time it's at
the right time to do that type of development. With what's going
on across the street, it's going to be, again like I said, grid
locked. So I'm going to ask for a denying recommendation.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
#11 -96-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on
Petition 2012-09-01-05 submitted by Lormax Stern Development
Company, on behalf of American Community Mutual Insurance
Company, pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the
properly at 39201 Seven Mile Road, located on the southeast
corner of Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 7, from PO to C-2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-09-01-
05 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That this area of the City is already well served with
commercial zoning, and the proposed rezoning is not
needed to serve the neighborhood or community;
2. That the anticipated commercial use would unduly tax and
conflict with the established and normal traffic flow of the
area;
3. That the existing PO zoning is more consistent with the
established pattern of development and character of the
adjacent properties; and
4. That C-2 zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use
Plan which recommends office use in this area.
November 13, 2012
25453
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.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Taylor, Smiley, Krueger, Wilshaw, Scheel, Morrow
NAYS:
Bahr
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Morrow, Chainnan, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. This will be sent to the City Council with a
denying recommendation. They will make the ultimate decision
as to the rezoning of the property. I want to thank both sides of
the equation here tonight for coming. We appreciate the input.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2012-10-02-26 MN EXPRESS
(TRUCK TERMINAL)
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10-
02-26 submitted by MN Express Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 16.11(b) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a
truck terminal at 13520 Merriman Road, located on the east side
of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and SchoolcmR
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: This is properly situated on the east side of Meniman Road
between Industrial Road and SchoolcraR Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 26. This is the site of the Okerslrom Construction
Company. The new buyer is seeking to change the primary use
to that of a truck terminal, which is treated as a waiver use under
Section 16.11(b) of the M-1 District Regulations. This property is
6.9 acres in area. Its depth is about a third of mile, so it's almost
1,800 feet in depth. The width of the property varies. Closer to
Meniman Road, where it's narrower, the site is about 100 feet in
width. The easterly three-quarters of the property widens out to
about 200 feel. Buildings on the property include Okerstrom's
main office which is near Meniman Road, as well as some other
shops and storage buildings that are located directly behind the
office. As you move further east on the property, there is a
fenced in area that is about 200 feel by 600 feel that is used for
the storage of recreational vehicles. The current owner, Mr.
Okerslrom, received approval for this RV storage yard in 2001.
November 13, 2012
25454
In 2002, under a separate pefifion, Mr. Okerslrom received
approval to use a portion of the property for the outdoor storage
of trucks in connection with a truck rental business. The site
was permitted three rental trailers and three rental trucks within
the area that is between the construction company and the
storage yard. The surrounding land uses and zoning are all M-1,
industrial uses. The truck terminal as proposed is shown in the
westerly two-thirds of the site where Okerstrom Construction is
located, as well as a portion of the existing RV storage yard.
The office building is located adjacent to Merriman Road. All of
the area to the east would be used for the parking of trucks or
other vehicles. The truck terminal would occupy the main part of
the site. The eastedy portion of the site is just under 500 feel; it
is curently undeveloped and is covered with natural vegetation.
In a related petition, the petitioner is seeking to clear this area
and use this for the RV storage yard. What they would do is
take the RV storage yard and shift it to the eastern end of the
site and use the middle portion of the property mostly in
connection with the truck terminal business. The main office
building would be maintained on the property, but all of the
storage and outbuildings that are located behind the main office
would be demolished and a new maintenance garage would be
built, set aboul450 feel from Merriman Road. This is a two story
building. It would have a gross floor area of just over 9,000
square feel. Its primary use would be truck repair operations in
connection with the terminal but it would not be open to the
general public. Access to the building would be provided by
means of six overhead doors which would be located on the
north and east side of the building. There is a mezzanine area
that would be used for storage. The other uses occurring on the
first floor are a kitchen break room and a small office. The truck
terminal area has the capacity to accommodate roughly 98
trucks and trailers, including 59 spaces that measure 12 feel by
80 feet. Those would be used for tractor trailer parking. About
39 spaces are shown measuring 12 feet by 35 feet to be used
for tractor parking only. The surface where these vehicles would
be parked would be gravel. There is an area up front that is
currently paved in concrete and that is where the employee and
customer parking would occur. Landscaping is very limited on
the site. The new RV storage yard really eliminates all the green
space on the site. There are some minor plantings up front near
the office building. There is a small storm water detention area
shown on the south side of the property adjacent to the RV
storage yard, but we're not sure how that's going to be
maintained at this time. Pole mounted lighting would be
provided in the yard. It is shown along the perimeter of the site.
With that Mr. Chairman, I will read out the corespondence.
November 13, 2012
25455
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 31, 2012, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use
approval request. 1 have attached a copy of the legal description
on record with the City. It varies from the information shown on
the plan. The difference can be further investigated and
corrected during the design phase, should the project proceed.
The address for this site is confirmed to be 13530 Merriman
Road. Merriman Road is under the jurisdiction of Wayne
County. Any work in their right-of-way must be done under
approva*ermit from their office. Stormwater treatment/
detention is required for this project, and the City follows Wayne
County standards in this regard. These plans are too
preliminary to indicate the storm water discharge point from this
parcel. It is noted that there are two storm water easements
(taken under City Council Resolution #117956 and #650-88)
that are between this parcel and a large diameter storm sewer
south of this site. Perhaps these are currently being utilized to
drain this site. It is important that storm water drainage changes
associated with this project have no negative drainage impact to
any property. These matters can be addressed during the
design phase of the project by the petitioner's design
professional should the project proceed." The letter is signed by
Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October
24, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans for
approving this proposal to constmct and operate a truck
terminal located on the property at the above referenced
address. 1 have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulation: Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with spacing consistent with the use group." The letter is signed
by Earl W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated October 24, 2012, which reads as
follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the
petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 8,
2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department
has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
November 13, 2012
25456
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, then this will be strictly for maintenance and
storage of tractors and trailers, and there will be no freight
involved al this operation?
Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding that there will be no off-loading or loading
of freight, but I think we need to get that confirmed by the
petitioner.
Mr. Morrow: There may be something inside the trailers, but we'll clear that
up. Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the
petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Tom Crabill, 40816 Delta Dnve, Northville, Michigan 48167. Good evening
Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Mark, good to see you. Thanks
for doing my job. You did a pretty good job of it.
Mr. Morrow: We'll lel you add to it.
Mr. Grabill: Again, I'm Tom Crabill, Medora Building Company, and I'm here
to represent Oliver Slojanoski from MN Express, Inc. He is also
with me here to answer any questions you may have regarding
operations, and I'm here to answer any quesfions you may have
regarding development of the site.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Do you want to go right into the questions, or do you
want to add anything before we gel into that?
Mr. Grabill: Well, I think Mark did a pretty good job of covering everything. In
addition to the storm water improvement, right now there is
some leaching basins on the site which we would have to
remove and incorporate a full-fledged slormwaler detention
system to handle the slormwaler. There is also added fencing
and currently the RV storage as proposed would be moved to
the easterly porfion of the site, and that would be separated
from the trucking operation via fencing and an electronic gale so
that the occupants could enter at their will. Mark, I think you
covered it pretty well.
Mr. Morrow: We'll see if there are any questions.
Mr. Wilshaw: I'll try to start off with some site questions and work my way into
more operational questions since you're up here first. The
building itself has a very distinct appearance to it right now
based on the way it's colored and so on. Are you planning on
painting the building or changing the appearance of the main
structure that's there?
November 13, 2012
25457
Mr. Grabill:
The building up front would be repainted to match something
similar to the building that we would be constructing in the rear.
Mr. Wilshaw
Okay. So there would be sort of neutral colors?
Mr. Grabill:
Coned.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. The building that you're going to build in the back, the
purpose of that building is for maintenance of your trucks. What
type of maintenance work is going to be done there?
Mr. Grabill:
Well, I can probably have Mr. Slojanoski reference that, but my
understanding is that there will be a wash bay installed. There
will be open
maintenance bays and there's a deeper portion of
the building
that could bring a trailer in that could be worked on,
and then there's the 50 fool portion of the building that would be
mainly used for the tractor side of the maintenance.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So replacing belts and fillers and oil changes and brake
pads and all the basic stuff you'd have to do to keep a trucking
running safely and smoothly.
Mr. Grabill:
Coned.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Now I'm going to get into some of the operational
questions so you might need to get your partner up here. One
question is about the off-loading or storage of freight on-site. Is
there going to be any of that taking place on this site?
Mr. Grabill:
Oliver.
Oliver Stojanoski, MN Express, Inc., 6211 N. Silvery Lane, Dearborn Heights,
Michigan 48127. You asked me about maintenance, nghl?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Will there be any off-loading or storage of any freight on the
site?
Mr. Slojanoksi:
No. There will not be any off-loading, loading or anything like
that. We won't have a dock over there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So the trailers that are going to be stored on the site are
primarily going to be empty then most of the time, nghl?
Mr. Slojanoksi:
Yes. That's right. Usually the operation is over the road. The
tractors, when they go out, they stay a week, two weeks out.
They just come back for a weekend. Just park the trucks there
and after two or three days they go out again.
November 13, 2012
25458
Mr. Wilshaw:
We were asking about the type of maintenance is that is going
to be done in that building. It's going to basically be the ...
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Like you said, oil changes, belts, pads, brakes, tires. Right now,
we are in Dearborn Heights. We are renting and we don't have
a lot of things that we can do over there. We just have the
office. We are renting the office and the yard. The yard is very
small. Its very lough for us to work over there so I decided to
move onto this location. It's a pretty good location. I want to
build a good job.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's a great segue to my Iasi question which is, can you tell
me a little bit about your company? How long have you been in
operation? What do you do?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
We've been doing this for about two and a half years. Before
that, I just had my own trucking company, which wasn't the one
like we're doing right now. I had my own trucks. I was leasing
the trucks to the other carriers. So two and a half years ago I
opened up my own. Altogether, I'm about nine years in
business.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And how many trucks do you have now?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
We have 35 trucks. We have 40 trailers.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And you're going to be growing as well?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Yes. That's why we're doing this.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I was going to say because you're asking for a lot more spaces
for more trailers and trucks. I assume that's a good sign that
you're growing.
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's excellent. It sounds good. I appreciate you answering
my questions and I think you'll be a great fl for this site.
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Thanks.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions? As far as the storage of the
RV's or whatever you keep in there, will that be part of your
operation or is the person that's handling that now going to
retain that?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
That will be part of our operation.
November 13, 2012
25459
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. So you'll lake over the whole site and ran that site?
Mr. Slojanoksi:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
For either operation.
Mr. Slojanoksi:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none, I'm
going to go to the audience and find out if there is anyone
wanting to speak for or against the granting of this petition.
Seeing no one coming forward, if there anything else before I
close the public hearing? I will close the public hearing and ask
for a motion.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-07-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on
Petition 2012-10-02-26 submitted by MN Express Inc. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(b) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and
operate a truck terminal at 13520 Merriman Road, located on the
east side of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and
Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, which
properly is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-10-02-26 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP-01 dated October
17, 2012, prepared by S3 Architecture, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the outdoor storage of trucks and tractor trailers shall
be limited to the designated locations as shown on the
above referenced Site Plan and shall be maintained in an
orderly manner;
3. That the maximum number of trucks and tractor trailers
parked on the site shall not exceed a total of ninety eight
(98);
4. That the parking areas for the truck terminal shall be hard
surfaced with crushed rock, gravel or other material as
approved the Engineering Division prior to the issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy by the Inspection Department;
November 13, 2012
25460
5. That the parking areas for the truck terminal shall be
maintained in a dust free condition, and shall be properly
graded and drained to dispose of all surface water in a
manner as approved by the Engineenng Division;
6. That the visitor and employee parking spaces shown on
the site plan shall be double striped, including the provision
of barrier free parking, and all regular parking spaces shall
be len feel (10') wide by twenty feel (20') in length, as
required;
7. That there shall be no outdoor storage of vehicle parts,
equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products,
junked, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles or trailers, or
other similar items in connection with this operation;
8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No.
SP -03 dated October 17, 2012, prepared by S3
Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
9. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
10. That the landscaping along the front of the property
between the existing building office and Merriman Road
shall be enhanced to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department; and
11. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the Certificate of Occupancy.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area; and
3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
November 13, 2012
25461
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley: I have one thing. I was noticing that they have no landscaping
at all on this site except in the back. Are there any plans to do
anything about landscaping?
Mr. Taormina: There are no plans for landscaping on the site.
Ms. Smiley: Can we have a little bit?
Mr. Taormina: The only landscaping they are showing is a small amount in
front of the maintenance building that they propose to construct.
I think there may be planting beds. Really the only opportunity
would be to enhance what's there along the front of the property
between the existing building office and Merriman Road.
Ms. Smiley: Can I suggest that we enhance what's already there?
Mr. Morrow: Would you address the maker of the motion with that?
Ms. Smiley: Mr. Wilshaw, would you have any objection to the enhancement
of the landscaping in front as much as they can?
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. I think we could put a provision in that landscaping should
be enhanced. We'll leave it to the Planning Department to
approve that.
Mr. Morrow: How aboulthe supporter ofthe motion?
Ms. Scheel: I'm good with that.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. So we'll include that. Anything else?
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving recommendation.
November 13, 2012
25462
ITEM #3
PETITION 2012-10-02-27 MN EXPRESS
(STORAGE EXPANSION)
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10-
02-27 submitted by MN Express Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 16.11(d) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to expand the existing RV
storage yard at 13520 Merman Road, located on the east side
of Merriman Road between Industrial Road and Schoolcmft
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, do you have anything to add to this?
Mr. Taormina:
I'd like to point out that he is moving that storage yard to the
easterly portion of the site, and with that, he's expanding the
area. It would accommodate a total of approximately 192 RV's,
and the parking layout would mirror that of the existing lot with
parking along both the north and the south sides of the properly,
plus there's a single row located between those that runs down
the middle with aisles on either side. He is proposing to
maintain this with gravel. The ordinance requires that it be hard
surfaced, either with concrete or bituminous asphalt. In order to
waive that requirement, that is going to require a two-thirds
majority vote by the City Council. The area would be fenced as
required by ordinance. There are a couple items of
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Please?
Mr. Taormina:
There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 2, 2012, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use
approval request. 1 have attached a copy of the legal description
on record with the City. It varies from the information shown on
the plan. The difference can be further investigated and
corrected during the design phase, should the project proceed.
The address for this site is confirmed to be 13530 Merriman
Road. Merriman Road is under the jurisdiction of the Wayne
County. Any work in their right -0f --way must be done under
approva*ermit from their office. Stormwater treatmentldeten-
tion is required for this project, and the City follows Wayne
County standards in this regard. These plans are too preliminary
to indicate the storm water discharge point from this parcel. It is
noted that there are two storm water easements (taken under
City Council Resolution nos. 1179-96 and 650-88) that are
between this parcel and a large diameter storm sewer south of
November 13, 2012
25463
this site. Perhaps these are currently being utilized to drain this
site. It is important that storm water drainage changes
associated with this project have no negative drainage impact to
any property. These matters can be addressed during the
design phase of the project by the petitioner's design
professional should the project proceed." The letter is signed by
Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 24, 2012,
which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed the plans in connection
with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal" The
letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November
8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. The entire lot or parcel shall be hard surfaced with
concrete or a plant mixed bituminous material. This may be
waived by a super majority of Council. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions for the staff? Would the petitioner like
to come forward and add anything?
Tom Crabill, 40816
Delta Drive, Northville, Michigan 48167. The petitioner has
nothing to add.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Let's see if there are any questions relative to this use.
Mr. Wilshaw:
One of the problems with RV storage areas is that they can sort
of be an attractive nuisance for people wanting to gel in there
and mess around with things that are in storage. As you move
the storage area further back, there's actually a road that goes
slightly near the back of your property. It maybe will make that
a little bit more visible to anybody messing around back there.
What plans would you have for making sure this area is secure
as possible?
Mr. Grabill:
We hadn't entertained barbed wire. I don't even know if that's
permissible.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's not allowed.
Mr. Grabill:
We did include fencing which I think is necessary for the site. I
don't know really what else we could do. Right now, the existing
RV storage backs up to a woods and some adjacent parcels; to
the south, a storage unit. I'm not sure about the history if
there's been any break-ins or problems with the site, but one
November 13, 2012
25464
thing that we have added is sufficient site lighting, pretty
extensive and all to code obviously. So that would be certainly
one thing that would be beneficial.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's a good answer because certainly lighting is an effective
mechanism. Is there any plan for any cameras or anything at
this point?
Mr. Grabill:
There is.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Even better. That sounds good to me. Obviously we can't do
barbed wire. Fencing, the gate, lighting, cameras, that's all
reasonable tome. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
There's a business in the front now. What are the hours that
they can go back in and out if somebody wants to bang a boat
in or bring an RV in? Are there certain hours that they can do
that?
Mr. Grabill:
Bob, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Taylor:
You have a business in the front. I don't know whether that
business stays open all night or not.
Mr. Grabill:
Right. Of course, with the electric gales, it could be 24/7, but I
think it's reasonable to limit those hours to the tenants. So lel
me ask the current owner and operator what he does.
Mr. Taylor:
We haven't seen him in a long time.
Robert Okerstrom
Trust, 15005 Lyons, Livonia, Michigan 48154. We've operated
that RV storage for about almost 10 - 12 years. We've never
had a problem. Probably incurred by the Livonia Police
Department, have several people back there. So they visit the
site often. It's 24 hour access at this point. It's well lit. You
could read a newspaper in the middle of the night back there.
And if a burglar wants to get in, he's going to gel in no matter
what you have. We don't seem to have that in Livonia at this
point and time, so I'm going to say it's very secure. If he
purchases this property from me, I don't know anything about
his ideas of what he's going to do. So I guess you'd have to ask
him that question.
Mr. Taylor:
I assume your trailer business goes all night. Is it open all
night?
Oliver Slojanoski, MN Express, Inc., 6211 N. Silvery Lane, Dearborn Heights,
Michigan 48127. Yes.
November 13, 2012
25465
Mr. Taylor:
Would there be access for someone to get back at 9:00 p.m.
and drop an RV off or something?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
We have a dispatch office. The main office is going to be up
front. It's going to be dispatch for 24 hours.
Mr. Taylor:
Would each person that rents a site back there have a key to
get through?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Yes. An electronic gate. Theyll have a card.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
So there will be personnel on site 24 hours a day?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Yes, because there's going to be a dispatch office up front, the
main office, and they will be 24 hours over there.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Is that seven days a week orjusl work days?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Saturday loo, but not all night, but pretty much only just
Saturdays. Sundaylheyslarl until Saturday morning.
Mr. Morrow:
So most of the week there will be coverage 24 hours, somebody
on site observing what's going on?
Mr. Stojanoksi:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of
this pefifion? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close
the public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-08-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been
held by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012,
on Petition 2012-10-02-27 submitted by MN Express Inc.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.11(d) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
expand the existing RV storage yard at 13520 Merriman Road,
located on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial
Road and SchoolcraR Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26,
which property is zoned M-1, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2012-10-02-
27 be approved subject to the following conditions:
November 13, 2012
25466
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP -01 dated October
17, 2012, prepared by S3 Architecture, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles shall be
limited to the designated location as shown on the above
referenced Site Plan and shall be maintained in an orderly
manner;
3. That the maximum number of vehicles parked in the
designated storage yard shall not exceed a total of one
hundred ninety two (192);
4. That the RV storage yard shall be hard surfaced with either
crushed rock or gravel as approved by the Engineering
Division, subject to the City Council waiving the
requirement under Section 16.11(d)(3) that the enfire lot or
parcel be hard surfaced with concrete or a plant -mixed
bituminous material by means of a separate resolution by
which two-thirds of the members of the City Council
concur;
5. That the storage yard shall be maintained in a dust proof
condition and shall be propedy graded and drained to
dispose of all surface water in a manner as approved by
the Engineering Division;
6. That the visitor and employee parking spaces shown on
the site plan shall be double striped, including the provision
of barrier free parking, and all regular parking spaces shall
be ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in length, as
required;
7. That there shall be no outdoor storage of disabled or
inoperative equipment and vehicles, scrap material, debris
or other similar items;
8. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
and
9. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the Certificate of Occupancy.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
November 13, 2012
25467
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject property 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 of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving recommendation.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-10-02-28 DAVE & BUSTER'S
(RESTAURANT)
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10-
02-28 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(c) and 11.03(s) of the City
of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct
and operate a full service restaurant (Dave & Buster's) with
mechanical amusement devices at 19375 Victor Parkway,
located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile
Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Taormina: This is property located on Victor Parkway between Doc's Sports
Retreat to the south and the soon to be completed Infneon
Technologies building immediately to the north. The property in
question is in the process of being rezoned from PO, High Rise
Professional Office, to C-2, General Business, in order to
facilitate the development of this site. Council gave first reading
to the rezoning at its Regular Meeting Iasi Wednesday. This
item, together with a companion petition involving a request to
utilize a Class C Liquor License with the restaurant, is the next
step in the process for obtaining final authorization. The property
is about 6.4 acres in area. It has a developable width of about
365 feet. It has 180 feel of frontage along Victory Parkway and
roughly 630 feel of frontage along the 1-275/1-96 Expressway.
The site plan shows a one story building containing a gross floor
November 13, 2012
25468
area of about 40,500 square feet. The overall dimensions of the
structure are roughly 250 feet as measured in an east -west
direction by 160 feel measured in a north -south direction. As
you can see, the building is positioned near the northwestedy
part of the site showing a setback of roughly 75 feet at its closest
point from the right-of-way of 1-275. There is an effort to have
that building repositioned on the site a little further to the east,
but we do not have the plans showing the final location of the
building. Primary access is by means of an entrance near the
midpoint along the site's frontage on Victor Parkway. The new
driveway is situated between the main ddves leading to Infineon
to the north and Big Daddy's restaurant to the south. Secondary
access is also available via connections between the parking
lots of the adjoining restaurants, Big Daddy's to the east and
Doc's Sport Retreat to the south. In the case of the Big Daddy's,
there is a cross access and parking agreement in place that
dates back to the development of the odginal restaurant, Lone
Star Steakhouse, and what was going to be an Incredible
Universe electronic superstore on the site where Dave &
Buster's is proposed. Parking is shown on three sides of the
building, including the east, west and south sides. Vehicular
circulation would be provided completely around the building.
There is a 26 fool wide access drive aisle that would be made of
heavy duly asphalt. It extends from Victor Parkway and
continues in a westerly direction on the north side of the building
to the northwest comer where there is an enclosed service yard
that would be provided in the building. The site plan shows a
total of about 400 off-street parking spaces. Required parking is
calculated as the sum total of the various uses including
customer seating, number of employees and the number of
mechanical amusement devices. Overall, the facility has sealing
for about 600 persons. There are 70 employees dudng the
largest working shift. There would be about 200 mechanical
amusement devices in the midway. Thus, a total of 570 parking
spaces are required to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance, but
because the plan is only showing about 400 spaces, the
deficiency of about 170 spaces would require the approval by
the Zoning Board of Appeals. The floor plan shows the interior
space of the building subdivided and used for all the various
activities. With respect to the sealing areas, there is the main
dining area which would contain 172 seats located in the
northeastedy part of the building. There is a circular bar and
dining area consisting of about 167 total seats. There is a
billiards room with 14 seats located on the east side of the
building. There is a separate sports lounge with about 72
customer seals, and then there are private meeting and dining
rooms containing a total of 176 total seats. The midway
occupies about 14,000 square feel of the building or about 35
November 13, 2012
25469
percent of the overall floor space. Additional interior spaces
include a large kitchen with dry and cold storage, men's and
women's locker rooms and restrooms, a prize area, a
mechanical and tech room, an employee locker area as well as
administrative offices, an enclosed service yard with a trash
compactor, and a reception area near the main entrance and
vestibule in the southeast comer of the building. Under Section
11.03, mechanical amusement devices are permitted when they
are located in a regional shopping center having a gross floor
area of 500,000 square feet. For this project to be approved,
this requirement, as well as four others that are imposed under
this Section of the ordinance, have to be waived by the City
Council. These include a modification on the number of
permitted devices, a modification of the minimum age of
personnel in charge of monitoring the game area, a waiver to the
prohibition of serving food and beverages in connection with a
business that operates mechanical amusement devices, and
modification to the permitted hours of operation. Again, these
are all items that would have to be modified by the City Council.
In terms of landscaping, they are showing about 20 percent of
the overall site being landscaped. This is mostly in areas around
the perimeter of the site, as well as the interior of the site within
the parking lot landscape islands. We have made some
suggestions in terns of changing the landscape materials to be
more consistent with our approved list of tree species. Elevation
plans submitted provide information on the exterior finish of the
building. Masonry would be the primary material used in the
construction. This includes glass fiber reinforced concrete panels
as well as concrete tilt wall panels and stone veneer. Aluminum
would be the other primary exterior finish material and that's
shown mostly around the accent components of the design,
including some panels that would go around the stone veneer as
well as trim around the windows, the store front and the canopy.
The latest rendering shows what the main entry would look like.
The stone elements are shown in the while color. As I indicated,
there are composite aluminum panels. It may be difficult to see
with this rendering, but this is actually aluminum cladding around
the exterior of the stone. Aluminum cladding is used mostly on
the canopy and around the windows. The beige areas are the
glass reinforced concrete panels and the concrete tilt panels are
shown in the various shades of orange. It's mostly a building
made of masonry products, maintenance free products, which is
what the Commission looks for when approving these items.
The tallest point of the building is shown at about 35 feel. There
is discussion about increasing that slightly. They are allowed to
go up to 38 or 40 feel with parapets, and that would be
consistent with the construction to the north with the new
Infineon building. Actually, that's a two story building but the
November 13, 2012
25470
overall height is right around that same number. So it's going to
be very consistent in terms of its scale and mass with the
adjoining office building to the north. Lighting is shown in the
form of parking lot lights that would be 20 feel in height, also
consistent with what we normally look to have done with exterior
lighting. Lastly, wall signage is shown in the form of these Dave
& Busters logos. These are 11 foot diameter logo signs shown
on the south, east and north elevations. They are permitted one
sign only totally 170 square feet. They are showing four signs
totaling 380 square feel altogether, so these signs will require
approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. With that Mr.
Chairman, I'll read outthe corespondence.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 2, 2012, which reads
as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced preliminary plan
approval and SDM liquor license request. The legal description
provided needs only one very minor revision which can be
addressed during the design phase. More specifically, in the
sixth line from the bottom of the written description, the value of
87.5 feet is indicated. On the drawing, it is shown as 87.55 feet.
The address for this site is confirmed to be 19375 Victor
Parkway. Public water main, storm and sanitary sewers are
located within the Victor Parkway right-of-way. Permits must be
obtained from the City for any work in the right-of-way. Storm
water retention has already been provided for the Victor Park
Place Condominium Development. We are providing the owner,
for informational purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City
Ordinance. This Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils and
Grease (F.O.G.) which can be discharged to the City sanitary
sewer system to 100 milligrams per liter by weight, unless
written approval is obtained to exceed this amount. This
Ordinance also provides information on grease traprinterceptor
requirements, and is available on our website at
wwwci.livonia.mi.us. The petitioner is hereby notified (via copy
of this comespondence) that any site changes which would
impact public utilities, road right-of-way, easements, orchanges
in storm or sanitary sewer volumes must be approved by the
Engineering Division of Public Works. Should this project
proceed, it is important that the developer's architect/engineer
address storm water drainage changes as a result of these site
changes to ensure that there is no negative drainage impact to
any property." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E.,
Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 26, 2012, which reads as
November 13, 2012
25471
follows: "1 have reviewed the plans for approving this proposal
to construct and operate a full service restaurant with
mechanical amusement devices, and to utilize a Class C liquor
license and an SDM liquor license located on the property at the
above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: An on-site hydrant shall be
located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection. Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of
20 PSI. Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings that are set
back more than 150 feet from a public road or exceed 30 feet in
height and are set back over 50 feet from a public road. Fire
lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able
to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of
13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance." The letter is signed by
Ead W. Fesler, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division
of Police, dated October 26, 2012, which reads as follows: "1
have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have
no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John
Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated November 8, 2012, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This
review was performed with the assumption that the property will
be rezoned from PO to C-2. (2) The parking spaces are
proposed to be nine feet wide where a minimum of ten feet in
width is required. The number of parking spaces proposed will
be deficient. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will
be required to maintain a deficient number of parking spaces.
(3) The proposed use does not conform to the current
ordinances regarding mechanical amusement devices. (4) Only
one wall sign and one ground sign are permitted. A variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for
additional signage. (5)The petitioner is located closer than 1000
feet to another Class C establishment and closer than 500 feet
to another SDM licensed establishment. These requirements
may be waived by Council. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. Quickly I'll point out
that there is that in these letters a couple references to an SDM
license which involves the sale of packaged beer and wine
products. That was pad of the original request on the
companion petition that we will hear next after this item. The
SDM request has been removed, and we're only going to be
addressing the request for a Class C Liquor License at this
location. Thank you.
November 13, 2012
25472
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, I know you've worked extensively with the
petitioner on the site plan. Is it at a point, as far as the building
appearance and materials and so on, that the Planning
Department is satisfied?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, and there's still some changes being undertaken. This
plan reflects the latest thinking on the appearance of the
entryway. But overall, the materials shown are consistent with
the office park environment. The low maintenance materials
would be in keeping with that area.
Ms. Smiley: Mark, did they stagger those buildings so there's more visibility?
Weren't we talking about that?
Mr. Taormina: That is one of the issues that is still under review by the owner
as well as Dave & Buster's, and that's to find the right
placement of the building on the property that protects the view
of the buildings to the north along 1-275 and at the same time
provide visibility to the Dave & Buster's building. That will
provide a very nice visual effect for persons traveling that
corridor. Right now, the building is about as far west on the site
as you could possibly place it. There will probably be a shift
further to the east. There is indication that the issue is close to
being resolved, and you should see that plan shortly.
Ms. Smiley: Great.
Mr. Morrow: Maybe we can gel an update from the petitioner.
Ms. Scheel: Mark, can you go back to the previous screen that was up that
shows where the building is? If the building slides further east,
it's just going to slide the same way? It's not going to rotate at
all?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
John Cadin, Carlin Edwards Brown, P.L.L.C., 2855 Coolidge Road, Suite 203,
Troy, Michigan 48084. 1 am the attorney for the applicant.
Loretta Reeves is also here, as is Mr. Sosin. What were the
questions that you have?
November 13, 2012
25473
Ms. Smiley:
I don't know if this is your specially, the architecture, but you
know those balls out in front of the building? Are those like a
safely thing so people don't hit pedestrians or come loo close to
the building? Is that what those are?
Mr. Carlin:
I assume that's what they are.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Carlin:
To keep vehicles out.
Ms. Smiley:
We were just curious about them. I'm not offended by them. I
just wondered
what their purpose was, but that's to keep
vehicles away from the building.
Mr. Carlin:
Loretta is shaking her head yes. And you were right, that's not
my field.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, did we finally gel rid of the parking problem that we had
with the nine fool spaces? I know they've got 70 employees so
70 of them could be 9 fool, but what about the rest of them?
Mr. Taormina:
I've seen a couple of plans following our study session. Yes,
there is substantial movement towards addressing your concern
about the size of the parking spaces. In the final design, you're
going to see a majority of the spaces meeting the 10 foot width
requirement but still providing some at the narrower dimension
for employees.
Mr. Taylor:
Well, there's 70 employees. They said they could have 70
spaces that are narrower.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and then there's some shift change, so I'm not sure what
the final number is going to be.
Mr. Carlin:
The total number will probably be reduced, but we'll accomplish
what we need to do.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Carlin, what is the status of the site plan revisions as they
stand? I guess we were kind of hoping to see them here
tonight, but obviously there's still a little bit of work to be done.
Mr. Carlin:
I'm going to defer to Loretta.
Loretta Reeves,
L.D. Reeves and Associates, Inc., 1889 Manana Avenue,
Punta Gorda, Florida 33950. Good evening. I'm a development
November 13, 2012
25474
company that works with Dave & Buster's on a national level.
Yes, we hoped that we would have a site plan that we could
bring this evening. We still are trying to work with the seller.
Matt is here and he can speak to you as well. I think we have
come up with an ideal placement. Now we're just trying to work
with it and massage it to try to appease Commissioner Taylor
and also try to work with operationally what we need to have to
operate with, as well as to have the access around the building
and be able to park the cars that we need to park. So we're
unfortunately not able to share with you the site plan this
evening. I'm disappointed because I flew all the way up here
from Punta Gorda, but we're still working with it. We think when
we do get it done it will be a huge improvement over what you
saw the last time, and I know that Mr. Sosin will be very pleased
with the placement of the building as well.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are you thinking that you'll have the ability to have these plans
ready within a couple weeks for our next meeting?
Ms. Reeves: Absolutely. That's our goal. Mark has asked us if we could
come back to you guys at the next meeting, that we have our
package in to him by the 20th, and we certainly will have that in
completion with the materials board and everything else.
Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Okay. One question I have just looking at the plan. I
don't want to make any radical changes because you've been
really good at working with us and accommodating the requests
that we have had so far is signage. You are asking for
something that is roughly a little over double what our normal
signage is allowed. Is there any room for change there or is
there a reason that you need that much signage? What's the
thought process?
Ms. Reeves: To be honest, I'm not sure we've even thought about that.
We've been so focused on working on the site and trying to
make it work that we really haven't given a lot of thought to the
signage. Obviously, as in most cases, with any kind of
commercial project, more signage is always better in our eyes. I
know its not the case with you guys but we want to work with
you. We want to come back with a reasonable sign plan and be
able to justify why we're asking for this, and it goes along with
the whole placement of the building as well.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, something to just think about because there are some of
us that have been historically pretty hard on petitioners on
signage, and I'm one of them. I'm willing to certainly look past
our sign ordinance as far as the number of signs and the square
footage given that this is going to be a destination off the
November 13, 2012
25475
freeway for people that are going to be trying to find this
building. So I think there's going to be some arguments in
justifying your signage, butjust start thinking about those things
and what you need and tryto be as reasonable as you can.
Ms. Reeves: We certainly will. Thank you. Any others questions that I can
answer for you?
Mr. Morrow: Did you mention the meeting of the 20th?
Ms. Reeves: The 27v. The plan deadline that Mark had asked us to gel our
plans to him and you guys by the 20' so that you'd have plenty
of time to review them before the next meeting.
Mr. Morrow: That would be good. That particular meeting on the 271h would
be a study meeting, and if the plans are complete enough, I
would have no objection to schedule a Regular Meeting to move
that forward if you're under any kind of time restraints.
Ms. Reeves: Oh, yeah. We are, and I'm pretty sure Matt is as well.
Mr. Carlin: We'd like to keep on that time schedule that we've got.
Ms. Reeves: That would be awesome. Thank you. We'd appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Morrow: Mark will make those arrangements. Once he sees that the
plans are complete, he'll make the necessary publication and
we'll convene a special regular meeting for you.
Ms. Reeves:
Right. Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that permissible by you, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. We're satisfying the requirement to hold the public hearing
this evening, so it's at your discretion in terms of the dale for a
tabling motion. We suggested having that meeting on the 27'.
We have that night reserved for a study session. We can still
hold the study session should we have other items to appear on
that agenda. Otherwise, we will either have a regular meeting
or a special regular meeting.
Mr. Morrow:
We were hoping that things were going to be jelled tonight, but
we'll lryto accommodate if everything falls into place.
Ms. Reeves: Us loo.
November 13, 2012
25476
Ms. Scheel:
I have a question regarding the dales. Next week's meeting is
the201h. Wouldn'tthat be a study meeting?
Ms. Smiley:
We don't a have meeting next week.
Ms. Scheel:
Oh, we don't have a meeting because of Thanksgiving. That
answers that question.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anything to add before I go to the audience, or any
other questions? Seeing none, is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this
petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in
order.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'm going to make a tabling resolution to table this item until our
next meeting, which will be November 27.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-99-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on
Petition 2012-10-02-28 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(c)
and 11.03(s) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to construct and operate a full service restaurant
(Dave & Buster's) with mechanical amusement devices at 19375
Victor Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway
between Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does
hereby table this item until November 27, 2012.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. We just discussed the schedule, so we're
all onboard with that. Mr. Taormina, as far as the next dem,
should that move forward concurenlly with the other petition?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. A tabling motion would in order for that item as well.
ITEM #5
PETITION 2012-10-02-29 DAVE & BUSTER'S
(LIQUOR LICENSES)
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10-
02-29 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(h) and 11.03(r) of the City
of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize a
Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10-
08-07 submitted by Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., on behalf of
McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 15399
November 13, 2012
25477
consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service
restaurant (Dave & Busters) at 19375 Victor Parkway, located
on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road
and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Taormina:
Nothing at this time.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and request a
motion.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I am also going to make a motion to table this item until our next
meeting of November 27th assuming the petitioner can be
prepared for that meeting.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-100-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on November 13, 2012, on
Petition 2012-10-02-29 submitted by Dave & Busters, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 11.03(h)
and 11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine
and spirits for consumption on the premises) and an SDM liquor
license (sale of packaged beer and wine) in connection with a
full service restaurant (Dave & Buster's) at 19375 Victor
Parkway, located on the west side of Victor Parkway between
Seven Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item
until November 27, 2012.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. We will look forward to seeing you on the
271h, and good luck with working the details out.
ITEM #6
PETITION 2012-10-08-07 McDONALUS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-10-
08-07 submitted by Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., on behalf of
McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 15399
November 13, 2012
25478
Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebett Road
between Five Mile Road and Puntan Avenue in the Southeast
114 of Section 14.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to remodel the exterior of an existing
McDonald's restaurant, as well as make certain other site
modifications. This propertyis located near the northwest comer
Middlebell and Five Mile Roads. is on the west side of
Middlebell between Five Mile and Puntan Avenue. The property
is about 1.14 acres in area. It has 317 feel of frontage on
Middlebell Road and a depth of 150 feet. The parcel is zoned
G2, General Business. There are commercial and office uses
completely surrounding the property. The restaurant currently
has 74 customer seats, so it is classified as a full service
restaurant. The original approval for this restaurant occurred
back in 1971. It was at that time that the 74 seat limitation was
imposed. There was an addition in 1994, but that really did not
change the seating count. I think that only involved the addition
of the playscape area. The proposed exterior remodeling would
not increase the current seating count. In fact, there would be a
slight reduction in the number of seats in the restaurant. As you
can see from the next couple of photographs, the exisfing
design really reflects the 1974 style. It shows you the
McDonald's trademark red mansard roof as well as these yellow
accent beams. The new plan is to "reimage' or rebrand the
restaurant according to McDonald's latest branding. It's very
similar to some of the other renovations projects that we've
approved over the last couple years. The mansard roof would
be removed completely. The brick would extend upward on the
facade of the building and give it a flat roofline appearance as
opposed to the mansard roof. Aluminum and stone would be
used to accent and define the main entrance and provide the
building with some architectural relief. The stone is depicted as
the while color on the building. There would be aluminum
trellises provided on the building with other accent features as
well. The site plan shows how the drive up would be modified.
They would like to add a split drive-lhru lane and provide a
second menu board similar to what theyve done at other
restaurants here in the city. To accomplish this, the removal of
four parking spaces will be necessary. The circulation for the
drive up is around the west side of the building and then the
menu boards and order stations are located here. Currently
there's only one traffic lane for drive thru traffic. At this point,
they're going to split that and bring a second lane a little bit
further to the south. In order to accommodate that additional
lane, they have to relocate the adjacent drive aisle and to do
that they have to eliminate these four parking spaces. It's kind
of shown at an angle which minimizes the impact of parking.
November 13, 2012
25479
Theyre going to replace that area with landscaping. To address
the parking issue because they removed some of those parking
spaces, they're going to reduce the seating count to 70 in order
to comply with the parking requirements. We have not analyzed
this site with respect to signage. They are allowed one wall sign
not to exceed 35 square feet. They are showing on their
elevation renderings multiple signs and logos. Those are going
to require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
primary sign, McDonald's, is located on lop of the cap of the
front of the restaurant on the south side. And then they have
the McDonald's logo on either side, one on the east side and
one on the west side of the building. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 12, 2012, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced plan approval
request. The written legal description provided is correct. The
address for this site is confirmed to be 15399 Middlebelt Road.
This project is primarily a building renovation project, with only
minor site work changes. No work is anticipated in rtght-0f--ways
or easements. Therefore, no permits will need to be obtained
from the Engineering Division of the Department of Public
Works. We are providing to the petitioner, for informational
purposes, a copy of Section 13.42 of the City Ordinances. This
Ordinance limits the amount of Fats, Oils, and Grease (F.O.G.)
which can be discharged to the City sanitary sewer system to
100 milligrams per liter by weight and provides information on
grease traplinterceptor requirements. This Ordinance can also
be viewed on our City website at www.ci.livonia.mi.us." The
letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated October 15, 2012, which reads as follows: 7
have reviewed the plans for approving this proposal to remodel
the exterior of the existing restaurant located on the property at
the above referenced address. I have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fesler, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 18,
2012, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with the petition. I have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated November 8, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. Designated parking spaces shall be
required for drive up window patrons. These are to be in
November 13, 2012
25480
addition to the required number of parking spaces. This will
cause a deficiency in the number of required parking spaces. A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain a deficient number of parking spaces. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. I will point out
that at the time Mr. Hanna drafted this letter, he was unaware of
the reduction in the seating count in order to address that
parking deficiency.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of the Director?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mark, the site over on Farmington Road, do you know by
chance, I'm putting you on the spot, if their signage was similar
to this site with the multiple golden arches logos above both of
the doors?
Mr. Taormina:
Something tells me it was slightly differently. I do believe they
had the McDonald's emblem over the enlmnceway on maybe
both sides of that building. Something tells me the design
feature here is a little bit different. I don't believe they had this
same style of wall sign located above this one tower element. I
can't recall whether or not they had an emblem on the front.
They may have, but the archway and the signage here is a little
bit different, but I think it's very consistent above the two
entryways.
Mr. Wilshaw:
It looks a little different to me in some way. Obviously, the
orientation of the building is significantly different from the other
site. That may factor into some of that decision making. Thank
you.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyone else? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need
your name and address for the record please.
Frank Marlin,
Dorchen/Marlin Associates, Inc., 29895 Greenfield Road, Suite
107, Southfield, Michigan 48076. Good evening. Ithink Mark
went through everything that I would say. Just as a little
background, our office has been involved in probably 20 or 30 of
these renovations throughout the Slate over the past couple of
years. I think the impact of this new design that McDonald's has
come up with and we've been able to incorporate with this
particular store, will and has made a great difference in the
appearance of these stores and brought them more into the 21n
Century. The elimination of roof beams is always a big thing,
and I think this particular store lends itself nicely to this new
design. I'm glad that Mark mentioned the issue of the parking
spaces, that we do meet the requirement along with an extra
November 13, 2012
25481
couple spaces for the drive-thru. If there are any other
questions, I'd be glad to answer them. And if there are any
operational questions, with me tonight is Scott Paulus who is the
Regional Construction Manager for McDonald's.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of Mr. Marlin?
Ms. Smiley:
Just one. Is the split driveway effective? Do you have problems
with people running into each other coming out of there?
Mr. Martin:
Actually, McDonald's calls it a side by side. You all are probably
aware that the McDonald's and the drive-thru have become a
bigger, bigger part of their business. Typically with a
McDonald's store, the drive-thru accounts for somewhere
between 70 and 75 percent of the business that goes through
the store in a typical year. So to make the drive-lhru experience
better, more efficient and have less stacking, they developed
this side by side operation several years ago. Every new site
that we design for McDonald's must have a side by side. There
must be room enough to do a side by side because it increases
the efficiency, and I think more and more customers and guests
to McDonald's become more and more familiar with how it
works. Two people can order at the same time. You can have
a car full of young children that just came out of a baseball
game trying to figure out what they want, and if that's a little
slower, the other lane is available to go through. So it really
works out well, and it makes a tremendous difference to the
whole drive-thru experience.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr:
I'll admit my question is more out of personal curiosity than
anything. That restaurant came under new management within
the Iasi year or so, didn't it? Do you know? Here's ultimately
what I'm getting at. I'm just curious. Is a renovation initialed by
the owner of the restaurant or is this something that's initialed
by McDonald's Corporate?
Mr. Martin:
I'll lel Scoff Paulus address that.
Scott Paulus,
McDonald's USA, L.L.C., 1021 Karl Greimel Drive, Suite 200,
Brighton, MI 48116. I'm sorry. Your question was?
Mr. Bahr:
Ultimately, what I curious about is, when McDonald's does
renovations like this, are they initialed by the management of
restaurant? Do they request to renovate and they have to be
consistent with your model, or is this something that comes from
Corporate McDonald's where they say you have to do this?
November 13, 2012
25482
Mr. Paulus: McDonald's is a giant bureaucracy like a lot of big businesses
are. We're basically trying to re-image our stores. We went
from a walkup window type store. We called them red and
whiles to this mansard roof design which we've had since the
early 70's. It's a company -wide initiative basically to renovate
the stores to bring them up to a current, more modern look
basically. It is dictated not by the company, necessarily. The
company came up with the design. The operator or the
franchisee of the restaurant has the choice whether or not to do
R. At some point in time, we will probably make it a mandate,
but right now the company is actually contributing some of the
funds to be able to renovate the exterior and interior of the
stores.
Mr. Bahr: Okay. That restaurant has improved greatly in its operations in
the Iasi year, year and a half, and I was just curious if this was
all just part of that effort or if it was something separate.
Personal curiosity is all.
Mr. Paulus:
Well, we appreciate the comment. This happens to be a
company owned store. In Michigan, the Corporation runs about
100 restaurants and the rest are franchised out of about 530
stores that we have in Michigan. So about 20 percent of them
are company run. This happens to be a company run store.
They probably changed a manager or something like that. I'm
on the bricks and mortar side so I don't know the day to day
stuff, but I believe that's probably what happened.
Mr. Morrow:
Did either of you gentlemen have anything to do with the
McDonald's on Six Mile Road just west of Haggerty? They just
went through a face Ziff.
Mr. Paulus:
The department I work for actually does all the remodels for the
company in Michigan so we handle all the stores in Michigan.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that a franchise or is that company owned?
Mr. Paulus:
That is a franchise. It was a company owned store and was
sold to a franchisee.
Mr. Morrow:
And the reason I ask is that's kind of up in my neck of the woods
and I notice in looking at your rendering here, it appears they
had stone incorporated in that particular one, but I don't
remember this one arch in the front. I wasn't looking that close.
What kind of material is it? Is thatjusl block?
November 13, 2012
25483
Mr. Paulus:
What we use is standard. We're obviously a standardized type
business so what we use is a product called RockCasl. It has a
limestone look to it but it's a masonry product. Every franchisee
has an option of about six different materials they can use there.
We prefer this material because it has a little more modern look
to it and it has a little less maintenance behind it. They have the
ability to put on a stack stone, let's say, but over time, water can
get behind it and it pops off and it's hard to find 10 years down
the road. This is a malenal that will never require any
maintenance.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, I wish you could have brought some materials so we could
visualize it. Just looking at the drawing, it looks like regular
block.
Mr. Martin:
I just passed around some photographs of some projects that
we did that are completed photos and it shows that material. It
is similar to limestone. It looks like limestone so they're in big
panels, one fool by two foot, and they're stacked like blocks and
they're very substantial.
Ms. Scheel:
Will the restaurant be open during the reconstruction phase?
Mr. Paulus:
Yes, dwill.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. And provided it does get approved here and goes
through Council and gets approved through Council, how soon
would you be expecting to start?
Mr. Paulus:
Typically its about a six to eight week project. The point of the
restaurant being open during the whole process, it kind of
depends on the kitchen work, and I'm not intimately familiar with
how much work we're doing in the kitchen. If we're not doing
any, then it will be open through the whole process. Because
the store has a number of masonry elements in it, we probably
will start this in the spring around March 1 time frame depending
on how hungry the contractors end up being through the winter.
We may tent it if that's allowable, and do it through the winter
but more than likely, it will be done in March.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Martin:
I just want to point out one other thing. The kitchen work is
going to be essentially nil, but the restrooms in that particular
facility are going to be updated to ADA compliance. It mel the
barrier free when it was built, but part of this program is to make
R ADA compliant for today's ADA.
November 13, 2012
25484
Mr. Morrow:
Sounds good. Any other questions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
The brick that we're seeing on these plans, is that a panel brick
system?
Mr. Martin:
Since we're removing the mansards and we're building a
parapet that is being supported by the mansard, it will most
likely be a half inch panel brick that would be applied that would
match the back that's there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. A question through the Chair to Mr. Taormina, is that
what they did at the Farmington site as well?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct, and that's the same product used for the bank
on the corner of Five Mile and Mernman. The new technique in
applying that material seems to be much better than the older
forms of panel back, and actually, that was my question as well.
Mr. Morrow:
Its a come a long way since our initial experience with panel
brick. It kind of got a bad name, but this half inch brick, the way
it's applied, its much more substantial. Does that answer your
question?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes, it does. Great minds think alike Mark. I just want to
compliment you on the designs of these new McDonald's. The
design of the old McDonald's, if you want to call it that, the old
design stood the time of 40 years, which is impressive in itself,
but times have changed and this is a very attractive building.
We've seen several of them in our community pop up, and I
think they will hopefully also stand another 40 years with that
style. The design looks very attractive.
Mr. Martin:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Bahr, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-101-2012
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-10-08-07
submitted by Dorchen/Martin Associates, Inc., on behalf of
McDonald's Corporation, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
remodel the exterior of the existing restaurant at 15399
Middlebell Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
November 13, 2012
25485
between Five Mile Road and Puritan Avenue in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 14, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked C1 dated October 11, 2012, as
revised, prepared by Dorchen/Marlin Associates, Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That this restaurant's maximum customer seafing count
shall not exceed seventy (70) seats;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked C4 dated October 11,
2012, as revised, prepared by M.J. Gac & Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the Exterior Building Elevafion Plans marked A2.0
and A2.1 dated October 11, 2012, as revised, prepared by
Dorohen/Martin Associates, Inc., are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
6. That the maximum area of each wall -mounted sign and the
approximate location of all exterior signage shall be
consistent with the previous approved sign package for this
site, and that any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolufion shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the fime the building permits are applied for; and
9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is
valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval
by the City Council, and unless a building permit is
obtained and construction is commenced, this approval
shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
November 13, 2012
25486
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving recommendation. I would also request that you bring
some samples of the building materials for their view so they
can see itfrsthand.
ITEM #7 PETMON 2012-10-08-06 HOME SENIOR CARE
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch Senior Services Company, d/b/a
Home Instead Senior Care, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to the existing building at 16013 Middlebelt
Road, located on the west side of Middlebell Road between
Puritan Avenue and Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 14.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-102-2012
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2012-10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch
Senior Services Company, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
existing building at 16013 Middlebell Road, located on the west
side of Middlebell Road between Puritan Avenue and Six Mile
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, be removed from the
table.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
As you will recall, this item was tabled previously to allow the
petitioner to make some design changes. There were a number
of concerns brought out at the last meeting regarding the
appearance of the building but also the fact that they weren't
addressing the issue of storrmwater management. There was
the issue of how the west side of the property, where this abuts
single family, was going to be screened. They were showing a
wall previously, but there was an area with landscaping that
would be impacted. So this is the revised plan. This changes a
number of features on the site. The parking has been pushed
November 13, 2012
25487
back. They reduced the size of the parking lot considerably and
this does a couple things. It helps address some of the cost
concems that the petitioner had as well as reduces the amount
of impervious area that has to be accounted for with the
stonmwater management plan. So what we've come up with in
working with the Engineering Division is a conceptual plan that
pushes this parking lot back away from Puntan Avenue. It
allows for a small detention feature to be created between the
property line on Puntan and the edge of the parking lot. This
would be considered the side street. But this area denotes
where the stonmwaler management feature would be created on
the site, and that's achieved by pushing the parking back to a
point that's about 26 or so feet from the actual property line and
then you have another 10 or 13 feet to the actual street edge.
That lines up nicely with the building and it lines up exactly with
the proposed addition. They do reduce the parking by four
parking spaces which the owner and petitioner feels is adequate
to meet their needs. It will require a variance by the Zoning
Board of Appeals but the other thing it does here, it pushes back
the parking also from the property line on the west side and this
enables them to maintain 11 feet at the narrowest point and 20
feet plus for a greenbelt area between the edge of the parking
lot and the adjacent residential home to the west. They are
going to plant some additional trees in order to supplement the
buffer, the screening between those uses. Slone is used as the
exterior material along this barrier free ramp along the front of
the building and along the south side. They're going to carry
that same construction material along the base of the addition
as it faces Middlebelt Road and they're also going to do the
same thing as it faces Puntan Road. So that stone continues
along the lower part of the building. The siding would be done
in a way that matches the existing siding. There is a rendering
that illustrates how that would be accomplished. They've also
added three dormers to the west elevation of the building facing
the residential structure to provide more of a residential type of
appearance. That highlights the changes made to the plan, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any new correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: No.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Ms. Smiley: Didn't they also have a problem with an elevator? They needed
to have an elevator?
November 13, 2012
25488
Mr. Taormina:
They are addressing that issue with the Inspection Department.
They are seeking a waiver before the Building Code Board of
Appeals. They have already initiated that process.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, how does this elevation compare with some of the other
residential homes in the area?
Mr. Taormina:
In terms of height?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
This would be right at the peak. I can't remember if Mr.
Holowicki said 33 feet, but it's either right at or a few feet below
what the maximum height allowance would be for a residential
structure.
Mr. Morrow:
If there is nothing else, would the petitioner come forward?
We'll need your name and address for the record please. .
John Holowicki,
Architecturally Speaking, 19931 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. I'm standing in for Glenna today. She's out of
town, but as you know, she's been a viable part of the
community and the existing structure is a very nicely done
Victonan looking house. Her business is Home Instead, and the
attempt here is to continue that with the addition. She does not
want to leave Livonia but she's out of room in the building. She
has to have an addition or a bigger building, or she's going to
move. She's going to go somewhere else and she really wants
to stay in Livonia. The whole point is to extend the nature of
that Victorian house with the same materials, the same window
treatments, the same cultured stone. You know, it's just really a
bigger house than what she's got. She loves it in Livonia and
she's hoping that the Board will approve it.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Are there any questions for this gentleman?
Mr. Bahr:
I just have a comment. The coloring rendering definitely helps
from what we saw a couple weeks ago. Igo by that business all
the time. It really is an attmctive building and I think you've
done a really nice job of keeping with that theme. As I
mentioned here before, I actually am very involved with my
church, which is just a few blocks away from where you are.
We have a nursing home there. I rememberseveral years back
when they were talking about reinvesting here. They did a lot of
studies as to what the viability of the Middlebell Road corridor
was going to be long term. They did end up deciding to reinvest
November 13, 2012
25489
there at Woodhaven. Just to see all the development that's
happening along Middlebelt Road, it's almost becoming a senior
services corridor. It's a growing market and I think it's great for
Middlebell. I just wanted to make that comment and say that I
think you've done a really nice job on the building. You guys do
a wonderful job of maintaining it. It's very well taken care of and
this looks like it's just an extension of that. It looks really good
to me. Thanks.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this
petition? Seeing no one here, I'll ask for a motion.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Krueger, and adopted, it was
#11-103-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2012-10-08-06 submitted by Yaroch
Senior Services Company, d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
existing building at 16013 Middlebell Road, located on the west
side of Middlebell Road between Puritan Avenue and Six Mile
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked S-1 dated November 1, 2012,
as revised, prepared by Architecturally Speaking, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Elevations Plans marked A-3 and A-4 received by
the Planning Commission on November 7, 2012, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the final configuration and landscaping of the
detention basin shall be subject to the approval of the
Planning and Inspection Departments;
4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of building materials that shall complement
that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of
solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid
panel fiberglass and maintained, and when not in use
closed at all times;
5. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property
line, as shown on the approved Site Plan, is hereby
November 13, 2012
25490
accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall
required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a prolective banier, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time the building permits are applied for; and
8. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is
valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval
by the City Council, and unless a building permit is
obtained and construction is commenced, this approval
shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Scheel, Krueger, Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Monow
NAYS:
Taylor
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Monow, Chainnan, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. We appreciate you bringing in the
renderings so we can make sure the two went together, and not
just two different states of architecture.
ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,032nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,032nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on October 23, 2012.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and adopted, it was
November 13, 2012
25491
#11-104-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,032nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October
23, 2012, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Taylor, Scheel, Morrow
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Krueger
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,03V Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 13, 2012,
was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary