HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-10-1420784
MINUTES OF THE 870 REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 874th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
William LaPine John Walsh Carol Smiley
Members absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present.
Chairman McCann 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 writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2003-09-08-21 GOLDEN WAY SECURITY
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
09-08-21, submitted by Shen Associates, Inc., on behalf of
Golden Way Security, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to renovate the exterior of the building located at
28125 Seven Mile Road in the Northeast % of Section 12.
20785
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road
between Inkster and Harrison. The petitioner is requesting
approval to modify the exterior of the building located on the
southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Lathers Avenue. This
building sits next to the sidewalk on both streets, making the
building deficient in setback along its front and west side yard.
The front entrance of the building, which is the main focus of the
renovation, is situated on the northwest comer of the building
and faces toward the intersection. A canopy made out of
standing seam metal roof material would be constructed over
the front entrance. The canopy would have a flared -out base,
giving it a somewhat oriental look. Round column covers would
outline the sides of the entrance and a dryvit panel would mark
the lop of the door. The north elevation would be renovated by
means of a four fool wide band of dryvit material along the top
section of the wall. New glassblock window treatments would
outline the existing windows. The dryvit band would wrap
around and continue along the lop section of the west elevation
All three sides, the west, east and rear elevations would be
painted. The rear of the building would also incorporate a small
canopy, similar in makeup and appearance to the front
entrance, over its easterly most doorway. The Roof Plan shows
that three "down -lights" would be installed under both canopies.
They have submitted a conforming sign package. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item from the Inspection Department, dated
September 23, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of September 16, 2003, the above -referenced Petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lots
south of the alley have been considered as part of this site. (2)
The west section of the parking area needs repair, repaving and
sealing. No sidewalk exists along the west property line south
of the alley. (3) There is not an effective protective screen
separating the south parking area (which is RUF) from the
adjoining residential household. Only a partial wooden fence
exists. (4) The awning on the northwest comer of the building
will not be approved, as it is contrary to code requirements. For
an awning that is above eight feet over the right -0f --way, but less
than 15 feet above the right-of-way, the maximum
encroachment over the (right-of-way) sidewalk is two-thirds the
width of the sidewalk or four feet. This encroaches one foot too
far. The design must be changed. (5) Signage as depicted is
not allowed. The portion extending above the wall line
constitutes a roof sign, which is not allowed. The signage must
20786
be reconfigured to constitute an allowable wall sign. (6) The
characters over the address at the northwest corner constitute
signage and may or may not be allowable per ordinance
depending on what they depict or mean. This should be
clarified. This Department has no further objections to this
Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. I'd like to point out that with respect to the canopy
in Item 4, 1 believe an adjustment has been made to the design
so as to conform to the ordinance. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr.
McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
John
Shen, Shen
Associates, Inc., 5268 Longmeadow, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
48304. Both gentlemen stated very clearly, I have revised the
canopy to comply with the zoning requirements. As far as the
fence, I dont know what the owners stand for. I am not involved
in that portion of the work at this moment.
Mr.
McCann:
Pardon me?
Mr.
Shen:
Regarding the fence, the owner tells me that he owns two
parking spaces on the residential parcel. So I dont know.
Mr.
McCann:
He owns the abutting property is what you're saying, the
property next door?
Mr.
Shen:
The parking probably is owned by him loo.
Mr.
McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr.
Shane:
Is there an existing dumpsler on the site now?
Mr.
Shen:
No.
Mr.
Shane:
Are you planning to have one?
Mr.
Shen:
They dont have one.
Mr.
Shane:
Do you realize that when one is provided, it has to be with an
enclosed masonry structure? Do you understand that?
Mr.
Shen:
Excuse me.
Mr.
Shane:
You're not involved in that part?
20787
Mr.
Shen:
Never had dumpster before. I don't know.
Mr.
Shane:
I just wanted to make you aware of it. If you have one ...
Mr.
Shen:
They dont have one.
Mr.
Shane:
Excuse me.
Mr.
Shen:
They dont have one.
Mr.
Shane:
They don't have one?
Mr.
Shen:
No.
Mr.
Shane:
They don't intend to have one?
Mr.
Shen:
No.
Mr.
LaPine:
How do you dispose of your garbage?
Mr.
Shen:
Excuse me?
Mr.
LaPine:
You must have some type of garbage, papers and things that
are thrown away. How do you dispose of them? Where do you
lake them? If you don't have a dumpsler to put it in, what do
you do?
Mr.
Shen:
I'm not involved in their operations, but at this moment, they
take care of dumpsler.
Mr.
LaPine:
They do what?
Mr.
Shen:
They do lake care of the garbage.
Mr.
LaPine:
I know they must lake care of it. Do you know what they do with
it? Do they put it in plasfic bags? Do they put it out at the curb?
Is there another dumpsler in the complex they can throw it in?
Its just one building on the comer.
Mr.
Shen:
I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm not involved in their operafions.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr.
Taormina:
The gentleman has prepared a colored rendering of the
building. If you want to show that to the Planning Commission, I
think that would be helpful. One of the things that I learned this
rirel:1
evening is that the E.I.F.S. panel is being proposed below each
of the windows on the north elevation. Dryvil material was
going to be placed below each of the windows on the north
elevation of the building. I would just suggest that any
resolution approving this item this evening limit that material to
the upper portion of the building, which I believe is a dimension
of 58" from the lop of the parapet. He also indicated that the
canopy is a copper material. As you can see from the drawing,
which is an oblique perspective looking right at the northwest
corner of the building showing the canopy which is depicted as
green. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's going to be made
of copper?
Mr. Shen:
Yes, copper eventually tum into a patina green.
Mr. McCann:
I understand this is going to be used for a mortgage business.
Mr. Shen:
Right.
Mr. McCann:
How many outside customers are going to be coming to this
located on a daily basis, or is it mostly for the employees? Is
most of the work done by phone or do most of the people walk
in?
Mr. Shen:
Most of the communication is with telephones now, fax. I don't
see loo many walk-in customers. They have very few people.
Mr. McCann:
Closings would not go on at this building?
Mr. Shen:
No. They are at the title company.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#10-141-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-09-08-21,
submitted by Shen Associates, Inc., on behalf of Golden Way
Security, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
renovate the exterior of the building located at 28125 Seven
Mile Road in the Northeast % of Section 12, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
20789
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated August 13, 2003,
as revised, prepared by Shen Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2
dated October 6, 2003, as revised, prepared by Shen
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except that the E.I.F.S. shall be limited to the upper
portions of the fagade only;
3. 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;
4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all limes;
5. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated September 23, 2003:
That the west section of the parking area shall be
repaired, resealed and doubled striped;
7. That the signage shown on the approved Elevation Plan is
hereby approved with this petition, except for the fact that
no exposed neon shall be permitted;
8. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the wall signage,
the building or around the windows; and
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
20790
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane:
I'll support it but I have a question. Mr. Taormina, your
comment about the dryvit. Did you want that as part of the
resolution?
Mr. Taormina:
Unless the Commission is willing to accept the plan as shown.
Unfortunately, the elevation drawings do not call out the material
for that portion of the building, but he indicated that to me earlier
this evening. So if you would like to clarify that in your
resolution, I think that would be helpful.
Mr. McCann:
Morton and support with the clarification that will be inserted by
staff.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, the petifioner indicated that he's not going to have a
dumpsler, but the motion says there's going to be a dumpsler.
Can you clarify that? Is there going to be a dumpsler or not?
Mr. Taormina:
No. I'm not aware that he's proposing a dumpsler. I think that
is language that we normally include in these approving
resolutions. In the future, if an enclosure or dumpsler is
provided on the site, this condition would apply and he would
have to fully enclose it.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand what it means, but I thought that at most sites
there are dumpslers.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, we don't always include them at sites. There are a
number of sites that dont contain any outside storage of trash;
they bring it out to the curb. I'm not exactly sure where it would
placed if we wanted to require a dumpster.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't have any idea how much garbage they would generale.
Apparently this type of business would generate very little, but I
don't know. That's all. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Any other discussion? Will the Secretary please call the roll?
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
20791
ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-09-08-22 COLLEGE PARK CONDOS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-09-08-22, submitted by Elkin Equities, on behalf of
College Park Site Condominium, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and Site Plan required by Section 18.62 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a site condominium development located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest % of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads. On June 11, 2003, this
property was rezoned in order to allow the development of a
commeroial and office complex under the name "College Park."
Conceptually, College Park is to consist of three restaurants and
a retail building with frontage on Haggerty Road. In addition, a
series of office buildings would be constructed east of the
restaurants and extending to the I-275/96 Expressway. These
office buildings would vary in height between two and six stories
and would total approximately 425,000 square feel in office
space. On June 23, 2003, this site received Site Plan Approval
(CR 308-03) for the construction of a commercial building and
preliminary approval for three restaurant pads. Al the same
meeting, Site Plan approval (CR 307-03) was granted for the
construction of a multi -tenant commeroial building (Market
Place). College Park is now requesting approval to develop this
commeroial and office complex as a site condominium. The
condominium development would consist of eight units. Unit 1
would encompass the previously approved multi -tenant
commercial building known as Markel Place. Units 2, 3 and 4
would include the footprints of the three proposed restaurants.
Unit 5 would consist of the space where the petitioner had
wanted to construct a furniture store but has agreed to lease it
as just a commercial retail building. Units 6, 7 and 8 would
cover the large eastern section of the property where the high-
rise office buildings will be built. The right-of-ways for the
interior aisleways/roads, Fox Drive and the area of the detention
basin are identified on the plan and in the Master Deed as
"General Common Element." The area surrounding the
restaurants is identified as "Limited Common Element."
20792
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chairman, before we continue, as an employee of
Schoolcrafl College, I will be stepping down on this item.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated October 6, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 24, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) No actual uses or tenants are noted. This Department has
no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Curtis Burstein,
Etkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Southfield,
Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us this
evening?
Mr. Burstein:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane:
We received a copy of a letter from Schoolcratl College. One of
the things I note in here is that the documents, when they were
drafted, were done so as to give Schoolcrett College control
over the type of construction. I assume that these documents,
in fact, do that?
Mr. Burstein:
The deal between us and Schoolcrafl College do, yes.
Mr. Shane:
Is that somehow reflected in this Master Deed or is that not the
place for it?
Mr. Burstein:
That is not the place for it.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one question. I'm curious. When we originally heard this
case, we had a number of meetings. Nothing was ever staled
at any time that I can remember about site condominiums. Is
this something new that came up after we approved this? You
changed it? Was is always going to be site condominiums?
20793
Mr. Burstein: Yes, the property was always going to be subdivided that way
Mr. LaPine: All right. This is the first time I heard it.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, I'm looking althe letter from Schoolcraft College.
Basically, this is the way I remember we passed it on to City
Council when we approved the front portion of the properly; that
is, three restaurants and a small office building. Our notes say,
"Unit 5 would consist of the space where the petitioner had
wanted to construct a furniture store but has agreed to lease it
as just a commercial retail building." I'm a little bit confused by
the notes versus what I thought we approved as office as it was
presented to us at the last meeting. Take a look at the notes,
the bottom paragraph, the seven line in the center, "has agreed
to lease it as just a commercial retail building." I really would
like that clarified as to whether or not the Master Deed can
address that issue.
Mr. Taormina:
I think the letter from Schoolcraft College helps to clarify that
issue. Its consistent with the discussion that took place at the
time of the rezoning and site plan approval. The area that
you're referring to is zoned C-2, General Commercial, but it was
understood that Schoolcraft College would retain control over
the uses that would be approved for each of those units,
including the restaurants, the retail building and the fifth unit,
which I think is what you're referring to as a furniture store.
Ultimately, it's the college that will decide what goes in that
building consistent with the site plan that was approved by the
City for that area.
Mr. McCann:
Just so I understand, according to the letter we received from
Schoolcraft College, in the ground sublease, Schoolcraft
College has specified what Schoolcraft Commons, LLC, may
build in each section of the 43 acres. It says specifically three
restaurants and a small office building, attached Exhibit E. I
was not provided an attached Exhibit E. Well, I guess this sheet
shows it as attached Exhibit E, restaurants and office.
Mr. Taormina:
And by the way, that attached Exhibit E is not part of the
condominium documents. I think, as indicated by Mr. Burstein,
that's part of the ground sublease. That's the agreement
between Schoolcraft College and Schoolcraft Commons, LLC.
Mr. McCann:
Maybe the petitioner can tell me if the lease says that it is going
to be used as office space or whether, in fact, the lease just
20794
says that Schoolcraft College will retain control over that
particular building.
Mr. Burstein:
On the exhibit in that quadrant, it shows restaurants and office
use. If it varies outside of that, we would have to go to
Schoolcraft College for approval, other than having the three
restaurants and that Unit 5 that you're talking about to be an
office building.
Mr. McCann:
I see. For clarification, is this something that we would want in
the Master Deed, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe its necessary. Again, as I said, I think its
consistent with our understanding at the time the site plan was
approved: that is, Schoolcraft College would have control over
the use. Basically, they're treating Units 1 through 5 equally
with respect to the permitted uses, at least as far as the Master
Deed is concerned, but pointing out that additional control is
provided through the agreement with Schoolcraft College.
Mr. McCann:
All right. My next question is about Fox Drive. According to
Exhibit E, Fox Drive is not included as part of the Master Deed.
Again, my concern is whether or not that will be an exit or just
an entrance. Looking at the Master Deed, does it deal with Fox
Dive?
Mr. Taormina:
The Master Deed, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, is
shown as a General Common Element within the site
condominium subdivision.
Mr. Burstein:
That's correct.
Mr. Taormina:
As a General Common Element, it could be used for ingress
and egress, but I don't believe that has been specified
anywhere in these documents relative to the traffic flow or the
number of lanes or the direction, anything of that nature. It's not
to that level of detail al this point.
Mr. Burstein:
That's correct.
Mr. Taormina:
So it is included in the Master Deed, Mr. Chairman, without
details specific to how its going to be developed or used.
Mr. Burstein:
When we come back for the development of the office portion to
the east of the project, we'd be coming to this group for the site
20795
3. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and ouflet facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owner's properly prorata and place said charges on
their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not
plan approval, which would incorporate how we're going to use
Fox Drive.
Mr. McCann:
I just wanted to make sure that we're not setting ourselves up
for a problem later on.
Mr. Burstein:
I appreciate that.
Mr. McCann:
I want to explore that issue with you. Lets put it that way. Are
there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in
order.
On a motion by
Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and adopted, it was
#10-142-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-09-08-22,
submitted by Elkin Equities, on behalf of College Park Site
Condominium, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws
and Site Plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a site
condominium development located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest % of Section 7, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws comply with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tifle
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and the requirements set forth in the City
of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, the
Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail and petitioner
shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements;
3. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and ouflet facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owner's properly prorata and place said charges on
their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not
20796
paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner)
within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia;
4. Thal the Site Plans marked 4 and 5, both dated September
15, 2003, as revised, prepared by Atwell -Hicks, Inc., are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That the Site Plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for;
6. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surely bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development; and
7. That Section I of Article VII of the Master Deed shall be
amended so as to be consistent with the ground sublease
between Schoolcraff College and Schoolcraff Commons,
LLC, specifying that the approximate two (2) acres at the
southwest corner of the property along Haggerty Road can
be used for a retail strip, and the rest of the property along
Haggerty may include three (3) restaurants and a small
office building.
Mr. McCann: I want to make a recommendation to the petitioners. My
concern is that there's been discussion back and forth, and
somehow it came to our staff that there was going to be a
commercial building. It left here as an office building. Now its
going back to Schoolcraft College as office, but its up to them if
they want to change it. I'd make a recommendation that we
insert the language that the two acres in the southwest quarter
of the property along Haggerty Road can be used for a retail
strip; the rest of the property along Haggerty will include three
restaurants and a small office building. Make that part of the
Master Deed.
Mr. Shane: I dont have a problem with that if that's appropriate
Mr. LaPine: I think that's a good idea.
20797
Mr. McCann: That way the City has a say in what goes in that particular
properly. Is there any other discussion? With that amendment,
would the Secretary, please call the roll.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
La Pine, Smiley, Piercecchi, Shane, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Alanskas
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Mr. Burstein, you had a question?
Mr. Burstein: Just regarding what you had said and what you're looking to
amend it to say?
Mr. McCann: We just want the Master Deed to reflect the uses that were
approved by the Planning Commission and the Council for that
front zone, that it would be used as office, three restaurants and
a retail strip.
Mr. Burstein: Limiting itgreaterthan the currenlzoning?
Mr. McCann: Limiting it to what's already been approved. Thank you. Please
note that Mr. Walsh has returned.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-09-08-23 MODERN MOVING
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-09-08-23, submitted by Industrial Structures, on behalf of
Modern Moving, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the industrial building
located at 31465 Eight Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of Section
3.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Eight Mile between
Merriman and Osmus. The petitioner is requesting approval to
construct an addition to the industrial building occupied by
Modern Moving. This building is in the process of being convert
in to a moving and self -storage facility. According to the
petitioner, the moving company would utilize the storage units
20798
for their business, but in the event units became available,
individuals could also rent a cubicle for self -storage. The
subject properly is split zoned with the southern half zoned
Rural Urban Farm (RUF) and the northern half Light
Manufacturing (M-1). Even though it is part of the petitioners
property that is zoned residential, because the industrial portion
abuts it, Planning Commission and City Council review and
approval is required. For the most part, the southern RUF
section is undeveloped and identified on the Site Plan as 'Scrub
Woods." The back of the building practically sits on the zoning
line between the two districts. Fifty feel of the industrial
building's rear parking lot encroaches into the RUF district. A
couple of variances (cases 8109-112 & 8609-157) have been
granted over the years by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
extension of the industrial use into the RUF district. On June 5,
2000, this site received waiver use approval (CR 414-00) to
permit outdoor parking of the moving company's vehicles.
Modern Moving was allowed to park their trucks within the west
parking area from the back edge of the office portion of the
building to the rear wall of the building. The proposed addition
would be added to the west elevation of the building and would
provide an additional 4,000 square feel of floor space. The
existing building is 11,560 square feel in area. Part of the
square footage includes the small office building slicking out in
front towards Eight Mile Road. If approved as proposed, the
footprint of the building would be expanded to a total of 15,560
square feel. The building, with the exception of the front office,
is two stories in height. The proposed addition would also be
two -stones in height. According to the petitioner, storage units
would be available on both floors. The second floor cubicles
would be accessible by an interior stairwell. The existing
structure is nonconforming because of a side yard deficiency.
In a M-1 district, parcels more than one acre in area but less
than 10 acres are required to have side yards of not less than
20 feel. This industrial building only sets back 10 feel from the
east lot line. In order to add to a nonconforming building, a
variance must be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
petitioner meets the parking requirement of eight parking
spaces. The Site Plan indicates existing landscaped areas.
Required landscaping is not less than 50% of the established
front yard; provided landscaping is 55% of the front yard. There
are no plans to increase or renovate the existing landscaping on
the site. The building material of the existing two-story portion
of the building is block on the east, west and south elevations.
The front elevation, as well as the three walls of the office
building, are covered by a dryvit material. The front elevation of
20799
the new addition would be done in dryvil to match the existmg
material. The new west elevation would be constructed out of
architectural metal building panels and would have 20 new large
overhead doors spread out along it. The east elevation of the
existing building, as well as the entire rear elevation, would be
renovated and covered by dryvil to match the rest of the
building.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 29, 2003, which
reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-
way dedication is required. There are numerous minor enors in
the legal description as submitted. The following description
has been edited to eliminate these enors. There do not appear
to be any utility relocations required to construct the addition."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated October 2, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct an addition to the industrial building on property
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated October 7, 2003, which reads as follows: "We
have reviewed the proposal to construct an addition to the
building at 31465 Eight Mile Road. The site plan as proposed
does not indicate any handicap parking. One properly posted
handicap space is required. For crime prevention purposes, we
recommend that there be exterior -fighting on the south and west
sides of the building." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated October 6, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 23, 2003, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This petition will require a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for adding to a nonconforming building. Side
yard setbacks are to be 20 feet each side. (2) This plan does
not show the outside storage of vehicles and recreational
vehicles, which is a waiver use. (3) The landscaping shown on
the plan is in poor condition and should be replaced, refurbished
and irrigated. (4) There is no parking lot double striping or
accessible parking and there are many weeds and brush within
r:rr
the existing site (not the `scrub woods' area). (5) The Zoning
Board of Appeals will also have to review the previously granted
variance in regard to the rear setback (at the split zoning). This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dan Hayes, Industrial Structures, 19836 Savage, Belleville, Michigan 48111.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about your
project?
Mr. Hayes: Just other than the parking lot, the description that they want on
the plans, will be submitted with the plans and we plan on
redoing the whole parking lot.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I understand that the east elevation is going to be in dryvit.
Is that correct?
Mr. Hayes: The north side ...
Mr. Piercecchi: Where all the doors are. What would that be? That would be
the west elevation. That's going to be solid dryvil?
Mr. Hayes: No. The top of the bottom of it will be doors with metal
partitions, or the jams will be metal and the lop will be an
architectural metal.
Mr. Piercecchi: What about the area in between the doors?
Mr. Hayes: That's a metal panel, pre -finished panel.
Mr. Piercecchi: So dryvil isn't going all the way down?
Mr. Hayes: The dryvil is on the north side of the building and then it comes
back and goes back over. The total front facing Eight Mile
would be all dryvil.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm talking about where . . there's 12 doors, if I remember
correctly, on the west side of this building where ...
Mr. Hayes: Yes.
20801
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Where you're putting this addition.
Mr.
Hayes:
Right.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Does the dryvil go all the way down to the parking lot floor
there?
Mr.
Hayes:
On the west side?
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Yeah.
Mr.
Hayes:
No. That's a metal building panel.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
The building is all metal?
Mr.
Hayes:
Yes. Above the doors, it's an architectural metal panel, and
then below the doors, is a solid pre -finished panel between ...
that's the doorjambs.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
So there will be no dryvil that can be easily damaged by people
carrying stuff in and out of that.
Mr.
Hayes:
No. It's a prefnished metal bent panel. It's out of 14 gauge.
Its a real sturdy panel that they make the jambs out of and then
the headers out of the same material.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
So we don't have to worry about damage then to that lower
area?
Mr.
Hayes:
No.
Mr.
LaPine:
On the west side of the new addition, there will be 20 overhead
doors. Is that correct?
Mr.
Hayes:
Right.
Mr.
LaPine:
What size are those doors?
Mr.
Hayes:
Eight fool by eight foot.
Mr.
LaPine:
Now, there are two floors in the existing building?
Mr.
Hayes:
Right.
20802
Mr. LaPine:
How do you get to the second floor? Is there an elevator so
people can take stuff up there?
Mr. Hayes:
At this time, we have stairs. We're proposing to the Building
Department to put an elevator in there.
Mr. LaPine:
Along the west parking lot, you've got boats stored there and all
kinds of stuff. Is that still going to be there?
Mr. Hayes:
No, that will all be removed. We'll have approximately 67 feel
from the building to the fence line. We just have enough for
parking vehicles to drop stuff off.
Mr. LaPine:
Do they rent things on a monthly or yearly basis? How do the
rentals go?
Mr. Hayes:
Usually a yearly deal.
Mr. Taormina:
Just some comments relative to the exterior finish of the
building. I noticed during the site inspection that some of the
dryvil along the west side of the building is damaged. Will that
be repaired as part of this petition? Secondly, the block along
the east side of the building appears to be in relatively good
condition. I'm not sure if installing dryvil in that area is
necessary. Lastly, the metal panel building going down to the
grade, these pre -finished metal buildings, we do look in certain
cases to have masonry down at least to some point along the
grade level. The Commission may want to consider that at least
a portion of that building, the lower eight feet for example, being
of masonry construction consistent with other industrial
buildings in the area.
Mr. McCann:
What's the distance between the doors?
Mr. Hayes:
Eighteen inches. What I've found, and I've built a numerous
amount of these. As a matter of fact, I've built over 50 of these
developments, and we find in the metal jambs versus the
masonry jambs, if the metal jamb gets damaged in any way, it's
a fix of about two hours versus masonry where we have a
problem with, you know, the jamb and the door. The masonry
creates more of a problem than the metal jamb does, and I
think, really, in all aspects, the pre-engineered finished panel is
much more attractive than the masonry, but there again, that's
your decision.
20803
Mr. McCann:
You have 12 doors, right? 20? There's only 18 inches between
them. Correct?
Mr. Hayes:
Right.
Mr. McCann:
What do you say, Mr. Taormina? Where you've got 18 inches,
is that sufficient? Thats only a brick and half, not even.
Mr. Shane:
What is the color of this metal?
Mr. Hayes:
It would match existing dryvit; it will be a beige color. Trying to
make the flow of the building match the front of it.
Mr. McCann:
What is your other concern, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I have no real objection to the pre -finished metal building. I'm
just raising that as a concern. Also, we should be consistent
with how we've looked at this type of construction in the past.
My other concern is whether or not the E.I.F.S. is even needed
along the east side of the building given the fact that the block
appears to be in relatively good shape and noting that the
E.I.F.S., where it goes down to grade in several areas on the
existing building, is damaged. It appears as if its been damaged
by trucks. I think we're going to see a heavy use of this site,
with vehicles backing up now that it's being converted to a
storage facility.
Mr. Hayes:
Excuse me for interrupting, but all the dryvil in front will be all
repaired and put back into much better condition than it is now.
Mr. McCann:
I agree with Mr. Taormina about the consistency of the look,
actually the blending materials. You've got metal doors, metal
jambs and headers, and then you've got metal in between them
and it doesn't break it up at all.
Mr. Hayes:
We have no objection. We want to work together with you;
we've no objection. I mean there isn't that many blocks there
that I have an objection to appeasing you people, doing what
you approve.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any other discussion on that?
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me ask Mark a question. Mark, what in your estimation is
the reason why you think the block ... it seems to me if a car or
a truck backs up and hits the block, you knock down the whole
thing. If you back up and hit a piece of metal which bends, you
P11111-511111
can remove it and replace it. What is your rationale that you
think the block is better than metal?
Mr. Taormina:
I think overall longevity and maintenance of the material.
Masonry is a standard throughout most of our industrial districts.
The use of metal siding is usually reserved for the upper parts of
the buildings, sometimes the rear of the buildings. So again, I
don't have any real objection to its use. The E.I.F.S. looks like it
will extend across a portion of the west elevation. Is that
correct? So the metal panel is only going up a certain distance
from the grade. Is that correct? And then the upper portion is
going to be in the dryvit material. So that would really be
introducing three different materials along that side of the
building. You would probably be better off slaying with two.
Again, I dont know that we need to match it on the east side of
the building. You could just gel away with painting that block if
that's acceptable to the Commission.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Chairman, I'm in agreement with Bill. Maybe a few amateur
truck drivers will be coming in here and probably will back into
the building now and then. If the metal stands up better and is
easily replaced, I don't have a problem with it.
Mr. Hayes:
The finish they put on the new metal nowadays, you know, its a
20 year finish that doesn't fade. It's a real, real nice looking
appearance.
Mr. LaPine:
The only concern I would have is if the blocks are knocked
down, you'd have to gel them repaired immediately. If a piece
of metal is dented, you might leave it and not repair it. And
that's a concern I do have.
Mr. Hayes:
The metal is so easy to replace. Normally with all the buildings,
I leave three or four of them for this purpose, and it's just a
matter of three or four hours and you can put a new jamb in.
Mr. LaPine:
But will you gel that done or would you wail until you have more
than one damaged door or damaged metal and have it done at
one time, or each time something is damaged, you repair it?
Mr. Hayes:
If somebody backs into the jamb, 99% of the time the door is
going logo with it, and it's going to be a fix right then.
20805
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-143-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-09-08-23,
submitted by Industrial Structures, on behalf of Modern Moving,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the industrial building located at 31465 Eight Mile
Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 3, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 51.0 dated September
15, 2003, prepared by Laurence J. Fichter, P.E., L.L.C., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
A1.0 dated August 28, 2003, prepared by Laurence J.
Fichler, P.E. L.L.C., is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. 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;
4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Departments satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated October 6, 2003:
That the site's landscaping shall be reestablished and
all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
That the front parking lot shall be repaired, resealed
and doubled striped;
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on
to a nonconforming building and any conditions related
thereto;
7. That the parking of recreational vehicles on the site is
prohibited, and all such existing vehicles shall be removed
immediately;
8. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition.
No LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on
this site including, but not limited to, the building or around
the windows; and
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-09-08-24 VILLAGE SHOPS EAST
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-09-08-24 submitted by Wad Yee Associates, on behalf of
Schoslak Brothers & Company, Inc., requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
development known as The Village Shops of Wonderland —
Phase 1 (East) on property located at 29859 Plymouth Road in
the Northeast'''/ of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: Since the petitioner is here with various experts, if it pleases the
Commission, I will relinquish my presentation.
Mr. McCann: That's fine. Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 6, 2003, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-way
20807
dedication is required and the legal descriptions for the overall
parcels as submitted are correct. The designer has shown
detention facilities to satisfy Wayne County's Storm Water
Management Ordinance and it does not appear that there will
be any alteration to the drives that would require a permit from
Wayne County or the Michigan Department of Transportation."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated September 30, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to develop Phase 1 of a commercial development on
property located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If
any of subject buildings are to be provided with automatic
sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located between 50 feet
and 100 feet from the Fire Department connections. (2)
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a
maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote
hydrant shall Flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI.
(3) Access around building shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall-to-wall and
a minimum vertical clearance of 13Y5 feet." The letter is signed
by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated October 9, 2003, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal
to develop a commercial development on property located at
29859 Plymouth Road. The proposal is deficient in handicap
parking spaces for all buildings. We recommend that parking be
prohibited in the crave area of Buildings E and F. The eastern-
most driveway should remain posted'Right Tum Only' due to its
close proximity to Mlddlebelt Road." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated October 6, 2003, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 24,
2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This group commercial center will require
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
number of parking spaces. 526 spaces required, 331 provided,
195 deficient. (2) No signage has been reviewed. (3) Parking
lot lighting standard height should be reviewed and adjusted to
the Commission's and Council's satisfaction. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is
from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated
September 24, 2003, which reads as follows: "At the 150"'
Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority
of the City of Livonia held on September 18, 2003, the following
resolution was unanimously adopted. #2003-33 Resolved, that
the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby
approve and support the request by Schostak Bros. to construct
and redevelop Phase 1 of the Wondertand Mall, which includes
the construction of three new structures along with the
redevelopment of the K -Mart building and specialty store and
shall fully comply with all other applicable rules, regulations and
ordinances of the City of Livonia." The letter is signed by John
J. Nagy, Director of the Plymouth Road Development Authority.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert E. Zschenng, Vice President, Schostak Brothers & Company, 25800
Northwestern Highway, Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075.
Thank you again for allowing us to show you what we believe is
the new vision and redevelopment of Wonderland Shopping
Center. Pnor to beginning, what I'd like to do because of the
magnitude of this project, is introduce you to our team members
that Schostak has assembled. I have William Cole, Project
Manager for Schostak. He's been with Schostak over 15 years
and has numerous experience with shopping centers and high
rise residential. We have in the architectural office John Freel
from Wah Yee Associates. You may recall through some of
your long dealings with Wonderland Shopping Center, Way Yee
has done the enclosure of this shopping center, the expansion
which is the theatre, the Target expansion, and has also done
the food court. For civil engineers, we've chosen Hubbell, Roth
and Clark, a stale renown, national renown civil engineer firm.
Representing Hubbell, Roth and Clark is Gary Tressell, and we
have Don Vito with the landscape architect. Hubbell, Roth and
Clark brings a lot of experience to this project. They were also
included with the expansion of Target and the theater building,
and they also have vast experience with Wayne County and the
detention -retention pond area, which is a requirement as you all
know. You may recall, Schostak Bros. has been owner/operator
of Wonderland Shopping Center since the 80's and through the
90's. For over 15 years, we've operated the center. In 2000,
the Center changed ownership and in May of 2003, Schostak
re -acquired the property. During that time period between 2000
and 2003, Schostak Bros. also acquired, even though they
didn't own the shopping center, they demonstrated a
commitment to the shopping center and to Livonia by taking the
opportunity to acquire the Montgomery Ward site that came
come up during bankmplcy hearings. Even though we didn't
own the shopping center, we thought it was critical to what was
being developed at that point. We now own the entire shopping
center from the Wards building right on through the mall and the
retail buildings, with the exception of Target. We own the White
Castle, the Standard Federal building and we are making a
purchase agreement on the Kmart parcel, which we are in for a
separate applicafion for this Planning Commission. The future
of this property, we believe, is to be developed in phases. This
is very difficult, as you know. You've seen it. You've lived with
the shopping center. With all the improvements that Schoslak
Bros. attempted to make in the shopping center, the truth is that
the customer relations, the customer shopping mentality has
changed. For whatever reason, people are now more into the
convenience mode. They go into the shopping center; they
know what they want to buy. The four hour shopping trip is
gone, and the whole concept of the consumer taking four hours
has been changed. It is now more a pedestrian feel, a
consumer short cul, if you will. You will see on our plans that
we have taken advantage of all the improvements that you've
done on Plymouth Road. The Plymouth Road Development
Authority has also written you a Iefter which you have just read,
but we intend to complement and accentuate what you have
done so fine on Plymouth Road. By moving the shops closer to
Plymouth Road, we are going to accent and soften the area with
increased landscaping, to complement your lighting schemes
there, and to make this a shopping experience that will be
unmatched. Its our goal to continue this pedestrian feel and to
development the retail space consistent with how the
consumers want to shop today. The location has always been
viable and successful but, in our opinion, has been
underdeveloped and never achieved the quality that we hope to
bring it today. Our plan is to acquire the Kmart property
adjacent to the Target store and likewise develop it along the
Plymouth Road development plan. I've got some aerials that I'd
like to show you. Here's Plymouth Road and Middlebelt. We
have the Ward shopping area right here. This is the area that
we acquired during the time that we did not own the shopping
center between 2000 and 2003. We have the entire mall area.
We have the Target store that is not owned by Schostak Bros.
The White Castle, the Standard Federal Bank and the Kmart
parcel. This is the lease plan of the shopping center. What I've
designated here is that in the time of 2002 when we acquired
the shopping center, we knew it had problems and we wanted to
address those problems. We knew that the center had a whole
new philosophy. The shoppers were not coming. The numbers
of retail merchants was dwindling. This is evidenced not only in
20810
this particular site, but we're seeing it locally here. Summit
Place Mall in Pontiac would be a good example. In Pontiac we
have a shopping center that's so large and not filled. We have
the same problem over in Southfield at Tel -Twelve. We're going
through what we termed, this new term that's being used is de-
malling the mall. What we have here, what is represented on
this leasing plan, are the leases that were current and open at
the time of 2002 just prior to us taking it back. We knew that
these leases would not be renewed, but at least it shows you
the condition, that it was still a viable shopping center at that
time, but we knew it was not going to get renewed as far as the
merchants and the uses. This lease plan here in two colors is
the same lease plan and both colors represent what we have
open today, August, 2003. The red signifies the tenants that
plan to remain and want to be active. The ones that are
represented in the yellow or gold are tenants that are going to
close. They have informed us. They're closing even though
they're open in August, 2003. So the big difference from all that
green that you saw, those tenants have left from 2002 to what
we have in August, 2003, and really only the red tenants are the
ones that plan to stay or would like to stay. We're trying to
make arrangements with them to either relocate those in the
Phase I or relocate them to another function that we may have.
This application is for Phase I. Basically, Phase I is these retail
shops, which amount to 65,800 square feet of retail shops.
Again, close to Plymouth Road. Again, taking advantage of all
the development that you've done in improving that roadway
and accenting, complementing and accentuating that. Also in
Phase I, which is our other application, is the retail shops further
down and the redevelopment of the Kmart existing building into
two, possibly three. I'll have Bill Cote talk about this on that
application discussion. The detention/retention pond area here
would be a part also of the Phase I. So what we're looking at is
everything to the north of this line, as well as G building as it's
described in your drawing, and the building in front of Kmart.
What we have below here is the vacated shopping center with
the only merchant, Target, existing. Now a couple questions
came up at our study session last week about what we'd like to
see happening here. We'd like to know the schedule. And I
plan to discuss that right now. This board shows what you aptly
refer to as Phase 11, which is then the demolition of the existing
shopping center. We would put a decorative fence around this
area so that we can monitor that area and keep that demolition
included in this area. Once we remove the foundations, the
footings, the abandoned utility lines, we would backfill those
areas, compact those areas and seed those areas. So we
20811
would keep the fence line in tact so that we don't disrupt and
confuse people with the shopping traffic system, if you will, and
keep that as a green area until we have the plans. Now your
obvious next question is, if this is Phase II, what is Phase III? I
described to you that I wish I knew completely what was Phase
III. This is a purely speculative redevelopment on the part of
Schostak Bros. Phase I is critical to getting some income out of
the property, but the fair question is, what do you look at
happening for Phase III? Al this point in time, what we would
like to see happen, and I don't have anybody knocking on our
door, I don't have somebody signing something tomorrow or
yesterday, but this is what we would like to see happen: large
users to the south that we could park within those confines of
those properly lines that was left vacant by the existing mall.
We have a large area back here that we're not quite sure what
we can do with that yet. Maybe it could be several things. It
could be residential. It could be storage units. It could be any
number of things that will require me to come back to you and
show you what I'm doing on that portion. We just dont know. If
this is my overall plan, what we would like to see happen, I have
a void. Its a very small void. It's only about four acres but its
still a void. We plan to park this, as I mentioned before, self-
contained parking. You asked the question, well, how is that
parking within our ordinance? I have sent to you in a separate
package ... we had Hubbell, Roth and Clark with their traffic
engineers take a look at this. I read it several limes over myself,
and I hope you weren't loo confused by R. Basically, what I'm
trying to state is that based on the current philosophy of parking
in the industry today and backed by the Institute of Traffic
Engineers, backed by Urban Land Institute, and backed by
International Council of Shopping Centers, it shows that in this
size development that we have, what they recommend
throughout the country is anywhere between a 4 and 4.5
parking ratio per 1,000 cars GLA. That is not what Schoslak is
going to ask for. Schostak is going to ask for a better ratio than
that, that would mean more parking for you, but it does show
that we're going to fall within the guidelines, if you will. The
other advantage that it has for you is that many have
commented that the shopping centers today are nothing more
than asphalt strips that require a lot of parking that are mostly
never used. You read that probably in some of your things
there that 85% of the time, the shopping center is never full and
less than 5% of the time is it ever full. So what we're hoping to
do is reduce that sea of parking, give you more landscaping for
that area and soften this.
20812
Mr. McCann:
Where would Laurel Park go? That's the only place I shop and
that's a busy mall and uses most of its parking.
Mr. Zschering:
Where would it go into that?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, is that 4.5?
Mr. Zschering:
I'm trying to remember what the total square feet of that is, but I
believe it's under 500,000 square feel that would be in the 4.5,
but Schoslak would recommend a 5.0 at that point.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. My next question before you go on, I see you're getting
ready to go to another board. I see this nice little area up here,
and you did menfion that you had to do water retention. Are we
hoping to put maybe a nice water effect up there or is that some
future plan?
Mr. Zschering:
In this area right here?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Zschering:
This area here is meant to be an outlot for resale.
Mr. McCann:
Okay.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, on your south border you have just two buildings. If I heard
you correctly, you indicated at the beginning of your
presentation that the big box is what people don't want
anymore. Are those not two big box stores down there?
Mr. Zschering:
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I hope I didn't. Today's
shopping system is the big box, the all-encompassing store.
The smaller merchant is being forced out by those large boxes.
The home improvement shops, the large discount retailers and
things like that. The consumer is coming to one place they can
shop. So the number of smaller boufique-type shops that we've
been accustomed to is dwindling only because of the fact, in my
mind, that the consumer has a limited amount of time to shop,
and he's going to that one place that he can get most of his
things down and then leave because of the working population
of the whole household.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I sure didn't read you that way, but I'm glad you clarified that.
Mr. Zschering:
I'm glad you clarified me too.
20813
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is this what your marketing people have come up that would be
the most logical arrangement and combination of stores? I
assume you've done marketing studies.
Mr. Zschering:
We've done a number of inquiries, studies, internal studies and
things like that. And Wah Yee, our architect, has gone through
a number of site plans. We've tried to rework this thing into any
number of different variations. This is what we believe has the
appeal out there and is usable.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In looking at the size of it, I don't know if chats the scale, but
they're roughly about the same size that we have for the Kmart
building right now. Correct?
Mr. Zschering:
Well, the Kmart building right now is about 135,000 square feel.
This building is 116,000 square feel; this one here is about
215,000 square feel.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Have you made any inquiries to see if you could entice
somebody to come in to fulfill that plan there, which looks pretty
good?
Mr. Zschering:
Oh, you bel. We're actively pursuing. You asked me last week
what we would like to see. This is what we would like to see.
This is what we're pursuing.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What type of big box operation would be ideal in there in your
opinion?
Mr. Zschering:
We don't have a whole lot of choices in the fact that we've got a
lot of big boxes just a couple miles away, but what we're looking
at is those kind of competitors that would face that competition
at the old racetrack development. I would look at categories
here, maybe home improvement type categories.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You mean like Home Depot?
Mr. Zschering:
Tenants like that. That's a home improvement. Right.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, that's pretty close to the Millennium development up there.
But Circuit City ...
Mr. Zschering:
Well, Circuit City in my mind is like a medium box. That fits in
the category of maybe 30,000 to 50,000 square feet. We would
have to have a number of those. That was one of the plans that
we went through earlier. Could we gel in a number of those?
20814
The situation would not allow that based on the numbers that
are available of those tenants that operate like that and the
proximity.
Mr. Piercecchi:
A big department store complex would fR in there very nicely,
wouldn't it?
Mr. Zschering:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What really caused the demise of shopping at Wonderland?
Mr. Zschering:
I don't know. My theory is, again, I live close to the Pontiac
shopping center, the Pontiac Summit. That went through a
whole big expansion area - almost the old American the bigger
is bellerlype philosophy. They had a situation there that Sears
was way away from the property and they wanted to connect it.
Well, when they connected it, they created so much Ieaseable
area, the tenants weren't there. One of the factors that has
happened, in my opinion, again, is that the economy has not
been kind to retail in the last several years. So some of the
smaller -type tenants have gone away. They haven't been able
to face the competition of the larger ones that can bring in
higher volume, lower prices, and things like that. So there's a
number of contributing factors to that. But in my mind what I
consider, I see it happening in my own household with my wife
having a limited amount of time. She loves to shop and she
doesn't shop anymore only because of the fact she has other
duties she tries to get done at the house too. Along with my
duties, there just isn't the time to do the shopping. So it's quick
in and quick out.
Mr. LaPine:
I've heard rumors that Target is going to expand. Do you know
anything about that?
Mr. Zschering:
Well, rumors are good. Most rumors are. There is no truth to
that right now and when I mean truth, I mean solid truth. We
are encouraging Target to expand. We would like to see Target
expand. And this particular plan that I've done here, I show a
25,000 square fool expansion to the Target store.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I was going to ask you. Where Target is now, that
includes the expansion?
Mr. Zschering:
Right. Exactly.
20815
Mr. LaPine: At the time Schostak decided that this center had to go and
something new had to go in there, did they look at other
concepts such as ... I like the idea of the stores up close. Was
there any consideration of pulling in housing there, senior
housing or assisted living or anything like that instead of more
big boxes? I'm big boxed up to here. I mean it seems to me
every time you turn around, you've got another big box. For
instance, the only home improvement place that you could put
in there that would make it would be Lowe's because you've got
two Home Depots in Livonia, one at Eight Mile and Haggerty
and one at Millennium Park on Schoolcratt. So another one in
town isn't going to fly. Three of them could never make it in this
town. Maybe a Lowe's in competition would make it, but I'm not
sold on big boxes. Big boxes in my estimation are here today.
Five years from now they're going to be gone by the wayside
because you don't gel the personalized service with the big
boxes as you do at your local hardware store, for example. I
can go to a hardware store; I might pay a few bucks more. The
guy will gel things for me, show me how to put it together and
do things for me. With a big box, you're on your own. If you're
lucky, you might find somebody who knows what they're talking
about and can help you. That's why I'm not really in favor of the
big boxes. Is there any other concept that can go there that
would not be big boxes but still be viable?
Mr. Zschering:
What you asked for at the last meeting, was what does
Schostak believe is the best concept that we can put in here.
What are we striving for? We have gone through numbers and
numbers of plans, and I know you have heard that we're looking
at residential back here, high density residential and things like
that. It does not work in the present economic status that we
have today. We have to lake into account as developers, the
price on everything, the return on everything, and the banks
have to look at that when they look at something and say,
"Where are you getting the money to pay for this?"
Mr. McCann:
Why don't you go on with your presentation? We have a lot to
gel through tonight.
Mr. Zschering:
A schedule was another quesfion that came up at the study
session last week. I've included in your package a brief
schedule. I tried not to gel too detailed. What I wanted to
demonstrate is that time is of the essence here. I've included
our study sessions and our regular sessions in planning
everything. There isn't a lot of time in there. We plan on those
retails, and again I'm talking about the Kmart jointly with this,
20816
that Phase I would start our construction drawings here in
December. We would then be out for bids in early spring,
hoping then to start construction in the spring to open those
Phase I buildings by November. So we would have something
very positive happening on Plymouth Road with those buildings
being erected and occupied by November. Also, the demolition
schedule that was questioned, what we would like to see
happening, and we have to assume that the building is vacant
because we can't do anything in the building until it is vacant.
But lets assume our goal is mel. Our goal is to have it vacant
by January 31 of 2004. If that is the case, then we will have that
building, which is a seven-month project, demolished right
around November 1. So at that point, what I'm seeing as the
best case scenario here, minus a development in the buildings
to the south, would be these shops are occupied as well as the
Kmart building being redeveloped and occupied. This having a
decorative fence around it with the building gone, compacted,
rough graded, seeded. So we've got a real clean image for
Plymouth Road. That's what we're looking at.
Mr. Shane:
You confused me on one point. You said that you wanted to
begin demolition of the shopping center in January of 2004?
Mr. Zschering:
No, what I need to have done, I have to meet my goal of having
it vacant by January 31.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Then that brings up another question. If its vacant by
January, 2004, and these buildings aren't done until when?
Mr. Zschering:
The Phase I buildings?
Mr. Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Zschering:
Phase I buildings we're looking at being occupied in eariy
November.
Mr. Shane:
Okay, but what do these people do between the time they're
moved out? I mean the ones that are going to stay. What do
they do for almost a year?
Mr. Zschering:
Those arrangements will be made with the leasing agreement
for those tenants that we will relocate.
Mr. Shane:
Are you going to relocate them temporarily and then bring them
back?
20817
Mr. Zschering:
Some of them will not want to be relocated. Some of them just
want to leave. Others are negotiating from a different point of
view loo. So we have to go through that process, but that does
bring up the point of January 31, will we be vacant? And that
will facilitate that schedule of November 1. So there's a lot of
things that have to work together here in order to make this
work.
Mr. McCann:
Why don't you go into the project before us tonight?
Mr. Zschering:
The Kmart project?
Mr. McCann:
No. We're on the three buildings.
Mr. Zschering:
The elevation?
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Zschering:
Schostak has demonstrated through the years the quality that
we want to bring to Livonia. It's important for Livonia; its
important for Schoslak. What we're looking to bring you is a
high quality masonry building with high architectural elements,
with architectural dormers with metal seamed standing roofs.
We're looking at a cornice treatment to trim out the building,
which will be a different color than the masonry structure, which
will completely wrap the building and so cap the building and
give it a trim feature. Adding the fabric canopies of multiply
colors. We would accent the masonry with a different color
masonry treatment to accent and draw your eye to the project.
Landscaping around the building and to the rear of the building.
This particular building that I'm showing you here is G building,
the one that's out near Target. But the other buildings, E and F,
have in this illustration here the tenant layout, landscape that
will block the direct vision into the delivery areas. All deliveries
will be to the rear. Each of the tenant stores will have a rear
entrance so all trucks will deliver to the back. We have
enclosed and hidden trash enclosures that you see over here in
the enclosure area. You also see it hidden in this elevation
here; you don't even see a trash enclosure. We have our
mechanical buildings incorporated into the building to again hide
those. These are not inexpensive buildings. We again are
committed to what you've done on Plymouth Road, and
accenting and demonstrating again that we want to be a part of
what you're doing on Plymouth Road. Some of our ornamental
lights will be attached to the building - wall fixtures if you will.
Our parking lot lighting will be the type of lighting that will
YIQ:ifl
complement what you've done - theme oriented type of lighting
fixtures.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi:
How far out will your canopies go over the sidewalks? You said
the sidewalks are 15 feel wide? They wont go out that far?
Mr. Zschering:
No. You can't lever it out that far.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm thinking about keeping the min off the people.
Mr. Zschering:
It will do that, especially at the entrances and things like that.
Mr. Walsh:
Can we go back to the overall site plan just for a moment so I
can see the layout of the buildings again?
Mr. Zschenng:
Sure. This is the one with the building demo.
Mr. Walsh:
Now, go along Plymouth Road and you've got a G building.
What are the letters for the next two?
Mr. Zschenng:
That's an E, F and G.
Mr. Walsh:
On E and F, its delivery to the rear. Is that correct?
Mr. Zschenng:
Delivery to the rear.
Mr. Walsh:
Its indicated that you have some parking along Plymouth Road
in front.
Mr. Zschenng:
Yes. Two aisles.
Mr. Walsh:
Then the remainder of your customers are going to have to park
behind. Is that correct?
Mr. Zschering:
No. Again, this is not part of Phase 1. What we're trying to do is
keep that separate even though, and as you see here
demonstrated, we will be able to use that parking. So our
variance that we're going to seek is trying to demonstrate to you
that we will park according to International Traffic Engineers and
things like that, but we have excess parking. What we're trying
to do is plan for this down here loo. And what I'd like to add as
a caution, too, is that one of the things that will dictate to us is
that no large merchant is going to say, "I will go with a real low
number for parking" That will be in his agreement that you will
20819
supply x amount of parking. And that will really be what we're
requesting.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay, so there's no rear entry to any of these stores.
Mr. Zschenng:
All these stores have rear entries.
Mr. Walsh:
Theydo?
Mr.Zschering:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
For customers?
Mr. Zschering:
No, not for customers, just for deliveries.
Mr. Walsh:
That was the question I had. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
I'd like to follow up on that. Mark, he's asking that parking for
Buildings E and F - we would want to make site specific that
their parking would only be the surrounding parking and that a
variance would be needed for that. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Technically, he'll need the variance to include the deficiency
when you
include the total count for the mall. He's showing you
Phase I and Phase 11 here. Bear in mind that with Phase I
alone, there will be a deficiency overall. With Phase I and 11 as
he's showing on this plan, I don't believe there is any deficiency
if you include the parking that is behind those buildings. What
we have to realize is that in Phase 111, there will be fewer spaces
than what the ordinance requires. He's establishing a ratio
somewhere on the order of 1 to 200, whereas the ordinance will
require 1 to 125. So when we look at the overall build -out, there
will be a deficiency of parking. Looking at just Phase I and 11
together, there won't be a deficiency.
Mr. McCann:
What you're telling me that this parking really belongs to these
buildings down here. That's how you're perceiving this. So
you're saying that you have sufficient parking for E and F. I
assume the parking for G is these two lines in front of it.
Mc Zschering:
Correct.
Mr. Taormina:
If you include only the area within the Phase limits, they will not
have enough parking for buildings E, F and G.
20820
Mr. McCann:
Well, that's what I want to know exactly. You'll be 90 spots
short for E, F and G. Where you're required to have 421, you're
going to provide 321 with these spaces, according to Mr.
Piercecchi. He's so good. He has these numbers right at his
fingertips for me.
Mr. Taormina:
Practically speaking, as he's pointed out, the parking behind
those buildings are going to be available to these businesses
until such time as Phase III is developed.
Mr. McCann:
Right. Then once Phase III is developed, then we're back to
having a deficiency. I guess what I'm trying to say is, do we
have sufficient parking? He's got about 25% less than he's
supposed to have.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, considering the vacancies that will exist within the main
building then, yes, there will be plenty of parking.
Mr. McCann:
You're missing the point. When the buildings are all built out
and you have all these built up here, these two malls will have
321 spots that they'll be able to use. The practical point is,
unless you put your employees back here, are you going to
have sufficient spots with just this parking going around the front
of it? That's the question to me. When we first mel on this, my
concern was that you pushed the buildings right up to Plymouth
Road. I know that gives store owners exposure, but I like
setbacks, personally.
Mr. Zschenng: As we inquired with the City as to what they were looking at in
their parking ratio and things like that, we were told that you
were going to be exploring the parking ratio to bring it back on.
And that's why we wanted to bang that up right away. We could
have come in here and said, this is going to be part of this, and
it goes away and nobody knows the difference and we'll bang it
up later. We didn't do that. What we said is, we would like to
bring this up now and make it a part of our approval process
that we will seek that variance.
Mr. McCann: Well, that would have brought up the point that if that was part
of the parking for those buildings, why not put it in front where
the shoppers park? By saying that it's not part of it, I
understand why you don't necessarily have to have the spots in
front of the building. Actually, this makes it easier for me to
understand why you left minimal parking out in front. I guess
this is kind of new to me and the Planning Commission - the
strategy of very limited parking in front of your stores.
20821
Mr. Zschering: Again, I don't want to focus on the fad that its very limited
parking. It is parking that is in design and in concert with the
way people are shopping today. One of the things that
complements your concerns, too, is that what has been done in
the past, we've created a large mass of parking that is never
used. People have spent a lot of money to go through these
studies, independent people of the shopping center industry,
and said, do we need all this parking? What do we need?
What can we better use this facility for? And that would be the
trees, the landscaping and things like that.
Mr. Shane:
I thought you were headed where I was going, so I'm going to
lake off from there. The thing that bothers me is that whether
we have big boxes in the south part of whatever, in conjunction
with these other buildings, you're going to have a sizeable
development here. The greenbelt along Plymouth Road is
going to look rather sparse when that happens. I'm thinking
about Laurel Park and some places where you have a rather
large landscaped area in front. So that was why I was hoping
that some of those parking spaces along Plymouth Road would
be eliminated and that we would have a nice greenbelt along
there conducive to a large development like this. That's why I
was a little disappointed to see the buildings as close to
Plymouth Road as they are. I understand why you did that but
that doesn't relieve my concern. Landscaping along Plymouth
Road is nice, but a lot of it is on public right -0f --way. I would like
to have seen you augment that along the Plymouth Road area a
bit more than you have. That remains one of my
disappointments here. You have helped me a little bit on your
overall plans. I can see where you're headed, but that just
makes me even more concerned about the narrowness of the
greenbelt there. I really would like to have seen that beefed up
a bit.
Mr. Zschering:
I understand. What I'd like to make sure that I point out here is
that this proposed project that we have is smaller than what we
had in the past.
Mr. Shane:
I understand.
Mr. Zschering:
Again, if you look at the aerial and you see a sea of asphalt
along Plymouth Road, this is going to be reduced and again
softened bythose retail buildings here and with the landscaping
around those buildings. That's what we're trying to promote
here. I understand your concerns on that, but we are trying to
20822
address that and again reduce that sea of parking. A little bit
later too, what I'd like to do is, I have the landscape architect
here with a board that maybe could go into more detail. Maybe
that would help you loo.
Mr. McCann:
What's the building height on these buildings?
Mr. Zschering:
The building height is 28 feel, 6 inches at the high point. The
high point is right here. This cornice treatment here is all
encompassing rooftop screening. All the units will be down
below that. You will not see any. We have incorporated that
into the look. There's obviously cheaper ways to do that, but we
wanted to do it the right way.
Mr. McCann:
This is going to be the most imposing height you're going to
see. Did you say that's 22 feet?
Mr. Zschering:
Twenty-two feet.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, for example, the Walgreens ...
Mr. Taormina:
As I recall, the store at Plymouth and Middlebell, the height of
that building was lowered to about 22 feel. So I think this is
relatively consistent. In terms of its placement along Plymouth
Road, both setback and height, I think the Village Shops
compare very similar to the Walgreen's.
Mr. McCann:
I was hoping you were going to say it would look better than
that.
Mr. Taormina:
Better in whalsense?
Mr. McCann:
Not as imposing. Especially going from the bank, which
probably had about an 18 fool height, and it was a smaller
building, maybe even 16 feel. And then we went with the
Walgreens, which went up to 22 feel- a bigger building, right on
the corner.
Mr. Taormina:
Wah Yee was involved in the design of the Walgreen's at
Plymouth and Farmington, which has a similar design, so
maybe they can tell you.
Mr. McCann:
Please come over and lake the microphone.
John Freel, Way Yee Associates, 37911 W. 12 Mile Road, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48331. We thought about that in planning the entire
20823
development. On the site plan, one thing that you look at ...
why the Walgreen's on that corner doesn't work and why this
will is consistency across the street front. It's perceived scale.
Not necessarily the height of the building, but the perceived
scale from building to building, where this is now going to be a
consistent look for literally a mile long. When this is built out,
we'll have four buildings creating literally a downtown look - so
its consistency of scale of buildings. The fronts of these
buildings are going to be as depicted on this drawing where we
have different elements going on. Because of the different
lengths of the different buildings, each of the features will move
across the different elevations of the building. I think you have
the black and white versions of that. So you won't see a
monotone look of a building, other than you'll see different
features that are depicted in color here moving across that
entire mile long of these four buildings.
Mr. McCann:
Two questions. Go back to that one drawing. I just want to
clarify one thing. The building to the west, isn't that where the
Wine Barrel is now? No. So this is going to the building next to
it. So you're going to lake over that.
Mr. Freel:
This is part of the Kmart parcel.
Mr. McCann:
The elevations - 28 fool, 22 foot. The peak at the Walgreens is
22 feel. Would there be a necessity for you to go any higher?
Can this elevation be reduced slightly and maintained? These
are going to be single story units, obviously 22 feel works for
Walgreens. Why wouldn't we be able to lower this? It would
give more effect to maybe the buildings behind it. I'm just
wondering why we have to go so high with this.
Mr. Zschering:
If that's the wish of the Planning Commission, we could do that
in reducing that height. What we try to incorporate in this would
be all encompassing. Give us that height but also hide the
units. If you have any number of units here with their own
rooftop unit, we wanted to make that secure back there and
hidden. Thalwaslhe purpose ofthal.
Mr. McCann:
Even with the 12 fool ceiling in the store, it would seem to me
that eight feel ...
Mr. Zschering:
We could reduce the height.
Mr. McCann:
If you're going to be that close to the road, I prefer to see the
height
reduced a little. That would be my concern.
20824
Mr. Shane:
As long as they could still hide the units.
Mr. McCann:
Right. Obviously you would have to hide the units, but I think by
selling them back a little farther, there's a lot of things you can
do to set it back. I'm sure you can work that out.
Mr. LaPine:
Go back to the one before. The While Castle, will that line up
with those four buildings along Plymouth Road or will it be in
front of it?
Mr. Zschering:
Its just slightly in front. It looks like the sidewalk is in front. If
this is depicted accurately, then the building edge here is right to
the edge of the sidewalk and this building here.
Mr. LaPine:
Just one other question. We brought this up at the study
meeting. We wanted an overall view, and it came up about
these 130 spaces. Now, lets assume that we can eliminate
those 130 space. We can move Building F and E down and use
these 130 spaces, 100 spaces for parking for Building E and F.
You'll gel more landscaping like Mr. Shane had asked. Is that
feasible? Are you so sure you're going to gel something in here
that's going to need that additional parking that we can't pull
back in anyway?
Mr. Zschering:
What you asked for in that study session is, you wanted my
honest opinion what we were going for. And I wanted to give
that to you. Yes, we need that flexibility for that because along
with that, what we've also brought out is the fact that if we can
encourage Target to expand, and we think that's very critical
here, we would like to have that flexibility.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? No? A motion is in
order.
On a motion by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#10-144-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-09-08-24
submitted by Wah Yee Associates, on behalf of Schostak
Brothers & Company, Inc., requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
development known as The Village Shops of Wonderland —
20825
Phase 1 (East) on property located at 29859 Plymouth Road in
the Northeast % of Section 35, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plans marked Sheets C-1 and C-2 both dated
September 19, 2003, as revised, prepared by Hubbell,
Roth & Clark, are hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission and City Council for their review
and approval within sixty (60) days of this approval;
3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans labeled Retail E,
Retail F and Retail G, all dated September 19, 2003, as
revised, prepared by Charles E. Fosse, Architect, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch back or, in the case a precast concrete system is
used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
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 trash dumpster areas shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the buildings or
in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design,
texture and color shall match that of the buildings, and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
7. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
8. That the Lighting Plan marked Sheet FC -1 dated
September 19, 2003, as revised, prepared by Hubbell,
Roth & Clark, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
9. That all light fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadway;
20826
10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated September 30, 2003:
That if any of subject buildings are to be provided with
automatic sprinklers systems, hydrants shall be located
between 50 feel and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connections;
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a
maximum spacing of 300 feel between hydrants; most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI;
Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up the 45 feet
wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13%
feet;
11. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
12. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
13. That a Master Sign Plan establishing ground signage for
the entire The Village Shops of Wonderland development
shall be separately submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Commission and City Council; included in the
application shall be the location and graphics of each
Business Center Sign, all Identification Signs and any
directional signage;
14. That no LED Iighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to the building or
around the windows;
15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
16. That the height of the building shall be lowered by two (2)
feet, to a maximum height of twenty-four (24) feel.
20827
Mr.
McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Ms.
Smiley:
Are you going to address the height of the building?
Mr.
Walsh:
I'd like to do that. Is there an agreement?
Mr.
McCann:
I was going to recommend 24 feet because of the pinnacle. In
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. My second question, when will Bill Brown's cars be
the meantime, they can take a look at it, determine what they
moved out of there? When the demolition starts laking place?
Mr. Zschering:
have, and when they gel to Council they can say, no, we really
I will work on that through my internal parts of the company. It
need 25 or, no, 24 or 23 will work.
Mr.
Walsh:
So for now we'll include 24.
Mr.
Zschering:
I would agree that 24 would be sufficient.
Mr.
McCann:
All right.
Mr. LaPine:
I have two questions. When you demolish the buildings, is the
Wonderland sign al the comer of Plymouth and Middlebelt going
to be a part of that?
Mr. Zschering:
I think that has to come with part of the signage package.
Mr. LaPine:
Is it still going to be called Wonderland Center?
Mr. Zschering:
Its still going to be called Wonderland Mall Village Shops.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. My second question, when will Bill Brown's cars be
moved out of there? When the demolition starts laking place?
Mr. Zschering:
I'm not familiar with the arrangements we have with Bill Brown.
I will work on that through my internal parts of the company. It
will obviously have to be gone at the point of the time we begin.
Mr. McCann:
I think they said they'd get like a two week notice. They don't
get a lot of time.
Mr. LaPine:
I sure hope you don't use the same sign you've got up there
now at Plymouth and Middlebelt Road.
Mr. McCann:
That wouldn't be part of this project, and therefore they would
have to come back obviously. It's not even on the site, so I
don't know how you can use it. It's not an issue tonight. Let's
worry about it another night. Please call the roll.
rirtvr.1
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. There is a request from the petitioner to
waive the seven days. Mr. Engebretson has been informed of
it. Mr. Taormina has stated to me that he's in agreement with it.
The position is that this is of great import to the City of Livonia
because we have large vacant buildings, and it's important to
move this along as quick as we can, and it will accommodate
him in moving the schedule through the City Council if he does
gel a waiver of the seven days. Is there a motion to waive the
seven days?
On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#10-145-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the
seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-
24 submitted by Wah Yee Associates, on behalf of Schostak
Brothers & Company, Inc., requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
development known as The Village Shops of Wonderland —
Phase 1 (East) on property located at 29859 Plymouth Road in
the Northeast % of Section 35.
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-09-08-25 VILLAGE SHOPS WEST
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-09-08-25 submitted by Wah Yee Associates, on behalf of
Schoslak Brothers & Company, Inc., requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
development known as The Village Shops of Wonderland —
Phase 1 (West) on property located at 30255 Plymouth Road in
the Northeast % of Section 35.
20829
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I may. The correspondence that was
previously read is the same for this pefition with the exception of
two items, if I can read them into the record.
Mr. McCann:
Please clarify those.
Mr. Taormina:
The first letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 9,
2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
regards to the proposal to develop a commercial development
on property located at 29859 Plymouth Road. The proposal is
deficient in parking spaces as well as handicap parking spaces.
We recommend that parking be prohibited in the crave area on
the south side of the building described as Outlet A.'
Consideration should also be given for the construction of a
deceleration lane for the driveway between Outlet A' and the
White Caste." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. Secondly, we have a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated October 6, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 24, 2003, the above -
referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This group commercial center will require variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient number of parking
spaces. 1,262 spaces required, 653 provided, 609 deficient.
(2) No signage has been reviewed. (3) Parking lot lighting
standard height should be reviewed and adjusted to the
Commission and Council's satisfaction. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Who is going to represent the pettioner on this one?
William Cote,
Schostak Brothers & Company, 25800 Northwestern Highway,
Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075. To continue on with Bob
Zschering's presentation, these projects do go hand in hand.
Presently, as you probably well know, the existing Kmart
building was built in 1969. It's had a lot of wear and tear. The
roof systems are tired out. The front facade is feeling a little
tired. The parking lot is failing. The interior mechanical and
electrical systems are antiquated. Its a building comprised of
135,000 square feel. Our plan for the building is to do selected
demolition and take everything off the building - the front
facades, all the windows, roof, tear out the parking lot, take out
the electrical and mechanical systems, take out some
environmental issues that we have such as asbestos and so on
in the building, and preserve the four walls, the structural steel,
20830
the interior bearing walls, and change the building into a new
building with a new facade. The building right now is masonry.
Our plan is to repaint the rear walls and side walls, a new roof, a
new facade that's made up of a material like a dryvit with color
combinations that will be a little different than the oullol
buildings that Bob had talked about. As you probably saw,
we're trying to complementthe outlot buildings. We're nottrying
to copy them. We plan on preserving the masonry that's in front
of the building, install new windows and create a facade in the
front with high points to idenfify our tenants. This particular
illustration shows two tenants. We may go with three. We
would not probably have to go with any more than three
because of the depth of the building. Its really built for one
large user or possibly two smaller users. We would also
construct an oullol building, called Retail A, which is similar to
the Village Shops and continue that streetscape along Plymouth
Road. As you can see, we've got two tenants planned for it in
this particular layout. All new landscaping, new parking lot, we'll
recondition the existing truck well in the back, new site lighting,
new building lighting. Basically, it's a renewed building. We're
trying to complement the Village Shops with something a little
different in the back here. As Bob talked about his schedule,
this renovation and this building is planned with the Phase I of
the Wonderland Mall building shops. Its a continuation of it. So
the construction period would be the same. This would open up
approximately the same time as these buildings are constructed
and tenants are placed in them. In conclusion, we respectfully
request that you approve this plan.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say on the Kmart building, all four walls
will be left standing? You're going to paint it?
Mr. Cole: No, we're going to use selected demolition and lake everything
out of the building, all the systems, ceilings, roofing. What
would be left would be four exterior walls and the interior
bearing walls and the concrete floor.
Mr. LaPine: You're going to paint the outside of the building except for the
front?
Mr. Cote: Fxceptforthe front.
Mr. LaPine: Does the color you're going to paint it correspond with the
Village along Plymouth Road?
20831
Mr. Cole:
Actually, its going to be a liltie bit of a contrast. The Village
Shops in this particular color scheme that Bob had talked about
is...
Mr. McCann:
Can you put one plan on lop of the other?
Mr. Cole:
Yes. This will give you an idea.
Mr. LaPine:
Its a little darker.
Mr. Cote:
If we try to match it, it's a little lough because the structural
system on the existing Kmart building won't allow us to do some
things we'd like to do with it. Its a lightweight structural system
in the upper part of the building. The lower section of the
building is masonry right now. It's brick in the front. We'll
probably use a dryvil along the overhang on the building, butthe
color will be a little bit lighter. This is just conceptual. Something
a little bit lighter than these buildings so it stands out a little bit
and its not always the same thing. The retail building in the
front would be another one of the Village Shops continued along
Plymouth Road.
Mr. McCann:
Again, can we go to the site plan? With the building directly in
front, you're assuming that the parking will be sufficient. Its
going to face the front and just the two rows of parking in front of
the building will be sufficient for its tenants?
Mr. Cole:
We believe so. If I'm correct, it's a matter of perspective. Its
distance and looking along these buildings. If we brought this
back, we're not going to pick that much up. We're not going to
enhance that building to bring it loo far back at this point.
Mr. McCann:
Lel me ask you this: I owned a business in a strip mall before.
Is this an 80 fool depth mall?
Mr. Cole:
Yes
Mr. McCann:
Ok. What are the average businesses going to be? 66 and 120
in width?
Mr. Cole:
On those buildings, we're looking at probably ...
Mr. McCann:
20's and 40's?
Mr. Cole:
Yeah.
20832
Mr. McCann:
So if you have a 40 by 80 fool business, basically what you're
showing me is that you're going to have eight spots for that
business. You'll have four across from you and four right in
front of your building; this is the maximum you could have if
you've got 40 feel. Right? With 20 by 10 parking spots, you've
got eight spots. If you have four employees, that means you've
got four customer spots. And if you put one restaurant in that
little mall or coffee shop, you've wiped out all the parking for the
mall.
Mr. Cole:
You mean for this particular retail building?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, forlhal building.
Mr. Cole:
Well, it's interesting. If you look this building and Tel's just say
that a typical aisle and two rows of parking is 60 feel, and if you
move the building back and add another 60, you just put the
people al the building another 60 feet away from the spots along
here. So as you move the building back, you create the
opposite thing on the other side of the building. The ideal
situation, is what you're saying, would be to put the building
right in the middle and have equal parking on both sides based
on that presumption. But it's not going to adversely affect our
retail people to do this. A good example with a little bit different
layout is out in Rochester and what was done to Meadowbrook
Mall. They put streets in there. People would park in front of a
store, and walk 20 stores away and leave their car there
because lheyjust want to park in these nice little streets. They'll
park 300 - 400 feet away and walk to those areas. There's a
very good chance that we'll see that people are going to do
some retail and walk over to the other places. It's almost kind of
that village concept a little bit. We cant put the streets through
there like they did in Rochester. We don't have the property to
do that, but we're kind of creating that kind of a mood. You
could walk from one building to the other and noljusl slay in the
one building.
Mr. McCann:
I think it would be difficult with the entrances and exits off
Plymouth Road. If you have any type of traffic in there at all, it
would be difficult to move between those entrances.
Mr. Cole:
We're not encouraging that.
Mr. Shane:
Are there any customer entrances in the back of the building?
Can customers enter the building from the rear?
20833
Mr. Cole:
For these buildings?
Mr. Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Cole:
Its the same as the buildings we have here upfront.
Mr. Shane:
Was the answer yes?
Mr. Cole:
All entrances will be to the front on Plymouth Road. There will
be a loading and unloading area in the back.
Mr. Shane:
If I park in back, I have to walk around the front?
Mr. Cote:
That's correct. If you parked over here, you'd walkover here.
Mr. McCann:
From my own personal experience, I had a restaurant at the end
of strip mall. It was 40 by 80, 3,200 square feet. We had about
100 seats. At lunchtime, we had people waiting to sit down.
We had 50-60 cars for that restaurant alone. Now they used
other stores within the mall. What I'm seeing here is that if you
put in one restaurant or coffee shop, a lot of these coffee shops
are becoming popular in the little mall so people can stop and
have a cup of coffee. Even with 30 seats, its notjust somebody
coming into the cleaners, pulling out and leaving. I've got
concerns about where the parking is going to be, especially on
this one because you show the features here. The majority of
the people would have to park in front of the former Kmart
parking lot in order to come around and walk around this
building to get to the front of the stores. You've got three
buildings that I see concerns with. If you've got a 40 x 80, eight
spots for customer parking for each one of them. Is that
correct?
Mr. Cote:
I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
Mr. McCann:
I'm looking at a 40 by 80 spot out there. The most you could
have for that store is eight spots with a 3,200 square fool space.
Is that correct, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
If I understand what you're saying, the equivalent area in front of
the store would provide for that many parking spaces.
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Taormina:
Including both aisleways. And the question isn't the amount of
parking overall supplied to these businesses, it's a matter of
convenience. Its those spaces being directly accessible to the
entrances to those buildings.
Mr. McCann:
It would have to be a shared plan. He's saying that this is not a
shared plan. He wants us to take each one of these
individually, and that he'll get a variance on those spots so that
they qualify. He's taking a lot of the Kmart parking to put this
building in. Now I assume that there will be a deficiency for this
building.
Mr. Taormina:
There will be an overall deficiency for the site, but for all
practical purposes, where there is a need for overflow parking,
its going to occur at the back of this store. They'll have to walk
around to the front of those units or they'll park in that portion of
the lot to the east, possibly. They are really limited in this
particular case to parking in the front or directly in the back. I'm
not sure that it allows for convenient pedestrian access between
the parking lot to the east where the White Castle is and the
Village Shop on the Kmart property. But your statement in
terms of allocation of parking per unit, generally speaking, is
accurate. For a 40 -fool space, you'd have probably four spaces
in front and four spaces on the opposite side of the
maneuvering aisle, but it's not to say that those would be
reserved exclusively for those tenants. A lot of it's going to be
depending on the tenant mix there and which ones are requiring
the most parking. Obviously, the example you cited, a
restaurant use, is going to require substantially greater parking
adjacent to the unit than would some of the other retail tenants.
Mr. McCann:
How many spaces are provided al the rear of the building?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe there are any proposed for the rear of the
building. That would be used strictly for loading and unloading.
Is that correct, Mr. Cole? Are there some spaces behind
Kmart?
Mr. Cole: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: But for practical purposes, employees could park there and
that's about it.
Mr. McCann: That's what I wanted to make sure, that we didn't have
employees parking out front too, that we are providing space for
them back there.
20835
Mr. Cole:
We have spaces along two sides and the rear. People
shopping aren't going to drive back there.
Mr. McCann:
No, but we do have space for them?
Mr. Cole:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Robert E. Zschering, Vice President, Schoslak Brothers & Company, 25800
Northwestern Highway, Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075.
One thing that I'd like to speak on is the parking variance that
we're requesting. If you look at your backup materials there, we
take into account those users that you mentioned, such as
restaurants and things like that. If we keep it under that certain
percentage of leasable area, it does not present a problem
according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers and Urban Land.
They recognize the fad that there is additional parking for those,
but they should suffice. Again, you don't go into entertainment
areas, restaurants areas that exceed I believe its a 25% of that
area. So we have addressed that in our parking that I've given
you, and that's what we'll address when we go into that request
forvariance too.
Mr. McCann:
That's an interesting point. You haven't provided for any oullol
restaurants except for that one blank corner that we still
dont
know what's going in there.
Mr. Zschering:
That's correct.
Mr. McCann:
Has there been any thought? I would think that if you're going
to end up with this much retail, that you're going to have some
requests for restaurants.
Mr. Zschering:
That is the hope that we would have good restaurants, that we
would have something that complements the use of those
buildings there.
Mr. McCann:
And that's what the corner lot is being kept for?
Mr. Zschering:
That is the intention. We think the highest priority use of that
would be a good, high scale restaurant in that area. We're
talking about the Middlebelt-Plymouth comer, correct?
20836
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
When you go to lease these different buildings, is the mix going
to be such ... for instance, we're not going to have four shoe
stores, men's shoe stores, or four ladies' stores. You're going
to gel a mix so that the draw will be from a good type of people -
young people, older people.
Mr. Zschering:
Yes, the intention of the leasing group would be to give it a good
customer mix so that each of the tenants can be successful.
Thais the earmark of a successful properly that you have a
balance. You're notjust all one thing or a couple of things. You
are several things.
Mr. LaPine:
And the same with restaurants. I would assume you're probably
going to have a couple fast food restaurants in here, a coney
island, and things like that. But you're not going to be
overloaded with a pizza parlor and a coney island and a sub
shop like we have in these strip malls. I hope chats not what
your intention is.
Mr. Zschering:
No, and I think we've demonstrated that in our property such as
Laurel Park and Wonderland during its very active days and
things like that. We try to make it so that we give that person
we lease to the opportunity to succeed, as opposed to, using
your example, putting a coney island in and then 20 feel away
pulling in another coney island because they give us $5.00
more. Thaljusl isn't good leasing.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Anybody else? A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#10-146-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council Petition 2003-09-08-25
submitted by Wah Yee Associates, on behalf of Schoslak
Brothers & Company, Inc., requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
development known as The Village Shops of Wonderland —
Phase 1 (West) on properly located at 30255 Plymouth Road in
the Northeast % of Section 35, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
20837
1. That the Site Plans marked Sheets C-1 and C-2 both dated
September 19, 2003, as revised, prepared by Hubbell,
Roth & Clark, are hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission and City Council for their review
and approval within sixty (60) days of this approval;
3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan labeled Oullol A
dated September 19, 2003, as revised, prepared by
Charles E. Fosse, Architect, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Job No.
3617 dated September 5, 2003, as revised, prepared by
Charles E. Fosse, Architect, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete system is
used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
6. 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;
7. That the trash dumpsler areas shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the buildings or
in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design,
texture and color shall match that of the buildings and the
enclosure gales shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
8. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
9. That the Lighting Plan marked Sheet FC -1 dated
September 19, 2003, as revised, prepared by Hubbell,
Roth & Clark, are hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
10 That all light fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadway;
11. That the pettoner shall correct to the Fire Departments
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated September 30, 2003:
That if any of subject buildings are to be provided with
automatic sprinklers systems, hydrants shall be located
between 50 feel and 100 feel from the Fire Department
connections;
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a
maximum spacing of 300 feel between hydrants. Most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI;
Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up the 45 ft.
wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13%
feet;
12. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
13. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
14. That a Master Sign Plan establishing ground signage for
the entire The Village Shops of Wonderland development
shall be separately submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Commission and City Council. Included in the
application shall be the location and graphics of each
Business Center Sign, all Identification Signs and any
directional signage;
15. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
20839
16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
17. That the height of the building shall be lowered by two (2)
feet, to a maximum height of twenty-four feel.
Mrs. Smiley:
Now I would assume that the building to the lett would be at the
same height as the other Village Shops?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mrs. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make just a couple comments. I'd like to
thank Schostak Bros. for coming in with this project. This is an
enormous commitment that you made not just to the City.
Schoslak Bros. has got to be one of the lop five largest tax
payers in our City, and has honorably operated it properties for
many, many years. They have fought to hold onto this property
at a time when retail operations are changing dramatically, and I
appreciate that. I hope that you lake our comments as they're
meant, and that is to help you make this the best that it can be
for Schoslak Bros. and for the City. I'm certain I speak for all of
us. We appreciate the significant commitment you're making in
this project, and we look forward to working with you now and
as this project continues.
Mr. Zschering:
Thank you for your kind comments.
Mr. McCann:
I do have concerns about the parking. I'm just not sure that
you're leaving sufficient room for your tenants. I think there is
sufficient parking on the project for everything, and it may work
well. I think it's because of my respect for the past
developments that Schoslak has brought to us and their
knowledge of the industry that I'm going to go along with it
tonight. I think they'll make it work as they develop this area
and do what's necessary for these projects to make sure that
their tenants are well taken care of. I do want to see this. This
is a problem site, and I do agree with John that Schostak is
really committed to Livonia by working towards solving the issue
of Wonderland Mall, which we've all been concerned about for
many years. Please call the roll.
20840
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. McCann: Again, we have a request for a waiver of the seven days.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#10-147-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the
seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-
25 submitted by Wad Yee Associates, on behalf of Schoslak
Brothers & Company, Inc., requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial
development known as The Village Shops of Wonderland —
Phase 1 (West) on property located at 30255 Plymouth Road in
the Northeast % of Section 35.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2003-09-08-26 HUNTERS PARK
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-09-08-26, submitted by Spalding Properties, LLC, on
behalf of Hunters Park Estates Site Condominiums, requesting
approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by
Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a site condominium development on
property located at 37917 Plymouth Road in the Southeast %of
Section 30.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Newburgh and Eckles. The petitioner is requesting approval to
develop a 29 -unit site condominium development on property
that is in the process of being rezoned (Pel. 03-02-01-10) from
Rural Urban Farm (RUF) to One Family Residential (R-1).
Review of this petition was based on R-1 zoning. According to
the submitted documentation, the proposed development would
be called "Hunters Park Estates Site Condominiums." Each
proposed condominium lot would front on a 60 fool wide public
20841
street that would meander south off Plymouth Road for about
500 feet and then tum and continue east for approximately 300
feel. The road would then tum abruptly north and end in a cut -
de -sac. The ordinance specifies that the lot area of an R-1
properly shall be equal to 7,200 square feet and have a lot width
of 60 feet and a lot depth of 120 feet. The proposed
condominium lots would conform to all lot requirements of an R-
1 zoning district. The storm water detention would be handled
by three separate basin areas spaced throughout the project.
The west basin would be located at the southwest corner of the
development and would take over the back half of proposed lots
16, 17 and 18. The east basin would be located in the
southeast corner of the site and encroach into lots 8, 9 and 10.
The third basin would occupy lots 5, 6 and 7, which are located
at the northeast corner of the site. A sidewalk is shown along
the right-of-way of the proposed street. A copy of the Master
Deed and bylaws for this new development has been submitted
for review by the City. The bylaws specify that the minimum
size standards for a one-story ranch would be 1,500 square feet
and 2,000 square feet for a mulfi-story dwelling. All single-
family dwellings would have a two -car attached garage; with
written approval from the Association, a three -car attached
garage would be permitted. Exterior building materials would
consist of brick, brick veneer, stone and/or wood. The first floor
of each unit would be brick on all four sides, with the total
amount of brick on each dwelling being not less than 80% on
one-story dwellings and 55% on two-story dwellings. All the
brick used in construction would be full face, four -inch brick.
The chimney of any dwelling shall be all brick.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 6, 2003, which reads
as follows: We are in receipt of a revised site plan with new
descriptions and note that the description for lot 543 is incorrect
since that lot has been previously split into four parcels and the
developer is purchasing varying depths from each of the four
parcels. The legal descriptions should be changed to reflect
this. We would suggest that you give the developer a copy of
our comments from the rezoning review, which reflect this
situation (Petition 2003-02-01-10). We have attached a copy of
our comments from that review." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, City Engineer. The next letter is from the Division of
Police, dated October 7, 2003, which reads as follows: "We
have reviewed the plans regarding the proposal to construct a
20842
site condominium project on property located at 37917
Plymouth. It is our recommendation that a deceleration lane be
constructed on Plymouth Road near the entrance to this site to
enhance traffic Flow along Plymouth Road. A stop sign should
be placed at Plymouth Road for traffic exiting the site. A 'no
outlet' sign should also be erected at the entrance to discourage
Plymouth Road traffic from seeking alternate routes. It is also
our recommendation that street lighting be installed throughout
this site for traffic safety and crime prevention. 'No parking'
signs should be installed along the cul-de-sac at the end of this
street to allow access by emergency vehicles." The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October
10, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a
site condominium project on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be
provided and located with spacing consistent with residential
areas. Most remote hydrant shall Flow 1,500 GPM with a
residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) Minimum diameter of cul-de-
sac shall be at least 110 feet. (3) Any curves or comer of
streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning
radius of 45 feet wall-to-wall." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 4, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 24, 2003, the above -
referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This Petition creates a deficient side yard abutting a street at
an existing residence of 37865 Plymouth Road. A variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required. (2) The plan
submitted notes that property lines are approximated only and
that a boundary survey is required to accurately display property
lines. This should be done. The review is based upon the plan
submitted and may change if the plan changes. (3) No mention
is made of removing the existing structures at units 5, 6, 18, 19,
25 and 27 or fencing noted. (4) There is no provision for the
protective wall on substitute greenbelt, which is required along
the eastern property line where the R-1 zoning abuts the C-1
zoning. This Department has no further objections to this
Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
20843
Craig Corbell:
I'm actually representing the building company on this
development. We also have the representative from Spalding
Properties, Larry DeFiore, as well. Basically, what I want to
demonstrate is some of the elevations and some of the homes
we're proposing to build there. We passed out a packet to each
of you earlier that also demonstrates some of the examples of
floors plans, along with some of the prior submittals that
demonstrate some of the floor plans as well. We expect to
adhere to the Master Deed as far as the brick counts, the
square footages, and so on. I'll be happy to answer any
questions you have regarding those items at this time.
Mrs. Smiley:
What is the price range on those houses?
Mr. Corbell:
The price ranges are expected to be from $280,000 to
$325,000.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Square footage?
Mr. Corbell:
The minimums would be 1,500 for the ranch and 2,000 for the
colonial. We expect the colonials to end up being in the 2,200
to 2,300 fool range. We have the ability to widen them or
deepen them depending on people's needs or expanding
certain rooms or adding bays and things like that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What are the footprints of these?
Mr. Corbell:
We have spoken with the Planning Department aboutthat issue.
With the colonials, they're definitely well under 25%, although
some of our lots actually appear to be quite large especially
since a lot of the site is comprised of curbs and cul-de-sacs, and
so therefore they are much larger than the minimum R-1.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So the footprints are 25% or less, which meets our ordinance?
Mr. Corbell:
Yes. It's a little interesting making all that work, but the designs
we have do work.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It works well for Livonia.
Mr. McCann:
Any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? We have reviewed
it at a prior occasion. I do believe this is a much better design.
If there are no questions, a motion in order.
20844
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-148-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-09-08-26
submitted by Spalding Properties, LLC, on behalf of Hunters
Park Estates Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a site condominium development on property located at 37917
Plymouth Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 30, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws comply with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tifle
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
- That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be
brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of
brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less
than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings;
- That all exterior chimneys shall be brick;
2. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and ouflel facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owner's property prorala and place said charges on
their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not
paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner)
within thirty (30) days of billing by the City of Livonia;
20845
4. That the brick used in the construction of each
condominium unit shall be full face 4 inch brick;
5. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated October 9, 2003,
as revised, prepared by Spalding Properties, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Departments
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated October 10, 2003:
That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with spacing consistent with residential areas. Most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI;
That the minimum diameter of cul-de-sac shall be at
least 110 feet;
That any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 45 feet
wall-to-wall;
7. That an Entrance Marker Application shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission and City Council for their review
and approval;
8. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
9. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note that in going over this petition with
our Engineering Department, there are still corrections that need
to be made to the legal description. The Planning Department
would therefore recommend that this matter not be forwarded to
City Council until such time as the revisions are made to the
20846
legal description to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division
with exhibits attached thereto.
Mr. McCann: How would you handle that? Can we make an approving
resolution that it be held until these matters are resolved and
then it would go to Council, or do we need to table it until such
time as that is done?
Mr. Taormina: You can do it either way. Since we've read the resolution that
we're approving the Master Deed and bylaws, it would have to
be with the proviso that any corrections, as needed by the
Engineering Division, shall be made prior to forwarding this
petition to the City Council.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner agreeing to this?
Mr. Piercecchi: I think we can do just what you said - have that language
incorporated in with this motion.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution once
the changes to the legal description are made as required by the Engineering
Division on the legal descriptions.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-09SN-09 BIG O TIRES
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003 -09 -SN -09, submitted by Jan Signs, Inc., on behalf of Big O
Tires, requesting approval for signage for one of the commercial
units of the Seven Farmington Shopping Center located at
33400 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and
Farmington. The applicant is requesting approval for wall
signage for one of the units of the Seven Farmington Shopping
Center. Big O Tires will be taking over the part of the building
that was most recently occupied by a Kmart affiliated tire store.
Big O Tires would not be associated with Kmart in any way. All
interior openings from this unit to Kmart would be closed. Big O
Tires would be occupying a separate unit from Kmart and the
rest of the units associated with the shopping center. Since the
lire store would be occupying the end unit of the center, it is
permitted two wall signs. Signage is summarized as follows:
they are permitted two wall signs: one along the front elevation
facing Farmington Road at 118 square feel and one not to
20847
exceed one-half the allowable area of the first sign along the
Seven Mile side, which would be 59 square feel. The petitioner
is asking for two wall signs at 79 square feel, which is an excess
of 20 square feet in sign area for the second sign. Because the
proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign
Ordinance, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would
be required. The petitioner is also requesting approval to erect
a red fabric awning over the entrance on the east elevation.
This awning would measure 12 feel across and be positioned
between two of the existing large overhead doors. This awing
would be laking the place of a smaller existing awning that
shaded the door. No signage is proposed on the awning but
notations on the plan indicate it is to be illuminated. The Sign
Ordinance specifies "internal illumination or back -lighting of
awnings, which renders the awning translucent, is not
permitted." A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would
be required in order to illuminate the awning.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated October 13, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 16, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This Petition will require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for excess square footage. This site would be allowed
one wall sign on the east wall of 118 square feet and one wall
sign on the south wall of 59 square feet. The door awning
would be a direct replacement but may not be illuminated. (2)
The south walk directly abutting this space has a raised
deteriorated sidewalk area where a tree was once planted, that
is now a hazard and needs to be replaced. (3) A property sized,
striped, signed and marked accessible parking space needs to
be installed near their front door in the existing parking area.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
James Bolton,
Jan Signs, Inc., 5395 Cogswell, Wayne, Michigan 48185.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner who wants to open the store here this evening?
Mr. Bolton:
I don't think so.
YI11-5f,
Mr.
McCann:
Are you aware of the ordinance problem with internally It
awnings?
Mr.
Bolton:
I wasn't. The awning does not have any lettering or signage on
it. Itjust illuminates to show the entrance to the store.
Mr.
McCann:
But it is internally lit?
Mr.
Bolton:
Yes. We're not the ones that sold the job, so we're not
requesting this. This was requested by Big O.
Mr.
McCann:
Right.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Are you saying that its internally lit within the sign or you have
lights that are shining down from it?
Mr.
Bolton:
Pardon? It's underneath the awning. The lights are underneath
the awning and they wash down on the ground.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
That shouldn't be a problem, should it?
Mr.
McCann:
Well, if they light up the awning so that its ...
Mr.
Bolton:
The awning actually lights up as a glow of the color.
Mr.
McCann:
With the sign ordinance, that becomes part of the sign.
Mr.
Taormina:
Correct.
Mr.
Bolton:
I'll just tell them they can't have it.
Mr.
McCann:
We can approve it without the internally lit portion.
Mr.
Taormina:
If I may, Mr. Chair?
Mr.
McCann:
Please.
Mr.
Taormina:
Considering that it's for the purpose of illuminating that
entryway, we can just require that it be downcast lighting only
and that the canopy not be illuminated.
Mr.
Bolton:
Oryou might suggest that the awning be an opaque material.
Mr.
Taormina:
Right.
Mr.
Bolton:
Still illuminate underneath but not glow red.
WIDEP1
Ms. Smiley:
If the awning is 12 feet, what is the size of the one that's up
there now?
Mr. Bolton:
Its eight feet. It's just a little longer over the doorway. That's
all. The problem with the building is its 180 feet long for the
Seven Mile Road sign.
Mr. McCann:
He's requesting a nonconforming sign; he's requesting an
internally lit sign. I think we need the petitioner here to
demonstrate some hardship if he wants extra signage, wouldn't
we? Al lead Chats something that the ZBA would require. I'd
like to know what he's claiming as hardship for excess signage.
Mr. Taormina:
If I may, Mr. Chair?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina:
By conditioning the approval this evening to only conforming
signage, then he cannot petition the Zoning Board of Appeals
for any additional signage. He'd be restricted to what we
approved this evening. I think it should be this petitioners
representative's decision as to whether or not to
proceed or
table this matter because they have to realize their limitation
as
far as petitioning the Zoning Board for anything in excess of
whatwe authorize this evening.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, when Penske's was in there, what size signs did they
have? They had a sign on the south side and the east side.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
They were pretty good sized signs.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know the actual areas of those signs. Maybe Scott can
research that.
Mr. Miller:
I can look that up but I didn't see what they had.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not aware of the actual sizes of those signs.
Mr. LaPine:
If they're asking for no more than what Penske's had, I have no
problem because if Penske was still in business, we'd still have
the signs there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Bill, we're talking about the awning here that's illuminated.
20850
Mr. LaPine:
I'm not talking about that. The awning doesn't bother me either
even if it's illuminated. What time does the store close?
Probably 9:00.
Mr. Bolton:
Nine o'clock.
Mr. LaPine:
So how many months out of the year is that sign really going to
be illuminated?
Mr. Bolton:
But the awning is not a sign.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm saying that doesn't bother me because you're about 100 feel
from Farmington Road. The only thing it's going to illuminate, if
anything, is the parking lot.
Mr. Bolton:
Its at least 200 feel from Seven Mile.
Mr. LaPine:
I know it's a long way.
Mr. McCann:
Bill, my point is if he went with the conforming sign and put the
down lit lighting underneath the awning, he's only losing 20
square feet in sign area. He'd be entitled to two 69 square fool
signs.
Mr. LaPine:
I can go along with that. I was just curious as to what Penske
had.
Mr. Bolton:
The Big O people have told me that if the signage has to
conform to the ordinance exactly, then that's what they'll do.
Mr. Shane:
Fine. That's easy enough.
Mr. LaPine:
That takes care of it.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order. Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
If I may, one more question to the petitioner: will this portion of
the building be painted?
Mr. Bolton:
That I don't know.
Mr. Taormina:
My only concern is that if it's painted, which I believe it is going
to be, that the color match the existing building.
20851
Mr. McCann:
Okay. We can add that. That wasn't included in there. If it's
going to be painted, it matches the existing building.
Mr. Bolton:
Their normal stores that I've worked on so far have a white
stripe around the building with red letters in the middle of the
stripe, no matter what size the letters are.
Mr. McCann:
Well, then they'd have to come here if they're going to change
the design of the building.
Mr. Taormina:
We really don't have the details on how the colors are going to
be changed on the building. In talking with Schoslak, they have
not yet approved any exterior building modifications.
Mr. Bolton:
They have to gel it through Schoslak. I was told that out in the
hallway.
Mr. Taormina:
Right, they have not yet approved any changes to the building.
So it still has to pass muster with them.
Mr. McCann:
I have another question for you, Mark. He's asking for 79
square feel on each side, which I think is very reasonable if he
wants two signs. The ordinance requires one-half the allowable
sign on the second one. He could go to 118 square feel, but
he's still only allowed 59 square feel on the one elevation. If we
allowed him the total of 177 square feel and just divided it
between...
Mr. Taormina:
Equally?
Mr. McCann:
Equally. He's only 20 square feet over on the one. He's within
the total square feet.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Forty ahead on one and 20 below on the other.
Mr. McCann:
Right. I guess I wouldn't have a problem since he's really below
the total amount. He's just making one sign bigger. We'd still
have to send him to ZBA.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. McCann:
If would be helpful if the petitioner were here.
Mr. Taormina:
The accumulative amount of signage that he's allowed for both
is 177 square feet and he's proposing 158.
20852
Mr. McCann: I'd rather just allow this and send him on to the ZBA. He is
below the total amount allowed, and then just have down
lighting on the awning.
Mr. Taormina: That's fine.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#10-149-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -09 -SN -09
submitted by Jan Signs, Inc., on behalf of Big O Tires,
requesting approval for signage for one of the commercial units
of the Seven Farmington Shopping Center located at 33400
Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 4, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Jan Signs, as
received by the Planning Commission on October 1, 2003,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to a
variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
excess signage;
2. That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
5. That the awning shown on the east elevation is hereby
approved;
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for;
7. That this portion of the building shall be painted to match
the color of the existing building; and
8. That the awning shall not be internally illuminated, except
that lights directed downward for the purpose of
illuminating the entrance shall be allowed.
20853
Mr.
McCann:
How about #8, that the awning must be down lit only or that the
sign package and the awning will be down IN only?
Mr.
Shane:
Yes, something like that.
Mr.
McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr.
Bolton:
Now I have to go to the ZBA?
Mr.
McCann:
Yes, and then to Council.
Mr.
Bolton:
Then to Council?
Mr.
McCann:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Bolton:
More meetings?
Mr.
McCann:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Bolton:
Can you move me up?
Mr.
McCann:
I can't. The ZBA is a whole different world.
Mr.
Bolton:
Thank you.
Mr.
McCann:
This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our
agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of
our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior
meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight.
Audience participation
will require unanimous consent from the
Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-08-01-15 GOLF RIDGE PROPERTIES
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-08-01-15, submitted by Golf Ridge Properties, LLC, on
behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of Glen Eden
Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads in the
North Y of Section 5 from AG to RC.
Y
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and adopted, it was
#10-150-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2003-08-01-15, submitted by Gott
Ridge Proper0es, LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc.,
requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight
Mile Road (part of Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen
and Newburgh Roads in the North % of Section 5 from AG to
RC, be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. Is there any new correspondence regarding
this peti0on, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
No, there is not.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything new to
inform us of this evening?
James Deutchman, Golf Ridge Proper0es, LLC, 6020W. Maple Road, Suite 503,
West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322. We wanted to just reiterate
some of the things we said at the Planning study session a
week ago to re-emphasize that the thrust of our design is
basically condominium -style ranch detached homes designed to
be exterior -wise maintained by the condominium association.
These units are, for the most part, aimed at the empty nester
purchaser. We expect the units would be predominately
marketed to people who currently are residents in Livonia
looking to stay within the city limits but want a modification in a
single family home that they'll buy. Our intent is to develop this
41 acre site in a very modest way with 135 or so units. The
reason for the request for RC is because the RC gives us the
flexibility in dealing with private roadways and setbacks, which
allow us to take advantage of this very unusually shaped site.
Additionally, I wanted to emphasize that the site sits virtually
surrounded by almost 500 acres of total open space in the
sense of the two golf courses and the cemetery that surround
three sides of the site. So the site is rather unique in and of
itself and quite isolated. Given those factors, we feel that this
truly is a very considered request on our part, and we would
certainly pray that the Commission comes to a consistent and
concurrent decision.
Mr. Piercecchi: Have you considered any other zoning?
20855
Mr. Deutchman:
We have, sir. We strongly fell that the other zonings required
cluster to be also part of it, and we're not certain that is an item
that would be the recommendation here tonight. We are more
than willing to work within the limitations of the 135 or so units.
We would hope that you might grant us the RC because it does
give us that flexibility in our layout of the roadways, etc. We are
unique; we are quite isolated; and we do deal with a rather
unusually shaped site.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, are you aware that we cannot condition zoning? We cannot
give you a certain number.
Mr. Deutchman:
Oh, no. I understand that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And are you aware, sir, that once we make a decision on an RC
package, that it's eligible for 10 units per acre? You're aware of
that, correct?
Mr. Deutchman:
Potentially you could build that many; that's right. One
bedrooms.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And are you aware that once its rezoned to RC, somebody else
could come in. Potentially, could put 400 units in there. Of
course, you really couldn't but I can see no problem if they put a
couple hundred units in there.
Mr. Deutchman:
Its certainly possible that somebody could come up with a
design in the 200 range or so. Yes, you're right. But from our
perspective based upon the type of product that we plan on
developing, it wouldn't work, and it would not be a product that
we would be able to sell and achieve the price point that we're
trying to achieve. We basically look to gel the zoning, gel the
site plan approval, and build and conclude the project. Our
intent is not to do anything other than that. Thais how we've
always proceeded with all of our projects.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Have you considered a course of action if, by chance, the RC
rezoning is turned down?
Mr. Deutchman:
We've thought of some alternatives, yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Would you care to share them?
Mr. Deutchman:
Well, we really feel that the RC is not an outrageous request on
our part. We feel that it, as indicated, gives us the flexibility in
the design. Based upon the methods in which the City plans on
20856
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003,
on Pefition 2003-08-01-15 submitted by Golf Ridge Properties,
LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of
Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads
in the North % of Section 5 from AG to RC, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Pefition 2003-08-01-15 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning
districts in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will promote the
orderly development of the subject area;
holding up the final reading of the rezoning until our site plan is
approved, I really don't see the concern that you raised about
possibly our withdrawing from the site and then somebody else
succeeding us and attempting to get a greater density achieved
on the site. The staging or the planning for the final reading
would probably be on the same night that the site plan would be
approved. So I know that safeguard is sort of within the
procedure of how the Council goes about this.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I have another question, Mr. Chairman, but I'll yield to one of our
colleagues here.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any otherquestions?
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, this petition I got tonight. Is that something new?
Mr. Taormina:
I looked at that. I saw the date as being September 30. If I'm
not mistaken, that was presented the night of the public hearing.
Mr. Piercecchi:
First time for me, too.
Mr. McCann:
I remember them submitting it, though.
Mr. Shane:
I think I remember At reading the petition.
Mr. McCann:
Any other comments? A mofion is in order.
On a mofion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003,
on Pefition 2003-08-01-15 submitted by Golf Ridge Properties,
LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of
Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads
in the North % of Section 5 from AG to RC, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Pefition 2003-08-01-15 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning
districts in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will promote the
orderly development of the subject area;
20857
3. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for
reasonable standards to deal with the constraints of the
awkward site configuration;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more
of a variety of housing types in the City; and
5. That the increased population density which may result
from the proposed change of zoning to RC on the subject
property will be off -set by the large areas of adjacent open
space.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh: I'd like to just make a comment to the petitioner through you. I
think what you're offering is a high quality product. Regardless
of the vole here tonight, we wish you success. I think it's good
for your business; its good for the cemetery. But I am
struggling with the density issue. I look at the shape of the land.
I understand the road is driving this decision on the shape and
you have price points, and that's a negotiation between you and
the church, and maybe you can work those things out. What I'm
gelling to is, I can't support the RC. I was part of the
discussions on other properties where we ended up with R-4.
Those were hard fought. I think they were good battles. I think
R-4 is the appropriate zoning here, notwithstanding the shape of
the property. I think it's just the right thing to do, and so I am
voting against the RC this evening.
Mr. Shane: The reason I made the approving resolution is because I feel
this is a unique piece of properly; it's surrounded by a lot of
open space; it has no relationship to other residential areas in
that particular area. If there's a question of density, that can be
worked out at the site plan approval stage. I'm sure these
people are in a negotiating mood. If the RC zoning will give
them the kind of flexibility they need, I think to alter their density
a bit, and I'd rather see it done that way than to kind of box them
in with another zoning district. That's the reason why I offered
an approving resolution.
Mr. McCann: I'm right between the two of you, in both thought and sealing. I
agree with John that I dont think RC works there. I agree with
Mr. Shane that it is unique; there's a lot of separation; it really
doesn't have the effect of the other neighbors and what they
have. I see this as a unique piece. The idea of the empty
nester, there's so many people that I talk to in the City that
YIR:1.T:1
would like a condominium but still maintain that private
residence, first floor master bedroom, two -car attached garage,
the walk-in without a lot of steps, two bedrooms maybe upstairs
for the kids when they come to visit, but a turnkey operation
where the association takes care of the condo. We don't have
anything where we have completely unique homes that are in
the condo association. So the concept, I think, works
wonderfully for Livonia. Now two things that this brings to mind
for me: first, that creates a different density than what we have
in the R-4 and the R-5 Deer Creek and next to it because those
are large 3,000 -4,000 square fool homes that require that size
of property. These homes would likely be in the 2,000 square
foot range.
Mr. Deutchman: Twenty-one hundred to 2,200 square feel
Mr. McCann:
Twenty-one hundred to 2,200 square feet, which is not going to
have that big fool pattern. These aren't going to be 35 -foot tall
homes, or 30 -fool tall homes. Its going to have much less
impact. On the other hand, RC creates a problem in that once
you zone a properly RC, even if you have site plan approval, it
may lake a year to gel this thing going. It may change hands.
The next developer comes in with a conforming RC in every
respect. The City cant slop him from building RC. So we really
do lose control over our density. I think this is a very unique
properly; it has unique angles. I think R-3 and possibly, if we
need to, certain sections could be looked at as cluster or maybe
the entire piece because of the unique shape and angles and it
faces a main road. I think this properly would qualify.
Therefore, I think that I have to vote against RC but would be
amenable to R-3 and then work through the process from there
and that also brings down the density to three units per acre,
which is what I'm comfortable with.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I see your point on the R-3 cluster. I see our Chairman's point
of view on this, and the R-3 cluster would give you 123 units ...
Mr. Deulchman:
One hundred twenty-four.
Mr. Piercecchi:
.. which is only 12 less and it would take away all the concerns
about density as I mentioned earlier in my conversation. I'm
very pleased that our Teamed Chairman here shares that point
of view, but R-3 would satisfy for all practical purposes and you
do quality for a cluster. You are next to a cemetery and you
have acute angles, which does qualify you for cluster. Is that
correct, Mr. Taormina?
20859
Mr. Taormina:
Thats a discretionary decision that is up to the Planning
Commission and City Council. They're relying on their ability to
approve this as a single family cluster project for reasons of
both a desired end product, as well as density. The staff
doesn't believe that the development under that option is at all
inconsistent with the area. The cluster would work well on this
site; however, realize that to qualify, the site has to contain
certain characteristics or constraints that make normal
subdivision development either impractical or unfeasible. In
allowing the single family cluster option, we're affording them
design flexibility, and really the purpose for that will allow for
development in an efficient manner but also to provide for some
valued open space on the site. So I think the expectation in
developing this as cluster housing is that, in return, there will be
some common open space in the development as part of the
end product.
Mr. Piercecchi:
If the cluster program goes, that would be a waiver use though.
They would have to come back for that.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
My point with the R-3 cluster was that it would eliminate our
concern about high density. Granted, R-4 would even be better
but we understand your constraints and the prices that would be
forced on those houses. So that's just my opinion, but there's a
motion on the floor and we have to take care of that first.
Mr. LaPine:
My gulfeeling is I'm not even happy about rezoning the property
from Agriculture. This property has been a cemetery for 74
years, and the City hasn't made one dime off that property in
taxes. Now they sell off 40 acres and the owner of the property
is going to make a tremendous profit because he probably
bought that property 74 years ago; he's making two or three
hundred times what he bought his 40 acres for. No doubt about
it in my mind. And over those years, the City of Livonia hasn't
got anything out of it, but leave that as it may. My biggest hang-
up here about not going to R-4 is, we had two other sites just
east of here. Now, everybody says it's half a mile away. A half
mile is not far in my estimation. I wanted R-5 there. I
compromised on R-4. The only thing that I would go for here is
R-4, and I think that's not being unreasonable. Considering the
property - I've been out there three times - I agree with this
gentleman. I went out there. Whoever buys those lots that
overtook the golf courses, they've got a beautiful site. These
condos are going to sell and they're going to sell fast. But I
think it's doing a disservice to the people who bought homes
east of here in R-4. I live in this area. I never in my wildest
dreams ever thought that cemetery would be selling off
properly. I figure 75 years from now, they might wish they had
the lots back for some more grave sites. But that being said,
the only thing I would vole for is R-4.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any other discussion? Would the secretary call the roll?
Mr. Deutchman:
Can I just mention ....
Mr. McCann:
Actually, not at this point.
Mr. Piercecchi:
There will be a vole on whether to rezone it to RC.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Smiley
NAYS: La Pine, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. McCann:
The motion fails. Is there an afternalive resolution?
On a motion by
Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and approved, it was
#10-151-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 30, 2003,
on Petition 2003-08-01-15 submitted by Golf Ridge Properties,
LLC, on behalf of Glen Eden Church, Inc., requesting to rezone
properly located on the south side of Eight Mile Road (part of
Glen Eden Memorial Park) between Ellen and Newburgh Roads
in the North Y of Section 5 from AG to RC, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-08-01-15, as amended, be approved so as to
rezone this property to R-4, for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning
districts in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject properly for single family
residential purposes in a compatible manner with other
developed properties in the area;
20861
3. That the use of the subject properly for single family
residenlial purposes as allowed under the proposed
change of zoning will be enhanced by its proximity to
adjacent uses which provide large areas of open space;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will promote the
orderly development of the subject properly; and
5. That the proposed rezoning to the R-4 classification would
allow for development of homes that would be more in
keeping with standards of new construction throughout the
City.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mrs. Smiley: Does that eliminate the cluster homes, then, if they go to R-4?
Mr. McCann: Theoretically, you could have a cluster development in R-4.
That is really a separate issue. One of the issues with a cluster
development is that they have to show the number of homes
they could gel in a conforming R-4 subdivision on this property
and that's how many they can build in a cluster development.
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: May I clarity that point?
Mr. McCann: I was afraid that we'd get into this. Go ahead.
Mr. Taormina: Its based on a specific density standard of 2.5 units per acre.
Mr. McCann: Oh, we changed that?
Mr. Taormina: You are correct. That was the language that we were going to
utilize for the R-5 or in the process of changing. But in this
particular case, there's specific density limitation.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I may add, Mr. Chairman, with an R-4 classification, the
gentleman still gels 102 units. It's not that you're getting just a
few units.
Mr. McCann: That would still be available - a cluster in there. Please call the
roll.
20862
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Walsh, Smiley, Pieroecchi
NAYS:
Shane, McCann
ABSENT:
Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a
recommendation for R-4 zoning.
ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 872nd Regular Meeting
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 872otl Regular Meeting held on September 16,
2003.
On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted,
R was
#10-152-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 872nd Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on September 16, 2003, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi,
McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 874th Regular
Meeting held on October 14, 2003, was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Pieroecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman