HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-01-2720958
MINUTES OF THE 8781h PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 27, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 879"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
William LaPine John Walsh Carol Smiley
Members absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge
Roney, Program Supervisor, 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 2003-12-02-23 COSTCO - MIDDLEBELT
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
12-02-23, submitted by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license (packaged liquor)
in connection with an existing retail facility at 13700 Middlebell
Road, located on the east side of Middlebe8 Road between
Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in the Northwest''/. of Section
25.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
20959
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Timothy Sloepker, Esq., Dickinson Wright, PLLC, 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite
4000, Detroit, Michigan 48226. Also present is Mr. Thomas
Giachino as well, on behalf of Costco. I'd like to address the
first waiver use that we're asking for and just give some brief
background. As Mr. Taormina staled, the property at issue is
developed on a 14.89 acre site in a C-2 zoning district and
surrounded essentially by C-2 properties. It is developed for
retail use and, as staled, the site is developed with a 135,000
square fool retail store, selling at this time foods, other retail
merchandise, as well as SDM licensed beverages. The last
time we were here before the City was 1997 when the store
opened. We sought both the SDM and SDD licenses. Since
that time, we believe that the presence of Costco, not only in
the City of Livonia, but in the six other areas in which it
conducts business, five of which contain SDD licenses, has
established a track record which would menl the granting of a
waiver recommending in this case a waiver to City Council and
ultimately the City Council granting the waiver to allow the sale
of SDD licensed beverages from this location. We are here
asking for the waiver pursuant to Section 11.03 (h) and (r), as
Mr. Taormina stated. The conditions under which the
ordinance sets forth the lineal distances between us and other
SDD licensed establishments are more than satisfied. The
nearest one to the Middlebelt store is 1,200 feel away. There
is no church or school within 400 feet of the proposed location.
In addition to that and separate from that, by separate
resolution, we are asking for a waiver of Section 11.03(r)(4),
which requires. in the event of an SDD license, for these
beverages to be sold behind a separate counter serviced by
an employee with no direct access to the public. The request
of the second waiver is being made pursuant to Section 19.06,
as amended on October 26 of last year, which allows the City
Council by a two-thirds vole to waive any other specific
requirement otherwise set forth within the zoning ordinance.
I'd first like to just address the request for the SDD license
since that is a separate issue. As I staled, the sale of beer and
wine has occurred on this site pursuant to use granted by this
City and by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission since
approximately mid-1997. The display of beer and wine at this
location, as well as the other stores owned by Costco, is on
open shelves in a customary retail fashion. If you've been to
both stores in the community you would see that. Though by
law Costco cannot restrictthe sale of beer and wine and spirits
to its members only, generally those people coming to and
from the store and using the store are members of the Costco
store chain and purchase the beer and wine, and have
indicated to us on multiple occasions since the opening of the
store in 1997 of the desire to be able to purchase SDD
licensed spirits at this location. Costco has two locations in the
City of Livonia, the other one we will talk about, and are
located in six other communifies. The application materials
that we submitted to you identify those communities. Ofthose
communities, five have SDD licenses and those stores are on
open shelves. Those stores have essentially all existed since
1997. We have eight stores, and since 1997, there have only
been three violations issued by the Michigan Liquor Control
Commission, and those occurred at the early onset of the
development of these stores within the Slate of Michigan.
Since then, there have been no violations of any kind at any
store related to the sale of SDD spirits or SDM licensed
beverages. Since those violations, as indicated in the
application material to you, there has been additional training
and security methods set up for the sale of licensed beverages
within the store. This statistic is remarkable when you look at
the volume ofjusl SDD licensed beverages that are sold at the
five stores. Each year, annually, at the five stores which have
an SDD license, spirits in the amount of $1 million are sold.
Out of that, if you add up the number of years and days, and
I'll give you that number, the violation record here is
remarkable. The ability ofthe stores to monitor and control the
sale of alcoholic beverages, and both to prevent sale to minors
as well as theft, has been substantial. The system that we've
indicated is the check out counters which are substantially a
long ways away from the licensed beverage area, which is on
open shelves within the stores. The checkout areas are
"camera -ed." There are check out individuals there who are
highly trained in reference to verifying age and ability to
purchase. If there's a question, there is a supervisor who is
immediately in the area to double check. If in fad you're not a
member of the store, as indicated in the material submitted to
you, you are automatically double checked by a separate
checker to make sure that there is no potential violation in the
store. The goal of Costco with this application, as stated in the
materials you've received from us and also from your Planning
Department, is to be able to provide the full beverage service
for all our customers that come to the store's location on
Middlebelt and to service those customers in the same manner
that we service them in the other communities that we're
located in Michigan. Examining the statute or the ordinance
20961
that's at issue, particularly 11.06(1) or (h)(1) and also (r), again
from a territorial standpoint, we more than satisfy the lineal
distances between us and the next SDD location. And again,
we have no other church or school within 400 feel. So then
looking at the next section of the ordinance, which is 19.06,
which is the waiver provisions themselves, the first issue or
first question is, is the proposed use in harmony with the
surrounding area? Well, from a zoning standpoint, it's one of
the most intense business districts in a G2. The granting of
the license and the use will not result in an expansion of the
store but will utilize existing floor space to accommodate the
sales area. It is certainly consistent with and customary to the
sale of other retail and food items within a store to be able to
sell licensed beverages within the store. The next question
would be whether or not the sale ofspints in any way would be
detrimental to or impair the surrounding properties and their
uses. Again, having reviewed the planning materials and
statements submitted to the Planning Commission for its
review, we find in fact the history of Costco in the Stale of
Michigan, particularly in Livonia, since 1977 shows that, in fact,
the ability to sell licensed beverages can be done in a highly
sophisticated manner, which is beneficial not only to the store
and to their customers but does not have a negative impact on
surrounding uses, properly values, and in fact does not deter
surrounding businesses from coming to the area. It is a
customary thing in which to sell, and when you consider the
volume in the other stores where it has occurred without
incident, it's clear that the granting of the license would not be
detrimental. The area of display within the store essentially
would be one aisle displayed in the normal kind of Costco
fashion, and again would not result in any changes to the site
or impact the surrounding area. And then finally, under the
ordinance, the granting of the SDD license and use would not
be contrary to the spirit or the intent of the ordinance or sound
planning objectives. Again, based upon the historic
experience of Costco just selling SDM licensed beverages, itis
clear that they are a responsible corporate citizen and conduct
themselves in a proper manner without incident. In reviewing
the file, unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe there's been an
objection to the granting of this use from the Department of
Public Safely, nor did there appear to be any objection to the
granting of this use in the planning memos that we reviewed
that were submitted by the Planning Department. We ask for
this opportunity for this waiver use to be able to offer a full
beverage service to the customers that come to this store and
not require them to have to go elsewhere for the balance of
20962
their licensed beverage purchases. For those reasons, since
we believe that we comply with the stated criteria of the
ordinance and that we comply with all the criteria under
Section 19.06, we would ask that you grant this location a
waiver use to allow them to sell SDD licensed spirits from that
location. We would be willing to answer any questions. I don't
know if you want to address this issue separately from the
shelf issue, if so I can go to the shelf issue next.
Mr. McCann: You might as well go ahead if there's no objection from the
Commissioners.
Mr. Sloepker: Okay. The next issue that is before you is upon the granting of
the license and the use for this particular site, is the ability for
Costco to sell SDD spirits on open shelves as opposed to
behind a counter in an excluded area that has to be serviced by
an employee. Under Section 11.03(4)(r) of the Zoning
Ordinance, those stores which sell spirits in excess of 35% of
their gross sales are not required to have the sale of spirits
behind the counter. In other words, they can just display them
on a shelf. I guess probably the best example would be your
typical party store. If their sale of spirits is more than 35%, they
can display them on an ordinary shelf. The customers can go
pickup what they want, go the counter, pay the employee, and
walkout. And that's essentially what we're asking for here. We
envision at this location that our total sales would be
approximately 10% of the gross sales of the store; that's what
we're anticipating. What I lake from the ordinance is that it's
implicit in the ordinance or recognize that it's not inherently bad
to allow the customer to gel their own spirits off the shelf, but
that it's limited under certain circumstances where maybe it can
be somewhat controlled and monitored. Well, in this case,
again, entry to the store is typically limited. Members come in,
they go to the back of the store where the beverage display
area is, purchase and then they have to go out through a
cashier's exit. There is no other way to gel in and out of the
store. So if there is a concern about monitoring who purchases
and who doesn't purchase, that's handled within the store and
the way the store traffic is funneled. So from that standpoint, we
dont see any basis to prevent the sale on open shelves. I think
its also important to know and tie in the fact that of the eight
stores we have in the six communities, again, the three
violations since 1997 and that's it. When you consider just on
SDD purchases alone at those five stores, $5 million of SDD
licensed beverages purchased each year since 1997, and again
only the three violations, and all those stores have the open
YIII';R1
shelf method. None are behind the counter and none are
serviced as indicated or required under the ordinance. So in
addition to the fact that the sale is highly monitored and that it's
proven in reference to this City alone as it relates to beer and
wine and also to the communities, the only question that could
come up, is well, maybe you would require it to be behind the
counter to prevent theft or pilfering or somebody from sticking a
bottle in their pocket or whatever and running out of the store.
They have a highly structured inventory system at Costco. In
fad, of the millions of dollars in sales per year, and I'm just
talking spirits again, not SDM, but just spirits, the shrinkage or
loss is $300 per store, and basically that's a broken bottle here
or there. From that standpoint, we know that there's no theft
that occurs with the licensed beverages on the open shelves
and that the beverages again are all accounted for. I did a
simple statistic, sometimes statistics are good and helpful, but
what I did, I counted all the sales days of all the stores since
1997, where they've been open selling licensed beverages, and
that's 18,928 sales days if you combine them all. And out of
that, again, the impact has only been those three violations -
again, where the open sales occurred on open shelves. Based
upon that, we believe that Costco has demonstrated that it can
be a responsible retailer of licensed beverages on an open shelf
method and that it is highly controlled, and yet it will allow the
customer to be able to access those beverages without tracking
down an employee and be able to make their own selection,
kind of in their own way, just like they would select beer or wine
and make their own decision regarding that. Again, applying
Section 19.06, which is the waiver use standards, we don't
believe that sales on the open shelf will result in a detrimental
impact to the community or to the surrounding area. In fact,
those communities that we've identified in our supplemental
materials to you, there has been no detrimental impact. There's
been no difficulty from the open shelf situation. There would be
no lowering of property values. There would be no deterrence
to additional development within the area. There would be no
demand for additional municipal services as a consequence of
the open shelf method. And again, we'd be using this to satisfy
the trend and the demand of the customers that come to the
stores at these locations. And finally, there would be no impact
on public health, safely and welfare. So for those reasons, we
would ask that you recommend to the City Council that the
restriction as to "behind the counter" with a single employee
servicing the customer be waived and that Costco be permitted
to sell or display the SDD spirits or licensed beverages on an
open shelf method in the same manner that it now sells the
20964
SDM licensed beverages at its store on Middlebell. We would
be willing to answer any questions that you have.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
In the cages, you primarily just have the watches, jewelry and
crystal and things like that ... where you have logo through the
checkout line and give them a slip, and then they give it ...
Mr. Stoepker:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
So it's just restricted to like jewelry, things like that?
Mr. Stoepker:
That's my understanding. In reference to the beverages, I think
we even submitted a floor plan showing where the coolers are
and the shelves are in those locations. The customer goes
back there, makes their selection and then comes to the front of
the store where the checkout registers are and makes the
purchase. And I think for the smaller items like the jewelry and
the other things where there's more potential for theft, or there
has been, that seems to have addressed that issue. That's the
reason why I brought up the shrinkage of only $300. It's like
three -hundreds of a percent, which is basically somebody
dropping a case maybe in the back of the store when they're
unloading delivery.
Ms. Smiley:
Are your bottles in usually the half gallon size or ...
Mr. Stoepker:
That is correct.
Ms. Smiley:
I've been to your store in Bloomfield too.
Mr. Stoepker:
That is a place where I think we do display spirits on open
shelves there.
Mr. LaPine:
Going through your letter that you wrote to us, you say here that
to have this behind the counter, it would be inconvenient
because it would be away from the beer and wine. Not in your
Haggerty store. Why can't you build a counter right near where
that is, right in front of it, the side of it, behind it? As a matter of
fact, you expanded that area in the Iasi year to be bigger than a
lot of other areas you have in the store, so what's inconvenient
to building an area there where an individual could be there to
hand out whatever liquor a person wants?
rni:v
Mr. Stoepker: The issue is the customer being able to make their own
selection without having someone to wait on them.
Mr. LaPine: Let me stop you there. I go to Costco quite frequently and you
don't carry every brand of every item you sell in the store. So I
have to assume that the liquor you're going to sell ... you're not
going to sell every brand of liquor that's out there in the market
because there's a lot of brands of liquor out there. If you are,
you're going to have to have an awful large area. So I don't see
where that enters the picture. I mean, your either going to sell
Royal Canadian, Canadian Club, Beefeaters . . I'm not an
alcoholic person, but I've been in liquor stores. I know how
much liquor is out there. So are you going to have 100 different
brands, 10 different brands, 50 different brands?
Mr. Stoepker: What we anticipate is basically one aisle dedicated with the
larger bottles. This is not your typical liquor store where you go
in and buy a pint. I'm probably the wrong person to even talk to
about this. I only dank beer and wine. I don't drink liquor so I
don't even know what sizes they basically come in. But the
concept here is, we sell in larger sizes at Costco and more of a
bulk situation, and that's what would be sold. And the
customers come in and basically make their bulk selection from
the open space bin that's on the floor.
Mr. LaPine: That still hasn't answered my question. How many different
brands are you going to have? Now, if you've got gallons, and
you buy a case, there's only probably about 3, 6, 9 botfles in a
case when you buy them by the gallon. It takes up a lot of
space. So, my question is, how many different brands are you
going to sell? Are you going to sell just hard liquor? Are you
going to sell bourbon? Are you going to sell Scotch? Are you
going to sell whatever other alcoholic beverages they have?
Mr. Giachino: There is a mix. It is not intended to operate like a normal SDD
store carrying the multiple brands that are available in this stale.
There is a synergy that Costco has developed in its
merchandising. Every area in the store is directed towards
customer accommodation or the convenience of shopping. For
example, the party good supplies ... when you're buying party
trays, the beer, wine, the spirits, are all playing off each other for
the convenience of the consumer. Now, in the sale of spirits,
the philosophy, first of all, for Costco is, they don't carry a great
deal of different brands. What they do is, they select certain
brands, quality brands, buy in volume and sell it to their
membership at a discount. Now they can't sell spirits at a
20966
discount. And in the beginning, the corporate policy was one
saying, why do we even want to bother with spirits? Ildoesn'lfl
our philosophy. We can't discount it, and we don't certainly
intend to operate it like a party store. They found in the one or
two stores that they experimented on, that the people who go in
there for a fine selection of wines, special promofions on beer.
They're buying the crab. They're buying the shrimp. They're
buying fish. They're buying the salmon. They're buying all of
these things that are basically for substantially parties or party -
giving situations. They were buying certain brands of spirits in
bulk, and the bulk sales of those spirits have now exceeded $1
million, which means that the people who are going in there are
going in there and buying in connection with other purchases
that they're making. It's not because they're getting it any
cheaper. It's strictly a public accommodation. So it doesn't fl
their philosophy to sell anything behind a counter with a clerk.
The jewelry is a different item. But everything else is
merchandised in a well-planned scheme where people can
conveniently locate their party supplies in one section and then
take advantage of it. I can't explain the phenomena of why their
alcoholic beverage sales are as high as they are, other than
their membership is buying it because anybody can go ...
Mr. McCann: Sir, I believe you're Mr. Giachino. Can we have your corporate
address as well for the record?
Mr. Giachino: Yes. I've represented Costco since 1997 exclusively in all their
licensing activities before the Michigan Liquor Control
Commission. I'm its agent for all development that goes in to
secure that they have their liquor licenses. So I'm doing it
exclusively in my practice of law.
Mr. McCann: Okay. You're an attorney representing Costco. And your
business addresss?
Mr. Thomas Giachino, Esq., Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C., 25800
Northwestern Highway, Southfield, Michigan 48075.
Mr. McCann: Okay. And that's one of the questions I have for Mr. Stoepker.
You also are an attorney representing Costco?
Mr. Stoepker: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Okay.
20967
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me ask you one more question. Because we don't have
stale liquor stores, do you buy directly from the wholesalers?
Mr. Stoepker:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, do theygive Costco a discount on that liquor?
Mr. Stoepker:
No. They can't.
Mr. LaPine:
I know you can't sell R. If a fifth of Canadian Club costs $2.00
here, it costs $2.00 no matter where you go.
Mr. Stoepker:
All over the stale. Its a uniform price.
Mr. LaPine:
You talk about security. What security would you incur if you
had the liquor behind the shelf?
Mr. Stoepker:
Under the ordinance, you have to have a person there at all
times.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I understand that. But otherwise, security is no different
than what you have now. You've got other areas in the store
where you actually take money and you don't have any security
there, no guards or anything to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Stoepker:
I think the issue here is, why does the ordinance require this? I
mean, that's the question. Why does the ordinance say as to
stores that sell 35% of their gross sales, you dont have to do
this and why does another store have to do this? Okay. I'm not
sure why that is. We tried to get information from the City as to
when this ordinance was adopted, as to what was the rationale
for requiring that. So I'm trying to think, is it because at the
smaller store, the clerk is right at the door so they can make
sure that no one can walk out with the beverage which is
smaller? I'm not sure why that is. So applying that rationale,
and saying if there's a concern about it and the beverages are
located in one defined area or in an area within the building, and
the only way out is through a specific area passing the checkers
and the cash registers, and that's the only way, you just can't
exit any other way, the security issue, the concern that a minor
would take something or somebody would steal, certainly
seems to be answered. The system that they've employed at
their stores in Bloomfield Hills, Madison Heights, Auburn Hills,
Shelby Township and Commerce, all those stores are licensed
with SDD as well as SDM. All have sales on open shelves, and
since 1997, collectively, there's only been three incidents and
20968
that was right at the very beginning, and that's it. So obviously,
the way that they make their customers leave the store after
making a purchase creates the inherent security answer that
maybe is deemed to be akin to the small party store where you
make the purchase and have to walk out past the sales clerk.
That's the only thing I can think of.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me just ask one question and I'll give up the floor. So
basically what happens as you operate now, you gel all your
items, you slick it into your basket, and you go to the checkout
counter. When you gel to the checkout counter, the person at
the checkout counter, if you've got liquor or wine or beer, then
they ask for your drivers' license if they think you should be
asked.
Mr. Stoepker:
That's right.
Mr. LaPine:
Its done at that time. Now, I've seen a lot of limes when I've
been there, when people got alcoholic beverages, and I thought
they should have been checked, but they're not. That's my
personal opinion. But what I don't like about it, it holds you up
at the cashier counter. You dont move as fast.
Mr. Stoepker:
The difference is, there's no requirement for SDM licensed
beverages. It's only for the spirits. For some reason, you can
sell beer and wine on an open shelf, but you cant sell spirits on
an open shelf. So, if the concern is that doing this will create
further delay, the individual buying beer and wine at any store in
the City of Livonia doesn't get checked until they go to the cash
register. So you're not going to save any time by that.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, you really seem to be hung up on this public access to the
alcohol, and you keep comparing Livonia with other
communities. But to my knowledge, and I know I should be
asking questions rather than talking here, but we've had no
known complaints. Do you know of any complaints in Livonia
where the merchants who sell alcoholic content beverages have
them behind the counter. Do you know of any complaints?
Mr. Stoepker:
I know that another retail merchant asked for the sale in the City
and it was denied a year ago. And I know that our customers
have been consistently asking for us to be able to provide this
service at this location and at the Haggerty location.
INIL:SI
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, do you think that Livonia has too restricted, too few SDD
licenses, or do you think that 35 outlets is really to short for a 36
square mile city?
Mr. Stoepker:
Well, I think that decision is based upon the allowable licenses
within the city based on the Michigan Liquor Control
Commission regulations on distances and number of licenses
per city, as well as the defined standards as they relate to the
lineal distance. You regulate the number of licenses by lineal
distance between stores and to churches and to schools. In
addition to that, it's also based upon population and what's
granted by the LCC. So there's already an inherently built in
system as it relates to those licenses.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you aware that when Meijers came into Livonia, they also
requested that, only they backed off. They accepted Livonia's
standards.
Mr. Stoepker:
They were turned down.
Mr. Piercecchi:
They didn't even approach it. Theyjusl said, scratch it, because
they found out we were opposed to it. But we have an
adequate number of SDD's. I don't think it fits. You think it's a
burden on your customers. I find that argument very weak
because we have 35 of them, and we have no complaints. Do
you think that there's any possibility if you were granted an SDD
and had public access shelving, it would not spread to Meijer's
and Krogers and Farmer Jacks, all those major big chains? Do
you think it would spread there?
Mr. Stoepker: No, it would depend on how many licenses would be available
for them to acquire. Maybe Mr. Giachino can answer this
maybe even better than I can, but the number of licenses is
directly related to your population. So there's an inherent
limitation there on the number of licenses and uses that can
occur within a community. And our customers have told us that
they want licensure here. And certainly, if you would look at the
other Costco stores that have SDD licenses, when the spirit
sales, which are at a fixed margin and cannot be made more
profitable, essentially account for more than 10% of the gross
income, it is clear that the customer at those locations, and
demographically they're no different than Livonia, well, the
feedbackwe've gotten here, saythat. That's the demand. And
the question is whether or not there is some failure under
Section 19.06 as it relates to public health, safety and welfare
compatibility and impact on the surrounding properties.
20970
Mr. Piercecchi:
You were very good at going through 19.06. There's also
Section (f) that says that the use must comply with all our
regulations. Well, our regulations state that hard liquor goes
behind the counter.
Mr. Stoepker:
There are lwoseparele applications.
Mr. Piercecchi:
They are dovetailed. Sections 11.03 and 19.06 are dovetailed.
Mr. Stoepker:
I'm aware of that, but there are two separate waivers. The first
request is to approve SDD sale of beverages. That's one
motion. As it relates to any other waiver use, the ordinance
requires a separate resolution from the first request.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm aware of all that.
Mr. Sloepker:
So what we're asking for, the first request, is please grant us the
opportunity to sell SDD licensed beverages at this location and
obviously at the Haggerty store.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In effect, here, sir, because you keep mentioning these other
communities, I think you're trying to paint all communities with
the same brush.
Mr. Stoepker:
I'm not trying to do that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Livonia is a different community and these standards, the City
Council rejected this. We don't make the final judgment. The
City Council will make that determination. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Just two quick questions, if I may. The million dollar figure that
you staled earlier in terms of sales. Is that per store?
Mr. Stoepker:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. You may not have this, but do you have any feel for what
is the demand for the two stores here on a customer basis?
How many are asking for liquor?
Mr. Giachino:
I think in the way the stores have been competing with each
other as to the volume of sales, Livonia has been one of the lop
producing stores. Given that as a consideration, when you
compare with Bloomfield Hills or Auburn Hills or Shelby, I
believe that Livonia will meet the higher sales of spinls like the
20971
other stores. It will exceed $1 million because both Livonia
locations are some of the top volume stores in the state.
Mr. Walsh: And that statement is based on an indication from existing
customers that they want this service?
Mr. Giachino: That is correct. To be honest with you, there is not going to be
any additional customer base on the basis of any kind of waiver
to allow the sales to be merchandised on the floor. The Liquor
Control Commission, when they first licensed these entities
such as Sam's Club and Costco, had a requirement that spirits
and beer and wine be sold like any other party store, at a fixed
location, maybe in a caged area with a clerk. In 1998, we
petitioned the Liquor Control Commission to change and allow a
merchant to merchandise it as they see ft and with the
Commission controlling it if there's any violations or any
problems. Your ordinance, as it relates to a sale behind the
counter, was patterned after one other community that had this
law, that pioneered this law - that's the City of Troy. They're the
first ones that passed this type of ordinance. The basis for that,
and they have very strict enforcement there, is that they did not
want people to go into a Meijers, for example, pick up expensive
bottles of cognac or something else like that, put it in a cart,
secret it, kids that steal it. They said, no, we dont want that to
occur. So the best way to slop that practice is to make a sale
by a clerk behind the counter. Now the experience has been
since 1998 when the Commission allowed the open
merchandising of beer and wine, and then they allowed the
open merchandising of spirits, there have been no incidences
where the public has been put at risk by people either stealing,
pilfering or damaging the spirits. None. None at all. So while
the enforcement idea maybe was a good idea at the time, it is in
its application, it's no longer reasonable. I think a merchant that
is a substantial merchant, such as Costco or Meijers or anybody
else, that wants to merchandise their product in an open
fashion, they stand the risk. If somebody picks up a bottle of
$40 or $60 or $90 bottle of cognac and looks at it and drops it
on the floor and breaks, it is not the patron or the customer that
has to pay for that. It is the store's responsibility because tifle
and transfer has to lake place. So there's a great deal of risk
with that. But if they find out that this is the way the customer
finds it convenient and wants to do it that way, and they'll
assume that risk, that's the point why Costco is here today.
Early on, Costco understood what Livonia said. And early on
when the initial denial of this for years - while others were all
being licensed - they did not decide that they would ask this
20972
community until we felt, on the basis of their experience at all
other locations, that they are merchandising it this way and
they're successfully doing it, that we prepared this request to
you. That's the only time. Costco wants to be a good citizen.
They're not interested in changing any business practice that
this community feels important, but all we're saying now is,
based on the experience that they have in licensing all their
other locations, it's working. It's working well for them, and
they're asking now for the same privilege here in this
community.
Mr. McCann:
I do have a couple questions. You're saying 10% of all sales
will go to liquor SDD licensed products if this were approved?
Mr. Giachino:
Approximately, yes. For example, one store's gross sales is
about $9 million. That's broken up between food products,
appliances, hardware. In that number, only less than 9% relates
to the sale of beer and wine or spirits. So they're averaging
10% or less of their gross volume as it relates to the sale of
alcoholic beverages.
Mr. McCann:
I do a lot of business with Costco. My sales are $4,000 or
$5,000 a year, and I find it hard to believe that I go through that
much alcohol no matter where I bought it from. In a year, I
know I wouldn't. So there must be a lot of people going in just
to buy liquor.
Mr.Giachino:
I can't explain the phenomena.
Mr. McCann:
Well, I think there's a little concern in that the average person
isn't maybe as informed. When you go to Costco you think
you're gelling something discounted. Is there any sign up there
telling them, hey, this is not discounted?
Mr. Giachino:
It's a place of public accommodation.
Mr. McCann:
So people go in with the belief that they're getting discounted
liquor?
Mr. Giachino:
No, they do not.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Is there a sign that tells them that? How would they
know that?
Mr. Giachino:
Only as the average citizen would know that the price of spirits
is foxed.
Mr. McCann:
Well, to be honest with you, I trust when I go Costco that I'm
buying a quantity that I'm getting a discount price on. I dont go
and comparison shop all the time because I've been a fairly
loyal Costco customers. Let me ask you this, do you have a
sign up in front of these stores that saying everyone is welcome
to come in and purchase liquor?
Mr. Giachino:
Thats correct.
Mr. McCann:
You do have a sign?
Mr. Giachino:
Every store is required to carry that sign, as well as in the liquor
department, loo, because its a place of public accommodation.
I think one of the reasons spirits are selling so well is because
people buy it in bulk. I think when they're going to have party,
they'll buy 12 bottles. Maybe their local SDD store doesn't stock
that much or people just don't think of going there. But I can tell
you at Costco, from my experiences, I see people buy a case of
something.
Mr. McCann:
Now, you say that you're allowed to buy al the counter. Is there
anything that excludes liquor or separates it on the machine?
My concern is, when I go in, I give them my American Express
card and everything goes through. Is there anything special
done on that?
Mr. Sloepker:
Well, it's inventoried. Every price ticket has an inventory
marking which tells you what's been sold, and (hats how we're
able to track, you know, the actual dollar amount of spoilage
almost to the penny.
Mr. McCann:
You inform the people that they're not going to get a rebate on
those products?
Mr. Giachino:
Yes. No refunds, no rebates. Those are signages that are
required also.
Mr. McCann:
No, I meant on your credit card. When I go through with my
American Express, I gel4%, 2% from the store, 2% from Costco
American Express. Are you notified that you will not gel that on
there?
Mr. Giachino:
No. On any credit card use, any rebates that you're entitled to
in the general public, it's no different for Costco either. I mean,
that's ...
20974
Mr. McCann:
Well, no, there is a difference. When Costco's giving you
money back at tie end of the year, they're giving you money
back on liquor purchases, which is a violation of the Michigan
Liquor Commission. That way you're discounting. If you give
2% back for all my expenditures at the store that year, at the
end of the year you've created what appears to be a Michigan
Liquor violation every time you sell a bottle of booze, unless you
inform that person that this product is going to be excluded from
your annual purchases at our store, and we will not give you 2%
and you have to do that on every receipt that you give them.
Mr. Giachino:
I think that is part of the membership agreement.
Mr. McCann:
I think you should check on it because that would be a lot of
violations.
Mr. Giachino:
They're operating within the constraints of what the Liquor
Control Commission requires every licensed SDD merchant to
do. No exceptions. And there would probably be no rebates
then in the accounting of that practice for spirits.
Mr. McCann:
You postulate that we have so many SDD licenses available in
the City that we should by law provide those many licenses until
we run out. Is there any case that you cite or any principle that
would say that we should just give anybody who wants a license
unfil we run out as long as they meet the distance
requirements?
Mr. Giachino:
Communities hold back liquor licenses all the time. There are
no requirements that you issue licenses.
Mr. McCann:
Certain areas of the community seem to be well served. That's
a standard to review when you're granting a liquor license, isn't
it?
Mr. Stoepker:
The ordinance spells out the standard. Okay for a waiver use
and some of them are very specific. There's criteria standards
as to lineal distance, location as relates to church and school,
whether or not the establishment meets the Michigan Liquor
Control Commission statutes, rules and regulations, which it
would to be able to obtain the license. Those are very defined
standards. And then you have the additional waiver standards
which identify whether or not the proposed use would impair or
be detrimental to the immediate surrounding neighborhood,
whether or not the proposed waiver use would result in an
20975
impact upon property values or surrounding uses in a negative
manner, whether or not the granting of the waiver use can be
done in accordance with the standards of the ordinance and the
spirit and intent of the ordinance. And in that case you look at
the zoning district. This is a 02 zoning district. The sale of
beer and wine and liquor are both permitted in that G2 zoning
district, and whether or not there's any detriment to public
health, safely and welfare. I've gone through the planning
memo that you have from the City. There's no indicafion in that
planning memo at all that the granting of this waiver use, that
both waiver uses, but the first one, would have any negative
impact on the surrounding properties. I think that this hearing is
publicly noticed. Correct?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Stoepker:
Okay. In fact, the neighboring property owners are sent letters
with what 300 or 500 feel of the proposed location? Is that right,
Mr. Taormina, through the Chair?
Mr. Taormina:
500 feel.
Mr. McCann:
500 feel.
Mr. Sloepker:
And to the best of my knowledge, there's been no objection
from any of the neighboring property owners, whether at this
location or the Haggerty location, and nor am I aware of
anything within the department files to the Planning Commission
or the City saying that the granting of this somehow would be
detrimental to the City.
Mr. McCann:
But don't you think the citizens have an impact and being
cifizens that we might have a belief what our neighbors think
about this?
Mr. Sloepker:
Well, I ... you know ... I know it's troublesome if I bring up
other communities. I'm not asking to enforce other community
values on you. I think what we're doing is we're saying, look it,
we have a track record in this City. We have track records in
other cities of being a responsible corporate citizen. Since 1997
under a waiver use, this City has allowed Costco to sell beer
and wine with an excellent track record, without any negative
impact upon the surrounding properties, without any negative
impact as it relates to the zoning district and the uses there, and
without negative impact upon the citizens of Livonia and the
citizens of Livonia have responded and said they want to make
20976
their beer and wine purchases at both stores, and they would
like to make their spirit purchases there.
Mr. McCann: Okay. That's a good point. Why don't we go to the audience
first before we close the public hearing if anybody in the
audience would like to speak for this petition or against this
petition. Is there anybody in the audience? Are there any other
questions from the Commissioners? I'm going to close the
public hearing and give you the Iasi comments.
Mr. Stoepker: I've talked a long time here and I appreciate that. I think, to me,
the proof is in the pudding. There are two things here kind of at
issue. One, we have sold under waiver use beer and wine
since 1997 and haw done it in a responsible corporate manner.
Our customers have demanded and requested, as with our
other stores, that we be able to sell SDD licensed beverages at
this location. We know we can do that in a responsible
corporate manner and meet the requirements of your zoning
ordinance in doing so. The one impediment that we're asking,
the one change we're asking, is that this store be treated the
same way that the other liquor stores are treated. For some
reason, the ordinance says that if you sell 35%, so if Costco
sold 35% or more volume al this location, we wouldn't need this
second waiver requirement. And again, I'm trying to think why
the difference. The only thing I can think of is someone has to
walk past the clerk's counter to get to the door and can be
checked. Well, in this case, we had the exact same situation,
maybe on a larger scale. You cannot exit the store without
going through a checker and without being examined, and we
know that works. And how do we know that it works? Because
it's worked at all these other locations and it's worked here with
the sale of beer and wine. So, I'm not sure there's a
differentiation between the sale of the two licensed beverages.
I'm not sure why there is a differentiation under the ordinance,
but fiere is, and what we're asking for as a corporate citizen
who's been responsible and a good corporate citizen to this
community based upon what our customers are asking for,
we're asking for the opportunity to be a full scale beverage
location to be able to sell licensed beverages to our customers
in a responsible manner that meets the requirements of the
ordinance and meets the requirements of the Slate Liquor
License Act and the rules of the Liquor Control Commission.
And we believe that our history demonstrates that we can do
that in a positive manner, and we can do that without violating
the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and the provisions
of the waiver sections. Thankyou.
z0vn
Mr. Giachino:
Lel me make one last comment. The sales of alcoholic
beverages are only going to the existing members of each of
these locations. They have no record of any member of the
public coming in buying beer or wine or spirits just as a point of
destination. They can't even track whether anybody has ever
done that.
Mr. McCann:
I don't think anybody would even know that they could do it. I
mean, there is no way of knowing. You come in and you're
asked for a card. How would the average citizen know that he
could go in and buy wine or liquor?
Mr. Giachino:
Because the sign says the public is invited and is welcome to
come to this location for the purchase of any alcoholic
beverages. Its a large displayed sign before you walk in and
its also displayed over the alcoholic beverages.
Mr. McCann:
I'll look the next lime I go to Costco because I'm there weekly.
Mr. Giachino:
You could do the same thing as I did. Don't pull out your Costco
card. Tell the floor checker as you walk in, I just want to go see
some beer and wine. They will invite you right in because they
have to, but I'm saying, there's no sales essentially to those
people that just come in and are looking to buy beer and wine.
Mr. McCann:
Well, maybe somebody at home in the audience tonight will
decide to check it out.
Mr. Giachino:
They can do that.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou. Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Just a couple points of information for the Planning
Commission's consideration. First, relative to the quota
restrictions, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission does
restrict the total number of SDD licenses within the community
to 34. That is based on the population at a ratio of one license
per 3,000 population. Presently, there are five licenses in
escrow. With respect to the distribution of licenses within this
vicinity of the community, within a one mile radius of the parcel
in question, there are six other active SDD licenses. So over
17% of the SDD licenses are within a mile of this location.
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. A motion is in order.
YIIPyF:i
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#01-08-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2004, on
Petition 2003-12-02-23, submitted by Costco Companies, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license
(packaged liquor) in connection with an existing retail facility at
13700 Middlebell Road, located on the east side of Middlebell
Road between SchoolcraR and Plymouth Roads in the
Northwest % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-12-02-
23 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposal is not in compliance with the regulations
set forth in subparagraph (4) under paragraph (r) of
Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance, which require that
all alcoholic liquor products allowed to be sold in
connection with the use of an SDD license shall be
displayed behind a counter with no direct public access;
3. That the City is currently well served with SDD licensed
establishments;
4. That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD
licensed facilities in this area of the City; and
5. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in
harmony with thesurrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh: If I may just make a few comments to the gentlemen. I think
you did a great job tonight. I truly do. You made some great
arguments. They were well presented. And I want you to know
that Costco is appreciated, deeply. I've been involved either as
20979
a Planning Commissioner or as a Council member with all of the
efforts that Costco has made to come into our City, and I think
for every member here, as well as I would be so bold to speak
on behalf of the Council, we greatly appreciate your presence. I
think we tried to show that appreciation in a number of ways.
One is the granting of the SDM licenses and also recently our
willingness to permit a gas station at the Middlebell location,
which was hard for us to accept. But I think we extended that
because we do believe the business is operated quite well. I'll
grant you, I think you're track record is good, as lead from the
City's perspective. I can't speak for the Slate's analysis of the
SDM license, but I think it's gone well. But the antidotal proof of
cuslomerdemand for liquor can be met by antidotal expressions
of citizen resistance to additional liquor licenses in the City, and
I think that's where I draw my comfort in voting to support the
resolution that was adopted tonight. You're in a city that I'm
certain you've researched and know well, that we regulate this
quite carefully. Despite your arguments, and again I appreciate
every one that you made, I'm very comfortable in supporting the
resolution this evening.
Mr. Shane: My dilemma is that I fail to see why one type of alcohol -content
beverage would be any different from the other, because
alcohol is alcohol, whether it's 16% or less or whatever. So I
can't see the reason why liquor should be treated any different.
On the other hand, I'm persuaded by Mr. Walsh's remarks about
what the citizens of Livonia seem to think about the number of
SDD licenses available, and I think we have to maybe think
about some of the other party stores and other SDD licensed
establishments in the area as to their well being. So while I
don't see the problem with putting the liquor on the shelf, I do
have a problem with an additional SDD license. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McCann: I would like to state that I thought both gentlemen were
extremely well prepared. They both really know their business.
I may disagree a little bit. I think that there is at least for me
when I was reviewing the ordinance that was passed by the City
Council, I felt that having liquor behind the counter made sense.
Obviously you have some statistics there that have not been
available to me to look at, but when you have teenagers coming
around into a small packaged liquor store, they raise suspicions
right away. With the parents out, when you go to Costco the
kids come in and they separate from the parents and run
around. My sons go over to certain sections. I think that's an
automatic indicator when anybody walks in a liquor store, and I
think there is areal sense of watching over whats going on and
you have certain people that you can look to and hold
responsible. There's only certain people working the counter.
You can make sure that lheyre well trained in the Michigan
Liquor Laws and how they are handling the sale of liquor. You
don't have, you know, 12 different counters. You don't have a
Christmas rush. You dont have different things going on to see
whose purchasing it. And I do think right now the City is
extremely well served in these areas as far as the number of
licenses and establishments available to sell the liquor.
Mr. LaPine: Number one, we looked long and hard when we passed this
ordinance onto Council about having the liquor sold behind the
counter. I think we had some good reasons why we did R. But
one of the problems I have with Costco at this point is that I've
noticed in the last year that they probably doubled the size of
the area they sell beer and wine in. I don't know how much
additional space you're going to lake up for the liquor displays,
but every time you do that, in my opinion, you're taking away
from some of the other areas in that store that maybe I want to
shop for and they may not be movers like beer, wine and liquor
is going to be. I think it lakes away from what the concept of
Costco was, where you could buy bulk things there and that's
not really happening now. It seems to me that beer and wine
has become a big seller at these stores, and that's the way they
go.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. You have ten days in which to appeal the
decision to the City Council.
Y I=1 k5 E;bM9=k 1 Y I[a]C f•IQrkaiP rYbkhCKH=1:i0
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petifion 2003-
12-02-24, submitted by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license (packaged liquor)
in connection with an existing retail facility at 20000 Haggerty
Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile and Eight Miles Roads in the Northwest I/ of
Section 6.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Sloepker?
20981
Timothy Stoepker, Esq., Dickinson Wright PLLC, 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite
4000, Detroit, Michigan 48226. Mr. Chairman, so I don't
repeat myself, I'd like to incorporate the record from the prior
petition into this record if that's okay with the Planning
Commission.
Mr. McCann: I think we all just listened to it, so it can be incorporated.
Mr. Sloepker: So if that's okay, I won't repeal the comments. One thing I
would like to stress, though, is ... maybe I didn't stress it clear
enough the first time. I think there's two separate waivers
were seeking here, and they are independent. And in hearing
the comments of the Commission on the other site, it seemed
that the issue of the second waiver was part of the
consideration for the first request, and the first request stands
on its own merit. The first request is, we're asking for a waiver
use for an SDD license. If, in fad, one is granted to us, the
second request would be, and separate, and that's why the
ordinance requires a separate resolution I think for both, is that
we're asking for a waiver of the shelf requirement behind the
counter. So in my mind, those are really two separate issues.
One may grant the waiver use for the SDD and still say no on
the sale on open shelf issue. I want to make sure because
that seemed to kind of got lost a little bit in the first process, so
I want to make sure that it's clearly understood. I think the
circumstances for this site are even different from the other
site. Interestingly enough, the nearest SDD license to us is
Meijer, and it's across the street in a different community. I
don't know if the concentration of SDD licenses within the
same area here is the same as it is on the Middlebelt site. I
know that area fairly well. I think the first nearest church is the
Church of the Nazarene on the other side going further north, I
think. The concentration of uses there, as Mr. Taormina
raised, is not applicable to this particular location. Again, that
there is a demand for it is shown in the fad that Meijers across
the street, who is not member -restricted only, has the ability to
sell licensed spirits at that location, in addition to the SDM
beverages. So there clearly is a demand at that location, from
the large retail standpoint, that's not served by the local liquor
store, if there's a concern that the presence of Costco at that
location somehow may interfere or somehow may have some
kind of a competitive advantage. I'm not sure that's a proper
consideration, but if there's a concern about that, I don't think
its applicable to this location. And again, that the demand is
there for that from the communities reflected in the fact that
across the street in Northville Township the Meijers store has
20982
that. So I think with those comments, I'll rest on what was said
in the first record, but I really think that there's two separate
issues and that you can vote affirmatively for the SDD use at
that location and then address the second one separately and
make your own consideration on that basis.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Are them any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, I have a comment. They do go together.
Mr. Sloepker:
Not necessarily because ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
You show the pictures of the shelves.
Mr. McCann:
No, Dan. He's saying that we could have approved the liquor
license and allowed him to sell it behind the counter.
Mr. Stoepker:
When the Council votes, they actually have to vole by separate
resolution on the other issue. And I'm not trying to direct you as
to how you should vole or anything. I'm just saying that you
could vole for ... if you're against the open shelf liquor sale but
otherwise would be in favor of the grant of the use, you could
vole for the use, and when you gel to the second issue say, I'm
not going to vole for it on the sale of the open shelf. And again,
each site should be considered separately and some of the
issues raised there for the first site, I don't think are applicable
to the Haggerty Road site.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, we did vole on the SDD and let me read you the petition.
May 1, Mr. Chairman? I want to show that we voted on granfing
an SDD.
Mr. McCann:
I understand that and that makes the second part of it ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Can I read that part of it?
Mr. McCann:
No. We understand that's what we voted on.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We voted on the SDD.
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Stoepker:
Right. All I'm saying is ...
Mr. McCann:
The second part, we did not need to vote on the second part
because we recommended a denying resolution.
20983
Mr. Sloepker:
I agree with that. Just based on the some of the comments, it
seemed that if you had voted for the first part, you were
automatically kind of voting for the second part, and that was
based upon the comments or the rationale given as I'm opposed
to the sale of open shelf sales. I mean, those were the
comments which would not be applicable to the first request.
Okay. And that's the only reason why I'm raising it. I'm not
saying you should have voted twice because there's no need to,
but the sale on open shelf has not anything to do with the
granting of the license. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this item? Hearing no one, I'm going to
close the public hearing. Do you have any Iasi comment, Mr.
Sloepker?
Mr. Stoepker:
No. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou. It was a very good presentation.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and adopted, it was
#01-09-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2004, on
Petition 2003-12-02-24, submitted by Costco Companies, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license
(packaged liquor) in connection with an existing retail facility at
20000 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile and Eight Miles Roads in the
Northwest % of Section 6, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-12-02-
24 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposal is not in compliance with the regulations
set forth in subparagraph (4) under paragraph (r) of
Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance, which require that
all alcoholic liquor products allowed to be sold in
connection with the use of an SDD license shall be
displayed behind a counter with no direct public access;
20984
3. That the City is currently well served with SDD licensed
establishments;
4. That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD
licensed facilities in this area of the City; and
That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Walsh, Smiley, LaPine, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS:
Shane
ABSENT:
Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. You have len days in which to appeal this
decision in writing to the City Council.
ITEM #3 PETMON 2003-12-02-25 MID AMERICA SHOWS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-12-02-25, submitted by Mid America Shows, Inc.,
requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored
by the Livonia Mall Merchants Association consisting of
amusement rides, games and food concessions from Thursday,
May 6, 2004, through Sunday, May 16, 2004, inclusive, on
properly located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast % of
Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a
letter from the Engineering Division, dated December 31, 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
YIIPF;U
additional dedication is required. The legal description from last
year can be used for this petition assuming that the carnival will
occupy the same location." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Division of Police, dated January 7, 2004, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the proposed plans in regards to a
request for Waiver Use approval to operate a carnival in the
south lot of Livonia Mall. We have no objections to the request
if the following recommendations are observed. (1) Adequate
security to insure a safe and orderty event, (2)
Fencesrbarricades along north, east, and west perimeters to
prevent pedestriarVchildren from walking or running into traffic
areas." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue,
dated December 23, 2003, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a carnival from May 6, 2004, through May
16, 2004, in the parking lot of the Livonia Mall located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebeff Road and
Puringbrook. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulations: (1) Provide access to nearest local
hydrants for firefighting. (2) Provide adequate access for medic
units & personnel" The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated December 19, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of December 18, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. 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?
James Wegerly, Vice President of Mid America Shows, Inc., 3041 Serenity,
Oakland, Michigan 48363.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Why don't you tell us about this year's event?
Mr. Wegerly: Well, basically our request this year is, as Mr. Taormina
mentioned, it's a duplication of past petitions we've presented to
the Planning Commission, and we're going to have it a tad later
in May this year in the hopes of maybe gelling some decent
weather for a change. So that's really the only change. Other
than that, everything is a duplication. I do have with me tonight,
Ms. Bobbie Gelman, who is the Marketing and Community
Affairs Director of the Livonia Mall, in the event you would have
20986
any questions for her. We hope you'll once again look favorably
upon our request.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Is this the same number of days you had last year?
Mr. Wegerly:
Actually, Iasi year we requested more days and then we ended
up doing 14, but this is actually less days. This is, I think,
eleven.
Mr. McCann:
Any additional rides or anything chats going to be changed
about the carnival this year? Something that might be different?
Mr. Wegerly:
We will be occupying the same area, so really the number of
rides will be pretty consistent. We, of course, buy new things
and that type of thing every year, so there will be a couple new
attractions, but basically the same percentage of adult and
children's rides, that type of thing. It will be quite similar as in
the past.
Mr. McCann:
All right. The same hours of operation?
Mr. Wegerly:
Exactly. And I've already sent a letter to Sergeant Julie Warden
requesting . . we always hire the City of Livonia police for
security. And I've already sent that letter off, so we're doing
everything we've done in the past.
Mr. McCann:
Very good. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'll close the
public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Ms. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#01-10-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2004, on
Petition 2003-12-02-25, submitted by Mid America Shows, Inc.,
requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored
by the Livonia Mall Merchants Association consisting of
amusement rides, games and food concessions from Thursday,
May 6, 2004, through Sunday, May 16, 2004, inclusive, on
properly located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast''/. of
Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
YIIPF:iI
to the City Council that Petition 2003-12-02-25 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dales as specified
by Mid America Shows, Inc., which are May 6, 2004
through May 16, 2004, inclusive;
2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to
the area as illustrated on the Site Plan submitted with this
request;
3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other
equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the
carnival shall be located at least 60 feel distant from the
Seven Mile Road right-of-way line;
4. That all trucks and other transportation equipment shall be
parked or stored within the northwesterly portion of the
Livonia Mall parking lot, but no closer than 100 feel from
the west properly line abutting the Ziegler Place site or 250
feel from the south property line abutting Hunters Brook
Condominiums;
5. That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks
during late hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m., including motors on any refrigeration trucks;
6. That there shall be no Irving quarters at the location of the
stored trucks;
7. That the petitioner shall comply with the following
stipulations contained in the correspondence dated
December 23, 2003 from the Livonia Fire and Rescue
Division of the Department of Public Safely:
- That access to nearest local hydrants be provided for
firefighting;
- That adequate access be provided for medical units
and personnel;
8. That this approval shall incorporate the following
recommendations listed in the correspondence dated
January 7, 2004 from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of
Police:
- That adequate security shall be provided to insure a
safe and orderly event;
YIIPF:fi
- That temporary fences/bamcades shall be placed along
north, east, and west perimeters to prevent
pedestrians/children from walking or running into traffic
areas;
9. That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as
staled in a letter dated November 17, 2003, from James K.
Wegerly, Vice President of Mid America Shows, Inc., which
have been approved by the Police Department.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this pefition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the use of the subject properly for carnival purposes
will not interruptthe normal trafficflow and circulation in the
area and will not impede access to the Livonia Mall; and
4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed
use.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETMON 2003-12-02-26 QUIZNOS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition
2003-12-02-26 submitted by Rita Alikian requesting waiver use
approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Quiznos Subs)
in the Middlebell Plaza shopping center at 18768 Middlebell,
located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Pickford
Avenue and Clarila Avenue in the Northwest''/. of Section 12.
YIrPF;iI
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 2, 2004, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal. The approximate legal description to
be used in connection with the petition is approved." The letter
is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
December 30, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
operate a limited service restaurant on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
January 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed
the proposed plans in regards to a request to operate a limited
service restaurant at 18768 Middlebelt. We have no
recommendations regarding this request." The letter is signed
by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated January 8, 2004, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 27,
2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) As this site is a change in use, the entire
space, including the front entry, must fully meet the current
barrier free/accessibility code (also the point-of-sale counter).
(2) The space, as drawn, creates a deadrend corridor. The
interior design will need to be changed to meet code. This will
be handled at our Department's plan review. 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?
Steve Atikian,
18768 Middlebelt Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. McCann:
Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project?
Mr. Atikian:
My sister, Rita Atikian, could not be here. She sincerely
apologizes. She had a personal emergency. I'm her brother
and partner for the Quiznos. We're looking to open up a
Quiznos sub shop, hopefully the first of many. There were
some concerns about accessibility codes which we are going to
have our architect make everything up to code as requested,
and just hoping that you can grant us a limited license to
operate a Quiznos sub shop.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Do you have any interest in the other two Quiznos shops we
approved in the last year?
Mr. Alikian:
Any interest?
Mr. McCann:
Involvement.
Mr. Alikian:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you in the restaurant business at all, or is this something
new for you?
Mr. Alikian:
Its something new with regard to the restaurant business, yes.
We do have another business which is a women's shoe and
apparel store, which is in Southfield, Michigan.
Mr. LaPine:
This will be your first venture in the restaurant business?
Mr. Atikian:
Correct.
Mr. Shane:
I presume that the bulk of your business will be carryout.
Mr. Atikian:
Excuse me?
Mr. Shane:
Carryout business would be the bulk of your business, would
you say?
Mr. Alikian:
Yes, most of it. With most of the Quiznos sub shops, most of
them don't have drive-thrus. A lot of people will eat inside
where compared to like a MacDonald's or a Burger King, a lot of
people will use a dnve-lhru there, but since there is no drive-
lhru, we will have more sit down eating too.
Mr. Shane:
Well, that's the purpose of my question because you're showing
17 seats, which isn't a lot for a restaurant.
Mr. Atikian:
Right.
K19
Mr. Shane:
Do you feel that you can operate that way?
Mr. Atikian:
Yes. Even my personal experiences from being at Quiznos and
other sub shops, I've never really seen it extremely busy where
they could not handle the necessary seating.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the
public hearing. Any last comments?
Mr. Atikian:
No.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#01-11-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2004, on
Petition 2003-12-02-26 submitted by Rita Atikian requesting
waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant
(Quiznos Subs) in the Middlebell Plaza shopping center at
18768 Middlebell, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between Pickford Avenue and Clarita Avenue in the Northwest
% of Section 12, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-12-02-26 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than 17 seals;
2. Thatthe following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated January 8, 2004, from the Inspection Department
shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
- That this entire space must meet the current barrier
free/accessibility code, including the front entry and the
point-of-sale counter, since this is a change in use
group from the previous tenant;
- The space, as drawn, creates a dead-end corridor. Al
the time of the Inspection Department's review of the
building permit application, the interior design shall be
revised to reflect any changes needed to meet code;
tVIL�Ya
3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject
restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
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 2003-11-06-07 TENT SALES
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-11-06-07 submitted by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #564-03, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 10.02 of Article X of the Zoning Ordinance to
provide for sidewalk and parking lot lent sales as permitted
accessory uses for retail establishments in G7 Districts.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: Thank you. This proposed language amendment would modify
Section 10.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for sidewalk
and parking lot lent sales as permitted accessory uses for retail
establishments in G7 Districts. The Law Department has
prepared language that, if adopted, would add a new paragraph
identifying these sidewalk and lent sales as permitted uses in C-
1 districts, subject to the following conditions. First, a retail
establishment must obtain a permit from the Inspection
20993
Department prior to conducting a tent sale. It is also
recommended that the Traffic Bureau review the permit
application and advise the applicant as to what, if any,
measures are needed to provide for safe access and to
minimize pedestrian and vehicular traffic conflicts that may
occur in connection with the subject use. Secondly, a condition
is provided that is designed to keep these sales out of and/or
away from public rights-of-way. The language prepared by the
Law Department would prohibit any part of the sale from laking
place in either the front or side yard, except in certain cases.
Allemafively, the Planning Commission is recommending that a
minimum setback of 40 feet be maintained from any public right-
of-way. Third, there is a requirement that no more than two
sidewalk or lent sales take place in a calendar year. And lastly,
the fourth condition provides that no such sale exceed two
weeks in duration.
Mr. McCann:
Since the Planning Commission is the petitioner in this matter,
we will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience
thalwisheslospeak for or againstthis petition? Seeing no one,
I will close the public hearing. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners?
Mr. Shane:
Mark, at the pre hearing review and you have mentioned in your
notes, the item of providing minimum setbacks at 40 feel. Is
that reflected in the revised language from the Law
Department?
Mr. Taormina:
No, only in the conditions of approval do we include language
that would modify that language.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. So am I to understand that any building which has a
setback which is less than 40 feel, they may not have a lent
sale?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct, unless they seek approval through the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
I requested the answer about the Traffic Bureau and safety.
What this does then, each time an individual comes in and gets
a certificate to operate a tent sale, the Inspection Department
will send it to the Traffic Department with the layout to make
sure there's no problem with traffic or anything like that. Is that
the way it's going to be handled? It won't be actually in the
20994
ordinance. It will be something that the Inspection Department
will request each time it happens?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, actually, it is our intention to include some language in the
ordinance that would provide for that procedure without
specifying exactly how that procedure would operate. But
essentially, you're correct. There would be a routing of the
pefilion to the Traffic Bureau for their comments, which would
then be reflected in any permit or occupancy permit involved in
the sale.
Mr. LaPine:
I feel safe that the Police Department has looked at it and made
sure that all safety measures are being taken to protect the public.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Any other discussion? A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#01-12-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 2004, on
Petition 2003-11-06-07, submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #564-03, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 10.02 of Article X of the Zoning
Ordinance to provide for sidewalk and parking lot tent sales as
permitted accessory uses for retail establishments in C-1
Districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2003-11-06-07 be approved with
the following modifications:
1. That lent and sidewalk sales be allowed within portions of
the required front and side yards provided that a minimum
setback of at lead 40 feel is maintained from any public
street right-of-way; and
2. That the recommendations of the Traffic Bureau of the
Police Department regarding measures to provide for safe
access and to minimize pedestrian and vehicular traffic
conflicts that may occur in connection with the subject use
will be obtained and incorporated into the text of the
proposed language amendment.
20995
With the preceding modifications, the proposed language
amendment is approved for the following reasons:
1. That tent and sidewalk sales are a standard business
practice in connection with many retail stores and should
be provided for as a permitted use in the C-1 district
regulations, subject to specified conditions; and
2. Thatthe proposed language amendment, as modified, will
contain appropriate standards and requirements to provide
for sufficient control over the location and nature of the
subject use.
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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. This concludes the Public Hearing section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Miscellaneous
Site Plan 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 #6 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 The Village Shops of Wonderland
East requesting approval of landscaping for the commercial
development building located at 29859 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast'''/ of Section 35.
Mr. Taormina: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between
Middlebelt and Merriman Roads. On November 5, 2003,
Schostak Brothers & Company received Site Plan Approval to
construct three multi -tenant commercial buildings out towards
Plymouth Road on part of the Wonderland Shopping Center
properly. As part of the approval, it was conditioned '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." The submitted plan
shows a variety of plant materials would be used throughout the
new area of development. The existing Plymouth Road
Development Authority planting scheme along Plymouth Road
would remain and be somewhat incorporated. The two main
aisleways off Plymouth Road would be defined by rows of
crabapple trees. Trees and shrubs would screen the rear
loading areas of buildings "E" and "F" The proposed
landscaping also includes the detention area located behind the
former Kmart Store. The large detention basin and forebay area
would be seeded and planted with aquatic type plants. The
detention area would be screened from the abutting residential
neighborhood by a row of evergreen trees. The proposed
landscaping covers 15% of the site and meets the landscaping
requirement.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: Inasmuch as this is callback item, there is no additional
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert E. Zschering, Vice President, Schostak Brothers & Company, 25800
Northwestern Highway, Suite 750, Southfield, Michigan 48075.
We're here requesting approval of our fully detailed landscape
drawings. We have taken great care to fully comply to the City
ordinances and guidelines. We are here to show you that our
compliance meets with all of your guidelines and the quality and
detail of materials that we used in our building choices, which
we showed you earlier. The landscaping is a continuation of
that commitment to the quality and to the community. Schostak
lakes great care and responsibility to the community and we're
very serious about what we're doing here. Schoslak wants to
be a part of the continued beautification of the Plymouth Road
corridor. And with that, what I'd like to do is humbly turn it over
to our landscape architect, so I don't have to repeat Latin
names, who is Don Beagle with Hubbell, Roth & Clark.
Don Beagle, Hubbell, Roth & Clark, 555 Hulel, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. As we
said, we're seeking approval for the landscape plan. The
previous review requested the addition of specific type and size
and we have that identified on the plan. We've done that. A
package of slides has been presented to you for your review.
Mr. McCann: I have one real quick question. Our resident expert is on
vacation this week. Whenever I heard somebody talk about a
Dogwood, there's usually a nasty name in front of it.
20997
Mr. Beagle:
That's usually the flowering cornus Florida, and this is cornus
kousa.
Mr. McCann:
I'm sure that you had the right one.
Mr. Beagle:
This is a very suitable plant and has all the same flowering and
fall color characteristics of the other dogwoods, but this is the
more temperamental member of the family, and we use it quite
a bit. Its a good nursery plant.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane:
First of all, I'd like to thank you for these illustrations. I know
many members of the Planning Commission probably don't
know as much about plants as maybe some others, and I think
this really helps.
Mr. McCann:
It sure does.
Mr. Shane:
The graphic illustration helps to understand just exactly what
those little symbols are. The question I have, I understand that
the City Council made a modification to this particular plan with
respect to building"G." They want some additional landscaping
to the west of that. This plan doesn't modify it. Maybe my
question is to Mr. Taormina. I presume we'll gel this modified
before City Council sees it with respect to that matter? I think
you did mention that west of retail "G" because of the way its
configured there, that Council wants additional screening along
that west side.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. In fact, there has been some effort on the part
of the petitioner to modify those plans. There will be a
separation between the loading area that is immediately
adjacent to the west elevation of that building from the main
aisleway, and within that area, that landscaped island
separating the two driveways, there will be some opportunity for
landscaping. I'm not sure, they may actually have a response to
your question this evening with specifics in terms of how that
would be planted.
Mr. Beagle: We do have that here with us tonight. Its not quite as high tech
as the PDF's that we sent along, but we do have a board that
indicates the revised west edge of that.
Mr. McCann: Let's take a look at that
YIIP:ii
Mr. Taormina:
I'll just point out right now on the overhead, this is retail building
"G" which you can see is oriented perpendicular to Plymouth
Road, and the area in question is located on the west side of the
building. You can see this is the drive aisle that is adjacent to
the building, and this would be the parking spaces with access
from that drive aisle. We can then have the camera focus in on
the board that he's pulling up there to see the change.
Mr. Beagle:
Okay, we do have the plan, and the request was to add
screening on this side of the building. So there has been a drive
allowed on the furthest west portion of the site. We have
building entrances identified with sidewalk, and then we have
screening material, flowering crabapples. We wanted an open
deciduous material so that we had a screening element but not
a nuisance or hiding area on the back of the buildings where
employees exit. So I think we have provided that screening for
you.
Mr. McCann:
Mark, any comments?
Mr. Taormina:
No.
Mr. McCann:
The crabapple will be four or five feet off the ground before you
gel into the bushy part of the tree. Is that what we're looking al?
Mr. Beagle:
Four fool would be a good measurement there.
Mr. McCann:
Is there mechanical equipment at all behind this building, or is it
just going to be brick and grass underneath it?
Mr. Beagle:
Grass underneath it and no mechanical equipment.
Mr. McCann:
The exit doors will be the only thing?
Ms. Smiley:
And that's where they pick up and drop off?
Mr. McCann:
Well, the one end would be storage, to the south end, correct?
Is that where your dumpsler is, on the south end?
Mr. Beagle:
The service area is identified here.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Otherquestions?
tVIL�l]
Mr. LaPine:
Just one question. I know you set back from Plymouth Road
about 80 feel. Are all these types of plantings that you're going
to put in, are they going to be able to stand up against the spray
of the salt from Plymouth Road, plus the fact that you'll be
plowing snow in the parking lot, and I assume it's going to go
into some of these areas. Will these plants withstand that type
of an operation?
Mr. Beagle:
The snow removal plan will be coordinated so that it won't
damage the landscape, and we have grass between the brick
wall and the curb.
Mr. LaPine:
So there's no chance of any spray. Because usually what they
do, they put that burlap around the plants and shrubs and things
like that.
Mr. Beagle:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you going to be doing any of that here?
Mr. Beagle:
I don't believe so. And then all these plant material islands are
irrigated, and we have some other measures we're going to take
for insuring the healthiness of the trees, but that's the best
avenue to combat the salt damage is to keep the trees as
healthy as you can and keep irrigation there, so that you don't
get a residual build up in the soil of the salts.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthis petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#01-13-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of
landscaping, submitted by Schoslak Brothers & Company, Inc.,
in connection with Pefilion 2003-09-08-24, which previously
received site plan approval by the City Council on November 5,
2003 (CR #582-03) to construct a commercial development
known as The Village Shops of Wonderland East at 19859
Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebell and Merriman Roads in the Northeast % of
Section 35, be approved subject lolhe following conditions:
1.
Thatthe Landscape Plans marked Sheets L-1 and L-2 both
dated September 19, 2003, as revised, prepared by
Hubbell, Roth & Clark, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2.
Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
3.
That, except for the detention basin, all disturbed lawn
areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4.
That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5.
That the extent of the underground sprinkler system for the
detention basin and forebay area shall be determined by
the Inspection Department;
6.
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
7.
That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#582-03, which granted approval for the construction of a
commercial development known as The Village Shops of
Wonderland East, shall remain in effect to the extent that
they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. McCann, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-09-08-25 VILLAGE SHOPS WEST
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-09-08-25 submitted by The Village Shops of Wonderland
West requesting approval of landscaping for the commercial
development building located at 30255 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast'''/ of Section 35.
Mr. Taormina: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between
Middlebell and Merriman Roads. On November 5, 2003,
Schostak Brothers & Company received Site Plan Approval to
21001
construct a multi -tenant commercial building out towards
Plymouth Road and renovate the former Kmart Store on part of
the Wonderland Shopping Center properly. As part of the
approval, it was conditioned: 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. The submitted plan shows a variety of plant
materials that would be planted throughout the new area of
development. The existing Plymouth Road Development
Authority planting scheme along Plymouth Road would remain
and be somewhat incorporated. Spruce trees and deciduous
trees along its west side would define the main aisleway off
Plymouth Road. Trees and shrubs would screen the rear
loading area of Building "A" The large parking lot between
Building "A" and the former Kmart Store would have landscaped
islands at the end of each parking row. A row of oak trees
would screen the buildings from the adjacent properties to the
west. The requirement of 15% landscaping of the site has been
mel. To the south of the building is the large parking area,
which will be reconstructed as part of the detention basin. I
would like to point out, and we should have done this in the
previous resolution, that the area will not be sodded. It will be
seeded because of the specialty in the plant materials that will
go in. That's an area that will be seeded in lieu of sodding even
though we have that requirement in the ordinance, or that
requirement for all the other disturbed areas to be sodded. The
one exception would be the detention basin.
Mr. McCann: Are there any additional comments on this property?
Mr. Beagle: We have the same comments, the same concept, the same
intent to provide as healthy and lush looking landscape as
possible.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. I did have one comment on these fine pictures you
gave us. It does create a standard that we're going to look for
when we come up there, so we're going to expect bushes that
look like this and flowers that look like this. So, you know when
you give us little paper drawings, we're not really sure what
we're going to gel. Now we know. Any other questions from
the Commissioners? Anybody in the audience? A motion is in
order.
21002
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#01-14-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of
landscaping, submitted by Schoslak Brothers & Company, Inc.,
in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-25, which previously
received site plan approval by the City Council on November 5,
2003 (CR #583-03) to construct a commercial development
known as The Village Shops of Wonderland Weslfor property at
30255 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebell and Merriman Roads in the Northeast
% of Section 35, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated
September 19, 2003, as revised, prepared by Hubbell,
Roth & Clark, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
6. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#583-03, which granted approval for the construction of a
commercial development known as The Village Shops of
Wonderland West, shall remain in effect to the extent that
they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
21003
Mr. Piercecchi: You know, Jim, I want to say that this is your last meefing as
Chairman, and I know I speak for everybody, that you were a
great chairman, and I'm sure you'll be a great councilman too.
Mr. McCann: Thankyou, Dan. I appreciate that.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCann: Yes, Mr. LaPine.
Mr. LaPine: Before we adjourn tonight, I'd just like to take this opportunity to
say that I've served with you for 14 years on this Board. It's not
going to be the same without you around. You've been an
outstanding, and I mean this when I say it, an outstanding
Commissioner and an outstanding Chairman. You do a terrific
job. The Council is going to gel a ler fic person. We all know
you're going to do a terific job, and I wish you all the luck in the
world.
Mr. McCann: I really appreciate that, Bill, Dan, John, Carol, H. I did have a
little problem today. I wrote my resignation letter to Mayor
Engebrelson, and after 16 plus years of doing this, I found that
its really been a home. People I've worked with I have huge
respect for. The people that I've gotten to know, the
developers, the citizens, the whole process has been a great
education for me. And I find it hard to leave. I really do. The
Planning staff has been wonderful; they've educated me;
they've worked with me - the past and current administrations.
It's a difficult thing to do to give a resignation to something when
you've done it for so long and worked so closely with so many
people, but I am looking forward to the opportunity of serving on
Council with the Council vole tomorrow night. I really appreciate
all the support I've gotten here and the fine comments. Thank
you. I'd also like to thank the City Channel 8 volunteers for their
help and support for tonight and all the past meetings. If there
is no further business to come before the Planning Commission
Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman? I'd just like to say that I'm unique here because
I only got to work with you for a while. You've been an
outstanding Chairman and outstanding Planning Commissioner,
and we're going to miss you. Good luck.
Mr. McCann: Thank you
21004
Mr. Walsh: In addition to those compliments, and I share every one of them,
of course we all expect a sympathetic ear on the Council from
you.
Mr. McCann: Of course. The Planning Commission can do no wrong. I know
that.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 878' Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 27, 2004, was adjourned at 9:28
p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mr
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary