HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-06-1323282
MINUTES OF THE 927TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 927" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William La Pine R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley John Walsh
Members absent: H. G. Shane
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra
Walter, Clerk -Typist II; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also
present.
Chairman Walsh 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 seem (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 2006-05-01-03 LEO SOAVE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-05-
01-03 submitted by Leo Soave requesting to rezone the
properties at 37751 and 37771 Seven Mile Road, located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road between Blue Sides Drive and
Glengarry Drive in the Northeast''/. of Section 7, from R3C to
OS.
23283
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated May 9, 2006, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description is
correct and no additional right -0f -way is required. A detention
area is required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm
Water Management Ordinance and the drive approach to Seven
Mile Road requires Wayne County approval." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. We have
received nine separate letters from persons who are opposed to
the rezoning, which you have received with your materials. For
the record, those letters were signed by Kad Zager, John and
Lisa Tenbusch, Sandy Goga, Joe and Jeanne Mazur, Josephine
Tajer, L. J. Wilkie, R. William Joyner, Erik and Jennifer
Kuszyns1k, and Michelle Ficyk. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
The question is to Mr. Taormina. Under our ordinance, a sign
has to be put on the property about the rezoning. Are these two
separate properties and two different tax parcels?
Mr. Taormina:
Are they two separate tax parcels?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, two separate parcels.
Mr. Taormina:
I will have to verify that.
Mr. LaPine:
The question is this: Is it required to have a sign on each parcel
or does the one on the vacant land include both parcels?
Mr. Taormina:
Typically, we only require a single sign when the sites are
abutting one another.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, how do they know the house next door is part of the
rezoning?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, typically it's placed centrally on the property, and when
inquiries are made, we would then describe exactly which
parcels are proposed to be rezoned.
23284
Mr. LaPine:
The property is vacant, which I can understand, and he wants to
rezone it. How would the neighbors know that the property next
door, where the house is, is up for rezoning loo? How would
they know that?
Mr. Taormina:
Typically, we would receive calls and inquiries because there is
a telephone
number posted on the sign so they can contact the
Planning
Department, and we would describe the area to be
rezoned.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, I read the ordinance a little different. Okay. Fine. If that's
your answer, okay.
Ms. Smiley:
I just wanted to clarify ... next to the properly that's in question,
like across the street, that's owned by the Stale of Michigan,
right, and the highways, so there will never be anything built or
done with that? Right?
Mr. Taormina:
Originally, and I will point to the area on the map, this parcel
consisted of a series of lots that were originally platted within the
Melody Manor Subdivision. They were acquired by the Slate
Highway Department, and are now, in effect, an extension of the
right-of-way at Seven Mile and the 1-275 interchange.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. So that belongs to the Slate of Michigan?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay, and then my other question is, there's kind of a circular
drive. Is there only going to be one driveway going in off of
Seven Mile?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, again, this is a conceptual plan that was submitted with
the rezoning application,
and they're showing a single entrance
from Seven Mile
Road that would access the parking lot.
They're not showing any kind of connection to Blue Skies under
this plan.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan Amann,
Brashear Tangora Gallagher Creighton & Amann LLP, 355 N.
Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan 48187. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. I'm here on behalf of the
petitioner, Leo Soave. Thanks for the time. I'll try to be brief. I
think Mr. Taormina did a great job in terms of describing not
23285
only the history but also the current proposal to you. As I was
driving here along Farmington, and I used to practice in the
office across the street, I was struck by really the number of
situations where we have offices fronting mile roads backing up
to residential neighborhoods living in really perfect compatibility.
I think really when you get down to it, and I understand the
concerns you've had, when you gel down to it, that's really
ultimately the issue here, how you end up. I understand the
notion of change being nerve-wracking for a lot of folks because
you're unsure of what you're going to get, particularly when you
rezone. You don't know if the representation before you is
going to affect the end product. So I intend to address that just
briefly. Before I go any further, though, Commissioner LaPine's
concerns as to the actual sign, I just want to briefly address that.
Under the law, the fact is there was notice obtained by people
as evidenced by the number of letters, inquiries and phone calls
we had. So there is, in fact, actual notice. So if there is a
perception of any technical violation of any provision as to the
sign, I would ask you to essentially set that aside by the fact that
we got the letters we did, the phone calls and the input. It
shows, in fact, there was notice about this, and we clearly have
citizen input. So I think the threshold has been met under
Michigan law. I want to briefly talk about this site as it relates to
the history and really the future. The history you're certainly
aware of, the attempts to try to rezone it in the past and the
various proposals. I think the proposal before you today, the
zoning, but then also with the conceptual site plan, which we're
certainly willing to talk to you about in terms of a development
agreement or contract zoning or whatever in terms of the site
plan, I think reflects a lesson Teamed. The fact is, when we
were last here, I read through the minutes very carefully to the
concerns raised by the residents as to the concerns as to the
size of the facility, traffic, lighting, noise and the critical
nuisances you would expect from an adjacent use. I think this
proposal before you, especially in light of the conceptual site
plan, goes a long way to address those concerns I think to a
reasonable manner. Certainly, I know well that everyone will
not be satisfied because I think some people will basically lake
the position that if it's not residential, it's not good enough. And
I understand that, but I want to at least explain our position on
that. There is no question obviously in the Planning
Commissions' mind, based on your past practices. Arid under
Michigan law, you look at your ordinance and your past
practices, but your past practices are clear that the character
and nature of Seven Mile are changing. What you've done on
the north side in terms of the rezoning to office space and the
fact that these have been approved are very clear in terms of
moving residential parcels into office zoning. And I was most
23286
recently in front of you on the dentist office just a little east of
this site for zoning to office. When you also just look at the lie of
the land, a couple other things jump out at you. The fad that
there is the medical facility to the east of us demonstrates a
large office use. Most people operate on a simple process of
can this work economically. Does it make sense for everybody?
And when you look at the parcels involved, the Stale of
Michigan obviously made a great judgment when they look the
parcels to the west. They made a clear decision that those
parcels to the west were no longer useable for residential
purposes whether for safety issues, as to curb cuts, hazards
and things like that or just the efficacy of living on a major mile
road immediately adjacent to a major freeway. And so I think
when you consider this parcel tonight, knowing we've looked at
it in the past, I would ask you to look at it through the lens of not
only what you've done in the past, but also what you've done
recently with the parcels to the north. And when you look at the
changes we've made to the north and the office there, although
we know about the history, that really talks about the future of
Seven Mile. The fad is, the applicant, if he attempted to try and
sell this properly for residential purpose, it would be a very, very
difficult time. When I went to talk to the neighbor of the parcel
just the other day, standing on the porch trying to have a simple
conversation on the porch on Seven Mile, it was just very
difficult due to the ongoing noise of just Seven Mile Road, and
that condition alone and the way that Seven Mile has grown,
when this subdivision was originally platted, the Council at the
time and the Planning Commission at the time could not have
foreseen, neither could the developer have foreseen the kind of
development along Seven Mile and 1-275 that we have seen
today. In fad, I don't think if they had, there would have, in fad,
intended there to be residential homes along there because
those homes, those residences are essentially now held
hostage to the condition of that roadway and are no longer
necessarily inhabitable for residential uses. I go back to my
earlier comment then when I first got up here. When you look at
what I think can be a benefit of a well done office complex, it
can actually ad as a well-placed buffer between the major mile
road and residential lots. I can go into detail if you want over
the difference of this proposal, but the conceptual site plan
before you, the building has shrunk, the parking spaces shrunk,
the lighting is all pursuant to the photometric requirements of the
ordinance. I think we can meet every issue that was raised in
the past responsibly, and meet it in a way that this Planning
Commission and City Council can be proud of it, and I think it's
really an example of a lesson learned. And so with that, I'm
prepared to answer any questions as to particular site issues
that may come up or zoning issues, but one big issue before I
23287
finish. The conceptual site plan shows something that we are
eagerly willing to commit to, in writing and agreement and
whatever form, and that is that there be no cab cut on Blue
Skies, that the curb cul only be along Seven Mile. That is a
major issue in terms of the things I read in the past. But even
the current letters, the concerns about traffic and the concerns
about encouraging this activity through the neighborhood. With
only a curb cul on Seven Mile, it really restricts the impact of this
site to that curb cul along Seven Mile. There's no place to park
along Blue Skies. There would be no parking along there. They
have tried to design this site in maximizing the buffering along
the rear, maximizing the buffering along Blue Skies, so that
once the landscaping is grown, the hopeful impact will be that
people will wonder what the heck is really even there because
they hardly see people there and they don't see them there
throughout the night. The fact is the building we propose to
build would be very residenfial in character in terms of the type
of roofing and appearance, so it would blend in very well. The
other remaining concern is about garbage trucks picking up
dumpslers. We have tried to isolate the dumpster by design
and by location and by landscaping in a way that it will have
very minimal impact and is, in fact, farther from the house than a
neighbor simply pulling their garbage out on Blue Skies to be
picked up by the municipal trucks. Those trucks would be a lot
closer to the houses along there, making more noise on a more
frequent basis, than what we're intending to do with the
enclosed dumpster on the far east side of the site. So I think
when you look at the conceptual plan in the context of this
rezoning, we have gone a long way to try to address those
questions, and we're glad to certainly answer any particular
questions as to this site or concerns that come up in comments
from residents. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: I know tonight is only a zoning issue but at our study meeting,
we spoke to Mr. Soave and he said that the dumpster, if this
was approved, would be gone completely.
Mr. Amann: We'd certainly be glad to do that.
Mr. Alanskas: Number two, this is zoning, we shouldn't even be addressing
this, but you said it would look like a home -type building instead
of an office building?
Mr. Amann: The roofline, the roof structures, yes. We're not talking about a
metal roof or a parapet and things like that. We actually have
renderings from the architect. We'd be glad to show itto you.
23288
Mr. Walsh:
If you could put the rendering on the tripod and use the hand
held microphone, the camera will pick it up for the audience.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I brought that up is because at our study meeting,
the building they showed us was completely an office building,
but what you're showing me now looks much more like a private
home.
Mr. Walsh:
If you want to walk us through, it will come on the screen here in
a minute.
Mr. Amann:
I'm going to let the architect walk you through because he can
describe it in more detail.
Chris Biggers,
19161 Parkville, Livonia. Our firm is based in Livonia loo, and we
are considering moving into possibly this location. We tried to
redesign it as a little more lower profile, more residential feeling
to it, using more residential materials, and at the same time, we
are basically not exceeding any of the zoning ordinances of the
OS district. We also have revised the site Pan a little bit to
show that we removed the dumpslers. We would like to
possibly restrict the occupancy of the building and limit the
number of parking spots when possible. We're also providing a
very large green bene area with large trees on all sides. The
building has a 30 -foot setback from the properly line. OS only
requires us to have a 15 -foot setback. So we are trying to
comply with the residential standards, but at the time, we would
like to have the OS use and limit this to professional medical
office type situation, something low key with very few cars in
and out during the day.
Mr. Walsh:
Could we go back to the front of the building to take a look at
that? The north elevation, lower to my right, that's facing Seven
Mile?
Mr. Biggers:
This would be Seven Mile, yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay.
Mr. Amann:
This would be facing Blue Skies.
Mr. Biggers:
And the entrance will actually be opposite of Blue Skies. So in a
sense, anyone coming to the building will never even be at the
Blue Skies side oflhe building.
Mr. Alanskas:
On those two elevations, what is that on lop of the roof that
looks like metal?
23289
Mr. Biggers:
We're just looking at some ideas of maybe adding some day
lighting or something to help conserve energy. Things like that.
Mr. Alanskas:
No, no. The next picture. See across the top?
Mr. Biggers:
Its askylight.
Mr. Alanskas:
Oh, that's a skylight. What would be the height of the building?
Mr. Biggers:
The building is about 26 feel to this lop point.
Mr. Alanskas:
Twenty-six feet All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow:
I would like to ask one of the gentlemen, as long as we're
talking about it, we realize this is zoning but it's all right for us to
Mr. Amann:
Under Michigan law, it's now okay to talk about this.
Mr. Morrow:
To talk about and gel a little insight to it. I'm more concerned
with the use. What does the owner propose to do with those
offices?
Mr. Amann:
The owner, in fact, intends to occupy the offices himself for the
purposes of his company and possibly put an architectural office
in there. He had indicated medical. There's really no intent to
have a medical type use with a regular rotating patient basis.
This is really intended to be for his use for his company and a
potential architect, which is very low key in terms of its impact.
Mr. Morrow:
I did pick up on his reference to professional.
Mr. Amann:
We would certainly be glad by agreement to restrict it to that.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. If I could just dig a little bit deeper. What would be the
impact on the office?
How many employees does Mr. Soave
have and what would be the ins and outs?
Mr, Amann:
I usually make my clients assert their Fifth Amendment rights,
but I'm going to let him answer that question.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Thank you very
much. We will have two employees and myself. Usually I go in
the morning and pick up whatever I've got to do, and then I
come back later in the afternoon and that's the extent There
would be two employees on site at all times.
23290
Mr. Morrow:
How about walk-ins during the day? Do you have many of
those?
Mr. Soave:
Typically, our business is done in models, so as far as walk-ins,
we don'lgel loo much.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Do you have the second tenant or is itstill speculative?
Mr. Soave:
We're talking to the design architect. He's showing an interest
in occupying some of the space. And that's the extent of it right
now.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, he should. He designed it. The reason I'm bringing this
up is, you know, I look further to the east and I see high rise
professional office, which means a great deal of traffic in and
out, abutting some of the fine homes that are in the Camborne
Subdivision. The way its laid out, it doesn't appear to impact the
neighborhood that greatly, but I want to hear what the neighbors
have to say also.
Mr. Amann:
As to that concern, one of the nice changes involved ... many
limes when the law changes you just kind of hang on for your
life. One of the nice changes in Michigan law is under the
condition of rezoning and contract rezoning, we have the ability
to volunteer to the city all kinds of conditions including the kind
of condition as to limiting the number of actual people in offices
and employees in the building and those kinds of things. We're
certainly not opposed to that as part of this process.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Soave, if I could ask you one question. Have you made any
attempt to purchase or try to purchase the property at the empty
house to the east?
Mr. Amann:
Lel me answer that for you because I had the pleasure of
visiting with her yesterday. And she said if one more person
shows up on my porch trying to buy this property for Mr. Soave,
I'm going to buy a shotgun. So, yes, many attempts have been
made, but she's just not interested. She very much enjoys her
situation and is not interested at this time, and she has asked
me, as his attorney, to convey that to him with no uncertainty.
Mr. LaPine:
Because Mr. Soave is going to be around here for a long time.
So in the future, if this property was rezoned, she decided to sell
and Mr. Soave buys the property, could I expect another office
building there?
23291
Mr., Amann:
My sense is that, you know, depending on the restrictions of the
site, it would probably make sense in light of the continuation of
what's going on, but who knows what the future would hold.
Mr. LaPine:
That answers my question. Thank you. The next question,
maybe you can answer this. Mr. Soave indicated to us at our
study session the reason he's making this appeal again, in his
opinion, the situation has changed on the north side of the road.
I argue that it has not changed. What has changed? I want to
see what you have to say next to what he had to say.
Mr. Amann:
Sure.
Mr. LaPine:
What's changed?
Mr. Amann:
What's changed is, in fact, most recently when I was here, you
actually rezoned a residential parcel from the dentist office to an
office use, and we now have a high rise coming in. There s a
demonstration of intended office use along that portion of Seven
Mile Road.
Mr. La Pine:
But isn't it true that we had a Consent Judgment on that
properly from the courts that dictated what we can allow to go in
and what we couldn't allow to go in there on the north side?
Isn't that correct?
Mr. Amann:
And that's an excellent point. By virtue of the fact of being a
Consent Judgment means that it was a two-party agreement.
Its something that you consented to participate in and do. So
certainly that's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Therefore, nothing has really changed. Now, let me finish. Now
you're talking about the dental office, which we fought for a long
time. It was the first time we heard anything. Mr. Soave came
in there and wanted to have that property rezoned commercial,
which we denied because we didn't want commercial. We
thought the dental office was the lead intrusive operation there
because it abutted a gas station, and therefore we thought it
was a good idea. But the rest of the buildings there, there was
a Consent Judgment just amended to allow a day care center in
there. It wasn't our doing. They went to court and the judge
agreed with them. So nothing has really changed on the north
side of the street since Mr. Soave tried to get these two parcels
rezoned to OS. Lel me go on. On the south side of Seven Mile
Road, starling at Gill Road all the way to where these houses
are, there is no commercial or OS zoning at all. I was there
when the Mr. Shenkman, the owner of Livonia Mall, tried to get
all that property rezoned. We would have had a shopping
23292
center there today if the people that lived in that neighborhood
didn't fight against. We didn't want a shopping center. We
wanted homes. We gave in. The city gave in on certain parcels
for office. One of them was the Dearborn Federal Credit Union,
one was the bank location, one was the hospital or behind R.
So nothing has really changed up there over these years as
your client wants me to believe that there's been a big change.
There hasn't been a big change.
Mr. Amann:
May I respond, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Amann:
I'm a little bit at a loss to argue with you about whether there's a
change or not when in the premise of your statement, you
acknowledge the first change of being a dentist office going in
across the road instead of a commercial use.
Mr. La Pine:
Right.
Mr. Amann:
You've acknowledged a new office where a residential use used
to be. Inherently, anyway you look at, that's a change. It's a
change of a refieclion of a recognition of the change in traffic
patterns and kinds of uses. One other item that relates to that.
A dental office, which has a continuing rotation of customers by
15 minutes, otherwise you don't make money. It's a constant 15
minute change. They've got dental hygienists and dentists. It
has a much greater impact in an office use than the kind of use
that Mr. Soave is talking about. And so I think that is a
substantial change as it relates to Seven Mile and the
recognition of the character of the area, and that includes a
recognition of the traffic, the traffic patterns. And I'll tell you,
when I saw the plan of the State Highway laking out the portion
west of the road, the State has recognized that the portion west
of the road is uninhabitable. So it suggests to me that maybe
the portion on the east is at least for consideration as to whether
it oughllo be residential.
Mr. LaPine:
You have to agree on the south side, I'm talking about the
south. The north side is a different animal as far as I'm
concerned. On the south side, there is no OS or commercial
except for the parcels that we were forced to allow to go in
because of the Consent Judgment.
Mr. Amann:
I don't disagree with you on that.
Mr. La Pine:
Then that's my argument.
23293
Mr. Amann: As a conclusion to the response, I understand that if you look
entirely on the south side, I think under Michigan law and under
the past practices, you have to look at this quadrant and look at
what you did on the north side as well because this is Seven
Mile Road, and so we dont get to just say, okay, we're looking
at the south side only. This is essentially, from a legal
perspective, out to a cenledine of a Seven Mile consideration
and what's on the other side of the centedine. But I understand
the perception.
Mr. LaPine: The only thing I can tell you in rebuttal, he went to court on this
parcel and he was denied by the court. What's changed? The
Court has agreed with us.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners before we go
to the audience? Thank you, Mr. Amann. At this pant, we will
go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Good evening.
Michelle Ficyk, 18824 Blue Skies. Good evening. What I'd like to say, I'd like to
just say a couple things. I know I sent you all a letter in advance
that detailed some of the specific concerns that we have, but in
response to what I've heard here tonight, I'd like to say first of all
that our protest of this rezoning has nothing to do with site plan
issues. It doesn't have anything to do with where the driveway
is or how big the parking lot is or what the building looks like. It
has to do with the fact that we are a contiguous block of
residential homes. The property on the north side is not a
contiguous block of residential homes. Its comparing apples to
oranges. The only other thing I'd like to lel you know is that we
just starting circulating a petition. We were out for a little bit on
Sunday because it was a beautiful afternoon and we got already
35 to 40 homes who said happily yes, put me down on that
petition against the rezoning. I can show you the sheets we
have if you'd like to see them. But we are planning on
submitting that to the City Council, and we fully expect to have
an avalanche of signatures of homeowners, taxing paying voting
homeowners who are adamantly opposed to the rezoning. It
would be plunking down a commercial business smack dab in
the middle of our neighborhoods. It's unthinkable. Thank you
Douglas Canada, 19024 Blue Skies. I live directly south of the property that's
planned to be rezoned. My mother could not be here tonight.
She is a quadriplegic woman. Looking at the pictures of the
property, the pictures are great. However, it doesn't talk about
the noise. It doesn't talk about the traffic. It doesn't talk about
crime. In the past couple years since this last petition has
happened with Mr. Soave over here, that house, that property
23294
that he has rented out has gone downhill. He has not done one
thing to that property since he has taken it over, okay? My next
concern is, now that I'm hearing that he's going to be our
neighbor permanently if this thing does go through, what is he
going to do about it? What is his upkeep going to be like
because currently he can't take care of his property? What is
he going to do for the future? We live directly behind the
property okay? We have direct interest in this properly. I have
yet to hear from his attorney. Its nice that they went next door
to the other side, but they didn't even venture into the
neighborhood. You know, my comments to this are, its very
sloppily done. An architect can put a picture together. I could
put together a couple pictures loo. I don't think Mr. Soave
would like to see the pictures of his current property. It's
absolutely ridiculous. So I'm totally against it. If we have to
continue fighting this every five years, six years, we will. That's
all I have to say.
Eric Kuszynski, 18775 Blue Skies. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mr.
LaPine, I applaud you for your knowledge of the subject. The
previous speaker really hit home on one of my points which
was, I don't trust Mr. Soave. He cannot keep up the current
properly. He's made it a point, I believe, to deliberately bring
down he property values of the neighborhood by not keeping
that up, so that maybe the residents would say, oh, look at how
bad it is. Look at what it's doing to our properly values in the
condition that it's in. Maybe we should go for some other kinds
of use for this. So I think that he may have another tactic in
keeping the property values low by leaving it vacant and just
bringing it barely to the level where he's not in trouble with the
city for the overgrown weeds or the poor condition of the house.
Other than that, I have written a letter just to re-emphasize my
points of view. I'm sure you've all reviewed that. I thank you.
And that is all I have to add that really hasn't been covered.
Thank you.
Mary Jane Larson, 18786 Blue Skies. We are very, very proud of our
neighborhood. It's a lovely area. I'm a walker in our
neighborhood. I'm going to be somewhat repetitive with my
neighbors. But I have gone down there and picked up garbage
at the end of Blue Skies and Seven Mile. We came back from a
long trip and that area looked quite shoddy and shabby quite
frankly, and we have a lovely, lovely area. So I'm also
concerned. I'm not going to go down there on a daily basis and
sweep the driveway and cul the grass. I don't think its been
demonstrated that Mr. Soave has been a good neighbor and
how will this be in the future for us? I think the conceptual thing
is wonderful. I'm a little concerned about the reality of all this
23295
rezoning, to make Seven Mile better, to benefit Seven Mile but
what benefits our lovely neighborhood again? So thank you for
this opportunity. l am vehemently againstthis. Thankyou.
Joseph Henry Lemieux, 18839 Blue Skies. I am here in opposition to this
rezoning. I went this afternoon to the Planning Department and
I got a copy of the prehearing review prepared by the
professional staff, in which, I think its page two, yes, page two,
they make six reasons for opposing and recommending that this
be denied. I support all six of those reasons, which were not
compatible with the surroundings, the zoning would have a
negative effect on property values, the rezoning would not
comply with the Master Plan, the proposed rezoning is not
necessary to develop the property, and the rezoning would
cause unnecessary traffic on Blue Skies and represents spot
zoning which this city, I've lived here nearly 50 years, has
always opposed. Now one other thing I want to bring up. It was
some nice pictures the architect presented and they look great.
But as you all know, once the land is rezoned, that building may
not occur. The owner is allowed to develop it anyway he wants.
They show a driveway on Seven Mile, none on Blue Skies
Drive. I worked in an architectural firm as an architectural
engineer in this city for nearly 50 years and one thing I've
learned when you're dealing with the Wayne County Road
Commission, which is an am of the Stale Highway Department,
if they say we dont want you to put a driveway on Seven Mile
Road, their only option will be to put it on Blue Skies. Once
they've got it rezoned, they've got commercial, that driveway will
most likely end up on Blue Skies. That's the reason that none
of those houses or that property west of Blue Skies is used
because the Highway Department does not want any cross
traffic in that area. I want to thank you very much for hearing
me.
Veikko Sandell, 37830 Margareta. I have lived in this subdivision, this fall it will
be 50 years. It's a nice, quiet subdivision and we're strictly
opposed to this spot zoning that would bring in more traffic on
Blue Skies and Seven Mile. I am hoping the Planning
Commission will turn him down. Thank you.
Joseph Schewe, 19003 Glengarry Drive. My wife, Marilyn, and I have lived in
Livonia 33 years, the last 8 of which have been on Glengarry
Drive, the third house from Seven Mile. Eight years ago we
looked to leave Livonia. The kids are grown, downsize. We
couldn't do it. We ended up moving into the northwestern area
where the values tended to be a little more. We thought it was a
good investment. It seems to me this city should do things to
preserve the values of the homes in light of the higher taxes and
23296
the fad that people think this is a great place to live. We've
seen development where it seems like there's less and less
square footage left in this city through the years, although we do
appreciate condos and homes because that bangs in revitalized
new residents. But when it comes to businesses, I think it
should be looked at very closely. And to me, in my opinion,
when you put a commercial business in this location that would
be making a business the gateway to a residenfial community
and that's not only inappropriate, its wrong. It's just plain
wrong. And if Council is correct in that we already have that in
Livonia, then its wrong there loo, but that's a done deal. This is
not a done deal. So we strictly oppose it, very vehemently. And
lel me point out, I find it remarkable that six years ago, this city,
to proclaim it's 50" birthday, posted signs on the main roads
announcing that fact. Last year, they changed the signs to read
55 years, but they did not change the three -word slogan on the
bottom, which I consider the mission or philosophy of this city. I
hope the Commission keeps this in mind when considering this
petition because those three words are "Families Still First."
Thank you.
Frank Caruso, 18796 Nola. This is the third or fourth time that I've come here for
the same thing. Nobody has touched on the fact that Blue Skies
at Seven Mile Road at 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 4:00 to
6:30 at night, the traffic is horrendous. Nobody could gel in and
out of there safely. And I can't understand why this keeps
coming up. What part of "no" doesn't Mr. Soave not
understand? You told him no before. How come we're here
again? And it just doesn't make sense tome. I moved out here
37 years ago from Detroit because this is where I wanted to be.
I wanted to be where it was quiet. I'm 85 years old and there is
just too much going on and nobody seems to be caning about it.
These lovely folks here all said what they had to say, and over
my wife's objection, I'm saying what I have to say. I was
brought up strict Italian, and when my father said no, that's what
no meant. And you folks said no a couple limes to Mr. Soave.
How come he doesn't understand it? He must be Italian or
something. He should understand what no is. So if we can
eliminate this, this is really foolish. I know you have more to do
that sit here and discuss whether he's going to put an office
building and he's in the building business. I understand there's
going to be cars and trucks coming back and forth. There's
enough traffic there now and with the new subdivision south of
Melody Manor, there's just loo much traffic for one entrance and
exit. And I just don't think we need any more. Thank you.
Steve Kallio, 37725 Dardanella. Most of the points have been covered already
for and against, and I'm against the rezoning. I just have one
23297
question for Mr. Soave, and that is, you're an impressive home
builder that's been improving Livonia for many, many years.
You have two lots there. Why don't you just build two
impressive homes that go along with the rest of the homes
around it and move on? You've owned the property long
enough. I know there's money there to build new homes.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, ifyou could direct your comments to us, please.
Mr. Kallio:
Okay. Thal was it.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other people in the audience wishing to speak for
or against this item? Seeing no one, we will return to the
petitioner for the final word before we move to a resolution.
Mr. Amann:
Thank you. I certainly understand the comments and
understand the concerns. I think though the comments that I
made earlier still hold as it relates to the changing nature, and I
understand the perception that you look at south Seven Mile as
opposed to all of Seven Mile. The fad is, as to the issues of the
maintenance of the home, we've had a renter in there. We've
tried to deal with certain issues as to the upkeep and
maintenance. Its always difficult with a renter. As it relates to
the future of the properly, the fad is, we've looked at the
possibility of attempting to build a residence and those kinds of
things. There's veryfew people, if any at all, would ever want to
contemplate buying a new home on Seven Mile Road like that.
As I indicated, I attempted to have a conversation ...
Unidenfified audience
member: (inaudible)
Mr. Walsh:
Please. Sir, this is his opportunity to speak.
Mr. Amann:
As I attempted to have a conversation on a porch just
yesterday, the fad is, it's very difficult to do that and have any
kind of residential -type use right there on the road. With that, I'd
be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one question they brought up that we didn't ask in
regards to if there was an office in there by Mr. Soave, would
there be any trucks coming to this building?
Mr. Amann:
He has one pickup, but no. This is not intended to be a place
for customers and/or contractors or others. They operate out of
their sites for their actual construction purposes.
23298
Mr. Alanskas: So it would be strictly like an office building?
Mr. Amann:
Absolutely. I guess one follow-up on that. I heard comments
about it being a commercial office building smack in the middle
of a neighborhood. This is not commercial. It's an office, and
there's a huge difference, and it's not in the middle. Its on the
Seven Mile edge.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, I believe it was Mr. Lemieux that brought up a point relative
to the curb cuts on this particular site. And I think we heard
earlier that there would be no traffic on Blue Skies and the
entrance would be off of Seven Mile. Could you respond to
that?
Mr. Amann:
Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner. The fact is, we have
one curb cul on Blue Skies and one curb cul currently on Seven
Mile Road. Under the Parades and Banners Act, a strange
name for the Act, which controls in fact curb cuts for driveways
on roadways, with that curb cul we have on Seven Mile, that's
the curb cul we would intend to use and have the ability to
legally protect the existence of that curb cul. We would, in fact,
if this process were to move forward, we would certainly be
willing to enter into a development agreement or a zoning
agreement, which prohibited a curb cul on Blue Skies and only
allowed a curb cul on Seven Mile. So that if, in fact, we did not
get a curb cul on Seven Mile, the use via the agreement via the
zoning would be dead.
Mr. Morrow:
I think Mr. Lemieux also mentioned that once you got the
zoning, you could do anything that you wanted to do, and I think
you mentioned something relative to contract zoning.
Mr. Amann:
Exactly right. The State law was a year ago, or now 16 months
ago ... lel me make that 17 months ago, it's June ... to allow,
in fact, what is known as conditional rezoning on contract
rezoning. Under that, a municipality has the ability to now enter
into a contract with the developer of a site with voluntary
conditions. We would be prepared to volunteer those conditions
I've made to you tonight as to the site plan, it's exact depiction,
the building, the layout, the use, the number of people. All
those elements would be in the agreement, and if the
agreement was breeched, the zoning of the site would be lost.
So if the site was not built that way, if there were loo many
people in the building, the zoning would be lost by virtue of the
agreement.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. I wanted to clear that up
23299
Mr. Amann:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, just to rebut what the attorney said. There are homes built
on Seven Mile Road all the way from Gill Road and Newburgh.
Nice homes and no problems selling them. Mr. Soave, when
given his due, he's one of the better homebuilders we have in
the city. I've voted for him; I've voted against him. He has
homes under construction on Seven Mile near Farmington
Road. He has homes on Seven Mile and Merriman Road. He
has homes built on Seven Mile near Joe's Produce. He hasn't
had any problems selling his homes. He's having a rough time
now because all builders are having a rough time. So the
argument that those houses could not be built there and sold,
you don't know that. There's always somebody who is willing to
buy a house at the right price at the right location.
Mr. Amann:
Oh, sure.
Mr. La Pine:
So to say that they never could be sold, I don't think is really a
true thing. It may be a tough time for right now.
Mr. Amann:
Oh, sure. My one line response to that is, I don't disagree with
your overall assessment about selling homes on other places on
Seven Mile. This is Seven Mile and 4275. It's much different at
Seven Mile and Farmington.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional comments or questions? Thank you,
Mr. Amann.
Mr. Amann:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
At this point, a resolution would be in order.
On a motion by LaPine, it was:
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-01-03 submitted by Leo Soave requesting to
rezone the properties at 37751 and 37771 Seven Mile Road,
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Blue
Skies Drive and Glengarry Drive in the Northeast''/. of Section
7, from R -3C to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-05-01-03 be
denied for the following reasons:
23300
1. That the proposed zoning is not compatible with its
surroundings;
2. That the proposed zoning will have a negative effect on
properly values;
3. That rezoning this property to OS does not comply with the
Master Plan;
4. That the proposed rezoning is not necessary to further
develop the property;
5. That the proposed rezoning will cause unnecessary taffic
on Blue Skies; and
6. That the proposed rezoning requested is a prime example
of spot zoning at its worst.
Mr. Walsh: Is there support? Calling again for support. Seeing none, the
motion fails for lack of support. Is there an alternative
resolution?
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and adopted, it was
#0638-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-01-03 submitted by Leo Soave requesting to
rezone the properties at 37751 and 37771 Seven Mile Road,
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Blue
Skies Drive and Glengarry Drive in the Northeast''/. of Section
7, from R -3C to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the Oly Council that Petition 2006-05-01-03 be
approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning would allow for the
orderly and efficient development of the subject property
for uses that would be in harmony with the surrounding
zoning and land uses in this area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
additional office uses in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is complementary to
existing and proposed office zoning and uses on similarly
situated properties fronting on Seven Mile Road in the
areas to the north and east;
23301
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing nature and character of the Seven Mile Road
frontage properties in the area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoring will provide for a
transitional use to help buffer the adjoining residential
neighborhood from the nuisances emanating from the
Seven Mile Road thoroughfare.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas:
You know, on our Iasi three petitions that would certainly be
what I would say would be spot zoning. But what's happened in
the last three or four years across the street with all the OS, it is
definitely not spot zoning.
Mr. LaPine:
Let me respond by saying we keep bringing up what is across
the street. If that was the case, when this came to us in 2000 or
whenever it was, we should have approved it then. Two limes
this Board has unanimously denied this. Two times the Council
unanimously denied. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied him
when he went to gel a variance. He went to court and the court
denied him. Nothing has changed to justify us approving this.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think that's what's so nice about having different members on
the Board because everyone has their different opinion. I think
in that area a lot has changed. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there additional discussion or comment?
Mr. Morrow:
I wasn't on the Commission in 2000 when this was denied
before so I don't really know what was presented before, but
I've probably been by that properly a thousand times or more.
I've always looked at and wondered if there was ever an
opportunity to upgrade that facility there. I don't like to call it a
home because we have a residential lot with a home that is far
below the standard of the surrounding neighborhood. And what
I've heard tonight is that we have an opportunity here to get an
office use in there that's residential in character. What I've seen
here tonight, and Mr. Amann has said this petitioner would
contract zone it, so we would gel a building that looks very
much, not high rise, low rise, not professional office but general
office, which the many years I've served on the Planning
commission, it is far less intensive to the property that the
homeowners have to their east, which is the high rise
professional office building, and the bank on the corner, which I
was one of the ones that Bill referenced earlier that fought to
keep that area as much as we could residential. Many of you
23302
live in that residenlial area. It was going to go commercial and
high rise office at the time. We fought very hard to make it
residenlial, and I'm proud of the work that we did in that. But
from my view and looking at what I've seen here tonight, and
the reason I'm going to vote for the approval is we're getting a
residential character home, the entrance coming off of Seven
Mile, which Mr. Amann has indicated will not affect the area
directly. He has put together a site plan that softens as much as
he possible can and still meet the ordinance to soften the impact
of the surrounding neighborhood, and the fad that there is
limited traffic going in and out. You could make the case that
it's spot zoning, but right now we have a building in there that I
think is substandard to anything that exists in that area except
perhaps the home to the east.
Unidentified audience member: (inaudible)
Mr. Walsh: Sir, you are out of order.
Unidentified audience member: I am?
Mr. Walsh: You are. Ladies and gentlemen, the public hearing is done. We
have heard ...
Unidentified audience member: Why does he get the last word?
Mr. Walsh: Because he is the petitioner.
Unidentified audience members: (inaudible)
Mr. Walsh: Ladies and gentlemen, I am not entertaining any additional
discussion. The public hearing is over with.
Mr. Morrow: Lel me continue here if I may. I am one vole on the Planning
Commission. As you heard eadier, the Chairman explained that
the final vole will be the City Council's, and all I am doing is
expressing my view as one commissioner on my thoughts
affecting that particular piece of property. I have to be honest
with you. That's how I feel about it, and I realize you feel very
strongly that it should retain the residential, but what we have
there now is not residential in nature as far the upkeep.
Unidentified audience member: It needs to be upgraded.
Mr. Walsh: Ladies and gentlemen, please, we've completed our public
hearing. Is there any additional discussion? Ladies and
gentlemen, I will state that I will be joining Mr. Morrow and Mr.
Alanskas in voting for this. I believe that the character has
23303
changed, and I draw a great deal of comfort from the fact that
laws have changed in the last six years. I opposed this six
years ago as a Council member. Now I believe that we have a
great right through laws that permit us to enter agreements with
the landowner. I am entitled to my opinion as you are. I
respected your opinion and listened to it. My job now is to make
a decision, which I am doing so. I'm just telling you why. I think
the character has changed. I'm also comforted by the ability to
quickly and tightly bind the owner of that properly into the site
plan improvements that we expect will help buffer it against the
residential neighborhood. If there are no additional comments,
I'm going to ask the Secretary to please call the roll.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES: LaPine
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shane
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. Thank you.
Unidentified audience member: Thank you, Mr. LaPine. Shame on the rest of
you.
Mr. Walsh: Will the Secretary please call the next item?
Unidentified audience members: (inaudible)
Mr. Walsh: Sir, you are entitled to your opinion. Thank you for sharing it.
Ms. Smiley: Do you want me to wait?
Mr. Walsh: Yes, wail until they clear the room.
Unidentified audience member: I feel that this was an exercise in futility. I think
it was all figured out before we even came here.
Mr. Walsh: Ma'am...
Unidentified audience member: And I feel I'd like to know what favor is being
returned to you.
Mr. Walsh: Ma'am, I apologize that you feel that way, but that's your feeling
and you are entitled to it. You are absolutely wrong.
23304
kI=l,4U?M9=k IY Ole] L' £r]•4rY1511 9—U A7_\Ole] : UlNTi P1
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
05-02-10 submitted by The Salvation Army requesting waiver
use approval to operate a second-hand store at 29475 Seven
Mile Road, on property located on the south side of Seven Mile
Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the
Northeast % of Section 11.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 16, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposal at this time. The legal description to be used for
the waiver use follows." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 17, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a second-
hand store on property located on the west side of Middlebelt
Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the
Northeast X of Section 11. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
May 26, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal by the Salvation Army
located at 19043 Middlebelt Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 25, 2006,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 15,
2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This site has two nonconforming pre-
existing pole signs. It is unclear if both are to be refaced per
drawing dated May 10, 2006. The Commission and/or Council
may wish to clarify this. (2) Several light pole bases in the
parking lot are either damaged or deteriorated and should be
professionally evaluated by an engineer to determine suitability
for continued service, repair or replacement. (3) The wall sign
as proposed is too large. Proposed is 164 sq. ft. while 140 sq.
ft. is allowed. A Zoning Grant (9810-135) exists in relation to
wall signage. Because of this grant, this site would be allowed
23305
two wall signs, one on the Seven Mile facade not to exceed 70
sq. ft. and one on the Middlebelt facade not to exceed 95 sq. ft.
with the total not exceeding 140 sq. ft. The petitioner thus has
another option for wall signage. 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. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the
petitioner please step forward?
Captain Troy Barker, The Salvalion Army, 5931 Middlebelt, Romulus, Michigan
48174. 1 am the official representative of The Salvation Army in
regards to this petition As you are aware, The Salvalion Army
is one of America's favorite non -prof( organizations. Besides
their standard fundraising procedures, they operate more than
1,500 thrift stores across the United Slates in an effort to fund
their homeless shelters, feeding programs, along with their very
successful drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. It is very
likely that some of you in this room know of someone who has
been helped by The Salvation Army during their lifetime.
Council members, I was sent here 11 months ago to upgrade
our stores as I have done in South Bend, Indiana. The Detroit
and Flint centers have already upgraded many of their stores,
along with establishing new stores in upscale areas such as
Sterling Heights, Rochester Hills, Orchard Lake, White Lake,
just to name a few areas. The Salvation Army has made a
commitment in recent years to upgrade their stores so that they
might resemble a miniature TJ Maxx or Target store. In fact, we
no longer refer to ourselves as thrift stores, but as family stores
so as to remove the negative connotation often attached to theft
stores. The store we are proposing for the corner of Middlebelt
and Seven Mile Roads would be a reflection of our
organization's desire to upgrade our stores. I believe it would
also be a positive reflection upon the community of Livonia as
well. I would like the Planning Commission to consider the
following as they make their recommendation. (1) We would
create jobs to an already ailing economy. (2) We would provide
a valuable service to the community in regards to recycling and
to provide quality used clothing and household items at
everyday low paces. (3) There are more than 20 vacant retail
properties along the Middlebelt conidor between Five Mile and
Eight Mile. We will provide long teen stability to an area of town
that seems to be losing several of its retailers. (4) The store will
be one of the best of its kind providing more than 14,000 square
feet of retail shopping, and even more, the exterior of the
building will be well kept to exemplify our organization. (5) This
store would replace our current store located at 27476
23306
Schoolcraft Road in Livonia. That store, the lease expires in
November of 2006 and we have no intentions of renewing that
lease. We also hope to upgrade our current location on
Plymouth Road. We are not the landlords for that property. We
are in negotiations with the landlord to upgrade that property so
as to reflect the path that we are attempting to take in upgrading
our stores. (6) 1 would expect the City of Livonia to hold The
Salvation Army accountable to the quality retail store that
belongs in this community. As stated, we will comply to all
signage issues. I realize the variance, that we do have the
availability to have two wall signs instead of just one. We will
comply to that. We will have no outside dumpslers or
receptacles for donations. Our donations will be received at the
rear of the store between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. And we have our trucks that visit our stores
up until 10:00 p.m. each evening, and that includes Sunday. Of
course, we cannot be responsible for those things left after that
9:00 - 10:00 at night period. The first thing the next morning,
our trucks usually start about 7:30 in the morning, they will be
out there picking up any donations left or discarded outside the
building. We want to keep the building, the appearance, noljusl
the inside but the exterior of the building, looking as dean, as
neat as possible. We will take every measure to uphold our
reputation as The Salvation Army and as been described
tonight, Livonia is a wonderful place and we want to continue to
uphold the reputation of Livonia too. Opening the store, we will
bring 300 plus shoppers to the facility on a daily basis. As I
said, any type of compliances that we need to be within, we will
comply to those issues. I do have a visual presentation. I
believe they have some pictures that I will show you of some
current stores that we have open in the area. You will notice a
lot of our stores are no longer the dark, poorly Id, musty areas
that you associate with a thrift store. In fact, we even put a
fogger in our newer stores. In the evening time, it shoots out a
mist so as to any type of odors, it deodorizes. It provides a
good shopping experience for our customers. We are hoping to
accomplish with this store additional funding. Our stores fund
our institutions, which are homeless shelters, our drug and
alcohol programs and our feeding program. This store would
fund the Romulus Rehabilitation Center located at 5931
Middlebell Road in Romulus. We serve Western Wayne
County. We have residents from Livonia who live in our shelter.
Last year, our program, we proNded 40,000 meals and we
provided 30,000 evenings of lodging. Excuse me with 40,000, 1
think my addition was off there. I think it was 400,000. But we
have 1,100 beds and you multiply that out by 365 days and we
provide 3 to 4 meals per day, quality meals to our clients. I
would ask iflhere are any questions al this lime?
23307
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you tell me how many years The Salvation Army has
been on Plymouth Road?
Capt. Barker:
I believe six years now.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. In those six years, what kind of upgrading, if any, have
you done at that store?
Capt. Barker:
None.
Mr. Alanskas:
None.
Capt. Barker:
We've tried to be in negotiations with the landlord. Right now,
we're looking to expand at that location.
Mr. Alanskas:
I understand.
Capt. Barker:
And we're negotiating the remodeling oflhalslore.
Mr. Alanskas:
But the six years that you've been there, you've done nothing to
that store at all? Okay. Now the store that's on Schoolcraft,
how long has that store been there?
Capt. Barker:
I believe six years.
Mr. Alanskas:
Al that location, what have you done, if anything, to upgrade
that store?
Capt. Barker:
As far as I know, except for putting on a coal of paint and the
general maintenance issues.
Mr. Alanskas:
What percent of people drop off things after you're closed? Do
you have a percentage or roughly?
Capt. Barker:
No, I don't. It's really hard to track. It varies from location. One
of the things we try to do, we try to train, before we open the
store, we start receiving donations, and we try to train our
donors to bring it during the regular hours in order to receive a
receipt.
Mr. Alanskas:
After hours, what types of things are dropped off to that store?
Capt. Barker:
Furniture, clothing, household items.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you could have, as far as in the evening, furniture laying
about in the back of the store, even at the new store if you have
it?
23308
Capt. Barker:
We could.
Mr. Alanskas:
You could. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPine:
You talk about in your letter there's 30 stores in the metropolitan
Detroit area.
Capt. Barker:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
How many the size of Livonia, 36 square miles? We have three
stores now. You say you're going to eliminate one if you gel the
one on Middlebell and Seven Mile Road. In my opinion, one
store should be able to service the City of Livonia. Tell me what
communities have more stores than we have.
Capt. Barker:
What communities? Besides the City of Delrod itself, I can think
of none.
Mr. LaPine:
So why do you think Livonia needs two of these stores?
Capt. Barker:
Well, one of course is on the south side of Livonia hitting more
of the southwest sector, and we're trying to hit the northeast
sector now where we can draw from Farmington Hills and from
all the surrounding areas.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, build one in Farmington Hills and one in Farmington and
one in Northville and one in Brighton. Back in 2001, we had a
proposal here by Value World, which I think is the Purple Heart,
which we denied. We denied it on the basis that we have I don't
know how many consignment stores and second hand stores
now in Livonia. We have more than our share. Now lel me say
that The Salvation Army is one of my favorite organizations. I'm
one of those young kids back in the depression days that went
to The Salvation Army camp. I still remember the songs. The
Salvation Army camp, I love you.
Capt. Barker:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I went for years to that and I have nothing against The Salvation
Army. When I was in the service, The Salvation Army was there
for our service men. But I question if we really need any more
of these types of stores in the City of Livonia. Now you have to
prove to me there's a need for it. If you're talking about
surrounding communities coming because this is a nice central
location, that doesn't move me one way or another. If there
really is a need for the City of Livonia people, then I might be
23309
able to go along with it, but otherwise, I don't really see a need
for it.
Capt. Barker:
Well, to address both of those issues, number one, I believe
there is a need. I think it is important to draw from the
surrounding communities as well as with any retail corridor in
any major city. Livonia is one of the few areas because a lot of
the towns demographically in this area are 50,000 people.
Livonia does have 100,000 people. A point of demographics.
That area fits very well with what we're looking at. The store
itself, as you know, we're very visible at Christmastime with our
fundmising. However, United Way and various other cutbacks
have come along and thrift stores have become one of our
prime avenues of raising money for our organization. It helps us
do what we need to do, and part of that is to serve the Livonia
community. We helped hundreds of families last year with food,
rental assistance, utilities, with toys at Christmastime. We have
been circulating a petition for the last few weeks at our current
stores, and we had more than 423 residents sign that petition
that I do have with me this evening. Any type, you look at
MacDonald's, you look at any retailer. The more visible you can
be, the more areas of town ... because right now, as we check
and we study our demographics with our Plymouth Road store,
we don't draw so much from the north side of Livonia and the
Farmington Hills area. We believe it's a prime location, even
though the retailers, as I said, they seem to be vacating that
area. We believe, demographically, it can support the store.
We believe that with this new store, it will provide additional
funding for our organization which, in turn, as we are a not for
profit, will give back to the local communities.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you believe that because people dont come to the store on
Plymouth Road, it's because of the way it looks? Have you been
in that store lately?
Capt. Barker:
Oh, I visit that store at least once a week.
Mr. Alanskas:
I was in that store two days ago. I gave them a bunch of
merchandise. Its not that well kept from other stores. Now, I
know its a second hand store. What percent of the clothing in
that store is used clothing?
Capt. Barker:
Probably 99 percent.
Mr. Alanskas:
When clothing comes into your facility, is it cleaned before you
put it on the shelf?
Capt. Barker:
No, it isn't. It is inspected.
23310
Mr. Alanskas:
Pardon me?
Capt. Barker:
It is inspected right away.
Mr. Alanskas:
Inspected for what?
Capt. Barker:
If it smells, if its soiled, if its tom, its immediately shipped back
to our main warehouse where it is baled and sold to textiles.
Mr. Alanskas:
What percent of that do you receive clothing?
Capt. Barker:
Of what we receive, probably about 25 percent makes it into the
store.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Do you ever receive clothing that has bed bugs, roaches,
or insects in it?
Capt. Barker:
Very rarely.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a couple of my comments. I checked out the store on
Plymouth Road and at lead I felt that housekeeping was fairly
good. That was my consensus. But the same things that
maybe don't agree with you, Captain, is kind of like talking
against mother and country because we all know The Salvation
Army and we're familiar with all the good works that do you. But
since I've returned to the Planning Commission, I think we've
faced four stores that are thrift, consignment, whatever. Three
of those are relatively small in character. However, south of you
there was a large furniture store that went to a thrift -type of
store. During the debate with them, they must have come in
and maybe somebody will correct me, but about 35 plus or
minus percent was going to be, for lack of a better term, used
clothing or as the auto companies say, previously owned
clothing. Nb cul them back to about 5% or 10% in that area
because we were trying to not be on record as having to
merchandise previously owned clothing. So the dilemma I have
is we look that particular petitioner down to that percentage,
where I would imagine most of your floor area is dedicated to
previously owned clothing. That's the one dilemma I have
based on being on the same street probably within a mile of
where you are. But anyway, those are just the comments that I
had relative to that. And the other thing being, because it is a
waiver use, it allows us the ability to look a little closer at what's
going in there. Anyways, those are my comments.
Capt. Barker:
Just if I could make two rebuttals there. Number one, I wasn't
here six years ago when we negotiated the lease or entered into
23311
agreement with the Plymouth Road or the Schoolcraft
properties. I can guarantee you if I had, they would not look the
way they do today. I know it's a great distance to travel. You
could check with my former community. You can check with
some of our other stores in this area that we have upgraded like
we are trying to do here. You will notice that our stores are very
well kept, very well displayed. We are trying to change our
image. Unfortunately, with thrift stores it does happen. It
comes down to management. Even administrators as myself, if
the previous administrator did not have the foresight or vision
that I have or that my boss in Chicago has to change our image,
that's why we're moving to family stores instead of thrift stores.
Otherwise we wouldn't have this petition. That is our whole
focus, to change that so that when you walk into those stores,
you think you're walking into a retail establishment. As I said,
with Plymouth Road and Schoolcraft, Schoolcraft will close. We
are working diligently to try to change and convert the Plymouth
Road store. And as far as traffic, that has one of the highest
customer counts of any of my stores. That store last year
produced almost $1 million. So that is a rebuttal that it doesn't
have a lot of traffic. The problem with that store, to be quite
honest with you, if you look at our Plymouth Road store, if you
would rip out the carpeting, which should have been done
before we moved in there, and it did not have the dark paneling
on the wall, if it had typical while drywall and better lighting, you
would see a total 100 percent difference in that store. It should
have happened six years ago. We're looking at it now.
Mr. Alanskas: I just have two more questions for you. Number one, how long
is your lease left on Plymouth Road?
Capt. Barker: That lease expires November of 2006, also.
Mr. Alanskas: Number two, do you have a maintenance program where you
wash those windows in the front at a certain interval?
Capt. Barker: Yes, we do. Upon coming here, we had a company that was
doing it, and that company, the previous administrator had a
contract with, I don't wart to say fly by night, but I think it was
just one man and pretty soon he slopped showing up. We try
and go out and do our store windows al least once a week.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: Do you foresee any possibility that, if you're approved at this
location, and you cant work out some type of a renovation with
your landlord on Plymouth Road, that the Plymouth Road store
would close along with the Schoolcraft store?
23312
Capt. Barker:
There's a possibility. I am a first born. I am a perfectionist. If
you were to walk into office or into my house, you will discover
that I am a neat freak. Probably overly compulsive. The same
thing that you see when you go to the Plymouth store is the
same thing that I see. And I can tell you that I am working
diligently with the landlord to upscale to change that around.
Mr. LaPine:
The point I'm making here is, where we've spent in the last five,
six, seven years, lots and lots of taxpayer dollars to renovate
Plymouth Road. We hoped that when we renovated and put up
new landscaping and everything, that the stores along Plymouth
Road would upgrade and a lot of them did. Unfortunately,
there's about three in a row there that haven't done anything,
the Liquidation store, your place and another place. But the
other problem I have is, the Livonia Mall, which is on Seven Mile
and Middlebell, which is a big shopping center, in the near
future we think may be renovated completely, maybe
demolished, maybe turned into condos, maybe turned into a
new shopping center. We're trying to rejuvenate Middlebell
Road. When you look at Middlebell Road, there's a new
restaurant that just opened that spent $450,000. There s a new
lighfing store that spent about $300,000. There're a couple
other stores that are going to be renovated. We're hoping that
this is the start of making Middlebelt Road another Plymouth
Road. And I guess my problem is, when people are willing to
invest this kind of money, does a Salvation Army store take
people away from wanfing to invest that Nnd of money because
they think it's a second-hand store?
Capt. Barker:
Can you give me the question again at the end there?
Mr. LaPine:
Do you think that because of The Salvation Army being there, it
would make high class retailers not come into that area?
Capt. Barker:
No. Because if you look at some of the other locations in the
greater metro Detroit area and Wayne County, they are
attached to some of the largest retailers in the nation.
Mr. LaPine:
You said you just built a store in Rochester Hi IIs?
Capt. Barker:
The one in Rochester Hills has been there for about dose to 7
or 8 years.
Mr. LaPine:
What is that near? I mean what stores are around it?
23313
Capt. Barker: That's actually off the beaten path. That's not under my
jurisdiction. I'm not real familiar with it. I've visited the store.
Its one of our flagship stores at 43,000 square feet.
Mr. La Pine: But it's not near a big retailer or a big shopping center.
Capt. Backer: That's a smaller outlet. The whole complex is probably 100,000
square feel. Traditionally, we like to be in the same complex
with a Kroger, a Farmers Jack.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments or questions from the
Commissioners? Seeing none, we will go to the audience. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Jim Hasano, Dollar Castle, Inc., 19045 Middlebelt Road, Livonia, Michigan. I
actually own the business south to where this is going to be. I
think it would add to the area to what's in the strip mall now. I
own the Dollar store. There's a used bookstore there. There is
a Sveden House, which is generally an all -you -can -eat
business. There's a pet store there. We're hurling in the
complex. I mean there's no revenue in there that holds an
anchor there. Its 18,000 square feel that's silting there. It's
vacant. There's no draw in the area. As the Captain mentioned
earlier, there's 20 stores vacant over there. I don't see what the
benefit would be not to lel them go in there. There's so much
vacant land in there. Why wouldn't you want a business to
come into the area? We're hurting as it is in there, you know.
So that's a comment I wanted to make, and also, as you said,
Livonia is family-oriented. What better service for the
community as a recycle shop, you know?
Mr. Alanskas: I just have one question for the gentleman. When the sporting
goods store was there, did you have more traffic in the mall?
Mr. Hasano: Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hasano: It's empty. And also, as your questions to how the store would
look, I don't think it would take much to make the store look
right. If you've been in MC Sporting Goods, the lighting is there.
The landlord does a lot for the strip mall there. He's constantly
repaving it, always people working around it. I think they'd have
to keep with the upkeep of the strip mall. I think it would add to
the area.
Mr. Walsh: Okay, thank you sir.
23314
Joseph Robach,
19315 Lathers Street. I'm about .6 miles from The Salvation
Army proposed site. I guess I have concerns about the location
and the rezoning request. There's mention that there's not a lot
of ... Plymouth Road has been mentioned a lot. I think there's
been a lack of mention on the Grand River and Inkster location.
Being .6 miles from this location, I'm smack dab in the middle of
two locations then, and Grand River is, I'm sorry, but an ugly
location. I don't think that's what we want to be banging into the
community here. We have lost a lot of retail development. Yes,
we have. But like you gentlemen mentioned, we're looking at
the mall. In the future, we want high-end development in there.
We want an increase on our property values. I think a location
here that is going to be in excess of 25 percent of the retail
square footage in this location, that's going to define the area.
That's going to define the development right there. I don't
believe that you're going to have highend development retail
coming in and replacing a mall that's already extremely vacant.
He's mentioned upgraded stores in the area. We're not seeing
it. I'm just very concerned about . we've got vacant
properties. This is not a development that's going to bring in
more retail stores in the area. Its not going to increase our
properly values, and I dont believe this is the direction that the
City should be looking at. I think they should be looking at that
high-end development. I guess that's pretty much it.
Barbara Robinson, Sveden House, 29477. 1 operate the Sveden House and I'm
pleading with you. This would be a terrific marriage for us.
After MC Sporting Goods left, I mean we're probably down 60
customers a day. I have a Salvation Army in my city of Utica
and it's clean. Its very nice. The employees are nice. I don't
ever see any trouble over there. I need this traffic. The city
needs this traffic. That area of Livonia is dying. I mean there's
so many empty lots. I'm really hurting right now since MC has
left us, and I really believe that The Salvation Army would be a
ferific marriage with us.
Mr. Alanskas:
Does the Sveden House have a long tern lease there?
Ms. Robinson:
July. Yes. We re-sign in July.
Mr. Alanskas:
For how many years?
Ms. Robinson:
Ten.
Mr. Alanskas:
Ten. Okay. Thank you.
23315
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak? Good
evening, sir.
Bryan Terrace,
First Commercial Realty, 27600 Northwestern Highway, Suite
200, Southfield, Michigan 48034. Good evening. How are you?
Mr. Walsh:
Good. Thankyou.
Mr. Terrace:
I'm the broker for The Salvation Army. Do I need to give my
address?
Mr. Walsh:
Actually, sir, I'm going to lel you speak, but please keep it brief
because this is the opportunity for the citizens to speak. I'm
going to consider you part and parcel of the business.
Mr. Terrace:
From a citizen's point of view and you might understand this in a
moment.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay.
Mr. Terrace:
That the firm that I work for purchased a shopping center ... if
you go back to the photos that had the green mansards on them
in Sterling Heights. That particular shopping center lost it's
anchor. Farmer Jack went dark. It was 30,000 square feel.
Like the woman from Sveden House said, with a lack of traffic,
that center ended up being 54% vacant when we purchased it.
We put The Salvation Army in it. There you go, it's there. The
restaurants - there s a Ram's Horn; there's a coney Island; I
forget the other ones that are there. All have lined out the door.
They had 12,000 customers the first day alone. The parking lot
looked like Christmastime. That meant quite a bit to that center.
Right now, I have with a lease that will be coming in the 22"d of
this month. I will have 5,000 square feet left out of 89,000.
Whereas when we purchased the center, 49,000 square feel
was vacant. There's also an article that was in the DetroitNews
about that particular center. These are the superstores. This is
where we're going. This is was Captain Barker was brought in
to do. People saying they absolutely love a bargain. They're
going into very, very upscale locations - Utica, Sterling Heights,
Rochester Hills.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay, sir. We're going to move on. I'm really looking for public
participation here. This is a continuation of the petitioner's
presentation.
Mr. Terrace:
All right. Thank you.
23316
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, Captain Barker, any
additional thoughts?
Capt. Barker:
Just a few. To have vision, you've got to take some chances.
And I know you have vision for the Middlebelt corridor. I know
you have vision for Plymouth Road. I loo have visions and so
does The Salvation Army but we have to start somewhere. It
was noted by one of the residents that he had visited the Grand
River store. That's not under my jurisdiction. I do know that they
are trying to alleviate that store. It is an eyesore for them. But if
you were to visit out of the Detroit area 30 plus stores, if you
were to visit them, the majority of them, you would find it a very
enjoyable shopping experience. You would see the vision that
The Salvation Army has. Not only has it been pointed out in the
Detroit News, there have been several arfides about The
Salvation Army in their endeavors to upgrade their stores. We
have to begin somewhere. I realize that a few of our stores,
maybe more than a few, are not pleasing, are not beneficial. But
everywhere we move, we create retail traffic. We enhance the
shopping mall or complex that we're in, and more than anything,
like I said before, we're addressing our image and the image of
that community. Our goal is to improve what we started 100
years ago when we first developed the thrift stores. Yes, it's
taken us a while. Yes, we've made some mistakes through trial
and error. But we have aggressively in the last 5 years, since
my boss took over the administration in Chicago, have attacked
this issue, and we are working diligently to improve that image
and to open new stores that benefit the community, that benefit
us, and that continue to expound to increase the image that we
have worked on for the last 140 years.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one more question for the petitioner. How many
Salvation Army stores do you have in the Detroit area?
Capt. Barker:
We have two centers such as mine, then we have about 10 core
community centers.
Mr. Alanskas:
What is a core community center?
Capt. Barker:
A core community center is the church. The church handles the
social work. It is the church. It is the programming for young
people, for senior citizens. It is a social service part where if
you needed help rental assistance, toys at Chnstmaslime, you
would go there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay, but what I mean is, how many Salvation Army stores like
we have on Plymouth Road do you have in the Detroit area?
23317
Capt. Barker:
In the greater metro Detroit area, I believe right now it's at 36.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, if we approve this tonight, are we approving the site plan
and everything? We haven't discussed anything about the
signage and things of this nature. Should that all be discussed
here tonight or are we just talking about the waiver use tonight?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, you can defer the issue of signage if you'd like. You can
table it for more information or we could address that this
evening. I would say that it would be customary to include
some condition with respect to signage bearing in mind that this
body does have the ability to impose reasonable conditions
upon granting of these types of uses.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. If I could just ask one more question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
To the representative of The Salvation Army, if you had a choice
to have the store on Seven Mile Road and close down the
Plymouth Road store and the Schoolcraft store, could you live
with that?
Capt. Barker:
Probably not.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, how big is that consignment store on Middlebell Road?
Do you know, approximately?
Mr. Taormina:
To go from memory, I believe it was somewhere between
15,000 to 18,000 square feel.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. And then approximately how far would that be from this
store.
Mr. Taormina:
That's between Five Mile and Six Mile, so a mile and a half.
Ms. Smiley:
A mile and a half.
Mr. Taormina:
Approximately.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Any additional questions?
23318
Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No. That's loo many stores.
Mr. Walsh: At this point then, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0639-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-02-10 submitted by The Salvation Army
requesting waiver use approval to operate a second-hand store
at 29475 Seven Mile Road, on property located on the south
side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Melvin
Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 11, the Planning
Commission does hereby deny Petition 2006-05-02-10 br the
following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance 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;
2. That the City is currently well served with similar uses to
that which is being proposed;
3. That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the need in
the area for the type of commercial service proposed to be
operated on the subject site;
4. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that
the proposed use would be compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area;
5. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate
that the facility has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
6. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other
things, are intended to insure suitability and
appropriateness of uses.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: There again, we really appreciate what The Salvation Army has
done in the past and what they will do in the future, but I just
don't think we need a second Salvation Army store in the city.
Now if you would say that you would either close the Plymouth
23319
Road store, because you want a bigger store, and start out with
a newer and a good looking store, I would really think about
that. But to have a second store in the city, I cant support that.
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there additional discussion?
Ms. Smiley I do have one comment. Only that we have a consignment
store, and a very large consignment store, within a mile and half
doing the same thing on Middlebelt Road. That's why I'm
opposed to it.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal this decision in
wrifing to the City Council.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2006-05-0241 VAN MASTERS (KFC)
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2006-
05-02-11 submitted by Van Masters requesting waiver use
approval to construct a full-service restaurant (Kentucky Fried
Chicken) with drive -up window facilities at 29060 Plymouth,
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller
Avenue and Camden Road in the Southwest % of Section 25.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated May 16, 2006, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description to
be used for the waiver use follows. No additional right-of-way is
required. Detention will be required in accordance with Wayne
County's Storm Water Management Ordinance and the drive
approaches will require the approval of the Michigan
Department of Transportation." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 17, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a full service
drive-thru restaurant on property located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Haller Avenue and Camden Road in
23320
the Southwest X of Section 25. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
May 26, 2006, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal by Kentucky Fried Chicken
located at 29060 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 25, 2006,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 15,
2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This proposal would be allowed one wall
sign of 38 square feet. Any additional signage or square footage
would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2)
Light bands highlighting building elements are not permitted. (3)
All HVAC and rooftop equipment must be screened from public
view with appropriate material. (4) Two parking spaces must be
designated for drive thru usage. The two southern most spaces
would be the most appropriate. (5) The irrigation system should
cover all landscape areas regardless of size. (6) All parking
spaces must be double striped and all accessible spaces must
be marked and signed property. (7) The west section of the rear
lot line abuts residential zoning. A protective screen wall must
be installed on that section or a permanent greenbelt be
approved for that area. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. Also there was a supplemental
letter from the Inspection Department, dated June 1, 2006,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 1,
2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) See Letter of May 25, 2006. (2) This site
would be allowed a monument sign of 30 square feet total,
maximum 6 feet tall with a minimum front setback at 10 feet.
This proposal should be amended to meet these parameters.
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. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Nowak. Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow: Do we have a letter or any input from the Plymouth Road
Development Authority?
Mr. Taormina: No. Unfortunately, their meeting this month was cancelled due
to lack of a quorum so they could not review this item. It is
scheduled fortheir next meeting, however.
23321
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. We can proceed but I want to address those
concerns later in the meeting.
Ms. Smiley:
Has there been any change in the landscaping plans since we
had it in the study session?
Mr. Taormina:
No, we have not received any new information. However, Mr.
Nowak has notified the petitioner or his representative regarding
some of the concerns that we expressed, and I'm hopeful that
they will address that issue this evening.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
In that regard, Mark, after going out there a second time and
looking at it, seeing that this is part of the Plymouth Road
redevelopment plan, can we gel those brick pillars with the
wrought iron because it's not in front of the convalescent home,
Mr. LaPine:
I noticed for some reason or other. There are two old buildings
Mr. Walsh:
to the west there where I think they fixed generators. Well,
those buildings eventually are going to go, I would think, and
Troy Chonlos,
then we can get it all the way to the corner. Is that possible to
include that in their landscaping plan?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, Mr. Nowak and I did discuss this issue earlier today,
and we believe it would be advisable, if you're inclined to
recommend approval of this petition this evening, to bring back
the landscape plan for further review. There are some other
issues that haven't been addressed in the forth of a revised
plan; namely, our request for additional landscaping along the
west side of the properly. We also note that there is a bus stop
located in front of this particular property that's going to have to
be maintained. There are some other PRDA streetscape
improvements that may have to be modified or relocated such
as the light poles and the irrigation. And as you indicated, the
installation of the brick pillars and pierswould be a nice addition
to the site as well.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for the staff? Seeing none,
would the petitioner please come forward? Good evening.
Troy Chonlos,
DCJA Architects, Inc., 30600 Northwestern Highway, Suite 102,
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. Good evening. Just in
response to a couple of the comments in regards to the
landscaping. I spoke with Mr. Nowak a few days ago. What we
would propose is along that northwest area, there are some
large trees, but to enhance that with a berm with some sparsely
23322
located trees to accent that area. So we'd like to work with you
in that regard. Also in regards to the signage, the front sign,
which we are exceeding the square footage on, we would
comply with the 30 square feet each side for the ground
mounted sign. Also, on the building we would eliminate the
Colonel Sanders sign on the easterly portion of the building, as
well as the smaller signage - the hungry sign as well as the
welcome sign on those awnings. The cooler, typically we like to
try and have the metal finish, which is a stipple finish, same
color as the EIFS, sort of the same texture. I think some of the
items that you're concerned about we're willing to address in
one form or another.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Alanskas:
By eliminating the one picture of the Colonel Sanders, it would
kind of like, it would kind of look offset. Could you possibly, that
one pillar, cave it in so you could put the one sign right in the
middle of that lop part of the building, so it would be like kitty-
corner if you sunk it in? Yes, right in there. If you could take
that and bring it way back and then just put one Colonel
Sanders sign in there.
Mr. Chonlos:
That's a possibility. We could considerlhal.
Mr. Alanskas:
I mean if you take the one off, by looking at it from here, by just
having the one on one side and blank on the other, whichever
side it's going to be on, I think it would be better if you just sunk
it in and put it right in the middle for balance on the part of the
building.
Mr. Chonlos:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
I dont know if you heard me ask if we had any input from the
Plymouth Road Development Authority. I'm sure you're familiar
with that. As one commissioner, I'm a little reticent to go
forward because, in prior petitions on other businesses, we've
always had their input as it relates to how your development
complements their development and you have a little harmony
there. Are you under any particular time constraint on this
particular project?
Mr. Chonlos:
Yes, we are. We would like to get approval as quickly as we
can and proceed.
Mr. Morrow:
The reason I ask that, you own the business to the east.
23323
Mr. Chonlos:
Van Masters does, yes, and they're relocating here.
Mr. Morrow:
So I guess what I'm saying is, at the cendusion of this public
hearing, I may bring forward a tabling resolution so that the
Plymouth Road Development Authority can catch up with this
particular petition so that we have some input on this. We've
said there's a lot of work to be done and we certainly want to get
it right. We certainly want you to develop it, but we want to
make sure that we gel it right as far as you're concerned and as
far as we're concerned. It's a very large project and one that
will be with us for quite some time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, if you could put back up the item that Bob was talking
about. Bob, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the sign
would be at an angle? I mean wouldn't that do something to the
lowers?
Mr. Alanskas:
That one pillar as it goes up, you would countersink it in and you
would have the Colonel Sanders like that.
Mr. LaPine:
Al an angle.
Mr. Alanskas:
At an angle, right.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't know. It kind of looks ...
Mr. Alanskas:
So you can see it from both sides.
Mr. LaPine:
I would have to see it in a rendering. That kind of looks weird to
me but maybe it would work. I dont know. And I guess the
other question is, why are you removing ... I kind of like the
idea of "are you hungry" and the other sign. Why are you
removing those two signs, because you want to gel down to the
square footage?
Mr. Chonlos:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
All right. That's what I figured.
Mr. Alanskas:
To answer Mr. La Pine's question, i I can, you know like we
have like Walgreens. Remember when they wanted to put that
glass up at the top? If we took that and recessed it way back,
and just had the one Colonel Sanders sign on the building
where you could see it from both ...
Mr. La Pine:
Butthe lowerwould still be there?
23324
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, the tower would still be there, yes, but the one part in the
middle would be recessed way back to take care of the Colonel
Sanders picture.
Mr. LaPine:
I just can'tvisualize it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Like the Walgreens wanted to do with the glass but just recess
R.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the site plan and
ask the architect if any thought has been given towards the
issue of stormwater management for the site, and if so, where
did you envision that would be handled?
Mr. Chonlos:
Yes. We had originally thought there was a storm somewhere
along Plymouth Road that we could lie into. We researched
that. We can't find any information to that effect. However, I
believe there is, in just kind of my cursory review of what's out
there, there may be another area that we can be into towards
the north of the property.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Maybe the petitioner is not aware that a development of this
type will require stormwater detention compliant with Wayne
County's Stormwater Management Ordinance, which means
that you will have to detain a certain amount of stormwater on
site. Now, that can be accomplished by underground storage
units, pipes, and typically those are placed below the parking
lot. However, it is probably more cost effective to locate those
under landscaped areas. And if it is the case that the petitioner
would choose to move the parking area a little bit further to the
south in order to widen the greenbelt along the north side of the
properly, he may have an opportunity to bury those pipes for
stormwater storage back here. The downside to that is the
removal of these trees; and while there is some existing
vegetation there, I question its longevity. It seems the trees
have just kind of volunteered themselves in that area, and
maybe the opportunity exists to have that area re -landscaped
with a berm and/or some evergreen trees that would provide
year round screening and that would also provide the area
necessary for the petitioner to accommodate their stormwater
management. And again, this is a landscape issue that is
23325
significant enough that I think would warrant reconsideration of
at least that element of the site plan.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthis petition? Good evening.
Patti Wachtel, Administrator, Lutheran Home of Michigan, 28910 Plymouth Road,
Livonia, Michigan 48150-2337. Good evening. It was about
eight years ago, maybe nine, that I stood in this very spot, but I
was on the other side of this begging you to lel the Lutheran
Home come. We worked with the Plymouth Road Development
Authority and we had a great relationship. So they are good to
work with. We serve 108 frail elderly Livonia residents and their
families. We also have 176 employees that probably will love to
serve in your spot to come to visit you, but we have some
concerns. We are very much in support to have this restaurant
at the front of, by our property, but we have some concerns. So
we would like to know that when you make this approval, that
you would take into consideration some of these things that
have to do with this residence where these people live. We're a
little concerned about the hours of operation and when they
would be open since our residents go to bed early, usually
around 7:00 p.m. So the noise would be a concern to us. The
increase in the traffic in the area, we're just a little concerned
about. The residents and the families that come back and forth
that work afternoons and midnights. We are also concerned a
little bit about the noise levels since our residents do go to sleep
early, that the bedrooms are within 40 feet of the lot line and
between the noise of the cars and employees and the trash
removal, that type of thing. So we'd like that taken into
consideration. There is no fence required, but our concern
would be that individuals would park maybe on our lot when
their lot is full and then go across the berm to use the facility.
We are also concerned about the parking lot lights because the
lights would come right into the residents' bedrooms. So we
would look for things like shades on lights to make it easier for
the residents to sleep. And the car lights from the cars pulling in
would go right into the windows of the residents that live in the
assisted living half of the building. We also are concerned from
a citation and surveyor side of it, or rodents and how frequently
the trash would be picked up. So we would ask that as you
approve this petition, which we would support, of Kentucky Fried
Chicken, that you would consider that the following be required
or at least considered. A solid -type fence similar to the fencing
that we have near our front door on the east of our properly that
would add to the beauty of the edge. Limit the hours of
operation to a reasonable timeframe, not a 24-hour type of
operation, and require a time structure for trash removal, not
23326
before 8:00 in the morning or after 6:00 at night. We try to live
to that as well. And that there would be shades for the parking
lot. But other than that, we would love to be their neighbor and
we probably would give them quite a bit of business with 176
employees and 108 residents. Thank you so much. Yes, sir?
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm surprised that you didn't say you were concerned about the
aroma of the chicken flavor coming through the walls.
Ms. Wachtel:
I'm going to tell you, this is my favorite meal and I'm on a diet. I
dont want to go near that wall. But those are the things we're
concerned about. We want to be good neighbors and we know
we're going to be here for a really, really long time. We just
want to be able to do it so that we know ahead of time that
everything is kind of settled.
Mr. Morrow:
Those are all valid concerns, and we certainly appreciate you
bringing those into the public record.
Ms. Wachtel:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, would the
petitioner like to add anything before we move on to discussion
and vote? We may actually have a couple questions for you as
well.
Mr. Chontos:
I'd just like to respond and say that we, again, could like to
provide a bene that would help with the lights from any cars that
might be parking along the northerly portion of the lot so they
wouldn't shine onto their properly. Again, with the berm and
some trees along that back area, I think it would kelp out. I
think that's the only comment in response to that.
Mr. Walsh:
Lel me just ask a question and I'm sorry if you covered this.
What will your hours of operation be? 10:30 in the morning until
10:00 at night?
No" Masters,
22114 Telegraph, Southfield, Michigan 48034. Correct
Mr. Taormina:
Would that be the dining area, Mr. Chairman, if we could ask.
Mr. Walsh:
Is thatdining and drive through?
Mr. Masters:
Drive through. Dining is 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Walsh:
Seven days a week?
23327
Mr. Masters: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: So we have the dining room closing at 9:00 p.m. but otherwise
the drive through is open until 10:00. p.m. Are there any
additional questions?
Mr. La Pine: When the people come into the drive-in, where would the callin
be to ordertheir food? Iwant to gel that as far as possible away
from the senior citizens.
Mr. Chontos: Actually, where the fourth car is from the front of the building ...
Mr. La Pine: From the front?
Mr. Chontos: Yes, from Plymouth Road. That's where the ordering would be.
Mr. La Pine: Over on this side?
Mr. Chontos: Yes. Right there.
Mr. La Pine: Is that loud? Do they have the detail now where you don't have
to call in? You can put it in on a computer.
Mr. Chontos: That's a typical - it's a display sign with basically the speaker
box at that location.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: At this point, a motion would be in order.
Mr. Morrow: I'm going to offer a tabling resolution because it appears that we
covered a lot of territory tonight that I think we should take a
closer look it, not only for our sake, but for the petitioners sake
and due to the fact that the input has not been reviewed by the
Plymouth Road Development Authority. I don't have a date
certain, but once we have the Plymouth Road Development
Authority's input, we can quickly schedule it. That's my motion.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#06-60-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 2006, on
Petition 2006-05-02-11 submitted by Van Masters requesting
waiver use approval to construct a full service restaurant
(Kentucky Fried Chicken) with drive -up window facilities at
29060 Plymouth, located on the north side of Plymouth Wad
between Haller Avenue and Camden Road in the Southwest %
23328
of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby table
Petition 2006-05-02-10 to allow more time to address issues
relating to the proposed use and to development of the site.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. What this means is we'd appreciate it if you could take
the time to meet with the PRDA, coordinate with our Planning
Department, and we will gel you on our agenda as quickly as
we can.
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Walsh: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: If I may inform them tonight of the meeting date, the residents
will have the benefit of knowing it as well. We can place it on
the next available meeting. The study meeting would be on
June 27 and then the voting meeting would be July 11.
Mr. Walsh: I think there is some wisdom in the resolution. It gives us some
time. You can digest our comments and perhaps reflect on
those and plan on meefing with the PRDA. Then when we see
you again, we'll just keep the petition moving. So we will see
you as early as June 27, and again, please coordinate with Mr.
Taormina.
Mr. Chontos: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: This concludes the public hearing portion of this meeting. We
will now proceed with the miscellaneous section of our agenda.
Members of the audience may speak in support or opposifion to
these items. Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM#4 PETITION 2005-12-02-25 AGREE REALTY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefifion 2005-
12-02-25 submitted by Agree Realty Corp. Limited Partnership
requesting approval of plans in connection with a proposed
retail building located at 17001 Newburgh Road and plans for
the improvement of the City -owned parcel in conjunction with
the development of the commercial property located at 37400
Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Secfion 18.
Mr. Taormina: On March 8, 2006, the City Council granted waiver use and site
plan approval for the redevelopment of the property adjacent to
the southwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads. The
23329
waiver use was for a 14,500 square fool Walgreens drugstore
with a drive-thru pharmacy. The site plan showed a separate
future building identified as "Retail A" However, detailed plans
for the other retail building were not submitted. Additionally,
development of the commercial property was contingent upon
the petitioner making improvements to the corner parcel, which
is owned by the City. The plan that was approved showed a
conceptual development of this corner with a fountain and
landscaping. So tonight's review focuses on the following items:
consideration of the details of Retail Building A, including the
exterior elevation plans and tenant configuration, and a review
of the landscape plans and development agreement involving
the city -owned property, as well as signage. Retail A under the
latest plan is slightly smaller than what was previously shown.
The plan shows a 4,900 square fool footprint for the building as
opposed to 5,100 square feet shown under the original plan.
This downsizing made it possible for eight additional parking
spaces on the south side of the building. That would bang the
total number of parking spaces to 134. Also, pedestrian walks
are shown along the south, east and north sides of the building.
The walk on south side is actually 16 feel in width, which allows
for the possible future use for outside sealing in connection with
the restaurant. Also, there is a loading zone shown at the rear
of the store, which is on the west side, and an enclosed
dumpsler. The architecture of the building and the materials for
Retail A would match that of Walgreens that was already
approved. The east elevation, which is the side facing
Newburgh, would be very similar in appearance to the
Walgreens. The materials here would induce a split -faced
block at the base, a manufactured limestone product along the
upper portions of the building, face brick and a decorative
comice along the upper part of the parapet. The other three
sides of the building would be faced in brick. We also have
detail plans relative to the improvement to the City -owned
property. This shows a 36 -fool diameter fountain. This fountain
would be 16 inches deep and it would be contained with an 18 -
inch high back wall that would have a precast concrete cap.
The fountain details include submersible lights as well as an
arch jet that would be in the middle of fountain. Surrounding
the fountain would be a circular -shaped plaza area that would
vary between 7 to 10 feet in width. That would be constructed
of brick pavers and there would be three benches added along
the perimeter of the plaza. A 4foot high brick seal wall is
shown along 60% of the circumference of the plaza. In addition,
there would be a lower wall about 3 feel in height and 50 feel in
length and would be the structure upon which a city sign would
be located on the side facing closest to the intersection of
Newburgh and Six Mile Road. The plan includes a variety of
23330
shrubs as well as perennials and seasonal plantings. The
development agreement was drafted by the city attorney's office
and it has two principle parts. Exhibit A is a lease between the
petitioner and the city, under which Agree Realty will assume
responsibility for constructing, maintaining, operating, and
insuring the fountain and grounds for a period of 75 years. The
lease also requires that Agree Really keep the fountain open to
the public. Exhibit B, which is the second part of the agreement,
is an Easement Agreement that provides perpetual public
access to and parking for the fountain and related these
amenities. The final issue is with respect to signage: There
was a stipulation in the approving resolution that considered this
site as a single business center, and as a result, it would be
entitled to one monument sign that could not exceed 30 square
feet. The plan submitted shows two ground signs: one that
would adjacent to the Newburgh Road entrance; the other one
would be adjacent to the Six Mile entrance. Both of those would
comply with the size and setback requirements and would be
used to identify both the tenants of the Retail A building as well
as the Walgreens drugstore. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 30, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the revised referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposal at this time and the legal description is correct.
It is our understanding that the owners of the surrounding parcel
will maintain the fountain on the City property. Our comments
from January 3, 2006, still apply." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated May 31, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 23, 2006, 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. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the
petitioner? Seeing none, would the petitioner please step
forward?
David Pmeter, Agree Realty Corp., 31850 Northwestern Highway, Farmington
Hills, MI 48334. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh: Good evening
23331
Mr. Pmeter: It's late. Mark adequately covered what we've been talking
about for the last eight to nine months, and I'm available to
answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Alanskas: I must say I like the way the building looks. In regards to the
pond, who would maintain that pond?
Mr. Pmeter: We are required to maintain that pond.
Mr. Alanskas: People may be sitting on these park benches and they may
have a pop or whatever, and they throw it in the pond. You'll
get refuse in there.
Mr. Pmeter: That's our responsibility.
Mr. Alanskas: And how often would you be doing that?
Mr. Pmeter: Continuously.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. And number two, we have another firm on Stark Road
that has a huge fountain. What they do is, they put a real dark
blue coloring in the pond. It does two things. It has a very nice
color to it. It looks very good. And it also keeps fungi and
insects out of the water. You might consider that.
Mr. Pmeter: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Can you put up the rendering? My question is, we've been
discussing back and forth about one tenant, two tenants, three
tenants, and we talked three tenants the last time. My question
is, let's assume now we go along with three tenants. I'm not
real happy about it, but let's assume we go along with it. The
way the building is set up now, you've got a door right in the
middle. Right? There are two windows on each side of the
door.
Mr. Pmeter: Correct. The archway is the entry.
Mr. LaPine: Now if we go to three tenants, what happens to the archway and
what happens to the two windows? How does that change the
configuration of the building?
Mr. Pmeter: I will need to modify the facade.
Mr. LaPine: Would ilchange the looks ofthal building?
Mr. Pmeter: No. It would change the look and the concept and the
materials, but the access for each of those, say three tenants
23332
versus two, would change. The way we have it designed today
is kind of a mutual entrance where you go right or left depending
on which storefront.
Mr. La Pine: That's what worries me. Now I'm going to end up with three
doors possibly. Is that correct?
Mr. Pmeler: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: That doesn't set well with me.
Mr. Morrow: To the petitioner, will this building be built in its entirety, a
complete build out, meaning that the smaller building will also
be built atthe same time the Walgreens is built?
Mr. Pmeter: Yes, dwill.
Mr. Morrow: Okay.
Mr. Pmeler: But just to clarify so that there's no miscommunication, the
exterior will be built out. Some of the interior may not be built
out until you know the particular tenant and know their
demands. HVAC units is a great example of tonnage that's
required per tenant.
Mr. Morrow: I understand. I would say you have a very nice looking
development here. I wouldn't be loo quick to lease that space
out, you know, because I think you will probably attract some
pretty nice tenants in there. Secondly, I think I heard you want
two monument signs and you're allowed one.
Mr. Pmeter: That's correct. Admittedly, I'm not sure that I quite still
understand why we're limited to one monument sign when
there're two parcels and two separate buildings, but the
proposal from day one has been a monument sign at each curb
cul with effectively two panels. One would represent
Walgreens, the other would represent the other tenant or
tenants.
Mr. Morrow: So I guess my question is, I think you said your tenant requires
two signs. Is that correct?
Mr. Pmeter: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: So what are your intentions? Are you going to submit a plan to
get a waiver on that particular part of the ordinance?
23333
Mr. Prueter:
My understanding is that I have to go before the 2BA and ask
for a waiver for the second monument sign on Newburgh Road.
Mr. Morrow:
Now, would they come through us first, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
No. By approving this plan this evening, you would accept the
second ground sign and enfifie him to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals assuming that the Council also approves it.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay, because I was reading in the notes, there was something
about ... because I have no problem with the two signs being
on two major mile roads. But it just
says that only conforming
signage is approved with this petition.
Mr. Taormina:
Is that on the proposed resolution?
Mr. Morrow:
Its in the approving condifions.
Mr. Taormina:
We'll have to modify that.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. That's where I was a little bit confused.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, could you put that rendering back up please? Now, you
say you're going to build the exterior. Are you going to build it
with the premise of only two tenants or three, or how are you
going to do that?
Mr. Prueter:
We'll have to make that decision pretty quickly.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, we're going to be approving the site plan showing this,
which is only for two tenants. If you have plans on building for
three tenants and you say you're going to build the exterior now,
R's going to be a problem because what we're approving
tonight, or if we do, is what we're seeing before us, not showing
three tenants.
Mr. Prueter:
That's the dilemma. I would have to come back.
Mr. Morrow:
He would have to come back.
Mr. Walsh:
Right, he would have to come back.
Mr. Prueter:
I would have to come back.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm glad Mr. Alanskas brought that up because I'm still hung up
on the three tenants, which I have no objection to, but I need to
23334
see how thats going to look. I like the way it looks now. I think
it just balances the Walgreens. I like the one entrance the way
they walk in and go to either venue if they're inside. But I want
to see how it's going to look with three tenants, how that's going
to change the exterior of that building.
Mr. Prueler:
Well, we change paths to try to accommodate the two tenants,
but then there was some objection to the two tenants because
of the size of the one tenant and the potential restaurant use.
So if that is not something that you deem appropriate, then I am
forced to look at the alternative, which is to go back to three
tenants.
Mr. LaPine:
I do have objections to three tenants but I want to see how the
exterior of the building is going to look with three doors. You're
going to have three windows; you're going to have no windows;
are you going to have an arch; are you not going to have an
arch? I assume you're not going to have an arch because
you're going to have to use that center section for one of the
tenant doors I would assume. I don't know. I'm willing to
approve everything tonight except that portion until you show
me something.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, if we approve this, this is the site plan that's
approved. If he goes to three, he has to come back to us. If he
changes this, he has to come back to us.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Then I have no objection. As long as you have to come
back and show me what it's going to look like.
Mr. Prueler:
I will be back before you because of the waiver use for the
potential Lenart or because what the market demands is three
users, and now we need to look at a little bit different facade
front to accommodate three entryways versus two. But right
now, where we've been the past two or three months, is on the
path between Council approval and coming back to the study
session and back here tonight, it was to try to accomplish two
tenants where we could take half the building and use that south
half and potentially have some outdoor sealing area. At this
point, that's the path that we are trying to market and
accomplish.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for petitioner. Seeing none,
is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
23335
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-61-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 2006, in
connection with Petition 2005-12-02-25, submitted by Agree
Really Corp. Limited Partnership (which previously received
waiver use approval for the construction of a commercial
building, Walgreens, with a drive-thru pharmacy by the City
Council on March 8, 2006 by Council Resolution #107-06),
requesting approval of plans in connection with a proposed
retail building located at 17001 Newburgh Road and plans for
the improvement of the City -owned parcel in conjunction with
the development of the commercial property located at 37400
Six Mile Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 18, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
the plans as submitted be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -0.1 dated May 4,
2006, as revised, prepared by Professional Engineering
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Plaza Layout Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated May
4, 2006, as revised, prepared by Professional Engineering
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated May 4,
2006, as revised, prepared by Professional Engineering
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. 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;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
SP -2.0 dated May 15, 2006, as revised, prepared by
Rogvoy Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
23336
8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face
four (4") inch brick, and precast masonry unit systems shall
meet ASTM C216 standards;
9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
11. That the signage depicted on the referenced plans is
approved with this petition, and any additional signage
shall be separately submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Commission and City Council;
12. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
13. 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
14. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #107-06
in connection with Petition 2005-12-02-25, which permitted
the construction of a commercial building (Walgreens) with
a drive-thru pharmacy, shall remain in effect to the extent
that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
23337
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 925TM Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 925"' Public Heanngs and Regular Meeting held
on May 16, 2006.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#06-62-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 925" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 16,
2006, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, Alanskas, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Shane
ABSTAIN:
La Pine, Morrow
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 927" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 13, 2006, was adjourned at 10:15
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman