HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2013-03-19MINUTES OF THE 1,037rH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,0371h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel
Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: Scott P. Bahr, Carol A. Smiley
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in wnting, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETMON 2013-02-02-05 WADE SHOWS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2013-02-
02-05 submitted by Wade Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(1) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to conduct a carnival in
the parking lot of Sears, sponsored by the Rotary Club of
Livonia consisting of amusement rides, games and food
concessions from May 20, 2013 through May 28, 2013,
inclusive, on properly at 29500 Seven Mile Road, located on the
northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Middlebell Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2.
March 19, 2013
25658
Mr. Taormina: This year's request by Wade Shows to conduct a carnival in the
parking lot of Sears is essentially identical to their request of last
year which was approved by this body as well as the City
Council. The carnival would be held in what is mostly the
unused portion of the Sears parking lot adjacent to Seven Mile
Road. It is pursuant to Section 11.03(1)(3) of the Zoning
Ordinance that you have authority to consider these requests.
The duration Iasi roughly nine days. By ordinance, they are
limited to two weeks, so they are within the time frame. This
year's event would be held from May 20 through May 28, and
that coincides with the Monday before Memorial Day weekend
and running through Memorial Day. The carnival would be in
operation from Monday, May 20 through Friday, May 24 from
4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., during the days when school is in
session. During the weekend, Saturday, May 25 through
Monday, May 27, the carnival would run from noon to 11:00
p.m. Tuesday, May 28, is when it would be closed, broken down
and then removed from the site. The area is highlighted on the
aerial photograph. It consumes pretty much the full width of the
properly from Middlebelt Road to the properly line along the
west boundary which borders Livonia Marketplace. There is
some buffer between those areas. They don't go all the way up
to either the right-of-way or the property lines in order to allow
full access around the carnival, the midway and all the rides.
This is a general layout of how the area is set up for the event.
It would not go beyond the drive aisle that runs from east to
west across the parking lot of Sears that actually connects
Middlebelt Road linking this site with the Livonia Marketplace.
So there would be no obstruction to the traffic in that area. In
terms of equipment storage and temporary housing, that would
occur in the northerly part to the site in a portion of the parking
lot that again is available and is not heavily used. That is
essentially a summary of the project. I can read the
correspondence out if you would like, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Morrow: Please.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 26, 2013, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use
approval request. It appears that no part of the Carnival or
associated housing will occupy any road right- of way. Both
Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads art; under the jurisdiction of
Wayne County. Any activities which impact the road right-of-
way must be permitted by Wayne County. Please note that if
the date of the Carnival changes, the portion of Middlebelt Road
March 19, 2013
25659
from Seven Mile Road to Eight Mile Road is scheduled to go
under construction in mid-June 2013 to early September. The
address for this site (the Sears store) is confirmed to be 29500
Seven Mile Road. We kindly request, that if there art; any RV
and/or campers on site that the sewage is disposed of property."
The letter is signed by Todd J. Zilincik, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
March 7, 2013, which reads as follows: `This office has
reviewed the attached plans submitted by Wade Shows Inc.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(1) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
conduct a carnival sponsored by the Rotary Club of Livonia
consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions
from May 20, 2013 through May 28, 2013, inclusive, on the
property located at 29500 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 2. As long as the applicant adheres to NFPA 1,
chapter 10. 15, NFPA 96, chapter 10, and NFPA 101 -Life Safety
Code, this Department has no objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated February 28, 2013, which
reads as follows: 9 have reviewed the plans in connection with
the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal. 1 recommend
the petitioner contact Officer Keith Schoen who is in charge of
the Community Services Bureau to arrange for Livonia Police
OfficersiReserves be present at this event. Officer Schoen can
be reached at 734-466-2369." The letter is signed by John
Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 11, 2013, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna,
Assistant Director of Inspection. And lastly, I will point out that
at our study meeting, it was requested by the Planning
Commission that we contact our Enforcement Division to see if
there were any issues associated with last year's event. They
reported no issues or problems with last year's event.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
is the petitioner here this evening?
Joanna Hardesty, Wade Shows, Inc., 4277 E. M36, Pinckney, Michigan 48169.
Yes. Good evening. I would just like to clarify that the actual
event will not lake place until the 24th through the 27'. We will
be on site from the 20' through the 281h.
Mr. Morrow: But the actual days of participation are the 241h through the 271h?
Ms. Hardesty: Yes.
March 19, 2013
25660
Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you'd like to comment on or add to anything
you've heard?
Ms. Hardesty: No. Everything went very smoothly last year and we didn't have
any issues. It was a great success and we appreciate the
support of the City of Livonia in helping us make that happen. It
was a grealfundraiserforthe Livonia Rotary.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Does the commission have any questions or
Ms. Hardesty: That is correct.
Ms. Scheel: So you'll just be open May 24, that Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
Monday?
Ms. Hardesty: Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. So Thursday you will be open?
Ms. Hardesty: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speakfor or againstthe gmnting ofthis petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-11-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 19, 2013, on
Petition 2013-02-02-05 submitted by Wade Shows, Inc.
comments for the petitioner?
Ms. Krueger:
I was just wondering if there are any changes to the layout or
any of the rides from last year?
Ms. Hardesty:
That is not planned. It should pretty much be the same. It
worked very well for us and there were no issues, so it will be
pretty similar to what we had. There may be a switch up with
the rides that come, but basically the layout will be the same.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. And is the same true for the housing?
Ms. Hardesty:
Yes.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel:
I just wanted verify. You said you're going to be on-site on May
20, but you won't open for operation until May 24?
Ms. Hardesty: That is correct.
Ms. Scheel: So you'll just be open May 24, that Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
Monday?
Ms. Hardesty: Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.
Ms. Scheel: Okay. So Thursday you will be open?
Ms. Hardesty: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speakfor or againstthe gmnting ofthis petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-11-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 19, 2013, on
Petition 2013-02-02-05 submitted by Wade Shows, Inc.
March 19, 2013
25661
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(1) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
conduct a carnival in the parking lot of Sears, sponsored by the
Rotary Club of Livonia, consisting of amusement rides, games
and food concessions from May 23, 2013, through May 28,
2013, inclusive, on properly at 29500 Seven Mile Road, located
on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Middlebelt
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, which properly is zoned
C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2013-02-02-05 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dales as specified
by Wade Shows, Inc., which are May 23, 2013 through
May 27, 2013, inclusive;
2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to
the area as illustrated on the site plan submitted as
received by the Planning Commission on February 20,
2013;
3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other
equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the
carnival shall be located at least 60 feel distant from the
Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads right-of-way lines;
4. That all trucks and other transportation equipment shall be
parked or stored within the extreme northerly portion of the
Sears parking lot, but no closer than 60 feel from St.
Martins Avenue and Middlebelt Road right-of-way lines;
5. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following:
Thursday, May 23 through Friday, May 24 from 4:00 p.m.
to 11:00 p.m.; Saturday, May 25 through Monday, May 27
from 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and
6. That access to fire hydrants is provided for the Fire
Department.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
March 19, 2013
25662
That the site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the use of the subject properly for carnival purposes
will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the
area and will not impede access to Sears or Livonia
Marketplace; and
4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed
use.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Thank you for coming this evening.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2013-02-02-06 BIG GOLF
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
02-02-06 submitted by Mick Boddie requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 16.11(f) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full -swing
golf simulator facility (Big Golf) at 30643 Schoolcmft Road,
located on the south side of SchoolcraR Road between
Middlebell Road and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: This petition is a request under Section 16.11(f) of the Zoning
Ordinance to operate an indoor recreational use within an
industrial district. The property is located on the south side of
SchoolcraR between Middlebell and Merriman Roads. The
overhead shows you the location of the properly in relationship
to the other properties and zoning classifcafons in the area. It
is pretty much surrounded by similar zoned and sized
properties, which are all a part of the City's industrial corridor.
The site borders along 1-96 and Schoolcraft Road and is just
under one acre in size, measuring 99 feel in frontage along
SchoolcraR Road by a depth of just under 400 feet. Currently
there is a building on the site that is occupied by a company
called Allied Leisure. The building is just under 13,000 square
feel in size. In 2002, the City amended the M-1 District
regulations to include public or private indoor recreational
facilities and athletic training schools that, because of the nature
March 19, 2013
25663
of the use or its unique characteristics, for example the need for
higher ceilings, might be better suited or compatible in an
industrial setting. We allow typically, but it's not limited to these
uses, gymnastic training facilities, martial arts, soccer facilities,
tennis courts, racquetball and handball courts, baseball and
softball practice areas, as well as archery ranges. We've seen
a number of these over the years. This is the first time we've
seen a use of this nature. It's a full swing golf simulator facility.
Big Golf would occupy a portion of the existing structure. They
would be located in the southerly part of the building, or at the
back of the building, and would devote about 2,360 square feel
space to this activity. Allied Leisure occupies the remaining part
of the building. What they specialize in is selling parts and
accessories for a wide variety of recreational power sports, such
as ATV's, motorcycles, go karts and mini bikes. Big Golf would
be a separate operation. The simulators would be open to the
public between September through May, primarily during the
winter months, and would be closed for the summer months. It
is our understanding that the hours of operation would be
between 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Friday, and
9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. They are not planning any
exterior building modifications. Parking in this case should be
adequate. Allied Leisure has a few employees. Big Golf would
only have maybe one person devoted to the operation. So the
five or six total employees at this facility is far fewer than the
number of parking spaces they have available, which is about
33, which should be more than adequate to handle the
customers that come in for both Allied Leisure as well as Big
Golf. The simulators would be rented out by the hour, one or
two people at a time. All other aspects of the site are basically
in compliance. We do have Departmental reports which I'll read
out in a minute describing some site improvements which are
needed in terms of parking and site lighting. Also in terms of
signage, they are showing modifications to their existing ground
sign. A monument sign would be permissible on this site. They
are showing a 28 square foot sign with a height of about 5 feel.
That would be within the limits of the ordinance which allows for
a 30 square fool sign, maximum six feet in height. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I'll read out the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 5, 2013, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced waiver use
approval request. The corrected legal description is as follows:
That part of the Northwest X of Section 26, Town 1 South,
March 19, 2013
25664
Range 9 East, City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan,
described as beginning at a point distant South 89 degrees 21
minutes East along the north section line 1,993.50 feet and
South 0 degrees, 29 minutes, 56 seconds West 246 feet from
the northwest corner of Section 26 and proceeding thence south
89 degrees 21 minutes East 99 feet, thence South 0 degrees 29
minutes 56 seconds West 397.02 feet, thence due North 89
degrees 21 minutes West 99 feet, thence North 0 degrees 29
minutes 56 seconds East 397.14 feet to the point of beginning.
0.90 acres. The address for this site is confirmed to be 30643
Schoolcraft Road. Please note that the reconstruction of 1-96
between Newburgh Road and Telegraph Road in the City of
Livonia and Redford Township is being administered by the
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). Construction
is scheduled to begin in early 2014 and continue through late
2014, shutting down the entire 156 express way for almost one
year. This work will encompass both 1-96 expressway, ramps
and 37 bridges in this corridor. Schoolcraft Road is anticipated
to be down to one (1) lane in each direction during the
construction. The golf simulators that will be utilized are to be
placed inside the existing facility. It appears that the parking
area remains the same. However, if the building requires any
expansion and or the parking lot is removed and replaced for
reconfiguration of parking, storm water management will be
required for the newly constructed impervious areas. The
proposed plans call for the installation of a new sign from
Eastbound Schoolcraft Road, approximately a minimum of 10
feet from the right -0f --way line. There is an existing 104nch
sanitary sewer and 12 -inch water main along the front of the
property. The designer of the proposed sign will need to ensure
there are no easements within this vicinity of the proposed sign.
In addition, the property owner should review the exiting
sanitary sewer lead and water service location to avoid conflict
in case a repairin the future is required." The letter is signed by
Todd Zilincik, Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 11, 2013, which reads as
follows: 9 have reviewed the petition for a waiver use approval
on the property at the above referenced address and have
noted the following. (1) This proposal is a change of use for the
address in question. This requires that the location must
conform to current NFPA standards for New Assembly use. (2)
Chapter 12, New Assemblies, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress,
must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs,
Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways, Occupant Load, and
Extinguisher Requirements. (3) NFPA 1, 18.2.3.4.1.1, Fire
Department Access Roads, states that access to the property
must be unobstructed with a width of no less than 20 feet.
These issues will be addressed during the plan review process.
March 19, 2013
25665
We advise that no use of this facility be conducted prior to
inspections and approval of any/all NFPA codes relating to New
Assemblies. Providing that all details in regards to New
Assembly Occupancy are followed and inspected prior to tenant
use, this department has no objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated March 6, 2013, which reads
as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the
petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The foudh
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 11, 2013,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The petitioner's proposal is a change in use. This would
require that the proposed space must conform to all current
barrier free codes, building codes and all mechanical codes and
standards. This will be addressed further at time of plan review
f this project moves forward. (2) The parking lot shall be
repaired and restriped as necessary. Parking spaces shall be
10 feet wide and 20 feet deep and double striped. (3) A van
accessible, barrier free parking space must be provided and be
property sized, signed and striped. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the Planning Director? Seeing
none, is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your
name and address for the record please.
Mick Bodrie, 30643 SchoolcraR, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Boddie, is there anything you want to add to what you've
heard or any comments?
Mr. Boddie : I think it was staled pretty clearly what we're looking to do. I
believe the board members are familiar with what the golf
simulators are. Do I need to explain it any more than what's
been explained?
Mr. Morrow: For the public record, Tel's make sure we understand it.
Mr. Boddie : The simulators are very large booths. There's a screen in front
which simulates a golf course or a driving range. When you hit
a ball, the computer and the sensors read the spin of the ball,
the direction of the ball, the speed of the ball, and then calculate
how the flight of the ball would be in landing and what you're
next shot would be . The majority of the golf that would be
March 19, 2013
25666
played would be golf on pro lour courses. That's one of the
appeals - that you gel to play a course like that and challenge
yourself, besides being inside. The other real nice thing about
the simulator is, it analyzes your swing as you go so you can
learn as you go. It's a learning tool also. It takes approximately
one hour per person to golf 18 holes. Typically, you're going to
have two people per simulator and they're going to spend two
hours. It's a little cumbersome if you gel four people on one
simulator. It can be done but its not ideal. We dont anticipate
being open in the summer, but if we can figure out how to
market it, we have assets silting there that are very expensive
so we will try to be open, but it's very doubtful that people are
going to want to be inside except on rainy days and that kind of
thing. That would be one thing or as, again, a learning tool to
offer a very limited amount of hours for them. As to the sign,
we're undecided on the exact design of the sign, but my
understanding is we didn't really need that for this meeting here
today. We just had to show that the sign was going to go up
there. I think that's about it.
Mr. Morrow: Let's see if there are any questions from the Commission
Mr. Wilshaw:
Are these going to be new simulators with brand new
technology?
Mr. Boddie :
Brand new technology, yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. One of the things that you could do with these simulators
would be to maybe put in like a driving range type mode as well,
so if somebody wanted to just purely practice their swing without
actually playing a game they could?
Mr. Boddie :
Absolutely. And its so specific, where you say, one of
marketing will be to learn how to draw or learn how to fade a
shot. We'll have instructions, but then when you hit the ball,
you'll be able to see how your club face is open or closed or
how the spin is coming off. So it's really a leaching tool also.
Mr. Wilshaw:
We asked this in our study meeting, but I want to just ask it
again. One of the pictures in your packet shows tables and
couches and dunks on the table, sort of people lounging around
and enjoying themselves while they're there. That's not going
to be what you're looking for.
Mr. Bodrie:
That's not our intention at all. Ours is strictly for the golfer to
come in, spend an hour or two and leave. First off, the space
that we have allotted doesn't allow it. Basically, i's a hallway
March 19, 2013
25667
with these simulators off to each one of them. There's no room
for it and the money is actually in the simulators themselves.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So you're looking more for a rapid turnover of people - play an
hour, leave, get another person in that booth?
Mr. Boddie :
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. It sounds good. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
I think its a good idea what you're doing. I only have some
problems how you're going to market it because it's on the
service drive of an expressway. People aren't going to be
driving by and seeing the sign. I mean it's going to be a
destination place obviously.
Mr. Boddie :
Absolutely.
Mr. Taylor:
So you're going to advertise in the paper and do those kinds of
things?
Mr. Boddie :
No. The paper would probably be one of the last things we
would do because of the cost effectiveness of it. More likely, it
would be more of establishing relationships with starters at the
local golf courses, incentives for them to recommend golfers to
us. It would be on social networks. On Facebook, if you like
golf and you live within a 15 mile radius, you're going to be hit
with our advertising electronically. We'll also have giveaways at
all the local golf outings. We'll give away time on the simulators,
but also you're announcing that it exists for all the golfers that
are there, which typical outings are 50 to 100 golfers at a time.
This is where people return. It's not a one-lime destination. So
it's just a matter of getting them in. We've budgeted for the first
year that its going to be just basically a break-even year. It's
kind of expected. Atter that, we expect to do well though.
Mr. Taylor:
Is somebody from the front business going to run it or are you
going to have a person there?
Mr. Bodrie:
My son, Sean, is going to be the main man, but with Allied
Leisure's business, it's a challenge for them. They have a hard
time having business right now. It's a real tough economy, and
they're going to share in some of the hours of that, especially
the low time hours when we don't have a lot of people in.
Morning, we expect to have leagues in there. Mid-aftemoon,
nota whole lotgoing on, and the evening would be more.
Mr. Taylor:
So you won't have a golf pro there though?
March 19, 2013
25668
Mr. Boddie :
No. The simulator actually takes the place of the pro. It's more
for the do-it-yourself golfer.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Ms. Krueger:
How many customers do you expect at any given time?
Mr. Boddie :
Eight would probably be the maximum you would see. It would
just be loo crowded at that point.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. So you believe that the parking is more than sufficient?
Mr. Boddie :
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina:
Thank you. The access would be from the south part of the
building. So would the patrons of Big Golf come in through the
back of the store?
Mr. Boddie :
Yes. And the back spots are actually the most ideal spots for us
because if you can picture coming in, pulling golf clubs out of
the back of your truck or car, you don't want to be walking
through a parking lotwhere there's crowded cars.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay, so you would leave those spaces available for your
customers for Big Golf. It's quite a drive from Schoolcratt. It's
not really recognizable. Would you have some kind of
directional signage to help people, first time andvers, figure out
where to park?
Mr. Boddie : As much as allowed by the City
Mr. Taormina: Okay. And then in terms of the parking along the west side of
the building, I don't believe that those parallel spaces are going
to work. You'd be able to gel away with it if it was a shorter
drive, but the problem there is, you've only got about 20 feel to
work with between the building and the property line. An
occasional car there might work, but if cars start to park there, I
think it forces one directional traffic, and I don't know that's
going to work. You'll probably have to rely mostly on those rear
parking spaces and not so much on the parallel spaces
alongside the building. I just wanted to point that out. It's not a
problem in terms of the overall number of parking spaces, just
that it could become a problem.
March 19, 2013
25669
Mr. Morrow: Its good you point that out. I see no other questions or
comments. Before I go to the audience, I'll give you one more
chance to give a sales pitch for our vast television audience.
Mr. Boddie : I guess the biggest sales pitch is industrial buildings are hard to
lease right now. This is a very good use for a building. It sits
right on Schoolcraft. It has no impact on any neighborhoods.
Its a good clean business and it's a lot of fun.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public
hearing and askfor a motion.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-12-2013 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 13, 2013, on
Petition 2013-02-02-06 submitted by Mick Boddie requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 16.1 l(f) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a full -
swing golf simulator facility (Big Golf) at 30643 Schoolcraft
Road, located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between
Middlebell Road and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 26, which property is zoned M-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2013-02-02-06 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated
March 11, 2013, from the Assistant Director of Inspection,
including those relating to the requirement that the entire
facility and site must meet the current State of Michigan
Barrier Free Code, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department and/or Engineering Department;
2. That adequate off-street parking shall be provided which
shall be sufficient to comply with the parking requirement
for employees and patrons as set forth in Section
18.38(12) of the Zoning Ordinance;
3. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
and
March 19, 2013
25670
4. That drainage in the area around the truck well be fixed to
the satisfaction of the Inspection Department prior to the
issuance of any permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate
the proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a brief comment that these types of businesses are the
types of things we anticipated coming into some of these
industrial buildings when the ordinance was changed to allow
for athletic type facilities. This is another one of many proposals
that we've seen recently that seem to ft that requirement and
offer an opportunity for new businesses to start up in our
community that I think is beneficial. So I think it's a good
petition.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. This concludes our public hearing. We'll
now move to the miscellaneous items.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2013-02-08-03 TENNYSON
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
02-08-03 submitted by Jay Feldman requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
demolish a portion of an existing building and construct
additions to the existing auto dealership (Tennyson Chevrolet)
March 19, 2013
25671
at 32570 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to demolish a portion of the existing building
and construct additions to the auto dealership known as
Tennyson Chevrolet located on the north side of Plymouth
between Farmington and Hubbard. The property is uniquely
shaped. It consists of six different properties that are about 6.5
acres in total area. The property is split zoned, meaning that it's
a combination of zoning categories. C-2, General Business, is
the zoning category that occupies the majority of the southerly
part of the site with frontage on Plymouth Road. The back
portion of the property is zoned M-1, Light Manufactunng, and
that's where most of the auto dealership's inventory is stored.
The blue areas to the north are zoned M-1. The red areas are
G2. Immediately to the west of this site is Naimola's Barber
Shop. Another parcel to the west of that is Tennyson
Chevrolet's used car lot, which has frontage along Mayfield
Avenue. To the south across Plymouth Road are residential
uses within the Rosedale Gardens Subdivision. The dealership
consists of two main buildings and large asphalt parking areas
that are needed to accommodate the dealership's display and
inventory of vehicles. The plan shows the entire property,
including the abutting properties both to the east and to the
west. What currently exists are two buildings. The building
located in the back part of the property is the body shop area.
The other building, which is most prominent to everybody
driving along Plymouth Road, is the dealership showroom, the
service area and the parts department. There are four different
additions proposed. I will go over those briefly, but they are
shown here in gray. This is the one at the back of the existing
main building, which is the second largest of the additions. It's
about 5,500 square feel. That is actually an addition to the
dealership's service area where they intend to increase the
number of service bays from 17 to 27. As part of that, they
would install overhead doors on both the east side of this
building as well as on the back side or the north side. It would
be constructed using block material similar to the exterior
materials on the existing building. One of the nice features of
this plan is that the height of this building is going to be just
under 20 feet, which is taller than the existing building, but what
they're going to do is mise the parapet of the existing building to
match everything. So the existing building as well as the new
additions would all be consistent in height and be mised about 6
feet to a total height of just under 20 feel. One of two additions
is shown along the front of the main building. This addition
measures about 4,185 square feel and would become the
March 19, 2013
25672
dealership's service reception area. The intent here is for
persons having their vehicles serviced could pull in off of
Plymouth Road. They would stack in these lanes. There would
be overhead doors located on the south or front part of the
building. Those vehicles could then drive through, take orders,
and then personnel from the dealership could then drive them
back to either the body shop or to the other service area to the
north and to the west. We'll go over the architectural plan a little
later. The back side of this would be block material matching
what's existing as well as proposed with the addition to the
service area, but the front will be finished in new materials that
we'll describe in greater detail later. And then the next and
probably the most prominent part of the expansion project is this
part of the building which is the new sales and showroom which
is just under 7,000 square feet in area and occupies the largest
area on the site. One of the features is the relatively consistent
setback that the overall building will now have on Plymouth
Road. The part of the building that is being demolished is
located very close to the road, so that projects forward to a point
only about 17 feel or so from the right-of-way of Plymouth Road.
With the demolition of that part of the building and these other
additions, they will maintain a setback of about 70 to 75 feet
which complies with the C-2 zoning standards. The next plan
shows you these additions a little more clearly. It doesn't show
the entire site, the addition to the service area, but it shows the
addition of the service reception area as well as the showroom
and display area. This helps visualize what is going to happen
on the balance of the site. All of the parking areas, both for
customer parking and vehicle display, will be reconfigured.
They do not alter any of the driveways with this plan, but what
they do is replace some of the areas that are used for vehicle
display that currently extend into the Plymouth Road right-of-
way with landscaping. They provide a low hedgerow along the
area adjacent to the sidewalk that runs along the frontage of the
property, and they introduce some of the PRDA's streetscape
improvements in the form of brick piers and fencing, and there
are sections of those that will be provided at a couple key areas,
including the comers of the property and at the main entrance.
In terms of the design, I'll lel the architect go over this in greater
detail, but it follows the new Chevrolet image. They use
composite metal panels as part of the construction, a lot of
glazing, and there are glass overhead doors as part of the
service portion of the business. This plan shows you the
existing sign on the site. They are entitled to one monument
sign no more than 6 feet in height and 30 square feet in area.
Clearly they exceed that with the existing pylon sign which is
about 30 feel in height and roughly 120 square feet in area.
They propose the addition of both wall signs and a new pylon
March 19, 2013
25673
sign. In terms of the wall signage, the three signs being
proposed are Chevrolet, Tennsyon and Certified Service. They
are entitled altogether to have no more than 235 square feet of
signage. What they are proposing is three signs totaling 92
square feel. So although they are only allowed a single sign at
235 square feet, the three signs that they are showing are well
within that area limitation at 92 square feel. We don't have a lot
of information on the monument sign other than the fact that we
believe its a variable electronic message board. It is proposed
to be 24 feel in height. It would have an area of 10 feel by 6
feel or 60 square feel in total sign area. One of the questions
that came up during the study session was what are the current
standards with respect to these types of signs. They are
permitted when all other signs on the premises are in conformity
with the Zoning Ordinance, which we don't have currently by
virtue of this existing nonconforming pylon sign. The fad that
they are proposing excess wall signage and they have this
existing monument sign, would not entitle them to any form of
electronic sign or even a second pylon sign or any type of
variable electronic message sign. So that would have to be
reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Moreover, with
respect to the size of the sign, the area of the sign would be
limited to half of the area of an otherwise permitted monument
sign. So if they are allowed 30 square feet, they would be
allowed 15 square feel in the form of a variable electronic
message sign and the sign height would be limited to 6 feet and
30 square feet in overall area. So they could have a portion of
an existing monument sign devoted to an electronic message
sign. Lastly, we do have constraints on how the message is
displayed on these types of signs. The message has to remain
static for a period not less than five seconds, and the time
interval between messages cannot exceed one second, which
must occur over the entire face of the sign. So the intent there
was not to have a continuous motion sign. It was to allow for a
message to be displayed, have it stay on the sign for five
seconds, then have it transition within one second to a new
message that again would have to remain static for five
seconds. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Just one thing. Are we talking about a pylon sign or a
monument sign?
Mr. Taormina: These are the two signs. This is the existing sign on the right
hand side. Its typically called a pylon sign because of its
height.
March 19, 2013
25674
Mr. Morrow: When you said monument, I normally think theyre fixed to the
ground.
Mr. Taormina: That's cored. These both would qualify as pylon signs. This is
actually part of the used car operations. That's really not
anything we're considering this evening, and then you have just
the small directional sign for the service. I don't think that's
really an issue. I think the focus tonight is going to be on the
proposed sign and on the existing pylon sign.
Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair, to Mark. What is the signage that currently
exists?
Mr. Taormina: I don't know if we have that information available
Mr. Taylor:
Lel me get back to the pylon sign then. As long as they don't
lake the sign down and put another one up, the pylon sign is
grandfathered in. Isn't it?
Mr. Taormina:
Under normal conditions, yes. Unless it's agreed to as part of
this process that one sign is more important than the other, it's
part of what you can negotiate with them through the site plan
review process is whether or not this pylon sign should remain
along with the new one. If you feel one should come down,
that's something for your discretion.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you, Mark. Could we have the correspondence now?
Mr. Taormina:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 11, 2013, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced proposal to
demolish a portion of and construct additions to the existing
auto dealership at 32570 Plymouth Road. The legal description
for the highlighted area on the address and zoning map is as
follows: That part of the S. W. X of Section 27, Town 1 South,
Range 9 East, described as beginning at a point distant N
0000'39" East 60 feet, and South 8913'14" East 1,792.75 feet
from the S. W. comer of Section 27 and proceeding thence N
0002'31" East 315 feet, thence N 8913'14" West 160 feet,
thence N 000231" East 68.26 feet, thence 124.51 feet along
the arc of a tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius
of 304.19 feet, central angle of 23'27'06" and a chord bearing N
11°41'04" West 123.64 feet, thence S 8913'14" East 727.27
feet, thence S 0005'04" West 189.00 feet, thence N 8913'14"
West 149.99 feet, thence S 0005'04" West 315.00 feet, thence
Mach 19, 2013
25675
N 8913'14" West 391.78 feet to the point of beginning. The
address for this site is confirmed to be 32570 Plymouth Road.
There are existing Plymouth Road Development Authority
(PRDA) street lights and irrigation system along the north side
of Plymouth Road. Coordination will be required when removing
the existing asphalt, brick and curb while working to prevent
damage from the infrastructure. The existing irrigation system
may need to be expanded to provide watering in the area of
proposed pavement removal along the north side of Plymouth
Road. There are numerous easements on the various parcels
such as PRDA, Consumer's Energy, sanitary, storm, water and
possible DTE that will need to have access maintained for
maintenance and potential repair purposes at all times.
Structures will need to be protected and may require
adjustments (i.e. lowered or raised based on the proposed
work) along with any water main hydrants, gate valves or shut-
off valves based on the final approved grades during the
Engineering Department's review. The petitioner is hereby
notified (via copy of this comespondence) that any site changes
which would impact public utilities, easements, or changes in
storm or sanitary sewer volumes must be approved by the
Engineering Division of Public Works. As regards storm water
management, the City of Livonia requires storm water detention.
Depending on where the discharge outlet is proposed, either to
the north to the existing 304nch storm sewer under the City of
Livonia jurisdiction orthe 484nch storm sewerin Plymouth Road
under the Michigan Department of Transportation will determine
the requirements. Should this project proceed, it is important
that the developer's architect/engineer address storm water
drainage changes as a result of these site changes, to ensure
that there is no negative drainage impact to any adjacent
property. We recommend the petitioner schedule a meeting
with the Engineering Department to discuss the storm water
management system based on the proposed outlet location,
underground or open area for detention and requirements to
determine the entire influence area of construction that may
result of this. A soil erosion and sedimentation control (SESC)
permit will be required and involve separate plans to be
submitted. This permit and associated fees will be handled by
the Engineering Department before any work commences." The
letter is signed by Todd Zilincik, City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March
11, 2013, which reads as follows: 7 have reviewed the petition
for a proposal to demolish a portion of and construct additions to
the existing auto dealership on the property at the above
referenced address and have noted the following. (1) NFPA 1
and NFPA 101 shall be followed for this location as a New
Business. (2) Fire Department Access shall be maintained as
March 19, 2013
25676
specified in NFPA 1, 18.2.3.2, 18.2.3.4.1, and 18.2.3.4.3. (3)
Fire Hydrants shall be required per NFPA 1, 18.3. (4) Fire Flow
requirements shall be required per NFPA 1, 18.4. (5) Fire
Protection Systems shall be required per NFPA 1, Chapter 13.
These issues will be addressed during the plan review process.
Providing that all details in regards to New Business Occupancy
are followed and inspected prior to tenant use, this department
has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Daniel
Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
dated February 22, 2013, which reads as follows: "1 have
reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no
objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 11, 2013, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required
for the excess number of signs, size of signs and height of sign.
(2) Specifications have not been provided for the variable
electronic message pylon sign. A variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the variable
electronic sign. (3) This structure may require a fire suppression
system in accordance with the Michigan Building Code 2009.
This will be addressed at the time of our plan review if this
project moves forward. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from
the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated March 6,
2012, which reads as follows: "On March 6, 2013, the
Executive Committee of the Plymouth Road Development
Authority (PRDA) of the City of Livonia reviewed the above -
referenced petition submitted by Jay Feldman requesting
approval of all plans in connection with a proposal to demolish a
portion of an existing building and construct additions to the
existing auto dealership (Tennyson Chevrolet) at 32570
Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. Please be advised that PRDA
Executive Committee does hereby support the proposed plans
as presented by Tennyson Chevrolet, provided that the
Engineering Division review the final proposed grades to assure
that the project does not result in any negative drainage
conditions on any of the adjacent properties, that the driveways
off Plymouth Road not be blocked during times when the
business is not open to the public, and further subject to
compliance with all City codes and ordinances and the
Plymouth Road Development streetscape goals and objectives,
as such may be modified by the action of the Planning
Mach 19, 2013
25677
Commission and/or City Council." The letter is signed by Mark
Taormina, Economic Development & Planning Director. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions? Seeing none, will the petitioner
please come forward? We will need your name and address for
the record please.
Peter Sluhlreyer, Designhaus, 301 Walnut, Rochester, Michigan 48307. Good
evening.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Is there anything you would like to add to the
presentation or anything you'd like to present?
Mr. Stuhlreyer:
Not in particular. I think Mark did a greatjob with presenting the
project. I would be here to answer questions. I want to
comment on a few very small details that were brought up in the
comments. We did meet with the engineers about stormwater.
So the architect, the civil engineer and myself and Tom sat
down with that department to discuss that thoroughly so we
know we have a plan moving forward. I'm joined tonight with
the LED variable lit sign company to answer questions about
that should that arse. His name is Greg Morgan sitting in the
audience. The negative drainage comments from the PRDA,
we spoke with the gentleman concerned about that, looked into
the design, and a comment before regarded the parapet being
raised on the existing building which could have been the cause
of some alleged drainage problems on the west side. The
design raises the parapet and encloses the drainage into pipes
and takes them directly underground so there would be no
drainage to the west anymore. And finally, the PRDA's
streetscape is being handled per their specifications. That's
important to be said. I think strategically it's worth mentioning
that this business is staying opening. Its staying Tennyson. It
is designed in such a way to allow that to occur so that this
construction can lake place in a safe way away from public
interaction. It would allow the existing showroom to exist while
construction is completed. These are details of materials that
are brought to us from GM to conform with their new facility
image program that they've embarked to try to get each
dealership to maintain a similar aesthetic. We're very familiar
with the products we're using and the application of the products
to make sure this is a maintenance -free beautiful building, until
the next time GM changes their fashion statement.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll see now if there are any questions the Commission may
have. Do we have any?
March 19, 2013
25678
Mr. Wilshaw:
Al the study meeting, we had a sample board to look at. Did
you bring that? Maybe you'd want to point out the different
elements and colors that we're going to be seeing here.
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
Okay. Primarily, the building that customers will engage upon
on the exterior will be an ACM. It's a composite metal panel.
Its zero maintenance. There are three different colors. The
arch is the blue. That's the signature piece. The majority of the
building is covered in what will come off as a very light gray.
The little inner frame around the blue arch is sort of a chrome
metal. The rest of the building is maintenance free as well. It's
a unit masonry painted in one of the colors that exists
throughout the site. We know it as paint number one. There is
no stucco. There is no EIFS. There are no Styrofoam
components to the job. The surface outside of the showroom is
brick pavers. Where there would be a few cars on display
would also be the majority of the pedestrian access, both into
the service reception and into the showroom. We have a piece
of brick on the sample board to demonstrate the brick on the
PRDA required landscape features and those are capped with a
piece of limestone as well. Its a verysimple palette. The glass
is clear, and when I say clear, I mean, you know most glass is
about 75 percent clear. It's as clear as you can gel it. The
aluminum framing is anodized, clear aluminum. So that's just
silver. For the most part, it will glow a little bit at night. You'll be
able to see through it during the day. These are pretty common.
This is one of the last in the area to be changed over, so if you
need to see a similar project, ask me. I can point you in the
direction of a local dealership.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I appreciate that. We do have some documentation here about
a lighting technology as well that's being used. I assume that
this is overhead lights that you're going to show us?
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
Yes. The lighting of our dealership is an important feature.
There's short day time hours, especially in the winter. People
come in on the weekends, walk through the parking lot at night,
not Tale at night, but Tale enough that it's a little bit eerie. So
these lights cast a very nice amount of light. They're also very
very efficient. The bulbs last a long time and they do not cost a
lot to change. It's an energy efficient light. It's relatively
inconspicuous. Theyre black poles. They're about 20 feet tall to
the lop, and you can see these slender light fixtures. They're
actually fluorescent. Typically what you see are high pressure
sodium or metal halights. They get very bluish and they get
very yellowish sometimes. These are a nice full spectrum
energy efficient light with a very even spread. From my count,
March 19, 2013
25679
from the lighting consultant, there's quite a few lights on the
property.
Mr. Wilshaw: I can understand that being a dealership you want to make sure
that not only is your inventory secure at night, but also visible to
your patrons when you're open so they can see the cars and
look at them. So I understand that aspect of it. The only other
question I have right now is the LED sign. That was an issue
that came up at our study meeting, and I think it does bear
some discussion here at this meeting. Explain for us what the
LED sign is going to contain and why do you need it.
Mr. Stuhlreyer: The purpose is to gain the advertising edge to promote some
seasonal events, lease rates, things like that that change on an
almost day -today basis based on the financing markets and
things like that. We feel this is an appropriate street for
something like this. From the side street across the face of the
property is almost 500 feet so the current pylon sign that we
intend to maintain is quite a distance from this sign, so we're not
talking about signs that are right on lop of each other. Visually,
we're not creafing a series of over -advertising I don't think in this
case. I think it gives an advertising edge. It's something that
we're seeing more and more of. We're seeing more of it being
accepted by city councils and planning commissions wherever
we promote it. There needs to be some guidelines on what's up
there, what the limits are for changing and for movement, but
they're relatively appealing. They go on and off on the cycle of
the parking lot lighting. They're not on all night. They're timed
on and off. I do have Mr. Morgan for technical details, so if you
have questions about that.
Mr. Wilshaw: The only question I really have and maybe you can answer it, is
as we've talked about at our study meeting, I've seen some
other dealerships around the area on Telegraph and Ford Road
and other places, that have full motion video playing on these.
Obviously, our ordinance doesn't allow for that. Are you okay
with that and are you okay to limiting your sign to things like oil
change specials and just static text that's going to change
periodically as people drive by?
Mr. Sluhlreyer: We are okay with that. We are okay with following the guidance
of the ordinance, and I don't know but I think, and Greg can
comment on this, that MDOT gets involved as well for these
particular signs in this right -0f --way.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The other issue with the sign is, it is another pylon sign.
I don't know if you know the history of the City, but we have
made a very concerted effort to eliminate as many pylon signs
March 19, 2013
25680
as possible, especially along Plymouth Road. There's been a
number of large pylon signs that have been there in the past
that we've been able to negotiate the removal of. You have an
existing 120 square feet pylon sign that I'm not going to ask you
to do anything with or remove, as much as normally we would
do that type of thing, but I certainly am not comfortable with
adding another new pylon sign to Plymouth Road. Would you
be willing to consider having this sign be a monument sign
mounted at the ground?
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
I'm not sure that we have to go procedurally to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for the whole signage package because of the way
the net square footage works itself out. So is that a decision
that comes from how we propose that? Do we propose that to
the Zoning Board of Appeals or do we propose that to you in
terms of where we concede to the ground mounted sign or to
none? I think that we would prefer a pylon in this case. What
happens is, there's quite a bit of noncomformity that we're
dealing with. So in some sort of negotiation discussion, we
would discuss how we're laking the building out of the setback,
taking cars out of the roadway, upgrading for the PRDA. We
have 500 feel and could this be seen as appropriate in a
decision? To answer your question, yes, of course, we would
go from pylon to ground mounted to nothing. I mean it's not
going to terminale the project.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, just to answer his question. Ultimately, the Zoning Board
of Appeals will make the decision on the variance. Is that
correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Ultimately, they will, but bear in mind that they cannot deviate,
i.e., they cannot allow for a sign that would be contrary to any
condition that the City Council may impose relative to that item.
That holds true with any site plan feature. To the extent that it's
a site plan feature approved by the City Council, the Zoning
Board of Appeals can approve that if that's within their
jurisdiction but they cannot exceed those parameters.
Mr. Morrow:
So if we would, just for information purposes, decide we would
like a monument sign and send it forward, the City Council could
still go back to the pylon sign and approve one or the other.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And based on that, then they would go forward to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
March 19, 2013
25681
Mr. Taormina:
They can submit to the Zoning Board of Appeals what was
approved by the City Council. That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
So in other words, they have that option at the City Council
should we come up with a monument sign.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Does that answer your question?
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
I think I'm starting to gel the procedure.
Mr. Morrow:
The main thing is, we are a recommending body. We send
recommendations to the City Council. We've look d and this is
our final analysis. However, it does not preclude you from
appealing whatever we come up with on the site plan and the
signage to the City Council, who can override us and send it on
to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
And the City Council's decision is to ...
Mr. Morrow:
What you would go forward to the Zoning Board of Appeals
with.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The Zoning Board of Appeals cannot go beyond what City
Council approves.
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
I see, but they could limit the City Council's approval.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
I'm with you then. I understand.
Mr. Taylor:
If I may through the Chair, to Mark. Mark, item six of the
approving resolution says the 'variable electronic message
pylon sign shall conform to Section 18.50(H)(o)." What exactly
is that?
Mr. Taormina:
That would be the dimensional tolerances of this form of sign
which would mean that it would have to be no more than six feet
in height, 30 square feet in area, and no more than half of that
area could be devoted to the electronic changeable message
portion of the sign. So they would effectively be allowed, as
we've prepared the resolution, 15 square feel for the electronic
sign. They could have the other 15 square feel devoted to any
other permanent message they wanted to place on this sign, but
it would be six feet in height and a maximum of 30 square feel
in total area.
March 19, 2013
25682
Mr. Taylor:
So actually the "electronic message pylon", pylon should be
eliminated then. It's not really a pylon sign.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, you could take out the word "pylon." That is correct.
Mr. Taylor:
So we could put instead of pylon, a monument sign?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
Okay. I just wanted to get that clear.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, you could qualify it by saying that the 'Variable
electronic sign be in the form of a monument sign and shall
conform" if you choose that. Now, they're asking for 60 square
feel. Under this prepared resolution, they would be limited to 15
square feel. So one of the things you can modify is the total
area of electronic display portion of the sign, maybe if you
wanted to allow it to be all 30 square feel or 20 square feel or
whatever. So give that some consideration.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that is, Mr. Taylor? Anything else, sir?
Mr. Stuhlreyer:
I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but Mr. Morgan from
Phillips Sign mentioned that there were two installations in
Livonia of the pylon variable illuminated sign. I don't know if he
should tell us where those are located.
Mr. Morrow:
He can come forward and give us his name and address and
make that part of the record.
Greg Morgan,
Phillips Sign & Lighting, 40920 Executive Drive, Harrison
Township, Michigan 48045. Good evening. The two existing
electronic message boards, there's a McDonald's that on 19311
Farmington Road, and the other one would be Commons at
Laurel Park and that is at 37100 Six Mile Road.
Mr. Morrow:
What was the name of that place?
Mr. Morgan:
Commons at Laurel Park.
Mr. Taylor:
Across the street from Big Boy.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. Taylor:
I think that's what it is - across the street from the Big Boy.
March 19, 2013
25683
Mr. Morgan:
I believe that is correct. Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you for bringing that to
us.
Mr. Morgan:
You're welcome.
Mr. Taylor:
And my recollection is that we didn't approve that sign because
we asked about it at one time. Remember, we asked you about
that sign, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Keybank Commons?
Mr. Taylor:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
It never came before us. I know that.
Mr. Taylor:
I think I went by it the other day and I don't think it is electronic
any more. I don't know if anybody said anything about it - the
Inspection Department or whatever - but it wasn't when I went
by it the last time.
Mr. Morrow:
I can't visualize it. Where is it?
Mr. Taylor:
Where the restaurant went out of business a couple, three
times, right there on the corner.
Mr. Taormina:
Its where the Boston Market used to be located.
Mr. Morrow:
Oh, on Six Mile?
Mr. Taylor:
There s a sign right out in front of it.
Mr. Morrow:
Oh, okay. Geez, I never noticed it if t was.
Mr. Taormina:
Again, what the ordinance allows for is half of the permitted sign
area to be in the forth of variable electronic message sign. So I
think what you have in that instance is a sign that limits half of it.
Mr. Taylor:
The bank sign is the other half.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct. Key Bank.
Mr. Morrow:
That's the Key Bank center?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
March 19, 2013
25684
Mr. Morrow:
Oh. Okay. I don't know if that's good or bad. I never noticed R.
I go by there all the time. I don't know if that says much for the
moving sign. Anyway, that's beside the point.
Mr. Taormina:
If you recall the McDonald's sign was one that we had. It was a
pylon sign that was 30 35 feel that was removed and replaced
in exchange for a much lower sign and one that had a small
variable electronic component to it.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Where are we now?
Mr. Taylor:
I was just going to comment that I think what you're doing at the
dealership is wonderful for Livonia and it's well overdue. That's
for sure. I do have some problems like with the pylon sign with
flashing messages and those kinds of things, but I think we can
work that out.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a comment. I kind of want to echo Mr. Taylors comments.
I know I've beaten you up a little bit on the sign. The petition
itself is very attractive. The changes to the building I think are
going to be very functional for the dealership but also be a nice
update. Hopefully, it will draw customers to the dealership and
make then even more successful than they already are.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else? Are you all set, sir?
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
Yes. I was going to ask one thing. Is the sign one-sided or two-
sided on the 15 feet?
Mr. Taormina:
That would be two sided.
Mr. Sluhlreyer:
Perpendicular to the street, I can have 15 feet on both sides?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Stuhlreyer:
Okay. Got it. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Krueger, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-13-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013-02-08-03
submitted by Jay Feldman requesting approval of all plans
March 19, 2013
25685
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to
demolish a portion of an existing building and construct
additions to the existing auto dealership (Tennyson Chevrolet)
at 32570 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked C-1 dated February 18, 2013,
prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked L-1 dated February 18,
2013, prepared by Allen Design, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3. That the landscaping and other slreetscape improvements
(i.e., brick piers and fencing) along Plymouth Road shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority (PRDA) and Inspection
Department;
4. That the Elevations Plans marked A5.0 and A5.1 both
dated February 19, 2013, prepared by Designhaus, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That the signage, as shown on the approved plans, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except as
modified below, subject to the review and approval by the
Zoning Board of Appeals;
6. That the variable electronic message sign shall be in the
form of a monument sign and shall conform to Section
18.50(H)(o) of the Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended,
with respect to height, area, message duration and
transition limitations, and level of intensity/illumination;
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
8. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
March 19, 2013
25686
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. To echo some of my fellow
commissioners, we really appreciate the investment that this
dealership is putting in Livonia, and it will certainly be an
upgrade to that particular site and for the City. Thank you for
coming tonight and good luck.
Mr. Sluhlreyer: We'll do our best. Thank you.
ITEM" PETITION 2013 -02 -SN -01 LAUREL OFFICE PARK II
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2013-
02 -SN -01 submitted by Townsend Sign Company requesting
approval of two (2) additional wall signs and a ground-nounted
sign pursuant to Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, for the four-story office building
(Laurel Office Park 11) at 17187 Laurel Park Drive, located on
the west side of Laurel Park Drive between Six Mile Road and
University Drive in the Southeast 114 of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request for additional signage at an office building
located along the 1-275 Expressway. It's one of three buildings
that make up what was originally the Laurel Office Park
complex. The address is 17187 Laurel Park Drive. Immediately
to the north of this building is the second building that is a part
of the office park. Immediately adjacent to it is the other
building, 17177 Laurel Park Drive. There is separate ownership
now on these buildings. The petitioner is requesting additional
signage both in the form of a wall mounted sign as well as a
ground sign. Multi -tenant office buildings within this zoning
classification are allowed one wall sign with a maximum square
footage of 100 square feet. This building, because of the length
of its frontage, is allowed that 100 square feet but they are also
allowed one addifional ground sign that would be a maximum of
30 square feet in area, 6 feet in height, and 10 feel in length,
and a minimum setback of 10 feet from the right -0f --way. The
existing signage on this building consists of some address
markers. These addresses are actually installed on the
penthouse or mechanical screen located on the lop of the
building. These are the large addresses: 17187 appearing on
this building and the other two buildings have a similar type of
address marker. But because of the size of those numbers,
they were classified as wall signs, and they had to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. So that was the original
March 19, 2013
25687
signage permitted on this building, What they are seeking to do
now is add two more signs to the west elevation, which is the
side that faces the expressway. One of the two new
identification signs would be on the south end where they do
have a tenant, Sprint, that is going to be occupying a significant
portion of the building. You can see on the right hand side of
this rendering that the sign measures about 26 square feet in
sign area, about 2.5 feel in total height and 11.5 feet in length.
The second sign is shown on the opposite part of the west
elevation, which is the north end. They have it shown as "future
tenant name' because they have not yet identified a user for
that sign because there still is space available in the building.
That sign would measure 74 square feet in total area. It has the
same height of about 2.5 feet and has an overall length of 33
feet. So it gives them some flexibility depending on who that
tenant is in terms of providing sufficient area to identify them.
The Zoning Board of Appeals, this body and the Council, is only
considering, with respect to the wall signage, the one additional
wall sign. I think it was in 2004 or 2005, the City approved a
sign for Rock Financial on this building. We have a picture of
what that sign was to look like. It was a wall mounted sign on
the penthouse and mechanical screen area that measured
about 94.5 square feel. The two signs together here are
roughly 100 square feel, just slightly more than the 94 square
feel, but what is different is that it is being split. It is a different
location on the building and it is two signs versus one sign. The
other aspect of this petition involves a proposal for a ground
sign. They are showing it to be 10 feet in height and about 6
feet in width for a total sign area of roughly 51 square feel. That
sign on the plan is shown to occupy a couple parking spaces
along the west boundary of the site where it's adjacent to I-275,
but we don't have much information relative to the actual
placement of the sign or whether or not it would be visible from
the expressway. There was some concern expressed by the
Commission at the study session as to whether or not this sign
was going to serve any useful purpose. I did have a
conversation with the petitioner and suggested that prior to
moving forward on this sign, that they actually test this a little bit
more and determine exactly how visible the sign would be given
all of the constraints, the topography, the vegetation within the
right-of-way, to see whether or not there might be a better
placement for the sign. The petitioner is here tonight. Maybe
he has reviewed that in greater detail. I don't know.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, we really have nothing in our ordinance that allows that
monument sign at that location, is there?
March 19, 2013
25688
Mr. Taormina:'
They would be entitled to one monument sign that would be 30
square feet in total area, six feet in height, but that really
wouldn't do them any good at this location along the
expressway.
Mr. Morrow:
Normally, the sign would be at the entrance, but as you found
out at the study session, they're precluded from any type of
signage on Laurel Park Drive.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, that is correct. You can see how this site is uniquely
located with respect to the other office buildings in the area and
frontage along Laurel Park. They really don't have the ability to
advertise along Laurel Park Drive North because they don't own
any of the frontage there. They rely on access coming from
some access easement across this property as well as Laurel
Court. They really are limited in terms of where they can put
any monument sign on this property. They're trying to explore
what they feel would be their best option, which is to place it
somewhere along the expressway, but again, I don't think we
have enough detail at this point to make a decision.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll find out from the petitioner. With that, the correspondence
please?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated March 11, 2013, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The petitioner has
proposed a fourth wall sign where only one wall sign is
permitted. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would
be required to maintain the excess number of wall signs. A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals was obtained for the
existing three wall signs. (2) A variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals would be required for the proposed ground sign size
and location. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions? Is the petitioner here this evening?
We will need your name and address for the record please.
Michael J. Balow, Senior Manager, Ashley Capital, 2575 S. Haggerty, Suite 500,
Canton, Michigan 48188. I'm actually with the building owner,
Ashley Capital. Townsend Sign is the company that we hired to
put the rendering together, and I'm here to answer any
questions that you might have, and specifically first to the
monument sign. We can talk to that first. As Mr. Taormina said,
we were trying to coming up with something that would be
March 19, 2013
25689
tasteful and would identify our building to cars coming in and
also give us a presence on a major artery. Being that we're
restricted from placing signage along North Laurel Park Drive,
along the freeway is the most likely location that we came up
with. And if you wouldn't mind going back to the survey site
plan with the arrow. Originally, I envisioned this going
somewhere midway along the properly line, but practically
speaking because of the vegetation that's along the south, we
would probably try to put this monument sign further towards the
northwest, towards the upper part of that drawing. Again, pretty
close to the edge of our property line and landscape it with a
grassy bene of some sort, and perhaps some bollards to keep
cars from hitting it, realizing of course that we're going to have
to take up at least a couple parking spaces to do that. I do
acknowledge the challenge, due to grade, for people seeing this
along the freeway. Our proposal would be to still have the
monument sign and raise it up so you have a bigger base and
have the panels up higher. The rendering you saw had a total
height of 10 feet. We've done another sketch which has it going
up to 16 feet. We will do what we need to do to prove that it's
visible from the freeway, because, quite honestly, we wouldn't
invest the money in it if it wasn't. We'd probably not be able to
do that in that case if it wasn't visible from the freeway. And
hearing the Commission's dislike for what I guess you call
bollard signs, I don't know if we'd have another solution for
signage along the freeway if we couldn't do a monument sign.
I'd take any questions that you have.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Krueger: I have a few questions. So if you do put this type of sign along
the ... you said northerly ...
Mr. Balow: The northwest comer. Otherwise, the upper left is probably the
most likely location for it.
Ms. Krueger: Okay. How would people necessarily identify that sign with your
building and not Laurel Office Park III.
Mr. Balow: Practically speaking, the other owner has defined a property
line. It used to be where the parking lot was wide open, but now
there are signs and bollards set up that delineates between the
two properties. I don't think that extends all the way to the
freeway, but when you're there, it's fairly obvious that the
parking lot is divided and you have one building and another.
This would be far enough on our property line.
March 19, 2013
25690
Ms. Krueger:
But from the freeway, which basically, chats all the sign is being
used for, advertisement on the highway. How would anyone
know? They wouldn't be able to see the parking lot.
Mr. Balow:
Correct. The value of having it on the freeway is to secure
tenant space. Basically they want to see their name in lights
and see it done in a tasteful way because theyre going to know
where the building is. You can come in off North Laurel Park
Drive and Court into the parking lot. You're correct. You
wouldn't know from the freeway that it's specifically for that
building, but it idenfifes the park and our building in that park
and we can only put so many tenants on the building. So it's a
lesser way of giving a tenant, especially one that occupies a
significant square footage, a presence on the freeway which will
help us secure tenants for this building.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. And then how many tenant signs would you have on
there?
Mr. Balow:
We would have four. We would identify the park at the lop,
because this was originally developed as a three building park.
That logo at the lop is consistent with the quote unquote
branding of the park, which we dont seek to change. Staples is
a current tenant. I'll speak to the tenancy in a second. Sprint is
kind of a place holder because if we put their sign on the
building, we wouldn't need to put them on the monument sign.
We would put somebody else. Then the other two tenants are
Tegnl Group and AMI. So as it stands right now, it would be
four and we would have the ability to swap those four out as
tenants come and go. But right now, we have four tenants in
the building, the four that you see right there. Sprint hasn't
moved in yet. They will later this year, but they have signed a
lease with us. When we bought the building, it was empty. It is
a 130,000 square fool building, four floors. Since June, 2011,
we've been able to sign these four tenants. We will have the
entire third floor vacant, and we have some interest from
companies that would like a full floor plate. Those type of
tenants typically want signage to go with such a large space.
We have a couple decent size spaces on the first floor and a
small place on the second floor. So we're 53 percent leased.
We have roughly 60,000 square feel to lease and the signage is
a boon to that effort because the 275 corridor is starting to pick
up again, and there's not that many large floor plates available.
And as I said, we're competing with Troy, Southfield, places like
that, and we feel that the signage is something that you really
have to have to attract first class tenants to this building.
March 19, 2013
25691
Ms. Krueger: So Laurel Park III and Laurel Park I, they don't have this type of
sign. I don't know precisely what the occupancy there is, but I
think they're pretty full.
Mr. Balow: I think they're at least half full. One of them might be 80 percent
full. They have the advantage of signage along Laurel Park
Drive, which we don't have. We have tried to secure signage
along Laurel Park Drive and failed. We just don't have the
rights to the private property there. This is our next best
solution to allow tenants to have some sort of visibility because,
again, if the tenant has no visibility from any roadway
whatsoever, that's not such a good thing.
Ms. Krueger:
How many square feet is each one of those plates. Is it
something you'd even be able to see as you're driving down the
highway?
Mr. Balow:
You would if it were high enough and if it were illuminated
properly. I have no video or anything to show you tonight from a
drive-by that would prove that out, but again, this was our idea
and we were going to do that before investing. It would be a
waste of money to build it if it wasn't visible from the freeway.
Its a logo branding. Its not something that you're going to read
per se, but certainly you'd see Staples and you'd know what that
is from the freeway and realize that they're in one of those
buildings. You're correct. Once you get off the freeway, you
wouldn't know exactly where to go. This is to give someone a
presence on the freeway to let them know they're at this park.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I think the signs on the building are fine. I have no problem with
that, and I understand your desire to want to give those major
tenants some space on the side of the building. That's perfectly
fine. I do have some concern as well over this monument sign
and its effectiveness. As Commissioner Krueger pointed out, as
I'm driving up 275 or even down 275, especially if I'm driving
south on 275, it's going to be even harder to see this sign just
because of the distance of the freeway, the width of the
freeway. But if I'm driving north on 275, I've passed Six Mile
and I see the sign, and if I manage to be able to see the logos,
like you said, Staples, Sprint, some of those might stand outjust
because they're nationally recognized logos. I'm not going to sit
there and say, okay, there's the building I wanted to go to and
try to go up to Seven Mile Road and back around. Its not really
effective at drawing me into the building when it's alongside a
freeway where cars are going 70 miles an hour. I think of these
signs more as a directional sign. So if I'm in the park and I'm
March 19, 2013
25692
trying to visit a particular business, like Staples, I know which
building they're in because there's three buildings that basically
look identical on the property. So then it becomes very helpful
for me to see that monument sign. And I understand that you
have a unique situation where you don't have the ability to put
the sign along Laurel Park Drive to draw people into your
parking lot that may be looking for those business, and I think
that's very unfortunate. Its really a shame that you cant gel a
little corner of grass to stick your sign on. I think its terrible. Al
the end of the courtyard as you tum into your building, there's a
name for that road
GI100-n0 r1�Ff0i]11111Flii[4mrllrl
Mr. Wilshaw: Laurel Park Court. As you go down that road, there is sort of a
court at the end of it that opens up where you kind of see all
three buildings as I've driven down into there. Do you have any
frontage or ability to put that monument sign at the northeast
corner of your property to draw those cars into your parking lot
versus inadvertently going into the other two parking lots? That
may be more effective.
Mr. Balow: We'd certainly look at it. I'm skeptical of the idea only from the
standpoint of, if you go back to what's the reason for having the
sign. It's not so much directional as it is to give a tenant a
presence where they're going to be seen. So assuming we find
a way to make it visible along 275, that would still be our main
goal because if you tum into North Laurel Park Court, you're
already committed to coming into the complex. You're probably
not going to see that sign from Laurel Park Drive. So that's the
only reason. I think it might work but it's probably the least
desirable option for us.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Again, I understand you're looking for frontage and the
ability to advertise a business. I'm thinking of it more from the
lines of trying to find the business when I'm visiting it and the
effectiveness of that. What I would definitely say is, I have no
problem approving your signs on the building at this point. I
think we need to do a little bit of research and work. You need
to do a little bit of research and work and determine exactly
where you want to put that other sign and if you want to
continue on with that sign. I know Mr. Taormina has probably
talked to you about even setting up a lest board, something that
would have the size and dimensions so you can do some drive-
bys on 275 and see how the visibility actually does work for that
plywood panel, if you will, just to gel a feel of how it works.
Because you do have a lot of issues with landscaping, the
berming and other vegetation that will be blocking your sign. Do
March 19, 2013
25693
the research. See what works best for you and come back to us
and we'll see if it works for us.
Mr. Balow:
Yes. I appreciate that. We're open. I just want to know that if
we do that, that there are not other reasons for not having it
along 275. We wouldn't be wasting our time so to speak. I
mean if we can prove that its visible and tasteful and it works, is
R something you all would entertain?
Mr. Morrow:
I think what we're saying is that, at lead as the Chairman, I want
to move this petition along and reserve the right that you can do
some investigating and come back to us with a plan that you
feel comfortable with. We recognize that you're precluded from
the normal monument sign because of the circumstance that
developed over the years from the properly exchange. So that
was my comment. Are there any other comments or questions?
Ms. Krueger:
I'll just make a comment that if you do come back with a
modified plan for this monument sign, I dont know that I would
necessarily approve it because this properly was purchased and
that place and that situation together with your limited access to
Laurel Park, and you knew when it was purchased that you
wouldn't be able to put a sign there, although you hoped that
you might be able to someday. Although we like to see
buildings occupied in the City, I dont see that having a sign with
four tenants on it that's visible from the highway is going to
benefit anything, just in my opinion, because then we're going to
see other people coming trying to get similar signs and then
we're going to have a highway full of signs, and that's not how I
would like to see Livonia, but I'm just one commissioner.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. I think what she's saying is, should that go forward as part
of our resolution, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that you
would gel it, but it also doesn't say you wont gel it, but at lead
you'll be more comfortable with it and then you can make your
case. We'll know specifically what you're talking about, where
it's going to be, what the size is going to be, something to base
approval on.
Mr. Balow:
Right. That sounds good. I certainly appreciate the
consideration for the wall signs and would like to move that part
of the petition forward without the monument sign.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Any other comments orqueslions? Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against the gmnfing of
this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be
in order.
March 19, 2013
25694
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, d was
#03-14-2013
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2013 -02 -SN -01
submitted by Townsend Sign Company requesting approval of
two (2) additional wall signs and a ground -mounted sign
pursuant to Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, for the four-story office building
(Laurel Office Park 11) at 17187 Laurel Park Drive, located on
the west side of Laurel Park Drive between Six Mile Road and
University Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the wall signs shall be installed in accordance with the
Sign Plan submitted by Townsend Sign, as received by the
Planning Commission on March 19, 2013;
2. That the freestanding sign shown in the approved Sign
Plan is not approved at this time. The Petitioner shall
reappear before the Planning Commission when more
information is available, including the exact location,
height, area, and layout of the sign; and,
3. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
number of signs and sign area and any conditions related
thereto.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
I think we have a revised dale on the plan. If you will just
recognize that we're going to change that dale because what
you're looking at is slightly different from what was originally
submitted. I'm going to have to correct that dale.
Mr. Morrow:
That fine. I assume that is all right with the maker and the
supporter.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
Oh, yes. Fine.
March 19, 2013
25695
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2013-01-02-02 COSTCO
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Patton 2013-01-
02-02 submitted by Costco Wholesale Corporation requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(r) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize an SDD
liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in
connection with a Costco store at 20000 Haggerty Road,
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile
and Eight Mile Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Morrow:
I'll ask for a motion to remove this item from the table.
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously approved, d was
#03-15-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on February 26, 2013, on
Petition 2013-01-02-02 submitted by Costco Wholesale
Corporation requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged
spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with a Costco store at
20000 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, which property is zoned C-2, the
Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the
table.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. I'll pass the gavel back to the Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, we've already had the public hearing. Is there
anything you want to add? Was there any new information to
come forward or anything like that?
Mr. Taormina:
No.
Mr. Morrow:
I assume the petitioner is here.
Seth P. Thompkins, Esq., Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C., 25800
Northwestern Highway, Suite 1000, Southfield, MI 48075.
Hello, again, everybody, and hello for the first time
March 19, 2013
25696
Commissioner Krueger. I'm appearing on behalf of my client,
Costco Wholesale Corporation. Together, I've got Colleen
Stankewicz here also. She is the General Manager of the
Costco location. There were some specific questions from the
Commission last time about the business practices of Costco
and not being a Costco employee, I didn't know some of those
answers so I thought that bringing Colleen this time to answer
questions would be helpful if the Commission had any. I know
we were here before, and I know that we had a three -three lie
vole and so it was tabled to come back to talk to Commissioner
Krueger to find out how she was going to come down on this
issue. Unless there are any other questions from the other four
Commissioners that are different from the Iasi time that we
came during the blizzard, other than ... I'd like to say two things
because I'm assuming, Commissioner Krueger, by the
supplemental letter that I sent, there were two corrections that I
need to make on it. One of them was, I mentioned the closest
liquor licensee was the Brass Mug, and I thought that was the
closest licensee and that was two miles away. But actually,
there is a Rite Aid that is a little over a mile away. I still don't
think it affects the overall tenor of the letter, the brief, because
really its one mega corporation against another mega
corporation. We're not really talking about a big corpomflon
against a small business. The other thing was, and
Commissioner Wilshaw pointed this out, that approximately half
the bottles are not the gigantic bottles, the half gallon size or
bigger. Some of them are the fifth size bottles. But again, that
really also doesn't affect the overall tenor of the letter, the brief,
because similarly you can't shoplift a big half gallon. It's very
difficult to shoplift. You can't put a fifth in your pocket and walk
out with it. Other than that, I really just want to reiterate that
Costco has been doing business in the City of Livonia now for
quite some time. They do have a liquor license. They sell beer
and wine, and they are an excellent exemplar of what you want
out of a licensee. They have a stunning record with the Liquor
Control Commission, not just in this Livonia, but the other
Livonia store, and all of their other len stores that have both
SDD and SDM licenses throughout the Slate of Michigan, and
they operate with virtually no problems. I know that there has
been a general consensus from the City for the past 20 some
years to deny flat out requests by larger stores, typically called
big box stores, for an SDD license, but this particular store in
this particular location is different because it is on the Haggerty
corridor. There are no neighborhoods around it in the City of
Livonia other than you have to cross 275 in order to gel to it. So
it's not really in the neighborhood of this store, and all of the
neighboring businesses are just that. They're businesses.
Theyre commercial businesses. There's some light industry
March 19, 2013
25697
there, but generally what we have here is we have this big
commercial block full of big commercial buildings, and if there
was going to be an exception for this general rule that the City
has had, this would be the store to have it because it doesn't
really affect any local Livonia businesses. Something that
Colleen told me, and which I should have realized this
beforehand, there is an overall concern that has been stated by
people opposing this that putting an SDD license in a store like
this will lake away from the business of an SDD licensee in the
City of Livonia, and therefore there has been some sort of
protectionism that has gone along with this. Colleen point out to
me that prior to Costco going up, there was a wine shop and
Costco got a beer and wine license, and that wine shop is still in
business today. They have their own niche. Costco has its own
niche. They sell more brands. Costco sells less brands.
Theyre both in business. They both do well. So there is no
factual or statistical data to show that an SDD license at Costco
is going to have a negative effect on any Livonia businesses.
So this belief is founded upon just that, a belief. There is no
basis for it. There is no real basis for it other than unfounded
fear. In truth, Costco has been doing business as a liquor
license business now since 1997, selling beer and wine and
other beer and wine shops in the City of Livonia have thrived in
that same time period. We're here to answer any questions for
you unless the rest of the Commission has more questions that
have come up over the past month or so, but we were here a
long time last time. We've been here a long time tonight.
Mr. Morrow: We'll find out if there are any new questions that the
Commission has, and if the Store Manager has something she
wants to introduce to the Commission, we can certainly listen to
that.
Mr. Taormina: I just want to point out I failed to indicate that there was one
letter received. I don't know if you want me to read that into the
record.
Mr. Morrow: I think you're referring to the Brass Mug? Why dont we read it
for the benefit of the Commission and the petitioner and our
audience. So if you would read it, he did take the time to write it
and I think we should put it in the record.
Mr. Taormina: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is actually in the formal of an
email that was submitted to the City on March 13, 2013, which
reads as follows: "My name is Louis Yeldo. 1 am the owner of
Brass Mug Liquorlocated at 19213 Newburgh Road, Livonia, MI
48152. 1 was recertify notified that Costco, that is just a few
short miles away, has applied for a liquor license. As a small
March 19, 2013
25698
business owner, this news has upset me greatly. 1 am a family
man, and my family depends on the income from my store. As
a result, 1 am writing a petition. 1 understand that Costco is a big
brand store, but by granting this 1 might as well lock my doors
and throw away the key. Brass Mug has become a staple in the
Livonia area. We offer a little something for everyone. Whether
you are a wine enthusiast or a specialty beer lover, Brass Mug
has all your liquor needs. There is no need to grant Costco a
liquor license. 1 would appreciate my request to be taken into
consideration. Thank You." The letter is signed by Louis Yeldo,
Owner.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you forgetting that in the record
Mr. Thompkins: If I may, Chairman?
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Mr. Thompkins:
Something that I stated, again, Costco has been in business
since 1997 with the beer wine license and the Brass Mug is still
in business. These fears by businesses miles away are
unfounded, and its evidenced by the fad that Costco has ten
other stores with SDD licenses. I guarantee you that every
single one of those municipalities that Costco has stores in, they
all have other SDD licensees that are still in business today. So
by the very fad that Costco has been in business since 1997,
the Brass Mug has been selling beer and wine also, it shows
people might be afraid of this but there is actually no statistical
data to support any of these fears that anyone has.
Ms. Krueger:
I have some questions. So has a study been done? You're
saying there's no statistics, but has a study even been done?
Mr. Thompkins:
We have actually looked at all of the licensees, our current
licensees, that we put businesses in, and those same SDDs that
were in business when we put in, they're still in business today.
Very few people actually transfer SDD licenses.
Ms. Krueger:
Are they doing business as well as they were before that? You
don't know that. And it's not like when Costco comes in, people
are going to be drinking more liquor. I mean, if I want to buy a
bottle of wine and I happen to be at Costco and it's convenient
so I buy it there because I'm there, it means I'm not going to that
other store to buy it. I'm not going to go to both stores.
Mr. Thompkins:
And this is something Commissioner Wilshaw said also. So
you're making the assumption that for every bottle of wine
March 19, 2013
25699
purchased at Costco is not a bottle of wine purchased at
another Livonia SDM licensee.
Ms. Krueger:
That's the basis of my assumption, but that's not the complete
assumption.
Mr. Thompkins:
Okay. So let's start with the basis of your assumption. That
means that you're basing your assumption that 100 percent of
all of the people that buy wine in Costco are buying wine in the
City of Livonia.
Ms. Krueger:
That's not my assumption.
Mr. Thompkins:
Well, I mean, here's ... but ...
Ms. Krueger:
I know a lot of residents that shop al that Livonia Costco.
Mr. Thompkins:
A lot.
Ms. Krueger:
Yeah.
Mr. Thompkins:
But there are a lot of non -Livonia residents that shop at that
Livonia Costco also.
Ms. Krueger:
Yeah, and where's the nearest Costco that has an SDD
license?
Mr. Thompkins:
That would be in Commerce Township, I believe.
Ms. Krueger:
And how many miles away is that?
Mr. Thompkins:
That's many miles away. How many miles?
Ms. Stankewicz:
I think its over20 miles.
Ms. Krueger:
Noway.
Mr. Thompkins:
On Haggerty and 15 Mile, so it would be nine miles away.
Ms. Krueger:
Nine highway miles that will take you about 5, 10 minutes to get
there.
Mr. Thompkins:
Now, the question isn't how far away is the nearest Costco. The
question is how far away is the nearest Livonia liquor licensee.
Now the Stale of Michigan already has, and the City of Livonia
already has, standards for determining whether or not a liquor
store is too close. The City of Livonia's is 1,000 feet. Okay?
March 19, 2013
25700
The State of Michigan is a half mile. And we already meet the
Livonia standard for being over 1,000 feel away from a liquor
store, and we for sure meetthe State of Michigan standard. So
is there a separate standard for some businesses but not
others? That's not in any city ordinance and that's not in any
slate statute. So the question of how far away is it, we meet the
requirement as far as distance from liquor stores.
Ms. Krueger:
We still have to take into consideration the health, safety and
welfare of the residents.
Mr. Thompkins:
Of the residents, that's fine. So let's back up and let's look at
the surrounding neighborhood of this particular location. There
is none. This is not a residential area.
Ms. Krueger:
There are residents across the street. They're in Northville.
Mr. Thompkins:
Theyre in Northville. So are we protecting Northville residents?
Ms. Krueger:
No. You said it's not a residential area.
Mr. Thompkins:
Its not a residential area. This is not zoned residential at all.
Ms. Krueger:
I'm not saying this is zoned residential. I think we're going in
circles.
Mr. Morrow:
The Chair is going to jump in here. I did express some of those
concerns at the public hearing, and I think it would be fair to say
that Costco will impact some sales to other liquor stores. It's
just a matter of what the scale is. I'll give an example. I live
very close to the Brass Mug. I used to buy there, but I shop at
Kroger's all the time. I don't go to the Brass Mug anymore
because Kroger's has whatever I need as it relates to beer and
wine or liquor. So I think it will impact because as I said last
week, it is a destination. People come from all over the city to
go to that store as well as Northville and Plymouth. But that's
why I wanted to jump in, to flat out say it does impact, and I
think we can agree, it does impact, but we just don't know what
the survey was or what the scale was. I think we'll cul it off at
that point, but that's not cutting off any other comments that you
have.
Mr. Taylor:
Mr. Chairman, if I may? I just want to point out that a friend of
mine went to Costco and he bought a couple of little items, and
he complained to the Manager, 'Why don't you have a quick
checkout." And he said, we don't want your kind of business
here, actually, for one or two items. That's what I'm trying to gel
across that people are not going to go there to buy a bottle of
Mr. Taylor: I understand that.
Mr. Thompkins: But it's different in Michigan. So the way that Michigan has
operated and the way that Costco sales are set up in regions,
and so they like to set things up identical in all their stores. So
March 19, 2013
25701
wine. Theyre going to go there to shop, and while they're there,
they will buy maybe a bottle of wine or beer or, if they have a
license, some liquor. Clarify the point of what size bottle liquor
you're going to have there.
Mr. Thompkins:
The minimize size is a fifth. Most of them will probably be larger
than that.
Mr. Taylor:
A half gallon.
Mr. Thompkins:
Half gallons or larger. So they're the larger bottles. Its a limited
number of brands. I believe it's under 40 total brands where
most liquor stores have hundreds of different bottles you can
choose from. So its a different animal. Its not a liquor store,
and Commissioner Taylor, that's the point of the difference
between a Costco selling spirits and your local liquor store
selling spirits.
Mr. Taylor:
Are you agreed to the fad that you will put it behind a counter?
Mr. Thompkins:
We've agreed that we would consider it, but we're still going to
ask the waiver from the City Council. You have to understand,
there are len other stores. If you want to address the counter
rule, we can address the counter rule, but just as a general
thing, Costco has len other stores that have operated virtually
flawlessly for a long period of time in this state. These are the
only two stores that don't have an SDD license, and we're not
even asking for the one up on Middlebelt. We're just asking for
the one on Haggerty.
Mr. Taylor:
We understand that.
Mr. Thompkins:
Theyve given up on the Middlebell one.
Mr. Taylor:
But I know that in Florida, you have a separate store next to
Costco.
Mr. Thompkins:
Right, because Florida laws are different and they prevent that.
The same thing in Colorado. It's a separate store. Michigan
doesn't prevent that. So they have a separate store thafs still
run by Costco but it's a separate store. You have to go into it.
Mr. Taylor: I understand that.
Mr. Thompkins: But it's different in Michigan. So the way that Michigan has
operated and the way that Costco sales are set up in regions,
and so they like to set things up identical in all their stores. So
March 19, 2013
25702
we're going to ask the City Council for a waiver of that. We
understand that your recommendation today might come
subject to that, and we'll lake that back to corporate and we'll
talk to them about that. They're aware of it and they respect the
fact that you still have this rule.
Mr. Taylor:
You talked about the fact when you first started about the City
never giving them out to large stores.
Mr. Thompkins:
Yes.
Mr. Taylor:
At that time, we had a lot of SDD licenses. Now there's only I
believe two left.
Mr. Thompkins:
There are two. There's two available.
Mr. Taylor:
So we don't have to worry about that any more, is what I'm
getting at, as to all of the other stores asking for that type of a
license. The argument we had at the courts, and we won, was
the fact that the area was well served, and it was at Middlebelt.
But now we're talking about Haggerty, which actually the area
isn't well served other than the way it meets the ordinance,
which is more than 1,000 feel. I just wanted to bring that up
again to Mrs. Krueger, that the argument that we're going to
have in court, if they do go to court again, is not going to exist
because there's not a liquor store within 1,000 feel, and you're
going to meet all of the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Thompkins:
Well, that's the thing. We do meet all the requirements of the
ordinance except for the one that is the arbitrary one, which is,
does it meet the standards of the neighborhood or will it bring it
down.
Mr. Taylor:
If I'm going to make a resolution, I'm going to make it to where
you meet all of our ordinance requirements, and if you want to
go to the Council and plead your case, I guess you could do
that.
Mr. Thompkins:
And I appreciate that, Commissioner Taylor. And everything
that you said was exactly what we talked about and the reasons
that you and Commissioner Scheel and Commissioner Bahr
supported the last resolution. Unless there's any specific
questions or Colleen has anything to add to this ... I think she
should tell you, there's a lot of City of Livonia residents that
actually work at Costco. You're not just supporting some
company. You're supporting people that live and work in the
community as well. So Colleen ...
March 19, 2013
25703
Colleen Stankewicz, Store Manager, Costco Wholesale Corporation, 20000
Haggerty Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 can just tell you
that daily we have our members asking if we're going to get a
liquor license. Earlier we brought up, we do have a wine store
that's right down the street from us. We compete
wholeheartedly with them for pricing, but they still exist. We still
exist and theyre still successful. And most of our members that
we do talk to, or that I talk to that talk to me about our liquor
license and when we're going to gel it, they don't go to the
Brass Monkey for their liquor. They go directly across the street
to Meijer's to get their liquor. So it's not the impact that's going
to hit the Brass Monkey, but it's going to be ... Brass Mug,
sorry, but what we lake from Meijers directly across the street.
They leave Costco and go right across the street to Meijer's
which is in Northville. So I think the impact will be felt more by
the Meijer across the street than any local liquor store.
Mr. Morrow:
We know about Costco. They're a great corporate citizen. We
know a lot of our neighbors work there. We're very proud of
having two Costcos in Livonia. This is just an issue that we
have to overcome here tonight and then pass it along to the City
Council. Is there anything else you want to add?
Mr. Thompkins:
Not really.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. Thompkins:
We'll beat the dead horse if you want.
Mr. Morrow:
Along with the Brass Monkey. Anyway, is there anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of
this petition? Please come down to the podium. We will need
your name and address for the record please.
Sam Shoukri,
owner of Showerman's Fine Wine and Liquor, 15333 Merriman
Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154. 1 just want to say for the record
that we strongly oppose Costco's proposal for many, many
reasons, and I disagree with the gentleman that just came up to
the podium and mentioned that if Costco obtained a liquor
license, it would not impact the surrounding existing liquor
stores. That's false. We do strongly believe that this license
would impact economically the existing stores, and also that
would open the floodgate to other big boxes in the city, which is
Meijer, Kroger, Walmarl, and they will follow suite. Once this
proposal goes by and gels approved, I guarantee you Meijer will
be the second to follow suite, and what's going to happen after
that? Kroger will want a liquor license also. It's just a quarter
mile away from me. And that will squeeze us more, put more
March 19, 2013
25704
economic impact on the stores and eventually we will be out of
business. His theory that they have beer and wine and has not
impacted the stores in the area, that is false. I always gel
reminded when customers shop at my store. Oh, I can get this
wine at Costco at this much. Costco has more things than we
do. We work on a certain profit margin. I cannot work on a five
percent like Costco or other big boxes, especially when they put
the items on special, which is like sometime you might not
notice that around the holidays. Kroger or Meijer they put the
cases of beer, twenty cents above cost to lure customers into
the store. Now how do you expect me to compete with these
big boxes when they price their products 20 cents above cost?
But how do they survive? Because they have bakery; they have
produce; they have grocery; they have clothing. As far as
Costco, they even sell furniture. They sell equipment.
Everything.
Mr. Morrow: Yes. We're familiar with Costco.
Mr. Shoukri: So, they can survive without an SDD license. We, as small
business owners, we cannot survive when you expand the
competition to everybody.
Mr. Morrow: What you said inifially, lel me go to Mr. Taylor because he was
trying to make this point before when you were licking off all of
the stores that we're going to ask for a license.
Mr. Taylor: By population, you only have so many SDD licneses. We only
have two left.
Mr. Shoukri: Correct. And I can give you an example of how they can obtain
a license.
Mr. Taylor: But I'm saying that one of them, if they're approved, will go
there, then there will be one left.
Mr. Shoukri: I guarantee you Meijer will be the next one to apply.
Mr. Taylor: Well, you said all of the stores are going to apply. I just wanted
to clarify.
Mr. Shoukri: Can I explain how they can obtain it? They can go to another
store which is not doing very well. They can buy his license and
transfer it to their store.
Mr. Taylor: Its great here in America, isn't it, sir?
March 19, 2013
25705
Mr. Shoukri:
Yeah. I mean there's always of doing it.
Ms. Krueger:
Well, that was the comment I was going to make, that there are
other ways to obtain licenses if they really want them.
Mr. Morrow:
They can buy them.
Ms. Krueger:
Yes, or if some of these other businesses ...
Mr. Shoukri:
Get a resort license. They don't have to go by the population
limitation. A resort license can be transferred anywhere in the
county, anywhere actually in the city.
Mr. Morrow:
An SDD?
Mr. Shoukri:
Yeah.
Mr. Morrow:
I was not aware of that.
Mr. Shoukri:
Yeah. You can check with the Michigan Liquor Control
Commission.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, are you familiar with that?
Mr. Taormina:
If his comment is that there are a limited number of licenses that
can come into the city, I think they are still quota restricted.
Mr. Shoukri:
I agree with him. It has to go through the Planning and the City
Council.
Mr. Morrow:
I know we can do it for restaurant licenses.
Mr. Taormina:
They allow for intra -county transfer of Class C licenses and
other on -premises licenses. I don't know about the off -premises
licenses, I'm not aware of that.
Mr. Shoukri:
Yes. Check under resort licenses.
Mr. Taylor:
They don't do SDD licenses. You can't do that out of Wayne
County. Talk to the attorney there. He'll tell you.
Mr. Thompkins:
I would like to make a comment.
Mr. Morrow:
You'll have an opportunity here. Sir, is there anything else you
wanted to say? I think we got the gist of it there.
March 19, 2013
25706
Mr. Shoukri:
I would just like to say for the record, I'm speaking for myself,
and I have talked to store owners like you mentioned earlier and
also the owner of Wine Castle, owner of Wine Palace. They all
expressed disbelief and concern about this license for Costco.
And even though he said there's no residential, so what's the
point? If there is no residential, why do you need a license, plus
the City of Livonia has plenty of licenses. We've been in
business for so long. We've been serving the community for so
long and we feel that there is plenty of licences to serve the
community. So we urge you to disapprove this proposal.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. So just let me wrap this up in this fashion. As I said
earlier in the meeting, we are a recommending body. Ultimately
this will be decided at the Council level.
Mr. Shoukri:
We start atthis point.
Mr. Morrow:
We make a recommendation.
Mr. Shoukri:
We're trying to make our point to the Commission body.
Mr. Morrow:
There will be one more, one way or the other.
Mr. Shoukri:
That's true.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. If that's it, we appreciate you coming down tonight, and I
think the attorney wants to speak.
Mr. Thompkins:
So there are two things that I really want to raise. The first was,
the customer already has an SDM license, and according to the
laws of the State of Michigan, the only rules for selling beer and
wine is that it has to be above cost. SDD license, there is a
Slate minimum that everyone must sell at so there is no
competitive advantage to Costco being able to sell for a cheaper
price than someone else. You pass most liquor stores and it
says "stale minimum', and that means state minimum which I
believe is 17 percent above cost, and that's the least that
Costco could possible sell it for by state law. So the competitive
concern about someone's undercutting me is not there with
respect to spirits.
Mr. Morrow:
We understand.
Mr. Thompkins:
Okay. So I just wanted to mise that. With respect to the Resort
License, there are Resort SDD licenses. They are different than
the Resort Class C licenses. A Resort Class C license, once it
is issued ... they were issued a long time ago. There s 550 of
them. They float around the State. These are Class C licenses,
March 19, 2013
25707
restaurants, bars, hotels, golf courses. Those can go from any
municipality in any given county to any municipality is any other
given county. Those are different. Those are rule breaker
licenses.
Mr. Morrow: We are aware of that
Mr. Thompkins:
There are Resort SDD licenses. They are political gifts by the
Commission. They give 10 of them out a year. Once they are
attached to a location, they are transferrable as far as
ownership from old to new owner, but they are not transferable
by location. So once they are affixed to a location, they must
slay at that locafion. So it is impossible for someone to bring in
an outside SDD license by purchasing it from outside this
municipality. You can go check on that. I do these a lot.
Theyre rarely granted and the Commission would never grant
Costco or a big box store one of these. As a matter of course,
they give them to smaller stores in communifies that dont have
the quota available to actually put another store in there. So
that's generally what they are reserved for.
Mr. Morrow:
We appreciate that input.
Mr. Thompkins:
No problem.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Commission, I'll entertain a motion.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by Krueger, it was
#03-16-2013
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on February 26, 2013, on
Petition 2013-01-02-02 submitted by Costco Wholesale
Corporation requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
11.03(r) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged
spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with a Costco store at
20000 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, which property is zoned C-2, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2013-01-02-02 be denied for the following
reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
March 19, 2013
25708
2. That the proposal is not in compliance with the regulations
set forth in subparagraph (4) under paragraph (r) of
Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance, which require that
all alcoholic liquor products allowed to be sold in
connection with the use of an SDD license shall be
displayed behind a counter with no direct public access;
3. That the City is currently well served with SDD licensed
establishments;
4. That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD
licensed facilities in this area of the City; and
5. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Wilshaw, Krueger, Morrow
NAYS: Taylor, Scheel
ABSENT: Bahr, Smiley
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a brief comment. We've hashed this particular petition to
death at two meetings now, so I don't want to belabor it too
much longer, but I do want to comment that Mr. Thompkins has
been an outstanding representative for Costco and Costco
themselves is an outstanding business in our community. Both
locations have served the community well, and this particular
location, which I go by regularly, does a tremendous business
and I think will continue to do a tremendous business in the
future regardless of how this petition works out. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Thompkins: I'll go back to my client. If we choose to appeal or not, I feel that
this Commission has done a disservice to the City by this vole
today. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Morrow: And we thank you for coming down.
March 19, 2013
25709
ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,036m Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,036'" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on February 26, 2013.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and adopted, it was
#03-17-2013 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,036th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February
26, 2013, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES:
Taylor, Scheel, Wilshaw, Morrow
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Bahr, Smiley
ABSTAIN:
Krueger
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,037'" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 19, 2013, was adjourned at 9:16
p.m.
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary