HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-12-1516521
M[NUTES OF THE 776th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COM[vIISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 15, 1998 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 776th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with approximately 30
interested persons in the audience.
Members present:
Members absent:
Robert Alanskas
Elaine Koons
Michael Hale
Daniel Piercecchi James C. McCann
William LaPine
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner II,
were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing makes 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
is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to
the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the
professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. 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.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 98-10-1-
19 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six
Mile Road between Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road in the NE 1/4 of Section
14 from RUFA and OS to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: A letter from John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer, dated November 18,
1998 indicates the Engineering Division has reviewed the petition and the
Engineering Division has the following concerns with the proposed
construction: 1) The developer would need to dedicate the appropriate
amount of right-of-way, 60.00 feet to the county. 2) The developer would
16522
be required to obtain easements from abutting parcels to gain access to an
existing storm sewer. 3) On site storm sewer detention may be required
for this development.
We also have a petition with 79 signatures opposing the rezoning: We, the
undersigned property owners of Willow Creek Estates Subdivision, oppose
the Petition No. 98-10-1-19 requesting rezoning of property located on the
south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road,
the north Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFA and OS to R-1 scheduled
to be submitted to the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, December
15, 1998.
There is a letter from John V. Bartus, P.E., President of North Livrance
Estates Housing Association with a petition and 79 signatures attached:
The property owners of Livrance Estates are solidly against any rezoning
proposal that would reduce the minimum lot size of one family residential
to less than 1/2 acre in our area. To preserve the character of our
neighborhoods we, and our neighbors from Willow Creek, Bell Creek, and
Nottingham Woods Estates have voiced our adamant objections to past
rezoning proposals by other developers to reduce lot sizes below 1/2 acre.
To your credit, the honorable members of the City Council and City
Planning Commission have supported our views by rejecting all past
rezoning proposals to reduce lot sizes in this area. This has provided
controlled development, maintained our country -like atmosphere and
minimized the impact on the wildlife and wetlands, while preserving the
character of our neighborhoods. I ask that Petition 98-10-1-19 be
rejected based on our previous arguments that RI zoning is inappropriate
to the surrounding area south of Six Mile Road, and would set a precedent
that would provide the excuse to rezone other properties as they become
available. It would also increase the inconsistency of the zoning that
currently exists in this area of Six Mile Road, with mixed commercial,
ojJ1'ce and residential zoning revealing a lack of sound future planing. A
petition opposing this rezoning proposal has been signed by 79
homeowners and is submitted for your consideration.
In addition, we have four other letters in opposition: Stephen and Karen
Anleitner, 29572 Munger; Nancy Henderson of 29900 Munger; Thomas
and Marilyn Vasselion; Marcia and Richard Munio, 16927 Oporto.
Mr. McCann: Ladies and Gentlemen of the audience, I have been told by the petitioner
through the Planning Director that there is some complication as to the
plan to go forward. They are going to ask to have this tabled, however we
are going to go forward and hold the Public Hearing to receive your
comments. At the next hearing, those of you who received a letter or
notice, we are going to reissue those notices for the next time the hearing
will be held. Anyone who wants to be notified who wasn't notified, you
16523
may leave your name and address with the secretary, Mrs. Urbanski, to
make sure that you are notified of the next hearing. Since we are holding
the public hearing tonight, I am going to open the floor first to the
petitioner if there is anything you want to tell us to put your comments on
the record.
Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia: Mr. Soave asked me to represent him in this
issue. As you just pointed out, at 4:00 this evening he indicated to me
there was some discrepancy in the land he is buying as to the
configuration and shape. Therefore, as you pointed out, we are formally
asking that this be tabled. In view of the fact that a portion of this is
Office Zoning, Mr. Soave would have the option to either include or
exclude the office zoning and use this site for a future office. He has
chosen to give up the office zoning in lieu of 60'x120' lots. I would prefer
not to make any more comments at this time.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak tonight to this issue?
Lance Boyd, 16944 Oporto: The property does abut my backyard, so whatever we decide
on this is going to directly affect what I see when I go into my backyard.
Presently, my largest concern is the drainage. Right now from spring into
early summer I have a pond in the backyard. If they build behind there,
there will be no ground to soak up the extra rainfall. I am worried it will
run off into my yard.
Mr. McCann: Let me satisfy you in that respect. We already have a letter from the
Engineering Department that they may require them to have storm
retention in there. The Engineering Department before a site plan is
approved, as I believe this will be a condominium site plan, they would
have to come up with certain formulas the City has worked to redistribute
all that water that is currently building up on that property. That would
not be before us as tonight is just a zoning issue.
Mr. Boyd: I also feel that the half -acre minimum should be maintained to maintain
the property values. I paid quite a bit for my home there, and I don't want
to see my property values decline.
Mr. McCann: I also want to state for the record that we did get all those letters and those
letters will remain as part of the file. The petition that was filed will
remain with the file and if this petition is brought back, all that will be part
of the record and will not need to be reproduced.
Jim Gibson, 16978 Oporto: I am lots 23 and 22. I purchased my home in 1977 and I
moved to Livonia in 1954. I have gone through the Livonia school system
and really love Livonia. I've always lived on large lots. I use to live
behind Ward Church before it was Ward Church. I have seen lots of
16524
construction. As a small boy I remember the building on Six Mile, but I
didn't really realize where they put all the dirt until one of my
schoolmates, who lives on the north side of Six Mile, found out through
the problems they had with drainage that back then the fathers weren't
quite as wise as you have been. I watch quite a bit of cable TV, so I am
aware of what you do. Looking at the drainage and looking out my
backyard, as I look over to the medical clinic and the things that are there,
because of their drainage and disbursement of water, even though I have
three to four feet of water in my backyard, thanks to the lady who built the
subdivision with the new smaller homes, she did put in some drainage. It
almost looks like we built up the area about three feet higher than it really
was. When I went down to the Engineering Department, I asked for the
topographical drawings to try and see the geographical flow of the water
because I was told through history the natural flow should run from the
west to the east. When I was in the Engineering Department getting some
drawings, we were discussing the wall that was built there. When we
moved in, I was amazed how high the water table is. The block wall is a
concern of mine whether it is to be torn down or stay, and I know you as
the fathers have to decide what to do. I am interested as to who would
make that decision. I was a little concerned with the swale and the
retention pond if that would be done similar to the pond over on Inkster
Road, and the verbiage where it says he has to require an easement. If you
could explain those things, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Nagy: The storm water drain as I understand it is in Munger Avenue, therefore in
order to approach Munger Avenue, an easement will have to be obtained
through one of the residential properties. With respect to the wall, I am
not sure what wall other than the screen wall on the OS zone where it
adjoins the residential lots on Munger Avenue. I don't know of any other
wall in the area.
Mr. Gibson: I am referring to that one. My concern as far as the drainage went-Veri
built the three small homes and at the time when they were asked to tear
down the one small home, I approached the city about having the drainage
extended north down that property line to elevate the water, and at the
time the city basically told me that even if I wanted to pay for it, it couldn't
happen because of the tree line. If we look at the westerly red line on Mr.
Soave's property, is that where you are indicating that he would have to
run his beehive going from the north part of my lot all the way down
where that tree line is? Would he have to excavate that to make a 16"-18"
drain line?
Mr. Nagy: It hasn't been decided. He would have to pick it up there, but whether he
goes from there and moves south to Munger Avenue or carries it easterly
through his subdivision and then goes south, I think those are his options
he will have to look at it in terms of how it works out in regards to his
16525
development, where the cul-de-sac will end, how the lots themselves will
be configured. My best guess is that he wouldn't pick it up there. He
would go with the natural fall of the property to the east and then try to put
it under Munger Avenue at a point further east.
Mr. Gibson: Sir, the retention water from the northern section of the quadrant would
have to flow through everyone's backyard to get to it. It's a drainage issue,
and I don't know where to go to ask the question.
Mr. Nagy: That is my best guess. It will be picked up in rear yard drains within that
storm sewer system and Mr. Soave will put it in as part of the
development and it will be piped underground from Munger Avenue. We
are premature at this stage. We are talking zoning, so we don't know all
the engineering details.
Mr. Gibson: The last question I have is the rural being turned into small residential.
This happened on Merriman just south of Seven Mile. The people there
have much larger lots than we do and then they built a subdivision. The
homeowners that had the rural atmosphere, they were told they had to
control the poison ivy weed control because it was on that property.
Where would we address that type of change of environment to kill off all
the poison ivy and different animals? Would that be city hall?
Mr. McCann: I am not familiar with it.
Mr. Nagy: I am not familiar with those problems, but all of those details go with the
actual plan itself. Right now we are talking about a waxer issue instead of
the density and lot sizes and those kinds of things.
Nancy Henderson, lot 27, 29900 Munger: I sent a letter. Do all the members of the
Board get copies of the letters?
Mr. McCann: We get a packet with the letters and petitions, but again, those are going to
be held off until the next hearing. If the petitioner decides to go forward,
those are part of the package. We will keep them on file and forward them
with our recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Henderson: I have a number of concerns that have already been mentioned. I
am on the east side there where Mr. Nagy is indicating the drainage may
end up at. There is a brick wall there and that is cited in my letter, and it is
a concern of mine because water is on it now.
Mr. McCann: I understand, but again, the water issue is going to have to wait because
they will come back because it will be a site condo. We will discuss some
of those issues when it comes back as a site condo, but the Engineering
Department is the one, when we get to that point, who will assess it and
16526
see whether it is proper, to see whether it is a sufficient plan. Tonight it is
just a question of whether or not the parties believe that the R-1 is proper
zoning in place of the OS and the RUF.
Ms. Henderson: As I indicated in my letter, my property was purchased because of
the zoning of the surrounding area, including the office services, and
knowing that houses would be built to keep it a country atmosphere. As I
said in my letter, I would be very disappointed to see it change otherwise.
Emma Alholinna, 29931 Munger: I would like to know if I can add a letter to the pile
tonight.
Mr. McCann: Absolutely. Would you like to read it tonight?
Mrs. Alholinna: My husband and I would like to register our strong disapproval of
the request for rezoning of the property located on the south side of Six
Mile Road between Oporto and Middlebelt. Our concerns are multiple.
We believe that these concerns are in the interest of the community. 1)
elevation map of the area shows this to be a low-lying area. 2) Trees and
wildlife still exist on this property and enhance the area. 3) Traffic will
increase on Munger and Oporto as residents of the proposed project try to
avoid one of the busiest Livonia intersections. 4) History shows us that
construction and regrading of properties with swamp like characteristics
causes a shift of water to adjacent property. Please keep these issues in
mind as you consider the will of the community. You have already
addressed these issues and I just wanted to add our concerns.
Mr. Roskelly: The petitioner is saying perhaps a trade-off of the office zoning for R-1, or
if it remains as is, then certainly he would have the right to put an office
on that piece of land that is so zoned.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item, and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-10-1-19 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it
was
#12-200-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-10-1-19 by Leo Soave requesting to
rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 14 from
RUFA and OS to R-1, the City Planning commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 98-10-1-19 to date uncertain.
16527
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-10-1-20
by John J. Wheeler, on behalf of Lawrence G. and Nannette M. Prieur,
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Chase Boulevard and Newburgh Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 30
from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated November 20, 1998
stating they have no objection to the petition. That is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer, and that is the extent of our correspondence.
John Wheeler, 29245 Marvin Road, Farmington Hills: You probably recall that I was in
a month or so ago. I own the property to the west, all the way up to
Hunter's Point Subdivision. I have an agreement with the Prieurs to
purchase the back two parcels which would extend Birch Road all the way
up to the Fire Department and the people would maintain their residence
there on Plymouth Road.
Mr. LaPine: In Mr. Miller's presentation, I understood him to say that that one parcel to
the west was owned by the city and was at Council for rezoning?
Mr. Nagy: It is not owned by the City. It is owned by Mr. Wheeler. There is a
petition that Mr. Wheeler previously filed and the Planning commission
recommended approval. That is scheduled at the Council level on January
25.
Mr. LaPine: So the parcel that we are hearing tonight, and the parcel that is being
rezoned will be combined to two different lots.
Mr. Wheeler: Correct. I already have the road in on the first six parcels, and what I will
do is to continue the road up to the city property.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item, and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-10-1-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
16528
#12-201-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-10-1-20 by John J. Wheeler, on behalf
of Lawrence G. and Nanette M. Prieur, requesting to rezone property
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Chase Boulevard and
Newburgh Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 98-10-1-20 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future
Land Use Plan;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an
existing zoning district in the area; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning provides a compatible zoning
district for the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-21
by Jane Harrison requesting waiver use approval to operate a new and
used clothing store within the Plymouth Square Shopping Center located
on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Denne
Avenue in the NW 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from John Gibbs, Traffic Bureau, stating they have no
objections to this petition. There is a letter from the Engineering Division
stating they have no objection. That is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant
City Engineer. A letter dated December 4 from James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal, state the Fire Department has no objections. A letter from the
Inspection Department reads as follows: Pursuant to your request of
November 10, 1998, the site plan for the above subject petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. 1) There are two dumpsters on the
southwest corner of the property. One is not in an enclosure. The gates
on the dumpster enclosure need repair. 2) The approach of Denne is in
16529
need of repair. 3) The parking areas need to be repaired, resealed and
restriped. We trust this has provided the requested information. That is
signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent
of our correspondence.
Jane Harrison, 31505 Henipen, Garden City: The store is going to be a new and used
clothing store, mostly by consignment. Everything in the store will be on
racks, on hangers. Everything will be either dry cleaned or clean.
Everything will have no rips, no tears. If you walked into the store you
would not know you were not in a new store. It will be very neat, very
clean, very color coordinated. I will have a window display that will be
very minimal and well planned and color coordinated to the rest of the
store. I have been shopping. I am a great shopper. I have enough
merchandise to open the store and to run for quite a while without any
assistance. Once the store gets going and people know where it is at and
the advertisement gets rolling, there will be people who will bring things
in and shop. When they bring things in, it will be sold under consignment.
I will have the say on what things will be taken into the store, and I will
also be the one who will set the prices. After 30 days if something is not
sold, it will be reduced in price. After 60 days if it is still there, the person
will be notified and they can either pick it up or I will donate it, probably
to a women's refuge.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any other stores in any other community?
Ms. Harrison: No.
Mr. LaPine: When you say new and used, the new merchandise is brand new like you
would go to Hudson's or one of those stores, or are you buying the
closeouts from other big department stores that can't sell certain
merchandise?
Ms. Harrison: Both.
Mr. LaPine: What is the percentage of new and used?
Ms. Harrison: I would hope that at least 35% of the store would be new. I don't have any
control over the consignments at this point because I have to wait until
people know that I am there. I have the ability that if I don't have enough
consignments that I will have stock in the store.
Mr. LaPine: Are these stores successful?
Ms. Harrison: Yes, they are very successful.
16530
Mr. LaPine: Does your clientele come basically from our community, or surrounding
communities? What is your radius?
Ms. Harrison: I would say that probably 80% of it would come from within the
community. I did some homework and there are not any other stores in
the immediate area. The closest one is a little over three miles away. It is
on Five Mile and Farmington.
Mr. Alanskas: When someone would walk into your store, how would they know what is
new and what is used?
Ms. Harrison: They probably wouldn't.
Mr. Alanskas: You wouldn't have one rack that said new merchandise, and another that
said used?
Ms. Harrison: No. Anyone who shops knows what a consignment shop is. Anything in
the store that is brand new and still has the tags on it they would know for
sure. If someone brought something in on consignment and it looked new,
I wouldn't know the difference either.
Mr. Alanskas: I have been in the store on Five Mile and Farmington and I agree with
you. When you walk in that store, you cannot tell which is the new
merchandise. It is very well done. Everything that you get into the store
is dry cleaned before it goes on the shelf?
Ms. Harrison: Right.
Ms. Harrison: If it is not sold, that is at your expense.
Ms. Harrison: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would your startup be all new?
Ms. Harrison: No. I have about 30-40% new.
Mr. Piercecchi: Where will you get your initial merchandise?
Ms. Harrison: I have been shopping for about a year.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to reduce the clothing that is not new?
Ms. Harrison: Everything will be reduced that is not sold in 30 days.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Parz, we do have a couple of questions for you. Did you hear the
Inspection report?
16531
Ron Parz: I was somewhat surprised to hear the Inspection report. This is what
we've done this year. We painted the building to the tune of $7200,
replaced the sign at $6500, replaced the roof at $33,000, replaced three air
conditioning units at a tune of $17-18,000. On top of that, a few days ago
I threw myself on the mercy of Mr. Fegan, the Building Director, and
showed him the contract of which I have signed, executed, and which will
do about $17,000 worth of paving the first of next spring. That will take
care of retopping, resealing, restriping, and in addition to that we are now
out replacing some landscaping that has become overgrown because the
center is now overgrown.
Mr. McCann: And you will handle the dumpster correction?
Mr. Parz: I will talk to Mr. Woodcox because he would be doing me a favor by
asking that the dumpster be removed from the site or enclosed. I would
prefer to take that second dumpster and move it. It is troublesome. Pizza
Hut one day came in and put a dumpster in there when I happened to be
gone for a month or so, and someone from my office approved it. By the
time I got there, it turned into a much bigger thing then it should have. If
Mr. Woodcox would send me a letter saying get rid of that dumpster or
enclose it, then I could pass that on to Pizza Hut. I know what will
happen; they will get rid of it.
Mr. McCann: I think that the concern is that the paving will be done in the spring, and
there will be some resolution to the extra dumpster, and the doors will be
repaired and painted.
Mr. Parz: I have a problem with the doors on the dumpster. Those people who come
in with those big trucks, they don't get out of the truck. They are union
people and they won't get out of the truck and open the gates. They open
them up with the fork lift. They are always being smashed in.
Mr. McCann: You should look to them to repair the gates then.
Mr. Parz: That could be true.
Mr. Alanskas: What we do at our place, we know roughly what time they are coming so
our employees go out and open the gates, so when they come, they just
pull up, pick it up, switch it and they are gone.
Mr. Parz: I understand, but at the shopping center we have approximately 32 tenants.
Do we lock them, or how do we enclose them because I do have a problem
with some of the tenants getting into the dumpster. We do have a service
that comes in once a week and picks up all the trash around the dumpsters
and throws it back into the dumpsters. We try and police the area as much
16532
as possible. I know it will be a problem because of the 32 different tenants
that I have at that shopping center, and they will open the gates and not
close them. I have no problem with getting rid of the second dumpster,
and I have no problem with paving that parking lot, and I don't want to
mislead you and say that I can go out there and repair the gates, but I
know I won't be able to keep them closed and eventually those gates are
going to be shattered.
Mr. McCann: The minutes are going to go to the City Council, so you will be able to
deal with them on this issue and I'm sure you will be able to straighten it
out.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-11-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-202-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-22-2-21
by Jane Harrison requesting waiver use approval to operate a new and
used clothing store within the Plymouth Square Shopping Center located
on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Denne
Avenue in the NW 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-11-2-21 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That there shall be no outdoor sales, storage or display of
merchandise; and
2) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the site deficiencies as outlined in their correspondence
dated December 3, 1998.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
16533
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-22
by Rocky Zebari requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto repair
shop within a portion of an existing building located on the south side of
Eight Mile Road between Beatrice and Hugh Avenues in the NE 1/4 of
Section 2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no
objections to this proposal. That is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. There is also a letter from John B. Gibbs of the Traffic Bureau
stating the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as
submitted. A letter from the Inspection Department reads: Pursuant to
your request of November 12, 1998, the site plan for the above subject
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. 1) The dumpster site
may be inaccessible. The trucks are approximately 35' in length, whereas
only 32' is provided in front of the dumpster. 2) The building exterior
needs to be repainted and stucco needs to be repaired. 3) Parking areas
need to be repaired, resealed and double striped. I trust this has provided
the requested information. That is signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr.
Building Inspector. A letter from James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal, states
that the Fire Department has no objection to this petition. There is a letter
received December 10, 1998 as follows: It is my concern if another auto
repair shop were to be opened in the three block area that already has
four auto repair stations, not only would it be bad for business, but I am
concerned about the neighborhood. This shop faces a residential street
with families. This is already a high traffic area and it would bring more
traffic to the residential street. The environment is also in question with
so many auto repair garages in such a small place I wonder if it is
hazardous to the environment. The building that is in question has a
liquor and food store that produces fresh food products. I frequent that
store and don't understand why people would want to buy food next to a
shop that has fumes, gas and chemicals. Children have to walk through
that area to get to the store entrance. That is signed by Oklahoma Auto
Care, 29835 West Eight Mile Rd., Livonia, MI 48152. We have a series
of letters signed by 14 businesses on separate letters indicating that they
have no objections to this proposal. We also have a petition signed by 26
residents of the area indicating that we the undersigned neighbors of the
16534
proposed Kim's Auto welcome the new business to the area. That is the
extent of our correspondence.
Al Tabaka, 33040, Scone, Livonia: I am an attorney in Plymouth, Michigan. I am here
on behalf of Mr. Zebari. I just want to give a few comments. Mr. Zebari
owns the building and has been there for 24 years. Previously the rear end
of it was a welding shop at one time and also was a machine shop at one
time. It's been vacant for the last ten or twelve years. The gentleman who
is objecting from Oklahoma Gas, it should be indicated here that the
proposed tenant was at one time a lessee of Oklahoma Gas station there.
The problem effectively is that he was run out of there by a rental situation
and was in his opinion one that he couldn't handle. Therefore, he looked
for some other space. Of course being in the approximate area of this
particular location, he spoke to Mr. Zebari who found that this might be a
perfect situation for use which would assist him because his business has
suffered some in this location. We believe it is compatible. People in the
area don't object to it at all. The businesses generally accept this
petitioner and we ask that the Planning Commission approve this petition.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have no problem seeing a business expand. I do have questions
and concerns here. They regard the transmission of sound into the store.
have a problem with the door. What about ventilation?
Mr. Tabaka: There is a complete barrier that is being put in; walls that have some
degree of sound resistance that will prevent noise from just passing
through.
Mr. Piercecchi: You said some degree.
Mr. Tabaka: There is nothing that is absolutely perfect in terms of preventing some
noise, but I think it would be an effective use. It would be a fire wall and
a deadening wall. When I say some degree, I imagine most of it would be
block.
Mr. Piercecchi: What about the ventilation and exhaust?
Mr. Tabaka: Ventilation goes out the other way, not into the store.
Mr. Piercecchi: By what means is it going to go out the other way?
Mr. Zebari: The building would have its own ventilation and each garage door has its
own ventilation. The proposed building would be totally sealed from the
store.
Mr. Piercecchi: What about the people working in there?
16535
Mr. Zebari: The fumes go out into the parking lot. Where they are installing, there is
an exhaust fan.
Mr. Piercecchi: The doors do not currently have that.
Mr. Zebari: We will be installing new doors.
Mr. Piercecchi: The up and down wood door that faces Beatrice, is that going to be
replaced?
Mr. Zebari: Yes, and there will be another door on the parking lot side.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, who gives a health and safety check on things of this
nature to see if there are any health problems associated with this type of
adjacent business?
Mr. Nagy: The air handling equipment is handled by the Wayne County Health
Department.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would they have to get approval from the Wayne County Health
Department too?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: In other words, after their renovations are done, the County would
come in?
Mr. Nagy: Before they could get an occupancy permit, they would have to pass all
those appropriate inspections.
Mr. LaPine: How many employees are going to be working there?
Mr. Tabaka: Two people. There will be another gentleman running the shop, Mr. Kim.
Mr. LaPine: Do they have hydraulic lifts or anything in there?
Mr. Tabaka: They will be installed.
Mr. LaPine: You can service two cars at one time, is that right?
Mr. Tabaka: I think maybe up to three.
Mr. LaPine: Other cars that would be there for repairs waiting to get in would be
parked in the parking lot?
Mr. Tabaka: Yes.
16536
Mr. LaPine: Would the cars be parked there overnight?
Mr. Tabaka: Maybe, in some circumstances. As a rule, most of the work he does is
done almost immediately.
Mr. LaPine: Give me some background on Mr. Kim. Does he have experience in
running a garage?
Mr. Tabaka: Yes, he is licensed by the State of Michigan. He is a Master Mechanic.
He has been doing this for about 15 years.
Mr. LaPine: Will there be oil changes done here, and where are you storing the used
oil?
Mr. Sang Kim, 1215 Torpey, Troy: I am going to have a waste tank which is going to be
250 gallons. Every time the tank is full, I will call the waste company and
they will pick it up.
Mr. LaPine: It will be kept inside the building?
Mr. Kim: Yes. If the City allows me to do it, I can leave it outside of the building.
Mr. LaPine: I don't want it outside. Are you just doing general mechanical work? You
are not doing overhauling of engines, pulling engines or anything like
that?
Mr. Kim: Most of the repairs are minor. No body work of any kind.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Zebari, is there a complete system in case there is a fire in there?
Mr. Zebari: We have fire extinguishers, but no sprinkler system.
Mr. Alanskas: Didn't you have a pretty severe fire in there a few years ago?
Mr. Zebari: About seven years ago.
Mr. Alanskas: How was the fire put out?
Mr. Zebari: By the Fire Department. There was no fire, only smoke damage.
Mr. Alanskas to Mr. Nagy: Shouldn't there be something besides fire extinguishers in
that building?
Mr. Nagy: There has to be a fire suppression system.
16537
Mr. Zebari: I wasn't aware of that.
Mr. LaPine: Is this whole area going to be fenced in? The parking lot and everything?
Mr. Zebari: I don't have a fence. They belong to my neighbors.
Mr. Tabaka: There's a landscaping business to the south and a septic tank that runs
down Beatrice.
Jim Redman: I own a business on Eight Mile, 29917 W. Eight Mile Road, Evergreen
Sprinkler Company. I have an issue with this proposal from the
standpoint of outside storage. I have been in my facility there for 20
years. I am presently facing Oklahoma Gas, which has outside storage
and cars, junkers, that are sitting there and being sold off this property. I
am just concerned about another facility where we have a fenced -in open -
storage situation. It seems we are overloaded with that along that strip of
Eight Mile. I have no problem with the individual. I know the individual,
Kim, but I am concerned about where this is going to lead with outside
vehicles and what the situation would be. The other issue relative to the
city or whoever is responsible for policing these areas, is not cooperating
as far as I am concerned, particularly Oklahoma Gas. They are selling
vehicles out of there that their waiver does not allow. I have made several
complaints. I am just concerned about the overall picture of the landscape
around me. At least in a two block stretch along Eight Mile, I am the only
one that maintains my property and the rest just go by the wayside. I am
very upset by what is going on around me. Maybe if this particular piece
of property were policed properly and they comply with the rules with no
overnight storage, with no transmission overhauls and engine overhauls
which I look at across the street --I mean I am just totally upset about the
total picture of northeast Livonia.
James Hamilton, 20511 Beatrice: I am the second lot off the street on the west side. My
biggest concerns are the property in this area has been under construction
continually since I have been there in the last three years. The are
renovating the inside of the store. My front porch views their parking lot.
I had to speak with the city to get them to move their dumpster because of
debris. I don't think a dump truck could handle the debris that continually
is being generated by construction or store use. Their property right now
is very clean and I am wondering if that is why the property looks so good
now because they are doing this petition. They now have another
dumpster back in the southwest corner back where the original one was
which is from the mechanical shop. That parking lot floods every time it
rains. There is always 2"-3", maybe 4" of standing water at all times when
it rains. When it rains severally it runs off of Eight Mile down my street,
over the road and into my property and adjacent property. We have a new
house. I haven't been able to get hold of the owner because the home is
16538
under construction and he is in the interim of travelling. I am sure he is
not going to want to look at a parking lot outside of his front door. His
front door is directly across the street from this parking lot. Things that
have to be considered are the debris and refuse that are generated. Anti
freeze which is caustic and deadly to people, animals and the environment.
Oil, sound, transmission fluid. I don't know if they have changed the
construction of the wall they are building in this store. I used to work in
the food industry. If you have food and anything else, they have to be
divided by concrete solid walls. Not a porous concrete wall. Carbon
monoxide will go through a brick wall. It is family-owned, I assume, so
they will just be endangering their health as well. Is this petition for the
petitioner to open a business, or just to say OK now that you are there, you
can operate?
Mr. McCann: He can't operate until he gets a waiver use.
Mr. Hamilton: That's not been the case. A week and half ago I was driving down the
street and the big wooden door that faces Beatrice had an engine -pulling
stand and an engine laying on the sidewalk area between Beatrice and the
back of the store. This was early in the morning. This will be the type of
thing we will deal with. Come summertime, I don't want to listen to
somebody wrenching all night long. I like to sit outside on my porch. It's
bad enough having the septic company. I really don't want to see this
come into my area.
Mrs. Koons: Did you ever see this petition to sign in support?
Mr. Hamilton: No. And there is no fence in that area worthwhile. I would ask the Board
to look back at the history of this property, both through the police and
also through public service for violations and complaints before you give
this consideration.
Tony Smith, 5161 Clarkston Road, Clarkston: I am the owner of Steller Towing 30057
West Eight Mile. I am speaking on behalf of myself and the other 14
businesses that you have signed petitions on in support of Kim to open this
shop. It was because the circumstances that the owner continually raised
the rent that he was forced out of the Oklahoma station, and he has worked
very hard to build a clientele there, and he is trying to keep that clientele
and to feed his family in the fashion they are accustomed to. He has
always been an honest, hard-working guy. He has always kept everything
clean as far as I know. When he was the primary tenant of the Oklahoma
gas station, the gentleman from the sprinkler company has legitimate
concerns with the station and the disarray that it is in. I have voiced to the
city the same concerns. But I think that you will find, if you go through
the records, that that has only been in the last few months that Kim has
been out of there. Kim runs a good business. He is an honest, hard-
16539
working guy. He is just trying to keep his business in the area and
maintain that clientele.
Mr. Hamilton: These gentlemen approaching the Board are business people. Their life in
this building consists of 9:00 to 5:00. I am a property owner. I live in this
property. I would appreciate this being considered.
Mr. Alanskas to the owner: I have been in your store many, many times. Have you ever
considered using that back area and expanding the store to better serve
your customers?
Mr. Zebari: I have no use for it. My business has been in decline for the last 5 to 6
years due to competition. I cannot afford to have a bigger store. I keep
my property clean and no one asked me to move the dumpster. I did it on
my own because one of my neighbors asked me nicely.
Mr. Alanskas to Mr. Nagy: When we approved our resolution, they promised to move all
the debris. Would you put a report to the Inspection Department again and
have the inspectors drop by and try and have that picked up.
Mr. Zebari: I ask the Board to approve this petition because for financial reasons I
cannot afford to occupy that section of the store and I am looking at this
time to try and move the store somewhere else.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition98-11-2-22 closed.
Mr. LaPine to Mr. Nagy: Is he operating out of there now?
Mr. Nagy: Not that I am aware of.
Mr. LaPine: I noticed in the back when I site checked it that there is a new door in the
back. Is that to the shop, the area that is going to be the repair shop?
Mr. Nagy: I believe so. To that extent, the site plan is somewhat inconsistent with the
information we heard tonight. The fact that there is going to be another
overhead door that is not shown on the plan. If you add that door, it will
remove a parking space. On the site plan tabulation, they indicate there is
one employee and we heard tonight there is two, so with the loss of the
parking space, the access to the building, the additional employee, there is
a question now if they actually do meet the off-street parking. The plan
itself needs to be updated to reflect exactly what they intend to do.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
16540
#12-203-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-11-2-22
by Rocky Zebari requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto repair
shop within a portion of an existing building located on the south side of
Eight Mile Road between Beatrice and Hugh Avenues in the NE 1/4 of
Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 98-11-2-22 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 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 proposal fails to comply with Section 16.11 (a)(1) of the
Zoning Ordinance relative to required fencing;
3) That the proposal does not indicate that the required protective
wall or greenbelt will be provided along the south property line
where the site adjoins residential zoning to the south;
4) That the petitioner has failed to submit a detailed landscape plan
that is in compliance with Section 19.060) of the Zoning
Ordinance;
5) That this area of the City is already adequately served by similar
uses;
6) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with
surrounding uses in the area;
7) That the information submitted does not verify that the proposed
use has been designed to eliminate any possible nuisance likely to
emanate therefrom which might be noxious to the occupants of
other nearly uses, whether by reasons of chemicals, noise, fumes,
vibration, smoke or lights; and
8) That the petition has filed to comply with all the concerns deemed
necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
16541
Mr. McCann: I have looked at this area and I realize there is some support from the
neighbors, there is some support from other businesses in the area, but we
are a planning board here and we have to work out what the future is
going to hold for the city. We have taken the Future Land Use Plan and
the current zoning and said that south, the first businesses on Eight Mile
Road we are trying to maintain as residential area. We are trying to move
from manufacturing to light manufacturing or business operations along
Eight Mile. We are trying to help the businesses clean up that area and go
into a less intrusive use. The reason that this is a waiver use is because
automobile repair facilities generally do intrude a little bit into the
surrounding areas with noise, parking of vehicles and other things not
associated with other uses. There are neighbors directly across the street
and directly south, and I think expanding the use is not what is intended
for that area and would not benefit it, so I am going to vote against it. You
have ten days in which to appeal to the City Council.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-23
by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., on behalf of Millennium Park, L.L.C.,
requesting waiver use approval to construct a Meijer's, Home Depot,
Borders Books and Music store and a five (5) tenant building on property
located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and
the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the NW 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division as follows: Pursuant to
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The legal description provided with the proposed site plan is
acceptable to this department and should be used in connection therewith.
The Engineering Division has the following concerns with the proposed
construction: 1) The developer should size the detention basin to meet
the ultimate development of both the commercial and industrial
improvements not just the commercial, as shown on Plan Sheet No. 8A. 2)
The developer would be required to provide easements for on-site public
water and sanitary lines. We trust this will provide you with the
information requested. Please feel free to contact this office should you
have any questions. That is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Marvin Walkon, 5 Manorwood, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: I would first like to begin
by making some introductions. We have tonight two of my partners, Fred
and Tom Goldberg, we have Scott Nowakowski, who is the senior real
estate representative from Meijers, Tim Plat, the real estate Manager from
Home Depot, Mark Drane, the Project architect from Rogvoy, we have
T...... who is our traffic engineer, and we have Ralph Nunez who is our
16542
landscape architect. Our intention tonight is that Mark Drane will give an
overall picture of the development. We have appeared before you in a
study committee meeting. At this time I would like to take the opportunity
to withdraw the request for packaged liquor at Meijer's store.
Mr. Mark Drane, 6735 Telegraph Road, Suite 300, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: (Mr.
Drane set up display boards).
Mr. LaPine to Mr. Nagy: Are we looking at this as one parcel? I may not have an
objection to some of these buildings, but I may have a objection to another
one.
Mr. Nagy: The overall site plan because of the shared parking, driveway ingress and
egress is as one, but the various uses that come before you with respect to
waiver use approval can be dealt with on an individual basis. If you
choose to deny one and not the rest, that one would fall.
Mr. Drane: We are looking at the planning of 67 acres of the total building presented
tonight. The parcel is 550,000 sq.ft. We exceed the parking required on
site. The parking on the site is 3285 parking spaces, 10'x20', double
striped. Our handicap spaces are ahnost doubled. One of the most
important features of the site is that landscaping required is 441,000 sq. ft.
and we are providing 490,000 sq. ft. The current drive for the DRC,
which is misaligned to what is across the street, we will take care of that
issue. We have three out lots. We are looking at boulevard entries. We
are looking at low walls, berms and landscaping along Middlebelt Road.
The pond is designed to allow no more runoff on the site than it is
presently. Meijer's broke the mold here and they went ahead and went the
extra yard and said I'm a big store, but I want to look small. They have
done some interesting things with their architecture. We carried that
theme throughout the entire park. What we are looking at essentially for
the entire development is three different colors of brick, different colors of
cornices and dental detailing work. We are looking at taking these big
facades and breaking them up; lots of glass, different color canopies. The
five -tenant building is similar architecture. The idea is to bring a village
theme to this whole project. We were able to bring a lot of landscaping up
against the building to soften that edge of the building with some upright
trees and some low evergreens and ornamental trees to add some color in
the spring. All the sidewalks are contiguous with the front drive, which
are also contiguous to the parking area. The sides of the building are brick
and the front of the buildings are 90% brick. The back of the building is
brick on top with a rock face rustic block on the base of the building. We
are looking at creating an entry feature that has an architectural base to it,
so we are looking at low walls that are curved. Behind the wall we are
looking at little taller evergreens to give it a back drop and behind the
evergreens we are looking at providing an ornamental tree. It gives us a
16543
nice streetscape that layers back to the street to give a street presence
because it is going to be difficult to see some of the back buildings. This
is the Home Depot building. The common theme you will see between
this building and the five -tenant building is there a base color brick and
what we have done is create a building fagade inlay on top with different
colored brick. I have some samples here. The Borders Books is
delineated in the package. (showed awning colors, the garden center, sky
lights, clock tower, metal roofing color)
Mr. Piercecchi: One of my major concerns at the initiation of this program was the
ultimate magnitude of this project and its impact on the rest of the City
businesses. Although I don't think that issue has been totally addressed by
an independent study, the appearance of this layout here, do I assume the
maximum number of tenants in this 67 acres would be 13?
Mr. Drane: Yes. The five out lots, Home Depe/1, Meijers, Borders and the five -tenant
building.
Fred Goldberg, 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills: I think that the concept we are
currently working under is that the 140,000 foot building here will be no
more than five buildings. That is consistent with what my partner and I
have had discussions with Council. The Home Depot is today a Home
Depot, there is a Meijers and out lots. The Borders is a proposed Borders.
If Borders does not go forward as planned, then that building could have
two tenants. It is a possibility and I don't want to mislead any one on the
commission. The outline of that building, 25,000 sq. ft., won't be any
bigger than that.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am really concerned about splitting, and splitting, and splitting. I
would like to come up with some number. I feel that if we end up with 20
or 30 or 40 tenants in there, I would rather have some assurance that there
would be 13 or 14.
Mr. Goldberg: At this point in time, I just have to reiterate what I said, that I can't say that
10 or 15 years from now the Home Depot store couldn't be divided in half.
I think the whole concept of growth and planning is that if we have any
buildings bigger than 30,000 feet we have to come back to you to get a
waiver use regardless of what the zoning is. We have an accurate
representation here of what exists today. What is cast in stone today is the
five right there. There will be no more than five stores totaling 140,000
sq.ft. The Meijer's representatives and Home Depot people are here and
those stores have committed to this site.
Mr. Piercecchi: So with a certain degree of confidence, it will not get out of hand
with 20 or 30 stores.
16544
Mr. Goldberg: There is no intention here to have a bunch of small tenants.
Mr. Piercecchi: We can't predict the future, I understand that. The current thinking
and the current plans are basically to limit it to 13 if Borders signs on.
Mr. Goldberg: Borders isn't signed, so I don't want to misrepresent anything to you. That
is a correct characterization at this point in time.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any possibility that the buildings B, C, D and F, the 140,000 sq. ft.
building, that if a big box tenant came in and wanted to take that whole
thing, they could take it as one building?
Mr. Goldberg: It is certainly a possibility, but we don't see it as likely. It is possible that
it could only be four buildings.
Mrs. Koons to Mr. Nagy: When buildings do come in for the out lots, will those come
before us?
Mr. Nagy: They will come before you either as a site plan approval or waiver use
approval or both.
Mrs. Koons: How many Meijer's are currently in Michigan?
Scott Nowakowski, Meijer's, Grand Rapids, Michigan: I've never counted them
Currently we have 120 stores, and the majority of those are in Michigan. I
would say in the ball park of 80.
Mrs. Koons: The mileage from the proposed Meijers to the Meijers on Haggerty Road
and Warren?
Mr. Nowakowski: I would say about eight miles from both.
Mrs. Koons: Do you have other Meijers in that close proximity anywhere else?
Mr. Nowakowski: We have Meijer's stores closer than that. We have some three
miles apart. In Macomb County on Sixteen Mile Road we have two stores
three miles apart, and another one three miles north of that in Fraser. This
is a very healthy spacing. Six miles is what we feel very comfortable
with.
Mrs. Koons to Mr. Nunez, Landscape Architect: The entry with the tiered plantings on
the wall, what is the actual footage of that greenbelt from the road to
where the parking lot or drive starts?
16545
Ralph Nunez, Design Team Ltd., 20505 W. Twelve Mile, Southgate: About 80'. The
typical berm in front is about 35' which is extensive. It will undulate up
and down.
Mr. Alanskas: I want to read on your landscape general notes, All new lawn areas to be
sodded over 6" of topsoil. The existing lawns are to be restored to
uniform dense and healthy turf which resembles new turf areas. Soil is to
be level, porous, organic and capable of supporting good turf growth. In
your entire landscaping, what percent is going to be new sod?
Mr. Nunez: Roughly, the square footage required is 15% and it is 17%. (Mr. Nunez
showed which areas would be sodded and which seeded).
Mr. Alanskas: Why are those areas seeded? Why couldn't they be sodded? The cost isn't
that much more.
Mr. Nunez: Sod area is running around $2.50 to $2.75 a square yard.
Mr. Alanskas: I can go to a landscape store here in Livonia myself as a retailer and get it
for $1.15 one yard. Why would it cost you $2.50 for enormous amounts
of sod?
Mr. Nunez: Just due to the construction environment right now in the State of
Michigan. Not only sod, but also all the other vegatation. We are not
landscape contractors, we are landscape architects.
Mr. Alanskas: I see nothing here as to irrigation.
Mr. Nunez: There is a note on the plans that there is an automatic irrigation system for
the entire area.
Mr. McCann: Hydroseeding is not as great a concern to me as the out lots. If you take a
look at the board, west off of Middlebelt Road on the north side of the
drive entryway, on the south side of the drive you have very dense
plantings. Those buildings will face the south because that is where the
parking is. It will be the entranceway for whatever out lot buildings you
have.
Mr. Drane: I think Champp's is the only one who broke the rule and actually faces the
side, but most of the restaurants or banks that we've done face the main
drive and have as little parking in front as possible.
Mr. McCann: I am concerned about the density of the landscaping along there. Further
you have landscaping on both sides. Are you intending on putting bushes
in there at this time on the south side?
16546
Mr. Drane: We do plan on putting in the street trees at this time.
Mr. McCann: For now the landscaping is sufficient as long as there is not a building
there, but when we start putting in dumpsters, loading docks in back, I
want to make sure there is sufficient landscaping to back up to the road.
Mr. Drane: We have a greenbelt in front with the street trees and then when you get
into each individual parcel, there will be parking within those parcels. The
intent is to try and keep these buildings as close to the boulevard entry as
possible to create as much of a streetscape as possible.
Mr. McCann: Is there a plan to landscape or do something to cover the rear of the
building? It doesn't appear that we have a greenbelt to protect the back of
the buildings.
Mr. Drane: A good example would be the Macaroni Grill or Champps where they
have the dumpster enclosures actually attached and they look to be a part
of the architecture of the building. That is the intent. The loading areas
will be tucked against the buildings. The dumpster and refuse facilities
will be attached to the building. We don't expect those service uses to be
out facing the parking lot, but will be contained to the building.
Mr. LaPine to Meijers: When you take a market study, what do you consider a radius of
your drawing?
Mr. Nowakowski: If it is a multi store market, it will be an odd shaped trade area. For
example, this side would be half way between here and Northville. Then
as we go farther north, it will be longer than 3 or 4 or 5 miles, and it will
be elongated along the expressway, so it is a very odd configuration to
compute the trade area.
Mr. LaPine: Going east along the Jefferies toward Detroit, where is your closest
Meijer's store to the east? I know you don't have any in Redford
Township. Do you have any Meijer's stores in Detroit?
Mr. Nowakowski: No, we do not.
Mr. LaPine to the representative of Home Depot: If Home Quarters couldn't make it at
this location, and you have Home Depot one mile away in Redford
Township, what make you think this is going to be viable and not have the
same thing that happened with Builder's Square and Home Quarters who
are here 3 or 4 years and then they are gone.
Mr. Plat: First of all, just the strength of the corporation overall. Home Depot is a
$30 billion company. One of the issues that has come up and asked is
what is going to happen to the Redford store? It is our plan at the present
16547
time to keep that open, to put an emphasis on more commercial contractor
sales and emphasize this as our retail. We do pretty intense market studies
and they show we can support both stores.
Mr. LaPine: What do you think is the reason why 2 Home Quarters and 2 Builders
Squares went under?
Mr. Plat: Poor management.
Mr. LaPine to Mr. Nowakowski: This is a 24 hour operation. What kind of security are
we going to have here? It is so close to the expressway that it always
creates a problem.
Mr. Nowakowski: We are very sensitive to security. We have one of the finest
security departments in the country. The reason we are what we are today
is because it is imperative for Meijer to have an environment where mom
can go and shop with her kids 24 hours a day. We have a staff of about 15
people. The parking lot is monitored 24 hours a day. We have the
baggers who push the carts and they have special alarms that they carry
with them that if there is any emergency, they can press that. We have
hundreds of people coming on and off shifts and all of the management is
instructed as to observe what is happening in the parking lot. So from the
top all the way down, there is a chain of the people who work there.
Everyone is tuned in to security in addition to our loss prevention
department.
Mr. LaPine: That was one of my concerns because you did have that problem last year
at Haggerty and Eight Mile. Is the front of the building of the Home
Depot going to be similar to the face of Meijer's?
Mr. Drane: Yes. We are going to be using the same masonry materials and we are
going to be using that same look. We are going to be putting fagade next
to fagade to break up that great expanse.
Mr. LaPine: And the same thing will be at the Border's if the Border's comes in?
Mr. Drane: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: And the same thing will be followed through on the five tenant building?
Mr. Drane: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a comment on that. I don't know how the safety is going to
be on this corner, but I took the trouble to contact Northville Township to
find out some of the history on crime of the Meijer's operation on Eight
16548
Mile and Haggerty, and it was very, very good. There was practically no
theft. Most of the problems were between individuals in the parking lot.
Mr. Alanskas to Home Depot: I shop at both your stores, here and at Redford, and I have
noticed that since your competition is no longer with us, it seems like that
when you go in the stores now there are less people working in your
facilities. Are you cutting down on your work force?
Mr. Plat: Not at all. It may give that impression because there are more people in
our stores. I appreciate your comment and I will certainly discuss that
with our management people.
Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of your work force is part time in both stores?
Mr. Plat: Twenty percent part-time, eighty percent full-time. For this store, we will
employ approximately 175 people with an average hourly wage right now,
not including benefits, of almost $11 an hour.
Mr. Alanskas: In the past I know you could walk in your store and find someone just like
that. They had their aprons on and you could spot them Lately it seems
when you walk in and you want some help, they are not there.
Mr. Plat: I appreciate your comment. One of the questions was how do we think we
can make it. Everybody in our business sells the same type of goods. The
only thing we can offer different than our competitor does is service. That
is the one thing we pride ourselves on. That is what built us to an 800
store chain.
Ralph Williams, 18630 Foch: My concern is the adequacy of the retention basin. I agree
with Mr. Nagy when he mentioned that it should be considered in its
entirety, all 194 acres, and if we allow for the 17% figure for vegation,
that leaves approximately 160 acres and that means that if we get a 5" rain
as Birmingham did this spring, that equates out to about 60 acre feet of
water to handle. Right now Livonia is under the gun to comply with
federal regulations concerning storm sewer systems and I think it is very
important that the basin be done properly. I would like to urge the
commission to give it very serious thought because we in Livonia are
going to have very serious problems with storm sewers. If the example
they are using that we saw on the landscape plan is the final decision, then
I would like to make arrangements to see the plans.
Mr. Nagy: We have a copy in the office we would be happy to show you.
Mr. McCann: The City has a 25 year range that is standard. Is there any time we should
look at anything different, maybe a 50 year rain fall. I am not sure what
standards they use, but is there anything like a particular area or site. We
16549
are going to have a million square foot building out there which is going to
create a tremoundously fast runoff and becasue of the amount of concrete
in the industrial section and the large size of the buildings, is there
anything we should look at differently on this so that we don't have a
problem with runoff onto the highway or into some other areas?
Mr. Nagy: We are taking a very comprehensive look at the storm water drainage. We
are not only designating the pond that they mentioned in front, but we are
also looking at an alternative site as a backup to the interior of the property
as well, so it is under review and we assure you that it will be properly
engineered.
Mr. Walkon: We very much appreciate the hours that you have spent, and we have tried
and made every effort to use your ideas and bring this plan to what it is
today. It is going to be a wonderful, exciting development. You see by
the plans and elevations that we have spared no expense and we are very,
very proud of this and we thank you very much.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-11-2-23 closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Since many of my major concerns regarding this property have
been addressed, and I realize that no one gets 100% their way, I will offer
a motion to approve.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-204-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-11-2-23 by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc.,
on behalf of Millennium Park, L.L.C., requesting waiver use approval to
construct a Meijer's, Home Depot, Borders Books and Music store and a
five tenant building on property located on the east side of Middlebelt
Road between Schoolcraft Road and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the
NW 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City council that Petition 98-11-2-23 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA -2 prepared by T. Rogvoy
Associates, Inc. dated November 11, 1998 is hereby approved and
shall be adhered top;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SPA -3 and the 10
Landscape Detail Plans marked Sheets SPA -3a through SPA -3j
prepared by Design Team Limited, all dated November 9, 1998,
are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
16550
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SPA -4 prepared by
T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., dated November 3, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SPA -5a prepared
by SSOE Architects Inc., dated November 9, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That the Building elevation Plan marked Sheet SPA -6a prepared
by Greenberg Farrow Architects, dated November 10, 1998, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6) That the Building elevation Plan marked Sheet SPA -7a prepared
by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., dated November 9, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
7) That the brick used in the construction of the buildings shall be full
face 4 inch brick, no exceptions;
8) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
9) That all rooftop mechanical units shall be concealed from view on
all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character,
material and color to other exterior materials on the buildings;
10) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved
with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
11) That the 140,000 sq. ft. building will be restricted to five (5)
tenants; and
12) That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering Department's
satisfaction the concerns as outlined in the correspondence dated
November 23, 1998.
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 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
16551
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
4) That the proposed use will provide a viable alternative use for the
subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine: I support the proposal, but I still have my reservations. I still think we
made a mistake in rezoning the property to commercial. I will give the
petitioner, the City Council and the Mayor's office and the staff credit in
the fact that they took what was originally brought to us what was not a
very good plan and restructured it in such a way that they went to
extremes to make it look more likeable to the citizens of Livonia. I am not
happy with it, but I am going to support it.
Mrs. Koons: I would like to make a comment about the landscape. Fifteen percent is a
minimum, and I realize that 1.7% of 67 acres is large, but when you have
that amount of parking and that amount of people walking in 90 degree
temperatures to stores, it is always nice to have a tree here and there, so I
would encourage you to have as much landscaping as possible and push
that up wherever you can. I also want to thank you for the work you've
done with the City to bring this plan to where it is today.
Mr. Alanskas: I, too, was against the commercial, and I still am, only time will tell if I am
wrong, but I have to applaud Mr. Walkon, Mr. Goldberg and the architect
on what they have done with the fagade of the building and I would defy
anyone from Meijer's on Eight Mile to drive to this facility and say this
was a Meijer's store. If the sign weren't there, you would not know it was
a Meijer's store. I hope you prove me wrong, and I vote to approve it also.
Mr. McCann: I hope the project matches your drawings.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-24
by Meijer, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM
licenses in connection with a Meijer store proposed to be located on the
east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and the CSX
Railroad right-of-way in the NW 1/4 of Section 25.
16552
Mr. McCann: As was explained earlier, the petitioner is requesting to withdraw the SDD
portion, and they are only going to look for an SDM license for the
packaged beer and wine for the Meijer's store.
There was no one wishing to speak for or against this petition and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-11-2-24 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-205-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-11-2-24
by Meijer, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM
licenses in connection with a Meijer store proposed to be located on the
east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and the CSX
Railroad right-of-way in the NW 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-
11-2-24 be approved as to the use of an SDM license only 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 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3. That the utilization of an SDM license is a part of the normal
operation of the subject business.
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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-25
by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a
restaurant within a Meijer store proposed to be located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and the CSX Railroad right-
of-way in the NW 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division stating they have no
objection to this proposal. That is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. There is another letter from the Department of Public Safety
16553
stating they have no objection to this proposal. That is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal.
Mr. Nowakowski, Meijer's: There is no plan, but we have a drawing we can put up. This
rendering is the east side of the store. On the corner is where the
restaurant is located. Typically, if you want to go to the restaurant in a
Meijer's store, you have to go into the main entrance way. What we have
done here is set up the cafe so that if you want to go there at lunchtime
you can park relatively close to the store, enter that part of the store for a
sandwich, have lunch, and then be on your way.
Mr. LaPine: Is this a sit down restaurant where people come in and get a menu, or do
you go to a counter and get your food?
Mr. Nowakowski: You get your food at the counter.
Mr. LaPine: You cater basically to the patrons of Meijer's?
Mr. Nowakowski: The majority of our customers at the restaurant are our customers
at the store. There are 104 seats.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-11-2-25 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-206-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 15, 1998 by T. Rogvoy
Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant
within a Meijer store proposed to be located on the east side of Middlebelt
Road between Schoolcraft Road (I-96 Jefferies Freeway) and the CSX
Railroad right-of-way in the NW 1/4 of Section 25, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-
11-2-25 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer
seats not to exceed a total of 140, for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is a logical adjunct to the main use of the
subject building.
16554
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. Alanskas: Meijer's is open 24 hours a day, correct?
Mr. Nowakowski: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Will the restaurant be open 24 hours also?
Mr. Nowakowski: I am not sure. I can't answer that at this time. Food is very limited
after the lunch hours.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-26
by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a
cafe within a Borders Books and Music store proposed to be located on
the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and the CSX
Railroad right-of-way in the NW 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Goldberg suggested that this is not a set deal. Are you ready to go
forward today on this? I am assuming you are very close in your
negotiations?
Mr. Goldberg: Yes, we are.
Mrs. Koons: If we do approve a cafe for Border's and another business comes in, does
that carry over?
Mr. Nagy: It goes with the land and as long as they follow the conditions set forth in
this approving resolution, yes.
Mr. McCann: So we are not approving it for Border's, we are approving it for the site.
Mr. Goldberg, when would you expect a signed contract for a Border's?
Mr. Goldberg: I don't think anything is going to happen as relates to the Border's for
another 60 days.
Mr. McCann: The question then is what happens if we approve a restaurant in there and
then Border's books doesn't come in.
Mr. Goldberg: Then our condition should show that approval is based on a Border's use
only.
Mr. McCann: John, can we do that?
16555
Mr. Nagy: If they choose to limit themselves to that. It is a condition they put on
themselves.
Mr. McCann: Is that a condition you are willing to put on at this point?
Mr. Goldberg: I would put the condition on that it is a book store. Quite frankly, there is
a Barnes & Noble.
Mr. McCann: I think we are digressing because then, what kind of book store?
Mr. Goldberg: Then we could say a Border's Book Store or a Barnes & Noble Book
Store?
Mr. McCann: You are willing to do that, limiting your request to only those two?
Mr. Goldberg: That is correct.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition.
Mr. LaPine: I don't see any problem with their coming back as soon as they know
what it is going to be. I just don't like to accept that at this time.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Goldberg, are you willing to go forward with the limitation that you
put on that it be Border's Books? If not, you would have to come back
before us.
Mr. Goldberg: Conceptually, if we came back and it was a Barnes & Nobles use, you
would be comfortable with this?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-207-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning commission on December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-11-2-26
by T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a
cafe within a Borders Books and Music Store proposed to be located on
the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road (I-96 Jeffries
Freeway) and the CSX Railroad right-of-way in the NW 1/4 of Section 25,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 98-11-2-26 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of
customer seats not to exceed a total of 52 for the following reasons:
16556
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
3) That the proposed use is a logical adjunct to the main use of the
subject building; and
4) As per the petitioner's request and representation, this approval is
limited to the following two types of business associations:
Border's Books or Barnes & Noble Books.
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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-2-27
by Ji Hao Ni d/b/a New China Buffet requesting waiver use approval to
operate a full service restaurant within the Woodland Square Shopping
Center located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center
Drive and Sears Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division stating they have no
objection to this proposal. That is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. There is a letter from John B. Gibbs, Traffic Bureau, stating the
Police Department has no objection to the floor plan submitted. The Fire
Department in their letter indicates they have no objection to the proposal.
The Inspection Department states that they have reviewed the site plan and
the following is noted: 1) The parking area is in need of minor repair. 2)
There are two dumpster locations on the west side of the building. Both
are in need of repair. That was signed by David Woodcox, the Senior
Building Inspector.
Ji Hao Ni, 81 Grove St., Hempstead, NY: It was a ten hour drive here to be with you.
This is for a nice New China Buffet restaurant.
Mr. McCann: You are going to be the owner?
Mr. Ni: Yes.
16557
Mr. McCann: You currently have a business?
Mr. Ni: Yes, I have worked in the City of New York.
Mr. McCann: Do you own a restaurant?
Mr. Ni: Yes, in Hempstead, New York.
Mr. Alanskas: Is this strictly a buffet, or can someone come in and sit down and be
waited on?
Mr. Ni: Buffet only. We have three buffet tables. Lunch and dinner only.
Mr. Alanskas: What hours are you going to be open?
Mr. Ni: Eleven hours, from 11:00 AM to 10:00 PM., seven days a week.
Mr. Alanskas: How many people will you have employed in the building?
Mr. Ni: Twelve people.
Mr. Alanskas: You will have a maximum of 156 seats, correct?
Mr. Ni: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: No beer or wine or liquor in the building?
Mr. Ni: No.
Mr. LaPine: We all checked out that location and there are so many empty stores in
there, I hope this helps make the center come back, and I hope you make
it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 98-11-2-27 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-208-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-11-2-27
requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant within
the Woodland Square Shopping Center located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the SE
1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
16558
the City Council that Petition 98-11-2-27 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the number of customers seats shall be limited to no more
than 156 seats;
2) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the site deficiencies as outlined in their correspondence
dated December 4, 1998
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine: John, did the PRDA look at this?
Mr. Nagy: No, they did not.
Mr. LaPine: What problems do the Inspection Department have?
Mr. Nagy: The dumpster in the back of the building needs to be repaired. That is the
responsibility of the landlord.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-3-6
by Suzanne McInerney, and others, requesting to vacate a portion of
Brookfield Avenue right-of-way located east of Mayfield Avenue between
Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the NW 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
16559
t Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Division in their letter of November 20 referencing the
petition indicates they have no objection to the proposal, however, since
there are existing utilities and the area is not fully developed, the
Engineering Division requests that all rights of easement be retained for its
full width.
Richard Lahay, 19000 Mayfield, Livonia, next door to Suzanne McInerney: We ask that
the roadway be vacated since a house was approved at 1939 Brookfield
with the condition that there be a moveable barrier. Once the barrier is in
the street it is no longer a viable street. We realize that there are utilities
back there; there is cable, electric and telephone, so there has to be an
easement for that. We would just like to say it is ours again.
There was no one else present wishing to speak regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-11-3-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was
#12-209-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on December 15, 1998, and pursuant to
Council Resolution #560-98, on Petition 98-11-3-6 by Suzanne McInerney
and other referenced citizens requesting to vacate a portion of Brookfield
Avenue right-of-way located east of Mayfield Avenue between Seven
Mile Road and Clarita Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 10, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City council that
Petition 98-11-3-6 be approved subject to the retention of a full width
easement to protect existing public utilities for the following reasons:
1) That the subject right-of-way is no longer needed for public access
purposes;
2) That the subject right-of-way can be more advantageously used in
private ownership;
3) That vacating of the subject right-of-way will place the property
back on the City's tax rolls; and
4) That no reporting City department or public utility has objected to
the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
16560
AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Koons, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: Hale
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-10-6-5
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #597-
98 and Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543 of the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.17 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of granting valid
nonconforming use status to existing nonconforming produce markets and
nurseries.
Mr. Nagy: Since Township days there have been a number of nurseries and produce
sales of garden vegetables at wayside stands. In time most of them have
been eliminated as development has occurred in neighboring areas.
Sometimes those uses have had both positive and negative impact on
surrounding areas. While most of them have been eliminated, we still
have three remaining, and what this ordinance proposes to do is make
those henceforth valid non -conforming uses and specifically identify them
within the ordinance and set a time frame upon which they were
designated as valid non -conforming, and therefore their use in its present
condition as established upon the property shall be limited to that extent
henceforth and that there shall be no further expansions, enlargements or
alterations. They are limited to the scale, size and area of their operation
today from this time forward.
Mrs. Koons: Are they also limited to no change of ownership?
Mr. Nagy: No, it will run with the land. The land can be sold and the new owner can
continue to operate within the guidelines of the uses as presently
established.
Mr. LaPine: There is no way we can make it only for the owners that now own the
property?
Mr. Nagy: The uses are established on the land and run with the land. The land can
be transferred. For instance, most recently the one identified on Merriman
Road has changed hands. It does run with the land and that is why we
want to validate it, so the owners can rely on it, and the purchaser can rely
on it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-10-6-5 closed.
16561
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
Lf approved, it was
#12-210-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 15, 1998 on Petition 98-10-6-5 by the City Planning
Commission pursuant to Council Resolution 597-98, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.17
of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of granting valid nonconforming
use status to existing nonconforming produce markets and nurseries, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 98-10-6-5 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
control over existing nonconforming produce markets and
nurseries located in RUF zoning districts;
2) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
consistent regulations with regard to the specified uses;
3) That the proposed language amendment will provide for the
continuance of the specified uses, although no expansion of the
existing uses will be permitted and these businesses will remain
subject to all of the other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to nonconforming uses; and
4) That the proposed language amendment will provide for the
continuance of the specified uses without eroding or diminishing
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the eventual
elimination of nonconforming use.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. These items
have been discussed at length at prior meetings therefore there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the
commissioners.
16562
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval
for Cross Winds Estates proposed to be located on the west side of
Farmington Road south of Norfolk in the NE 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Nagy: This is more or less a housekeeping chore. The proprietor has currently
developed the subdivision. There are homes currently constructed in the
area. They have put in most of the needed public improvements. To the
extent there are still some remaining, appropriate bonds have been placed
to assure their installation. The Engineering Department has
recommended the final plat approval. All of the monies have been
deposited with the Clerk's office, and we have a recommendation for
approval from Engineering. The final plat has been drawn in full
compliance with the previously approved preliminary plat.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-211-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Cross Winds Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on
the west side of Farmington Road south of Norfolk in the NE 1/4 of
Section 4 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in compliance with the Preliminary
Plat;
2) That no reporting City Department has objected to approval of the
Final Plat; and
3) That all financial assurances required for the referenced
subdivision have been deposited with the City Clerk.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-11-8-36
by Preferred Real Estate LLC requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct front and rear additions to the dentist office located at 38000
Ann Arbor Trail in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Ann
Arbor Road. They are proposing two additions, one to the rear of the
building, or the north elevation. This addition would basically square off
the rear of the building. It would be 185 sq. ft. in size and would allow the
expansion of the interior of the reception area. The other addition would
be on to the front of the building, or south elevation. This would be
16563
utilized as a front vestibule entrance area. Both additions would add 417
sq. ft. to the building. Because the building has deficient rear set back
presently, it is a nonconforming building. Also because the new addition
to the front expanded to the front yard set back, the building is
nonconforming. Therefore they had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
prior to being presented to the Planning Commission. They have a
variance for a nonconforming building. With the new addition, the new
building would be required to have 23 parking spaces. The site plan
shows 49, so they exceed the parking requirement. The rear addition
would be constructed out of materials to match the existing building so it
would look as if it were completed at the same time as the original
building. The front vestibule area would be constructed out of glass and
aluminum braces. Also as a part of this proposal, they are also adding on
to the south elevation and the east elevation a sun screen awning over part
of the windows.
Mr. Alanskas: On the vestibule in front, how far is that protruding out from where it is
now? Will it be coming out where the parking lot is?
Mr. Miller: There is a walkway there and it would be over the walkway.
Mr. Alanskas: How many feet?
Mr. Miller: It is 14-1/2' out and 16'.
Mr. Alanskas: So it will protrude somewhat where the existing parking lot is right now.
Scott Munchkin, architect working with Preferred Dental Group: We are not going to go
beyond the existing sidewalk. There will still be plenty of sidewalk for
people coming up. There is still a good distance for anyway being
dropped off or walking in front. We will not be reworking the front drive
at all. We are about 5' from the edge of the drive to the door.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have plans to stain the entire building?
Mr. Monchnik: Yes, we are going to stain the entire building.
Mr. Alanskas: We were out there Saturday and it is a nice building, but it is an old
building and it needs to be restained. Did you say you were not going to
do the front parking lot?
Mr. Monchnik: We are going to redo the sidewalk and redo the parking lot.
Mr. LaPine: When you say you are going to redo the parking lot, that parking lot can't
be repaired, it actually has to be redone. It is in terrible shape. So you are
going to replace the parking lot and double restripe it?
U
16564
Mr. Monchnik: Right, whatever it takes to correct it.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared Petition 98-11-8-36 closed.
#12-212-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-11-8-36 by Preferred Real Estate LLC
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct front and rear
additions to the dentist office located at 38000 Ann Arbor Trail in the NW
1/4 of Section 31 be approved subject to the following conditions:
That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA -1 prepared by Scott
Monchnik & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission
on October 29, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SPA -2
prepared by Scott Monchnik & Associates, as received by the
Planning Commission on October 29, 1998, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
4. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated December 3, 1998:
- that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, repaved and double
stripped
5. That all conditions specified in the Zoning Board of Appeals case
#9810-131 shall be met.
Mr. McCann, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will
go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have a professional company repair the parking lot?
Mr. Monchnik: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I don't want that parking lot just patched. That entire parking lot is in
terrible shape. There are holes in it, it is up and down. I don't think it has
been repaired or taken care of since the day it was put in there. As long as
16565
you are fixing the building, you may as well fix it now because if you
Sto don't do it now, you will do it in the near future.
Mr. Monchnik: You are not saying we have to dig it out?
Mr. McCann: No. You have to repair it and put a whole new layer on.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Application for
Greenbelt Review and Approval by Mafalda Soave requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45
of the zoning ordinance for the Westmore Plaza located at 33242-33260
Seven Mile Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Seven Mile between Westmore and
Shadyside Avenues. They are requesting to substitute a greenbelt in lieu
of a protective wall that is required between commercially zoned property
and residential zoned property. They are requesting that the greenbelt
along the north property line, behind the Westmore Plaza be accepted as
an appropriate substitution. Westmore Plaza is presently occupied by
three tenants. The proposed greenbelt at the present time is only 6' in
depth. The ordinance specifies that a greenbelt may be substituted for the
protective wall if it is at least 10' in width. Therefore if this request is
approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, it would
have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance for deficient
greenbelt width. Presently, there is a thick row of evergreens behind the
shopping center and the remaining portion to the street is just grass.
Angela Kelley, representing Mafalda Soave, and I am also her property manager: We are
here applying for the greenbelt.
Mr. McCann: Why are you applying for the greenbelt in place of the protective wall?
Ms. Kelley: Basically because we cannot put a protective wall because there is a
sanitary and storm sewer underneath there, so it is impossible to install a
protective wall.
Mr. Alanskas: The evergreens there that are so close to the building, do you trim it
yourself, or do you have someone do that?
Ms. Kelley: Actually, they have no need to be trimmed because they are junipers, but
we do monitor them.
Mr. Alanskas: How do you water them?
Ms. Kelley: They actually haven't needed any watering other than the rain and the
sprinkler system. They are very green and healthy.
16566
Mr. Piercecchi: When I made a call there on Sunday, I noticed there were a lot of
cans in the back of that structure that didn't even have lids on them Do
you have to have outside storage there?
Ms. Kelley: Yes, there is not enough room inside for cans. Actually they did add more
cans because of some requests we had in the past. The lids sometimes get
lost from setting out in the street.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have The Party Kitchen, an Allstate insurance office and a
salon. You are sure you can't eliminate those cans?
Ms. Kelley: It would really impede on the traffic in the offices because they are small
offices. I wouldn't recommend it.
Mr. Piercecchi: On Saturday when I went to look at it, my conclusion was that
there is not sufficient space to comply with our 10' wide greenbelt
specification. Therefore, it is impossible for the petitioner to comply.
However since there is a natural greenbelt via the arborvitae which
provides adequate screening along with fencing, this combination does in
effect approximate a wall. I would be happy to make an approving
resolution, but I would like to get some concurrence that the following
conditions can also be met. The parking lot could use some resealing,
recoating and needs double stripping, and assurances that the natural
greenbelt will be retained. That may mean watering it every now and
then -whatever you have to do. Is it agreeable that you would repair, reseal
and double stripe the parking lot?
Ms. Kelley: Absolutely.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
Nancy Heath, 19114 Westmore, Livonia: Our lots 155 and 156 runs directly north
behind this property. I was at the Planning Commission office yesterday
and was advised to come to the meeting and was told that this petition was
for a permanent approval for the greenbelt where it would not come back
to the commission every few years. We were here last year and we are not
pushing for the wall at this time, but we would like to ask the Planning
Commission to deny the permanent approval of the greenbelt because you
may never know what might happen in the future. We just had power
lines down. Our bushes are along the same line west of their greenbelt
and we lost a few bushes. We had the same thing about ten years ago. If
the other end of the line should break and take out that greenbelt, we feel
we might not have any recourse to come back and say now we want the
protective wall, now there is nothing dividing the property.
16567
Mr. McCann: Maybe I can alleviate that and I will give you my copy so you can see in
their site plan they show the greenbelt, they show numerous deciduous
trees which have to be maintained. If they lose one or two and all of a
sudden you don't have that protective wall, you can call the Inspection
Department and they will come out and cite them if they don't replace
those trees immediately.
Mrs. Heath: One of the problems we have had over the years is that as you said, it was
approved in 1984 under certain conditions. I would guess those junipers
that are there now are maybe seven or eight years old. It was promised
originally that it would be dense and forestry back there. It took years.
Now it is dense back there fourteen years later. We have a concern with
the trash back there also. I have here the original approval from the City
that states under certain conditions this variance was granted. It does say
that all trash must be stored inside. My concern is that if it is not stored
inside, it should at least be in containers with lids. You come around
Thursday night or Friday morning and there are bags and bags stacked out
there. There are not enough trash cans with lids for all the trash out there.
Mr. McCann: If the condition is that there is no outside storage, we can't condition it at
this point because that is part of the ZBA approval, so they can't have any
outside storage. There is a problem there. -They do have those big
rollaway canisters that have the lids that lock. I think that may be
something that you will either have to provide for your tenants, or do
something to get along, otherwise I think calls will be made to the
Inspection Department and you will be cited for having outdoor canisters.
We just went through this where neighbors objected, the petition was
denied and they had to build internal compaction. They did not have a
choice and that may be the only resolution at this point for you. You can
go back to the ZBA and request a change on that condition.
Ms. Kelley: We are not allowed to store any containers out there?
Mr. McCann: Absolutely.
Ms. Kelley: From my recollection, as long as they were contained and kept in an
orderly manner it was OK.
Mr. McCann: I would suggest that you work it out with your neighbor because otherwise
you may have to have complete internal compaction.
Mrs. Heath: Every time they have had a meeting, my husband and I have shown up and
the majority of the time, the petitioner has not shown up. This is the first
time they have come here. I have pictures of the trash out there, but I
guess you guys have already been out there and seen for yourself. One
16568
41
,?, other concern -at the time this was at the approval stage, I noticed at that
time that the rear doors were for emergency exits only and never to be
open because they back into our backyard. I have a problem because
when the weather is nice they have their doors open and sometimes they
are out there having cigarettes taking a break, and we have a pool back
there and my kids say they don't like being out there because they feel like
they are being watched all the time. I wanted to know what the City's
stance is on that.
Mr. Nagy: Unless there was something in the approved conditions, there is no
ordinance in the City of Livonia that prevents anyone from exiting the
back doors.
Mr. Alanskas: Did you say there was good density now?
Mrs. Heath: After fourteen years there is good density now.
Mr. Alanskas: How can they look into your pool?
Mrs. Heath: Because we have a pool deck around the above -ground pool, and when
you are on the deck it is above the top level of the bushes. It is not that
you feel that they are staring at you, you feel that you have no privacy.
Mr. Piercecchi: The greenbelt will give you more privacy than a 5' wall.
Mrs. Heath: In the past we had requested the wall there, but after fourteen years it is
getting dense back there, but what we came for tonight was to ask the City
not to have a permanent approval of the greenbelt because we are afraid
that if something happens down the road like if the bushes should die off,
then we would not have a recourse to come back and say that they would
have to replant.
Mr. Piercecchi: My resolution is going to say that this shall remain in its present
state and any changes to this area shall require Planning Commission and
City Council review and approval. So they have to be maintained and if
one dies they have to be replaced with one of similar size.
Mr. McCann to Ms. Kelley: I would rather the neighbors work out the issue of the trash
dumpsters in back because you know that is your responsibility. I don't
think we need to go into it tonight, but I don't think it helps to revisit it
every time. It is not going to help you, it is not going to help anybody.
The solution is that you have a good system right now, and we have to
maintain it and the tenants have to be cognizant of your problems.
16569
it
Mrs. Heath: I understand that they are the property owners, not so much the tenants, so
it is the tenants' problem and it has been brought to their attention before,
but again, this keep recurring.
Mr. McCann: You are neighbors so you have to work with her, she has to work with her
tenants, and even you could go and talk to the managers.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this petition, and Mr. McCann, Chairman,
declared the hearing on Application for Greenbelt Review and Approval by Mafalda
Soave closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was
#12-213-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Application for Greenbelt Review
and Approval by Mafalda Soave requesting approval to substitute a
greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning
ordinance for the Westmore Plaza located at 33242-33260 Seven Mile
Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 3 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the north property line,
as shown on the plan received by the Planning commission on
October 29, 1998 shall be substituted for the protective wall
required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That this area shall remain in its present state and any changes to
this area shall require Planning Commission and City Council
review and approval;
3. That this approval is subject to the applicant being granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient width and
any conditions related thereto;
4. That the parking lot shall be recoated and double striped.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Koons, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Hale
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to City Council for approval.
16570
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-8-37
by Moiseev/Gordon Associates requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
an addition and refurbish the building located at 28701 Plymouth Road in the NW
1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Harrison
and Garden. They are proposing to construct an addition and refurbish the
existing building on site. The site was at one time a Wendy's restaurant.
The addition would be constructed on the east elevation and would be
4,631 sq. ft. in size. The new facility would be utilized as a dentist office
and a doctor's clinic. Parking for the new structure is required to have 65
spaces and the site plan shows 65 spaces. The landscaping for the site
requires 15% and the site plan submitted shows 17%, so they would be
over the landscape requirement. They have landscaping around the
perimeter of the site, in front of the building, a little bit behind the building
and along Plymouth Road. The existing building is brick on all four sides
and the new addition would be a combination of face brick and dryvit on
three sides with the east elevation constructed out of concrete block. They
would also have two entrances on the west elevation. These would be
identified by prefinished metal canopies held up by painted steel columns.
They are also requesting signage for the building. They are requesting one
wall sign for the front of the building. They are allowed to have one at 85
sq. ft. and they are proposing one at 76 sq. ft., so it is a conforming wall
sign. They are allowed to have one ground sign at 30 sq. ft. and they are
proposing one at 24 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything from the Plymouth Road Development Authority?
Mr. Nagy: The Plymouth Road Development Authority did support this proposed
clinic. We had some other correspondence. The Fire Marshal indicates
they have no objections. The City Engineer indicated no objections to this
proposal. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mike Gordon, Moiseev/Gordon Associates, 306-1/2 S Main St., Royal Oak: With me
tonight is project architect Robert Cliffe and the owner, Marshall Tobin.
This is an owner -occupied building. Everyone is named Tobin so it is a
family occupied structure. They are very excited about changing this
building and bringing it back. It has been closed for some time. We have
worked very closely with the city. We have met with the Plymouth Road
Development Authority and had a review with them and they support the
project. We are completely code complying and we have gone through all
the review processes with them and have done everything that they have
requested. We think we have done a good job. We are using the dryvit
because we are trying to mitigate the old Wendy's look without
restructuring the entire building. We think it is a good combination of
16571
f
brick and dryvit. We have kept it up off grade so that there is brick to
grade on all four sides of the building. We are using it as a unifying
structure all the way around. The decorative canopy is also sheltering the
entries and is announcing the entries, so we think it is a nice, decorative
element.
Mr. Alanskas: The building looks very nice. The site plan states that the trash is to be
stored inside the building. Where inside the building?
Mr. Gordon: There is a mechanical room inside the building. There will be an area on
the floor plan where there will be some hazardous materials to be picked
UP.
Mr. Alanskas: It will be put out there on the morning it is to be picked up?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Most of us are really delighted with the decision to repair that
building and get the doctor/dentist office, but I have a question. Are you
sure you want to paint that building? I looked over that building quite
thoroughly and I found that brick in excellent shape. Our notes given to
us by the staff state that you find the brick unattractive. You people are
very skilled in this type of renovation. Have you investigated the
possibility of renewing that brick and getting it back to its initial luster?
Paint is fine, but it is going to need repair. This building is kind of a
standard in that part of town. We are not going to tell you you can't paint
it, but I think you would be much better off if you did try and match that
brick. I don't know where matching is really a problem on this. You have
the east wall which currently you are going to put in cement block. If you
are not going to paint it, why can't that be brick also? The west wall is
brick right now, the front is mostly brick, and I understand you are going
to add brick there. Is that going to be panel brick on the front or 4"?
Mr. Gordon: 4" brick.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't think you have any matching problems. I think you are
doing yourself a disservice to put that combination on. That brick is in
pretty good shape.
Mr. Gordon: It is probably an esthetic issue where we are trying to create a new image
for the building and the color of the brick is not what we would make a
choice of at this point. That choice was made 15 years ago for a different
type of facility and to mitigate that, instead of people saying "that's the old
Wendy's they converted". I think Moiseev has been working with the
family for a long time. As far as the maintenance issue, if it is done
16572
properly, we have buildings that have been painted for ten years that have
not been repainted.
Mr. Piercecchi: But brick lasts forever. What color were you going to paint it?
Mr. Gordon: The rendering shows a light grey color. We are trying to lighten the whole
building up. It is a very dark brick.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item, and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the hearing on Petition 98-12-8-37 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-214-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-12-8-37 by Moiseev/Gordon
Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition and refurbish the building located at 28701 Plymouth Road in the
NW 1/4 of Section 36 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -2 prepared by
Moiseev/Gordon Associates, as received by the Planning
commission on November 25, 1998, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan prepared by Calvin Hall & Associates, as
received by the Planning Commission on November 25, 1998, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double
striped;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheets A-2, 1 &
A-2.2 prepared by Moiseev/Gordon Associates, as received by the
Planning Commission on November 25, 1998 is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
16573
7. That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent
properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
8. That the Sign Package submitted by Moiseev/Gordon Associates,
as received by the Planning Commission on December 8, 1998, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
9. That all signage for this site shall not be illuminated beyond 11:00
PM.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to say the building looks very nice, and it is so nice to have
someone come before us with a sign package that is in compliance. I
think that when you paint that building it will look very nice.
Chairman McCann wished everyone a Happy Holiday and precious New Year and said
goodbye to Doris Urbanski who is retiring after ten years of service.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 776th Regular Meeting
held on December 15, 1998 was adjourned at 10:45 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
t
/du
s t1rsZ,�`�..o'
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ames C. McCann, Chairman