HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-08-11 16298
MINUTES OF THE 769th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 11, 1998 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 769th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with
approximately 45 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale
Elaine Koons William LaPine
Members absent: James C. McCann
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director*; Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner
II, were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning or vacating 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
t„, whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only
public hearing on a request for preliminary plat approval. 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 98-6-1-
11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b), requesting to
rezone Joy Road Cozy Homesites located on Floral and Deering Avenues, north
of Joy Road in the SE '/4 of Section 36 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: This is a petition brought on by the City Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission received 12 letters from the homeowners in that
subdivision saying they feel that the RUF zoning is a hardship for the
people in the area considering that any time they wish to build on these
lots,they have to pay fees and request a variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals. Although the majority of the lots in the subdivision would be
16299
non-conforming even if the zoning were changed to R-1, it would not meet
R-1 because R-1 is 60'x120' and most of the lots are only 50', we feel that
the zoning would reflect the prevailing lot sizes in the area and would
provide for setback requirements that would be more appropriate for the
size of those lots. As I said,this is a request from the City Planning
Commission. Any additional correspondence, Mr.Nowak?
Mr.Nowak: We have the letters from the affected property owners in the subdivision
who are requesting the rezoning. We have a letter dated June 9, 1998 as
follows: Please find the attached copies of letters concerning having the
Joy Road Cozy Homesites rezoned from RUF to R-1. Would you also
please take the necessary action to assist us in bringing about this change.
Thank you. Ron Novak, 8886 Floral St., Livonia. Attached to this letter
are letters from 11 other owners of properties and lots within the
subdivision. We also have a letter from the Engineering Division dated
July 10, 1998. Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal. Signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer I.
Mr. LaPine: Those six lots on the map that stick out, are they part of the lots that the
houses are on, or are they separate lots?
Mr. Nowak: They are joined with the lots to the west. They were originally part of a
long, deep lot that fronted on Joy Road. Portions were split off and joined
with the lots to the west.
Mr. Alanskas: Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Ron Novak, 8886 Floral: I am lot 60, the first home on Floral north of Joy Road. I am
just asking that the Planning Commission approve this since it does not
jeopardize or compromise the neighborhood in any way, and the fact that
you are held to the RUF zoning in regards to anything you need to do
whether it be build a garage or front porch or any of that,to be held to the
RUF ordinance. The zoning codes is just too restrictive. I submitted a
letter to every one of the residents there on Deering Street and Floral
Street asking them about their feelings in regard to having the zoning
change. I probably received about ten additional phone calls from people
who were interested and what was going on and what it meant. From
those phone calls, I had no objections whatsoever. To go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals, it doesn't seem to be as fair as it used to be.
With the term limitations and what have you, the Zoning Board of Appeals
that we had 2-3 years ago, in my opinion, knew a lot better about the
different communities in the City of Livonia and what should and should
not be allowed. Today when you go before the Zoning Board of Appeals,
they just want to go strictly by the book despite what the usage and what it
16300
means to each particular community. If it were R-1 we wouldn't have to
deal with the Zoning Board of Appeals to such an extent. It would be
more correctly zoned and would fall under rules applied to us than it is
with RUF.
Mr. Hale: Have you ever been turned down by the ZBA with respect to your
property?
Mr. Novak: Partially. I wasn't allowed a total variance a few months ago.
Mr. Hale: How many times have you been before the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr.Novak: Twice.
Richard Jones, 8875 Deering, Livonia: I own both the end lots that go on to Floral and
Deering. I would just like to ask the Planning Commission to pass this
and take it to an R-1 zoning. That would more represent the size lots that
are in there so we don't have to go in front of the ZBA to do any building
on these lots.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-125-98 RESOLVED,that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on August 11, 1998 on Petition 98-6-1-11 by
the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located on
Floral and Deering Avenues north of Joy Road in the SE VI of Section 36
from RUF to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 98-6-1-11 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed R-1 zoning district more nearly reflects the
prevailing lot sizes in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning provides a more reasonable
and compatible zoning district for the subject area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning was requested by affected
property owners in 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. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
16301
1 Mr. LaPine: I would just like to tell the people here that the Zoning Board of Appeals
does a good job. I was on that Board for 26 years. We don't always agree
with what they do and they don't always agree with what we do, but I
think they take that into consideration. This particular case, I agree with
you 100%. With the way the lots are laid out, it makes sense to zone it to
R-1. Each time you want to build a garage or addition and you have a
deficiency you have to go to the Zoning Board, you have to pay your fees,
you have to take your chances. Sometimes you win and three weeks later
your neighbor down the street gets it and you feel you were picked on.
Basically, I think they do what they think is in the best interest of the area,
but in this particular case, I think it is a legitimate gripe and I think it is a
wise move we are making.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-7-1-
13 by Leo Soave on behalf of Livonia Veterans Memorial requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Joy Road between Newburgh Road and
Crown Avenue in the SW '/4 of Section 32 from P to R-1 and R-C.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
1 Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the petitioner dated July 28, 1998 which amended
the petition from the way it was originally filed. The letter reads as
follows: By this letter I am requesting to amend the above referenced
rezoning petition. The proposed amendment is to change the request from
the existing parking zoning classification to that of the RC, Residential
Condominium, instead of the previous proposal to the R-7, Multi family
Residential. Also a part of this amendment is to expand the proposed R-1
Single Family district area to provide for an additional single family lot
fronting on Joy Road. Amended legal descriptions are attached to this
letter. Your help and cooperation in this matter is appreciated. That is
signed by Leo Soave.
We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated July 20, 1998:
Pursuant to you request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal or the legal description contained therein. That's signed by
David Lear, Civil Engineer 1. That's the extent of the correspondence.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia: It is a two-part petition. The first part, we would
like to get a seven unit attached condo unit consisting of 2 bedrooms, 2
baths, a 2 car garage, full basement. They would probably sell for
$120,000-130,000. The second part would be three single family homes,
brick and sit on lot 60. They would vary in depth and have 2 full baths, 3
bedrooms and sell for$175,000 to $180,000.
16302
Mr. Piercecchi: You said seven units on the R-C, one building?
Mr. Soave: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is the distance along that diagonal to that school property
there?
Mr. Soave: I didn't check that.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I am asking is that you have some awfully high power
lines and you need 45' on each side of it and I was wondering how is it
going to affect those R-1 units.
Mr. Soave: With the engineering company, we have cleared all the utility lines and we
are out of the easement. We are not encroaching on the 90' easement.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are allowing 90'?
Mr. Soave: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: And you can put one building, R-C, which will hold seven units,
and three units of R-1 on 7/10ths of an acre. Getting into those R-C units,
are you going to have a road entrance from Joy Road?
Mr. Soave: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are there any particular categories of R-C you are going to put in?
Mr. Soave: As far as the size? These units will be about 1200 sq.ft.
Mr. LaPine: Parcel A is where the condos are going. I have a question on parcel B, one
of the single family houses, an 80' lot along Joy Road. The blueprint of
the lot goes into the easement 30'. That piece of property belongs to the
owner who buys that lot but he really can't do anything there because of
the easement of the power line. Is there a reason you didn't square that off
because you wouldn't have enough land so you wouldn't have to be into
the easement?
Mr. Soave: That's right.
Mr. LaPine: The other two lots, you are out of the easement?
Mr. Soave: That's right.
16303
Mr. LaPine: Each one of these is going to have a driveway off of Joy Road. The road
going to parcel A, is that going to be to the west of the parcel A?
Mr. Soave: Yes, it would be on the west side of parcel A.
Mr. LaPine: The Walgreens that is being built, are you using any of that road to get
into parcel A?
Mr. Soave: No, we are separate from everybody.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Jeff Winkler, 37084 Joy Road: At this point in time I really don't have a problem with
what is going on over there, but because of the transmission easement
there I didn't think anyone would ever build on there. I am looking at the
north end of the property where the parking is at, it will be facing east to
the back yards. There is no distance between the fence and the parking
area and it doesn't show a berm or anything, and what I am looking at is
the light pollution that will be coming in our backyards there from the
condos.
Mr. Alanskas: We don't have a site plan yet. You can come back when we have a site
plan.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Alanskas,
Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-7-1-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, supported by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-126-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on August 11, 1998 on Petition 98-7-1-13 by
Leo Soave on behalf of Livonia Veterans Memorial Home, Inc. requesting
to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between
Newburgh Road and Crown Avenue in the SW 1/4 of Section 32 from P to
R-1 and RC, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-7-1-13 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to the
surrounding uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a buffer or
transition zone between the established single family residential uses to
the east and the commercial zoning to the west; and
16304
3) That the proposed change of zoning would provide for a good land
use solution for a parcel with difficult site limitations.
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. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-7-1-
14 by Dale and Sylvia Bowerman requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Dowling Avenue and Newburgh Road in
the SW 'A of Section 32 from R-1 to R-C.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Department which reads as follows:
Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Department has reviewed the
above-referenced petition. The Engineering Division has the following
concerns regarding 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 need to bring a sanitary sewer extension
west from Dowling Avenue along the south right-of-way line of Ann Arbor
Trail. 3. The developer would need to extend the storm sewer from the
Schulgreen Subdivision No. 2 along the south of the property in a
dedicated easement. That is signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer 1. That
is the extent of our correspondence.
Donald Treder, representing the Bowermans: I am asking for a change in zoning to
remove the existing house that is actually in the proposed right-of-way of
Ann Arbor Trail. It is a very old home. I plan on putting four buildings
with two units each. They will be about 2000 sq.ft. each. There will be a
common driveway coming down through the middle of the land. Four
homes will be on each side. They will have an attached two-car garage,
full basement, two bedrooms upstairs with a bath, master bedroom, family
room, dining room/kitchen on the first floor. It would be brick on the first
floor.
* Mr.Nagy entered at this time.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize you are completely surrounded by R-1 homes?
16305
Mr. Treder: Yes. These homes will be comparable to R-1. The driveway would be
coming off of Ann Arbor Trail. The homes will be similar to those on
Norfolk east of Farmington Road that were put in a few years back.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are saying the lots will be consistent with the R-1, 60'x120'?
Mr. Treder: The land is an acre and a half and the homes will be consistent with R-1.
Mr. Piercecchi: We are talking about the lots.
Mr. Treder: The space would meet the setback for R-C, 75' back from Ann Arbor
Trail, 50' rear yard and 30' side yards.
Mr. Piercecchi: And you are going to put the road down the middle?
Mr. Treder: Yes, and a driveway coming off of that road to each garage.
Mr. Piercecchi: Have you considered putting four R-1 units along Ann Arbor
Trail? Then you wouldn't have to rezone it.
Mr. Treder: Four units would not fit in there.
Mr. Treder: There was another petition that was in to this city for that and only three
lots could be built there for some reason.
Mr.Nagy: I think what he is referring to is under our lot partition ordinance, you can
only split up to four parcels. Upon creation of the fifth you would be in
violation of the plat act and it would require a subdivision.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have 255 feet and with R-1 that's 60' and you have 15 feet left
over.
Mr. Nagy: That's the only explanation I can offer. I think it was turned down for
violation of the plat act. The zoning itself, R-1, if you split it in four with
frontage facing Ann Arbor Trail you would come up with four conforming
lots.
Mr. Piercecchi: Have you considered that?
Mr. Treder: Yes, I have. This would be one driveway coming out on Ann Arbor Trail
instead of four. There are a lot of people who like living in this type of
condominium that would be maintained by the Association and all you do
1 is lock the door and leave for a week and not worry about mowing the
grass, trimming the bushes and such.
16306
Mr. LaPine: What you are saying is probably true. The problem that I see is that you
are asking me to put an RC in there when everything around you is single
family homes owned by individuals. It seems to me the solution is that
you split it into three parcels and put three or four houses facing Ann
Arbor Trail. You could go R-1 or R-2. I have a problem putting
condominiums surrounded by single family residential. When I was out
there Saturday checking out this case, the lots to your west are all large
lots. My personal opinion is that we do the City a better service by having
three lots. The one thing that I think you have in your favor is the fact that
there would be three or more driveways on Ann Arbor Trail, but
eventually I assume Ann Arbor Trail is going to be widened and maybe
not have the problem we have today with as narrow as it is.
Mr. Teder: It is also right on the curve. Also just east of this about 1000 feet there is
an RC zoning. Also on Newburgh Road about a half mile down, south of
Ann Arbor Trail,there is an RC zone.
Mr. Piercecchi: You talked about driveways on Ann Arbor Trail and I assume you
were talking about safety, but in one case you have three cars coming out
of there and the other you would have eight.
Mr. Treder: But it is all one driveway, you would not have different driveways coming
out.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
John Magnitz: I am the son-in-law of the Bowerman's. The issue that was brought up
about 4 lots being put in, that was denied by this board just recently. We
had an offer and we worked over a year on this. If we are back to square
one again and going back to four, it doesn't seem very considerate of the
family situation. Three lots was what we were told could be put in or
condominiums for consideration. If you think about the amount of space
you have there by putting in condos similar to what is in the area, it would
look better to have that than to have four tightly squeezed homes next to
the large lots.
Jane Stewart, 36532 Dowling: My house is lot 114. I bought this house 30 years ago and
my lot is large. I bought it because of the rural aspect and I see no reason
why two or three nice family homes couldn't be put there instead of
condos with upstairs that can look into our backyards.
Luther Stewart, 36532 Dowling: I have lived there 32 years and in my years of
experience we are having some problems with sewers and drainage, and in
fact this year I spent$3000 having new sewers installed on my property to
16307
the City sewers, and some of the other neighbors are having the same
problems. To put condominiums in there, one thing for sure it would
change the view there. We only have one story ranch homes in that area.
To put more families in there would overcrowd those sewers and cause
more problems. It would probably cause the others in the area to have
their sewers fixed as I had to do mine. I am against condominiums. Two
or three ranch-style homes, great.
Ella Wiitala, 36549 Dowling: I have lived there about 34 years. I think this would
reduce the value of our homes. I don't think it should be zoned for
condos.
Joanne Valerior, 36543 Ann Arbor Trail: I am just west of this site. I disapprove of this.
I don't want condominiums there. I would prefer to have the family home
that is already there, maybe have 2 or 3 homes in there. I have a lot of
reasons why. There is a lot of traffic on Ann Arbor Trail already. It is
almost impossible for me to get out of my house because of the traffic.
This is going to bring more traffic on to Ann Arbor Trail. It is going to
create more problems if children move into the condominiums and be able
to go to school. Those schools are already packed to capacity already.
They would have to be transferred to another school. I just prefer not to
have it.
1 Mr. Alanskas: Do you have that much traffic on Ann Arbor Trail? I was there Saturday
with Mr. LaPine and Mr. Piercecchi and this was around 11:00-12:00 and
there were hardly any cars at all on Ann Arbor Trail.
Mrs. Valerio: In about the past five or six years we have gotten a lot of traffic, and I
don't know if it is due to the new condominiums down the road or if it has
to do with the apartments. We do have a lot of traffic there. I have even
considered putting in a stop light or something there.
Rick Tewilliager, 36486 Dowling: My backyard goes right up against the proposed lot. I
moved from Royal Oak three years ago and I am glad I did. One of the
reasons I did was because of the rural aspects of the area. I am against
putting condominiums back in there. I think R-1 would be a much better
way to go.
Paula Clymer, 36536 Ann Arbor Trail which is two lots west of the church on the north
side. If you look they are all large lots in that area, and mine is one of
them. I think it would be a shame to destroy that beautiful lot which is
what they would do if you were to put condominiums in there. I think it
would ruin the whole area and our property values. We don't want that to
happen. I don't even like the idea of three homes. Look at what is next
door. It is a beautiful home next door. It would be a shame to put a
couple of little houses in there. The only thing I would like to see would
16308
be two homes. It was bought as a single family home and I would like to
see it sold as a single family home.
I am the realtor for the Bowerman's. Unfortunately, it was purchased as a single family
home , built as a single family home in the year 1900. The highest and
best use of the land and economic feasibility says you are not going to get
any builder to build homes on a main road that he will be able to sell and
make any money from, so what happens is that you will have a 1900 year
built home that will sit on Ann Arbor Trail and a couple who will no
longer be able to afford to maintain it with what is happening to it at 98
years old, and will sit there and be dilapidated, and unfortunately the
people behind it will be looking at something worse than any
condominiums. They will be looking at a home that can't be maintained
and the City will have a piece of property that will be having violations on
the homeowner not being able to maintain. it.
Jerry Baron, 36515 Ann Arbor Trail: I am the homeowner immediately west of the
Bowerman's property. I have lived there for ten years now. My wife and
I bought that property for the rural setting. My primary concern is that I
would like to see the property sold. I am disappointed that it is taking so
long to come to a conclusion whether it is condominiums or single family
residences. My preference is single family. I would like to see the
property divided into two lots with luxury homes built to match the setting
of the homes that are currently on Ann Arbor Trail. I have personally
invested a lot of time and money in the development of that property. It
has been showcased. I help support Greenmeade in the garden walk over
the years. I am concerned that if we do put condos in the area, particularly
the way it was described to me, I don't want to look at the backyard of
condos 75' from my picture window. It has not been mentioned by Mr.
Treder the value of the condos he is proposing. I would like to know that
as well. Primarily, I would like to see family residences on that property.
My preference would be to see two lots, have it rezoned, and I would like
to see a better grade of home go in there. The area warrants it.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Alanskas closed the public
hearing on Petition 98-7-1-14.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-127-98 RESOLVED,that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on August 11, 1998 on Petition 98-7-1-14 by
Dale and Sylvia Bowerman requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Dowling Avenue and Newburgh
Road in the SW 'A of Section 32 from R-1 to RC, the Planning
16309
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-
7-1-14 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the
surrounding single family uses and zoning districts in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an
unacceptable increase in density in the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is not consistent with the
predominately single family residential character of the 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. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Koons: One of the comments this evening had to do with the impact on schools.
As an employee of the Livonia Public Schools, I just want to clarify that
that won't affect my vote and probably won't affect anyone's vote. It is
the public school's job to educate children wherever they live, be it at the
top of a mountain or the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It is our
responsibility to be sure we provide adequate education. That would never
influence any of us to vote for or against a petition.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-7-2-
13 by Stuart Frankel on behalf of Newburgh Plaza Requesting waiver use
approval to operate a full service restaurant within an existing building in
Newburgh Plaza located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh
Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the NW '/4 of Section 17.
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 July 15 stating they
have no objections to the proposal. The Traffic Bureau of the Police
Department in their letter of July 17 indicates the Police Department
Safety Division has no objection to the site plan as submitted. The Fire
Marshal in their letter of July 22 states they have no objections to subject
petition,however, panic hardware shall be provided on all required exits.
The Inspection Department in their letter of July 21 states the petition has
been reviewed and no problems or deficiencies were found. We also have
a letter from First Federal of Michigan signed by Donald D. Eagle, Vice
President and Manager of Facilities Management Department and he
indicates First Federal of Michigan has no objection to this request and is
16310
in agreement with Mr. Frankel's proposal. That's the extent of our
correspondence.
Aro
Mr. Alanskas: Mr.Nagy, do you know how many employees First Federal has? Four or
Five?
Mr. Nagy: I think that is a reasonable number.
Stuart Frankel, 3221 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy, Michigan: As you know, we are going
through a major renovation and upgrade at Newburgh Plaza. We have
solicited the interest of Panera Bread to locate in an approximate 4300
sq.ft. facility between ACO and Busch's. This space was previously
occupied by ACO, but they downsized their space. I have a letter from
Busch's supporting this and also a letter from Wing Yee's restaurant.
Both of these users find this use to be very compatible with the existing
retail, and is consistent with the upgrading of both the facility and the
merchandising.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Frankel, what is the date of Mr. Yee's letter?
Mr. Frankel: August 6, 1998, and Busch's is June 5, 1998.
Mr. Piercecchi: Why two colors of brick on Busch's?
116.0 Mr. Frankel: One has been cleaned and one hasn't been cleaned. I hope they will
balance. With me is Steven Blum who is Director of Corporate Real
Estate for Panera Bread who will give you some details of their type of
operation and hours of operation.
Steve Blum, Panera Bread, St. Louis Bread Company: I have a proposed layout for the
proposed bakery/cafe. This is for the unit itself. The proposed Panera
Bread is defined as a neighborhood bakery/cafe more so than a sit down
full service restaurant. What that means is that our principle business is
conducted at breakfast and lunch with hours of operation at 6:30 a.m., our
opening, and 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. is typically when we close. However,
about 75% of our business is done by the end of lunch time. The concept
itself is a fresh bread bakery. We bake on premises, however there is no
other cooking on premises other than the baking. There is no frying or
grilling. We have soups, salads and sandwiches, but everything is
prepared off site in terms of any cooking and then delivered to the
premises. We have in terms of variety 12 baked varieties of bread daily,
12 fresh varieties of bagels daily, a complete line of sweet goods, gourmet
coffees such as you would see in a Starbucks. In terms of lunch, it is
soups, salads and sandwiches. To break down the timing of our business,
50% of our business is lunch, 25% comes from the bakery, 25% comes
fir►
16311
from coffee and other types of things. Included in that bakery is the
breakfast items is the bagels. We employ about 25 to 30 employees. We
low are very much a grass roots organization. We try and pull from the
neighborhood part-time and full-time employment. In terms of that at the
grass root level, we donate whatever is left over at the end of the day
(bread, bagels, bakeries), to some local charity that we determine prior to
opening. Our investment, in terms of the money that we are putting in,
including FF and E, is $650,000 to $700,000 that we invest into the unit.
Mr. Piercecchi: This is a new concept and I really can't find any fault with it, but I
do have a question here. When are there too many restaurants in a given
area? Within a quarter of a mile of that cross street,there are 18
restaurants and I am not counting Bruegers, carryouts and that nature. Are
there ever too many restaurants?
Mr. Stuart: I don't think so. When you talk about variety and quality, the food
industry is a$650 billion industry a year of which 50% is not supermarket
industry, it is restaurant industry. It has now captured almost 51% of the
food industry. That is a function of the change of life style, change in
demographics, change in the way we live today. You are seeing it in
supermarket emphasis on prepared meals where a shopper will come to a
supermarket and buy things that are already prepared and bring home and
warm up. My mother used to get lettuce and cabbage and celery and put it
all together. Now it comes packaged and all prepared. Everything today
lbw
is convenience. People's eating habits have changed. Ethnic food has
changed. People's lifestyles have changed. When it comes to good
quality food and good quality food operation, people like variety. At this
intersection, because there is a demand for it and they have done very
sophisticated and complete demographics, and because of the office
market that caters to the morning trade and lunch trade and the residential
area, and some dinner business, they think there is a whopping demand for
their type of facility here. It is interesting that Busch's has a complete
bakery. They think their customer will come to this facility, relax, have a
cup of coffee, have a bagel and then go grocery shopping. Or will bring
their computer. They have facilities in their restaurant where you can plug
in your computer.
Mr. Piercecchi: I realize that the restaurant business takes up a big portion of
people's consumption of food, and I am not trying to be funny when I say
when is enough, enough. I have always had the opinion that there is
basically so many dollars to be spent and if there are twenty restaurants,
they kind of share. If there are ten, then those ten are going to have more
business. I am not opposed to this at all because it is a new concept, but
18 of them within a quarter of a mile seems like an awful lot of
restaurants.
16312
Mr. Frankel: We have been at that shopping center since 1971. It has one of the most
successful Big Boys. Leo's Coney Island has done very well. Wing Yee
has done very well. They both have stood the test of time with all the
competition in the neighborhood. People like a variety, people like
change, people like new concepts. As our life style changes, as marketing
and merchandising changes, things like Panera Bread restaurants have
evolved into new concepts.
Mr. Piercecchi: The secret of staying in business, like the automobile industry, you
have to change the style of the cars.
Mr. Frankel: You have to be pro-active as opposed to re-active. You have to provide a
product for the consumer.
Mr. Piercecchi: When I was in Laurel Park, I noticed that Dennison's and another
major restaurant, I didn't see anybody. That's why I brought up the initial
question, when is enough, enough. I understand what you are saying. As
long as there is different complexity and variety and good service, there is
no end to it.
Mr. Frankel: We used to have a bagel shop and a Sanders next to it. Remember how
Sanders used to serve baked goods and sandwiches. We are now taking
the best of that and upgrading it 200%.
Mr. Hale: This is not a franchise, correct?
Mr. Frankel: Correct. This is a company-owned store.
Mr. Hale: I see from the facts you have provided us with tonight you have about 54
company-owned stores and franchises. Why wasn't this opened to a
franchise? Any particular reason?
Mr. Blum: The territory is pretty much east of the Mississippi at this point and we are
trying to go into different areas. Specifically what we do, we look at
different areas and we only have so many company dollars, so we are
selling off a lot of franchises right at this point. Detroit was one of the
very early markets. It is a market that we feel very strongly about so we
have held on to that for ourselves. Actually, you should know that the
Ann Arbor market place has been sold to a franchise group. It is all a
matter of economics for us.
Mr. Hale: Down the road you are not going to make this a franchise location? For
the long term it will be a company-owned location?
16313
Mr. Blum: Yes. Actually at this point we are looking for new markets. The markets
that we have corporately our intention is to keep them corporately and do
as much as we can for them corporately and, again, it is just a matter of
leveling our resources for future expansion.
Mr. Hale: You are estimating over$1 million in sales at this particular location?
Mr. Blum: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: How many locations do you have in the metropolitan Detroit area right
now?
Mr. Blum: We have four,two in Novi (one at the Twelve Oaks Mall and one at the
Novi City Center). We have one at Bloomfield Hills at the Orchard Mall
and one at Lathrup Village.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Frankel, won't Busch's have a restaurant in there where they will sell
coffee or something like that?
Mr. Frankel: They will have a small coffee area for their customers. They will have
some prepared foods that you can buy. You can go to the deli counter and
ta,„ buy sandwiches that are prepared and take them home. If you want to be
able to sit there and have something to eat,there will be some very, very
limited seating.
Mr. LaPine: I see you have some letters from some of the restaurants there. How about
the coney island?
Mr. Frankel: They have no objection because their product is very different from this.
Mr. Alanskas: You have 95 restaurants now. How long have they been in business?
Mr. Blum: The concept was started in 1987 in St. Louis by Ken Rosenthal. The
company was purchased about five years ago with about 19 years
operating. In total it will be about 10 years under the St. Louis Bread
name. This past year, with the expansion plan that we have, we have
changed the name to Panera Bread. Other than in St. Louis, by the end of
this year, every one will be Panera Bread.
Mr. Alanskas: I hate to call this a fad, but projection-wise do you expect to be doing this
10, 20 years down the road before it gets to be old hat and something new
comes along and takes over this type of business?
tie
Mr. Blum: Interestingly, the scene that we have conceptually with this operation, is
that there are a lot of people at this point in the population that are growing
16314
older. They grew up on fast foods. Fast food is not what anyone around
here would call healthy. What we have decided to do with this concept is
cater to that audience who grew up on fast food, but give a healthy product
in a comfortable, pleasant environment. To me the population is going to
continue to grow older and certainly it, in our estimation, has longevity. I
don't know exactly what that is at this point, but I would say at least
twenty years.
Mr. Alanskas: John, because they will be right next to ACO hardware, and ACO has all
these pallets outside of dirt, concrete, don't you think that that should not
be there when people are going to a restaurant to eat?
Mr. Nagy: We do regulate that under our ordinance, and a display like that is really
prohibited and we should call our Inspection Department.
Mr. Alanskas: What can ACO put out on those pallets?
Mr. Nagy: They can put fresh cut flowers, garden plants, and that too is subject to
special use approval. There is no display of merchandise in the front yard.
Mr. Alanskas: How about as far as top soil, wood chips, cement?
t, Mr. Nagy: They have just taken the liberty to do that. Those are prohibited.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Frankel, for the remaining vacant buildings you have there, do you
have any plans for another restaurant going in there?
Mr. Frankel: I can't answer that at this point. We evaluate every tenant as it comes. If
we think there is a good quality tenant that will add to the shopping center,
we will seek them out and try to add to the shopping center.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you had any people come to you in the last four or five months with
regard to putting in another restaurant in there?
Mr. Frankel: We get calls for restaurants probably daily. Ninety-nine percent of them
we don't pursue because they don't have the experience as a good quality
restaurant operator. If something unique with a good track record comes to
us we would certainly entertain it if we thought it would be a good
addition to the shopping center.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask is because I was out at the shopping center last Saturday
speaking to everyone there and there was the innuendo that if you think
this is coming,there is another restaurant coming. That's why I asked you
that question.
16315
Mr. Frankel: As I said to you before and I will say to you again, if the situation presents
itself, if we think we can add, both to the viability of the retail
development which would enhance the retail development within the city,
and something the city would be receptive to, and we think it would be a
good addition, we would pursue it. If it happens to be a food operation, I
will not say to you we will not look at it. It's no different than another
clothing store. We want a variety. People who eat at a Chinese restaurant
may not want to eat there again. There is a synergy between them.
Mr. Piercecchi: You talk about wanting to enhance the retail operation, there is
hardly any retail in their right now.
Mr. Frankel: We have a clothing store, we have a Hallmark store, we have Minnesota
Fabrics, we have ACO hardware and the new Rite Aid. It's about 80-20.
Mr. LaPine: The location of your store in this center, directly in front of you is the Big
Boy's restaurant. How do you market yourself in that location? You are
not going to get a free standing sign. Is just the one sign that you are
going to get on the front of your building going to be able to draw
customers into this location and make it viable?
Mr. Blum: We do direct marketing with coupons. We are not really competing with
Big Boy. Big Boy is quite different and quite frankly has a different
law customer. In terms of drawing past that, that doesn't seem to be an issue
for us, but in terms of visibility, again, we become part of the
neighborhood, people know about us, we have community bulletin boards
inside. We look at ourselves as an every day oasis. We have outlets
throughout the eating area that is specifically for people to be able to plug
in their lap top computers because there are a lot of people who are
working out of their homes. It is a gathering spot. This is no different
than most of our bakery/cafes throughout the country in terms of visibility
from the street. People just come to recognize that we have a nice quality
product and quick service.
Mr. LaPine: Basically what you are saying is that you are assuming most of your
clientele will be local people using the Bushes food store and the shops
within the center. You are not drawing from greater Livonia.
Mr. Blum: Mr. Frankel alluded to our demographic studies that we do and for
information here, we look at traffic coming from one,two and three miles
away from the center. We are not Outback Steakhouse, we are not Big
Boy, we are not a place for people to come on a Saturday night and say
"Let's go to Panera Bread". We are a place that is convenient for people
to come, get good quality food very quickly and, quite frankly, our prices
`+r✓" are very reasonable. Our average ticket is slightly under $5.00.
16316
Mr. LaPine: Do you do about 50-50; with people coming in for coffee and donut and
``'lt✓ the other 50% for people coming in to buy bread and take it home?
Mr. Blum: The bread sales are significantly less than that. Most of the people coming
in are actually there to get some kind of a breakfast item, or getting some
kind of soup and sandwich. Soup, salad and sandwiches account for about
60% of what we do. The bakery is only about 25% including that
breakfast component.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you had 30 employees. What percent of that would be part-time?
What is the age bracket that will be working there?
Mr. Blum: In terms of the age, it is the teens,the college kids, it's retirees, stay-at-
home mothers. In terms of full time employment, again it depends on the
people we are able to access from the community. It is easier for us to
have full time people, but I would say of the 25-30, probably 5-10 are full
time.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask this question is that you said people are coming there
with computers, and my thought was that if you had a young range of
people working there,would this be like a hangout for kids to loiter there?
Mr. Blum: It is not an environment that is necessarily enticing to that age group. It is
more enticing to people in their 30s, 40s and 50s.
Mr. Frankel: Young people don't get up in the AM, and they close at 8:00 PM. It's
interesting that a lot of customers, through word of mouth, will come there
on a repetitive basis for a cup of coffee and a pastry. It's a routine they get
into before they go to work or do something. You see a lot of regular
repetitive business on a daily basis.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item and Mr.
Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 98-7-2-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-128-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on August 11, 1998 on Petition 98-7-2-13 by
Stuart Frankel on behalf of Newburgh Plaza requesting waiver use
approval to operate a full service restaurant within an existing building
(Newburgh Plaza) located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the NW '/4 of Section 17, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
*me Petition 98-7-2-13 be approved subject to a limitation on the maximum
16317
number of customer seats to be provided in the restaurant of 116 seats, for
the following reasons:
*r
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 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. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Koons: I have visited Panera Bread in Twelve Oaks and I feel it is unique but still
has a broad appeal to sustain itself over a long time. It is consistent with
Mr. Frankel's talk of upgrading the shopping center. It is very
comfortable inside, as Mr. Blum says "a pleasant atmosphere". I work in
the Six Mile and Newburgh area, and although I love to cook, not lunch,
iftor
and the people I work with do go out to lunch and we drive to Six and
Newburgh and when we get there we will decide whether we go to
Kerby's, whether we go to Wing Yee's, whether we have a new choice of
Penera. I think it will be a nice addition for working people, and I am
happy to see them come.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Frankel, when do you think you will get that center finished?
Mr. Frankel: We hope to be done by the end of September.
Mr. LaPine: Will Busches be open at the same time?
Mr. Frankel: No, Busches will be open we hope by Thanksgiving. We are pouring
walls and will start the sidewalk and planters tomorrow.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-6-6-
4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#406-98, 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 Article XVIII of
the Zoning Ordinance to add thereto a new Section 18.66 imposing bonding
v requirements pursuant to MCL 125.584e.
16318
Mr. Alanskas: Again,this is a petition drawn by the Planning Commission with regard to
site condominiums requiring bond requirements to give us a little more
structure and a little more hold on the people who do the building with
regard to roadways, lighting, utilities, sidewalks, screening and drainage
and so on. Mr. Nagy, do you have any more comments on that?
Mr. Nagy: You have covered it well. It was initiated by council resolution to
strengthen our ordinance to be sure of faithful completion of needed public
improvements required as part of site condominium plans, and I think you
have adequately covered the purpose behind it.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition, and Mr.
Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 98-6-6-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-129-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
August 11, 1998 on Petition 98-6-6-4 by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Council Resolution#406-98, 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 Article XVIII of the
Zoning Ordinance to add thereto a new Section 18.66 imposing bonding
requirements pursuant to MCL 125.584e, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-6-6-4 by approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with Section
125.584e of the Michigan Compiled Laws;
2) That the proposed language amendment will insure the faithful
completion of certain public improvements associated with any site
condominium or other project which requires the approval of the City
Council pursuant to Zoning Ordinance#543; and
3) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is
to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
16319
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is the Revised and
Expanded Preliminary Plat Approval for Cross Winds Estates Subdivision
4160 proposed to be located on the west side of Farmington Road south of Norfolk
Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: Eight Mile is to the north, Seven Mile to the south, Farmington Road to
the east, located on the west side of Farmington. There is an east-west
access drive off of Farmington which would intersect with a north-south
road. At the south end of the north-south road there is a cul-de-sac,the
north end ends in a deadend which at one time was intended to attach to
Irving Road. All proposed lots meet the requirement of the R-3 district
which is 80'x120'.
Mr. Nagy: The City Engineering Department in their letter of July 23, 1998
referencing the preliminary plat for Cross Winds Estates as revised
indicates that(1)the Engineering Department considers the appropriate
full width right-of-way for a residential street to be 60 feet(not 50 foot as
indicated on the plan); (2) In order to service the referenced lot
configuration with a water main, it will have to be brought from Myron
Drive to the proposed right-of-way between houses which will require
casing pipe on the water main between said houses; (3) This preliminary
plat shows no bearings on the drawing. The Engineering Division has no
other objections to the concept of the proposed subdivision layout. That
was signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer 1. Parks and Recreation in their
letter of July 27 referencing the revised preliminary plat has reviewed the
revised plat and finds no discrepancies or problems in the plan as
submitted. The Fire Marshal in his letter referencing the revised
preliminary plat states that per scale of the blueprint submitted, it appears
that it is proposed to back up emergency vehicles approximately 300 feet.
It is desirable for this Division to have a means of turning vehicles around
at the north(deadend) of Irving Drive. That's the extent of our
correspondence.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, if I remember right,the original package had a"T" at the
end, south of Irving.
Mr. Nagy: That will be the case with this plan. This revised plan does not change
that aspect of the layout. It shows the right-of-way and within that right-
of-way will be a T-type turnaround.
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia: This petition was previously approved. The only
difference is that we added six lots. These lots are all conforming to the
R-3 zoning. Everything is the same as previously approved. The road is
coming off of Farmington Road and is completely separate from Myron.
vrr++
16320
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you making any attempt to purchase the lots north so that we
can connect that street with Irving? It seems to me you could get six more
lots in there.
Mr. Soave: No, I think we could get four. I went up to the lady's porch and she told
me to get off the porch.
Mr. LaPine: Irving Drive north, is that a 60' road?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is.
Mr. LaPine: Whoever buys the property and extends it, we are going from a 50' to a
60' road?
Mr.Nagy: In terms of the right-of-way width, yes, although the road pavement will
be the same. It will still be 31' from back of curb to back of curb.
Mr. LaPine: Here again we have a 50' road coming off of Farmington Road. Is there
no way we could have a 60' road there?
Mr.Nagy: The constraint was the frontage in trying to get a road in between existing
ime houses, and since it was already a planned interior road, 50' was the final
commitment that was made during the hearing on the rezoning. It was felt
that it was more consistent to stay with the 50' throughout the subdivision
and provide easements adjacent to that to provide needed public
improvements.
Mr. LaPine: I think if 60' is what we require, we should get 60' roads.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition and Mr.
Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Revised and Expanded
Preliminary Plat for Cross Winds Estates Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-130-98 RESOLVED,that pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
August 11, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on a Revised and
Expanded Preliminary Plat for Cross Winds Estates Subdivision proposed
to be located on the west side of Farmington Road south of Norfolk
Avenue in the NE 'A of Section 4,the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised and Expanded Plat
for Cross Winds Estates Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of
toe the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and
to the following additional conditions:
16321
1) That a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval prior to Final Plat approval which shall provide for
landscaping for the cul-de-sac island area; and
2) That a plan for the required entrance marker shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of the Final Plat.
For the following reasons:
1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance
#543; and
2) That the Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable and well
designed land use solution to development of the subject land.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been
sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation
Department.
tre Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted and will go on to City Council.
Mr. Alanskas: I am glad to see that we are finally have this coming to a close because I
know we had some people on the side complaining. Our petition took care
of their needs, and I think it will be a nice subdivision and I am glad it is
happening and I will support it.
That concludes our Public Hearing section. We will now begin the
Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience
may speak in support or opposition to these items.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a Sign Permit
Application by Intercity Neon, on behalf of First Federal of Michigan,requesting
approval for signage for the bank located at 37307 Six Mile Road in the NW '/4 of
Section 17.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Newburgh.
This is the bank that is presently under construction at the Newburgh
Shopping Center. They are requesting approval of two wall signs.
Because they are only allowed one wall sign,they are in violation of the
sign ordinance. They had to go before the Zoning Board for a variance
ire and they have done so. They have a variance and what is proposed tonight
is based on that variance. This site is allowed one wall sign at 80 sq.ft. to
16322
be located on the front elevation of their building. They are proposing two
wall signs, one for the front over the entrance that is 76 sq.ft., and one on
the west elevation and would be an ATM machine that would be 4 sq.ft.
for a total of 80 sq. ft. They are only in excess of one wall sign, not square
footage.
Mr. Piercecchi: Although they have two wall signs, we must not lose they fact that
they are permitted 80 sq. ft. and they are using 80 sq. ft. So even though
they are one sign over,they did maintain the proper footage for that
particular building.
There was no one else wishing to speak for or against this petition.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-131-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Intercity Neon, on
behalf of First Federal of Michigan, requesting approval for signage for
the bank located at 37307 Six Mile Road in the NW '/4 of Section 17 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Intercity neon Sign Company,
as received by the Planning Commission on July 28, 1998 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all signage for this bank branch shall not be illuminated
beyond one hour after closing with the exception of the ATM machine;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted and will go on to City Council.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-8-8-
24 by John T. Campo & Associates, on behalf of Holiday Inn, requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with
a proposal to renovate the exterior of the hotel and nightclub located at 17123
Laurel Park Drive in the SE '/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is asking to renovate the Holiday Inn and Tremors nightclub
that is located on the west side of Six Mile Road and Universal Drive.
They are proposing that the Holiday Inn entranceway which has a
mansard-type of roof over the porte cochere be replaced with a gable-type
of roof. They would also be putting decorative dryvit on the porte cochere
tie columns and over the one story portion of the hotel. On the three story
16323
hotel would be continuing the decorative dryvit to match the one story
portion of the hotel. They would paint the mansard type of metal seam
roof to match the color of the dryvit. The nightclub portion of the building
would be painted to match the hotel.
Mr. LaPine: I remember when Tremors first went in and we had a lot of problems.
Manufacturers Bank at that time was complaining about people parking
there and dumping their garbage. John, has that all been taken care of?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it has.
Mr. LaPine: I know that at one time the Council was very upset about Tremors, the
cracks in the wall and such.
John Campo, President of John T. Campo and Associates,New Orleans, LA: This is our
second time renovating this building. We were the architects ten years
ago. It's been a successful project, but it's tired and in need of a good
paint job on the exterior and we are happy to be here to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Piercecchi: Holiday Inn is a class operation. What always upset me in that
building is that big Tremors sign. It really doesn't fit that sophisticated,
conservative look of those structures in there. Is there any way that
kW Holiday Inn could modify that to make it a little less obtrusive?
Mr. Campo: I can certainly bring that question to our client. They would make those
decisions. I can't answer for them. The sign is integral to the face of the
building.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is in dryvit, isn't it?
Mr. Campo: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is simple to replace. Another question- I notice on the main
entrance and on the porte cochere, are you going to resurface the existing
brick columns supporting the porte cochere with decorative dryvit? The
experience I have had in observing different portes is that if you don't
have the lower portions of those columns in brick, they get beat up very
badly. I would like to suggest that at least three feet on the lower part of
those columns be brick. Any problem with that?
Mr. Campo: I would like to respond to your reasons for asking. There is a product
called a hard coat system versus a soft coat system. The hard coat system
is very similar to the old cementitious plaster. In essence,the plaster is
applied directly to the brick so that it is as durable. Your experience has
16324
probably been with the soft coat system. We have a Holiday Inn that we
designed in Tannehill Louisiana about ten years ago, approximately the
same time as this project, and we used quite a bit of dryvit on that building
except that for the first four feet, we used a hard coat system for the very
reason that you are stating. For ten years that building has been quite an
example of the proper use of a hard coat system on the lower level and the
soft coat system where you can't really bump into it. In terms of esthetics,
I think that the synthetic plaster with this theme works better, but to
respond to your issue about durability, the hard coat system which is
applied to metal directly to the brick would be durable, and I think
it achieves the same thing that you are looking for.
Mr. Piercecchi: What you are saying is the dryvit would not be on the bottom part
of the columns.
Mr. Campo: It is a dryvit system, but it is called a hard coat.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is not polystyrene.
Mr. Campo: That is correct. We just had that discussion and we want to make that
point. The hard coat system could be used on the columns, and any of the
decorative element above and away from anyone being able to touch it
would be the soft coat system.
Mr. Piercecchi: This system is designed to go directly on brick or anything else.
Mr. Campo: You can go on plywood, concrete block, brick and several other
substances,but it is called a hard coat system.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is this relatively new?
Mr. Campo: No, as I said we have a project that is ten years old where we did exactly
that. That is the reason the product was developed. With the soft coat
system you can literally take a pin and stick right through it, but the hard
coat system is very similar to the cementitious plaster that was used
previously.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think it would be very wise to eliminate that dryvit on the bottom.
Mr. Alanskas: All hotels have a lot of weddings that they do with a lot of young people,
have you ever had a problem as far as people coming up and putting
graffiti on that lower level?
Mr. Campo: No, sir. I have seen the facility four times since we have completed it and
yikre we have had no complaints with graffiti on this building whatsoever.
16325
Mr. Alanskas: Just for your information, we were out there Saturday and that parking lot
was packed with cars. They were very, very busy.
Mr. Hale: What did you call that system again?
Mr. Campo: It is a hard coat system versus a soft coat system, and any synthetic plaster
manufacturer will know what you are speaking of when you ask them.
The dryvit system, or the synthetic plaster system, the reason that we use
them versus the cementitious system is elastic, they have fibers in them
and can expand and contract many times over versus cement before they
have any problems and that is why it is such a popular product. In New
Orleans for instance there is a lot of moisture and some of the older
buildings that are cementitious plaster will crack. The example I just gave
you, the Holiday Inn, we have had no evidence of any cracking. It is a
superior product.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-132-98 RESOLVED,that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-8-8-24 by John T. Campo &
Associates, on behalf of Holiday Inn, requesting approval of all plans
Th. required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to renovate the exterior of the hotel and nightclub located at
17123 Laurel Park Drive in the SE 1/4 of Section 7 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-3.0 &
A.3.1 prepared by John T. Campo & Associates, as received by the
Planning Commission on July 21, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the 3 pages of Color Renderings showing the existing and
proposed conditions of the exterior building elevations prepared by Campo
Architects, as received by the Planning Commission on July 21, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the petitioner shall meet to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction all exterior renovations as outlined in a letter dated July 16,
1998 from John T. Campo &Associates, Inc.
4) That a hard coat system will be placed on the lower sections of the
columns of the porte cochere.
16326
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted and will go on to City Council.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-8-8-
25 by Seigfreid, Edwards &Associates, on behalf of Walgreens, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located
at 8850 Newburgh Road in the SW '/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Joy Road and Newburgh. At
one time the building was utilized by the Disabled Veterans of America.
They are requesting approval to construct a Walgreens store on the site.
They would demolish the existing facility and construct a 13,905 sq. ft.
commercial building. Because Walgreens would only be developing 250
feet of the westerly side of the parcel, and as you remember tonight,the
other side was the parking that Mr. Soave was trying to rezone to RC and
R-1. They are required to have 74 parking spaces for this facility. The
site plan shows 81 so they meet the parking requirement. They are
required to have 15%of the total site for landscaping and they show 22%.
Most of the landscaping is around the outer edge of the proposal. The
building will be constructed out of brick on all four sides. It would have a
dryvit and tempered glass tower over the entrance. Also over the
windows of the west elevation end. On the south elevation is dyvit and
also over the drive-thru canopy at the rear end of the building.
Mr.Nagy: We have a letter from the Inspection Department referencing the subject
petition. They indicate 1) The proposed site is a split zoned parcel of land
(C-1 and P). This proposal would require that the "P" zoned portion be
rezoned to accommodate the proposed use. 2) The protective wall is
proposed at 8' in height. Section 18.45 of Ordinance 543 permits walls
from 5-7 feet in height. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
would be required for the proposed 8' wall. 3) The signage as proposed
would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
number of wall signs. This signage was not reviewed as part of this
proposal. 4) Light standards are proposed to be 30 feet in height. 5)
Note 5 of Landscape Notes on sheet AO.1 should read a minimum
diameter of 2" measured at a point 1 foot above the base of the tree.
That was signed by David Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector.
Jim Seigfreid, Seigfreid Edwards & Associates, Architects: We are here to have the site
plan approved for Walgreens. I would like to comment on the reference to
the wall. The drawing shows an 8' wall, but that is a screen for the
dumpster. It is not the wall that goes around the property line. We are
providing a 6' wall along the north side of the property.
16327
Mr. Hale: At the study session we communicated some concerns about this facade.
What progress at all have you made with your client?
Mr. Seigfreid: We have discussed it with Walgreens. They would prefer to proceed with
the design that we have presented here. They have changed their corporate
image design to reflect this particular building. They would like for us to
pursue this if at all possible. I do have some colored renderings of the
elevations.
Mr. Hale: Do I understand this to be an all-or-nothing situation?
Mr. Seigfreid: No, not at all.
Mr. Hale: I am concerned with what I view as a waste of space. It doesn't seem to
be appropriate of a drug store type of set up. Is there anything we can do
about it at all? Is it worth proceeding?
Mr. Seigfreid: Is the elevation of the building part of the site plan approval?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Seigfreid:My desire tonight is to have the site plan approved under whatever
conditions you might impose on it.
Mr. Hale: If we were to table this for further study, would that be something in your
mind, as architect of the project, be fruitful? Are we going to be able to
work with a different design on this in terms of the front entrance porte
cochere?
Mr. Seigfreid: If we were to change the design, it would more than likely go to the same
design that is at Middlebelt and Six Mile.
Mr. Hale: What I want to know, is that a possibility?
Mr. Seigfreid: Yes, it is. We are most anxious to have this approved and proceed with
the project.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you saying you would have to go back to Walgreens to get permission
to change the front of the building?
Mr. Seigfreid: I would say you could have your motion and include whatever you might
want to present.
t
16328
Mr. Hale: That makes it somewhat difficult only because we don't have a site plan
which we could approve. We can't modify a building as commissioners
instead of architects.
Mr. LaPine: I was out on Telegraph Road and you have a building under construction
there. All the glass was up. When I saw it, my position hardened. It
reminded me of Livernois Avenue in Detroit near Michigan Avenue when
it used to be used car row. They had a building there that was almost
identical to this and it was used to change cars for advertisement. The
other thing that worries me when I look at this, it looks like you are going
to have a sign behind there that will be lit up. They will argue that it is not
a sign, it is inside the building and part of the interior. We told you before
that we would probably buy your proposal if we got the same thing we
have at Six Mile and Middlebelt. As Mr. Hale and Mr. Alanskas pointed
out, we can't approve of what you have here tonight because that isn't
what we are getting. You will have to bring a new plan in duplicating the
one you have at Six Mile and Middlebelt. I think you will get approval,
but tonight we are not going to approve this.
Mrs. Koons to Mr. Nagy: You and your staff have prepared a document about the
number of drug stores in Livonia. The number 36 comes to mind. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nagy: That's a fair number.
Mrs. Koons: As I visited this site today, we have an Arbor Drugs less than a half mile
from this.
Mr.Nagy: Yes, it is in the shopping center at the northwest corner of Joy and
Newburgh.
Mr. LaPine: When I went out and checked the one on Telegraph, there is one on the
next block. I guess they want to be as close as they can for competition.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-133-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition 98-8-8-25 by Seigfreid, Edwards & Associates, on behalf
of Walgreens, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial building on property located at 8850 Newburgh Road in the
tkare' SW 1/4 of Section 32 to August 25, 1998.
16329
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
160,
Mr.Nagy: You would be submitting new building elevation plans. The footprint
would be the same.
Mr. LaPine: When you went back to Walgreens knowing what the situation was,
couldn't they have sent a representative from Walgreens that has some
authority to make decisions?
Mr. Seigfreid: They don't normally do that. They like to stay in the background.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted,the 769th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on August 11, 1998 was adjourned at 9:22 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
_tuyi;_at 62D.Le_d_tel_
404Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: ���l
Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman
/du