HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-04-15 15445
MINUTES OF THE 741st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
L LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 15, 1997 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
741st Regular Meeting& Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with
approximately 45 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale
Patricia Blomberg John Walsh
Members absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also
present.
Mr. McCann: For all those persons appearing on Item 10, Petition 97-2-8-1 by First
Federal of Michigan, and Item 13, Petition 97-3-8-6 by Farouk Harajli,
on behalf of Mobil Oil, they have asked to have these items removed
from the agenda this evening so we will not be handling those items
tonight. They will be heard at a later date. I don't know the date at
this time.
rr..
In the absence of Mr. Alanskas, Mr. Piercecchi was Acting Secretary.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
97-3-1-2 by David M. Morelli and Raymond Amin requesting to rezone property
located at the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Bretton Roads in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 1 from R-2 to O.S.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner in the audience tonight? Mr. Shane, has the staff had
an opportunity to review these drawings yet?
Mr. Shane: If they are the same drawings that were submitted with the petition,
yes.
r;
15446
Mr. McCann: My understanding was, did you say you had new drawings you
submitted?
Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger, Livonia: The elevations you just got Friday. I
``' understand this property was zoned office five, six or seven years ago.
I don't know why it went back to its present zoning but it did. In any
event we are proposing an office building 7200 sq. ft. on one portion of
the property and 1600 sq. ft. on the other portion of the property.
Both buildings are residential type construction. They are both office
buildings, and these are elevations similar to what we propose to build
there. Masonry construction brick all the way around the building.
Shingle roof,just a residential type look with a building on them.
Three main entrances with one facing the school. That will be facing
north. The west elevation would be similar to this and I think the
whole proposal would enhance that area. I feel that this would really
do something nice for this corner. I have built a lot of buildings in
Livonia. Most of you know which ones I have built. I am quite proud
of them, and I think this whole development would work out great for
both parties involved.
Mr. Piercecchi: The Council rejected Office Services in 1991, and in 1994 this property
was changed to R-2.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, do you know what the original zoning was?
Mr. Shane: RUF.
Mr. McCann: So the prior zoning was RUF and it went to R-2. My understanding is
that the southerly portion of the property is very narrow, that you
would not be able to have proper setbacks on that?
Mr. Gallagher: The setbacks are all proper on the front. There is nothing wrong with
the setbacks from Middlebelt. This side yard setback is fine. There
would be a variance required for the rear yard setback because we are
seven feet from the property, and the two homes there are owned by
the people that are planning on building this building.
Mr. McCann: Now the other building would also have a deficient setback.
Mr. Gallagher: There are no deficient setbacks anywhere there. We are fine.
Mr. McCann: On the northerly piece there are no deficiencies?
15447
Mr. Gallagher: No.
Mr. McCann: Only on the southern piece you have deficient setbacks?
Mr. Gallagher: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Also, are there any other deficiencies besides the rear yard setback on
that easterly piece? Do we have sufficient parking?
Mr. Gallagher: We have sufficient parking. They are requiring 9; we have 11. They
are requiring 48 here; we have 53. There are no others that I am aware
of at this point.
Mr. McCann: How far between the back of the building and the home to the east?
Mr. Gallagher: About 16 to 17 feet.
Mr. McCann: He owns that home?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Don't you feel that is encroaching? Someone is going to be living in
that home.
Raymond Amin, 34970 Norfolk, Livonia: Those are older homes but they are still solid
homes. I hate to knock them down for any reason until the time
comes. Right now they are strong homes, good homes and there
should not be any problem. At least I don't think so.
Mr. Walsh: Do people live in those homes at the present time?
Mr. Amin: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: Have those neighbors had an opportunity to review this plan?
Mr. Amin: That is my rental house also. Both houses belong to us, and they are
fine with it as far as I know. They know we are planning on building a
building and they have been there for eight years and they plan to stay
there. I don't think it is a problem on their end.
15448
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposal?
Ray Earls: I don't live there. I am here on behalf of my granddaughter and her
husband who live across the street cm Bretton. They own the second
house east of Middlebelt. I have a letter from my grandson, who could
not be here tonight. He is out of town and my granddaughter is
working unfortunately.
Mr. McCann: Would you like to have that letter read into the record?
Mr. Earls: He would, yes sir.
Mr. McCann: If you would pass it to the secretary, we can have it read into the
record.
Mr. Shane: "To: The City of Livonia Zoning Committee I am sorry my wife and I
are unable to attend, but I would like to oppose the rezoning of the
property at the corner of Bretton and Middlebelt Rd. I feel that
rezoning this piece of property would cause a potential hazard to
children walking in front of the parking lot/entry that would be there.
When my wife and I purchased our house I checked to make sure that
the property was zoned residential so this would not be a problem
when we had kids walking to school there. Having offices placed there
could also possibly increase the noise level and decrease our property
value since we live directly cross the street. Sincerely, Jeffrey and
Michelle Reitz".
Mr. McCann: Is there anything else you would like to add to that sir?
Mr. Earls: Yes sir. What he was speaking to me before he had to leave town, he
is concerned about the safety of children going to school and having to
cross a public driveway with traffic coming in and out. As of now,
there is not a hazardous driveway or anything there now. I also did
help him check out the property when he bought it and he enjoys living
here because he works in this section, both of them do, but he is
concerned about the safety of their children later on walking to school.
Mr. McCann: Anything additional you want to add Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher. There would be normal stop signs entering and exiting. There are only
two driveways right now, one on Middlebelt and one approach on
Bretton. Those are the two approaches to this property.
15449
Mr. McCann: What is the width of the sidewalk there?
Mr. Gallagher: There is a five foot sidewalk there now.
Mr. McCann: Do your plans show a sidewalk on the southern edge of the property?
Mr. Gallagher: No it doesn't yet.
Mr. McCann: In order to be in compliance don't you have to have a sidewalk?
Mr. Gallagher: We know that.
Mr. McCann: Why aren't they on your drawings?
Mr. Gallagher: This will be on the drawing but we didn't know how much we needed
for this particular presentation, but there will be sidewalks on both
sides of this property.
Mr. McCann: The only deficiency that you are aware of is the easterly border on the
southerly project?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Mr. McCann: And that would require waiver use approval?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes.
Mr. Shane: The side yard is deficient. He would have to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for side yard setback. There are no other setback requirements
he has not adhered to.
Mr. McCann: Is that greenbelt sprinkled?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: What percentage greenbelt do you have?
Mr. Gallagher: About 18%.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-3-1-2 closed.
15450
Mrs. Blomberg: I would like to table this to study the sidewalks and perhaps we can
move the building a little bit so it wouldn't be so close to this house.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-46-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-3-1-2 by David M.
Morelli and Raymond Amin requesting to rezone property located at the
northeast corner of Middlebelt and Bretton Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 1 from R-2 to O.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 97-3-1-2 until April 29, 1997.
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, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-3-1-3 by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located on the north side
of Six Mile west of the I-275/96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7
from AG to P.
ti..
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
David Phipps, 388 S. Main Street, Plymouth, Michigan: I am with J. P. Properties. We
own the C-2 and when we do develop the C-2 we are going to run the
storm sewer down to the I-275 Interchange and we wanted to pave that
parking area in there to make it available for the theater guild where
they have their plays and stuff in the building, and also if we needed a
surplus or overflow of parking on the C-2 area when that is developed,
we would use it for that on off hours.
Mr. Hale: How many parking spots are you proposing?
Mr. Phipps: I believe there are nine.
W,,,.. Mr. Hale: How is this going to affect the cemetery?
15451
Mr. Phipps: Not at all. Our intention is we will be feeding out to the theater guild
r.. that building and the area for their use.
Mr. Hale: You are proposing to pave this with asphalt type paving?
Mr. Phipps: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: You don't own this property now?
Mr. Phipps: Yes we do.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is parking there now for the theater?.
Mr. Phipps: It is just gravel.
Mr. Piercecchi: But they park cars there?
Mr. Phipps: They do park cars there. We just really want to improve it. That is
basically what we want to do.
Mr. Piercecchi: But it is your property?
,` Mr. Phipps: Yes it is.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you own where the theater is?
Mr. Phipps: We own the cemetery.
Mr. McCann: We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this proposal.
Robert Legel, 15695 Penn: That is in the Quakertown Subdivision. My main concern
now there seems to be such a rapid movement in the program
presented. We were just aware of it in the last few weeks. There is
nothing new about the congestion that is going on in that area now. I
would like to see a lot more presentation of traffic control, noise
control, and the common things we see. Nobody can get out of
Quakertown in the morning and in the afternoon, and I can't even
conceive how this traffic pattern is going to improve, and I object at
this time to any presentation that seems vague right now. I am not that
informed on it but I just want to make my intentions known. The Civic
Association of Quakertown is not pleased at all with any type of
presentation that is going on right now.
15452
Wendy Bernard, 38911 Lapham: I am also from Quakertown. Coming here tonight when
we saw the public hearing we saw AG to Parking. Our impression was
',fear what are they going to do with all the graves? So I am excited to see
there are only nine parking spots there. Is there any more on what may
be possibly going in there?
Mr. Phipps: No.
Ms. Bernard: Is there anything more going on? The last time we came before you the
Marriotts were going in and the upscale restaurant. Are you aware of
anything else happening?
Mr. McCann: I understand your concern, and I am going to let you relate that
question after the public hearing to our staff tomorrow. I am going to
try to deal only with the public hearing tonight on the property. What I
would like to do is maybe have the petitioner explain a little more about
the AG property there and what the conditions and agreements are.
Your company owns that property?
Mr. Phipps: Yes we do.
Mr. McCann: Part of the agreement with the development there is that you will
maintain that property?
Mr. Phipps: Until we dedicate it to the theater guild and then they will maintain it at
that point. They have expressed an interest that they would accept
that.
Mr. McCann: But you are maintaining an easement on the parking area?
Mr. Phipps: And they will be able to use that parking area.
Mr. McCann: It will be a joint area of nine spaces. There will be no further
development in that AG section, other than to change this to parking?
Mr. Phipps: It is being used as that right now. It is just going to be improved.
Greg Gursky, 16204 Swathmore Lane, Quakertown Subdivision: I won't ask the
members of the Planning Commission or the principals here what
exactly is going to be developed there, but I think I can gather from the
fact there is a large assemblage of property right next to a major
interstate highway, that it is not going to be a baseball diamond. I
would just like to put on the record that I am not going to speak in
opposition or support of the petition tonight. I know that is the nature
of the business. I would just like to have it on the record that it is
15453
unbelievable to me, incomprehensible about the traffic there, that a
development will go on there with the level of intensity that is going to
r.. be without any type of ingress or egress on that property other than
right in front. The traffic there is out of control. I realize traffic is
everywhere and everybody has to deal with traffic but I can't imagine
someone coming out of there and making a left hand turn. I don't care
what time of day it is, whether it is busy time or not. I don't know
what can be done and I have talked to some other people about it but
to make that property for ingress and egress onto Haggerty Road
would be a considerable improvement in terms of how the traffic
pattern would flow. I understand Schoolcraft is an obstacle to that but
it seems the citizens of this fair community support that institution. I
am not so sure that necessarily, in my opinion, negates any value or
benefit to the college especially if it ends up being hotels and motels
there. It seems to me with that being adjacent to their property, it in
fact is a benefit, especially the very diminutive amount of real estate it
takes to afford some ingress and egress onto Haggerty Road.
Mr. McCann: Unfortunately we are not dealing with that tonight but we have dealt
with it many times. It is one of our main concerns, and I am sure we
are going to be dealing with it in the future but tonight we are only
dealing with the parking in front of the AG area.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-3-1-3 closed.
Mr. Hale: I would like to make a motion to approve this petition for the reason
that this proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. I have
heard tonight that this already is being used as parking and it is only an
improvement, and that this will be an asphalt area. We are only talking
about nine parking spots. This is not something that is going to create a
significant traffic problem whatsoever.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved,
it was
#1-47-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-3-1-3 by J-P Properties
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile west of the
I-275/96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from AG to P, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
97-3-1-3 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for ingress and egress to
serve the adjacent property to the west;
15454
2) That the proposed change of zoning will have little negative effect on the
�. subject property; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-2-2-4 by Stuart Frankel do Newburgh Plaza, requesting waiver use approval to
expand an existing shopping center located on the south side of Six Mile Road
between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
17.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following
problems or deficiencies were found: 1. The existing asphalt areas need
minor repair and should be resealed and restriped. 2. The existing
protective wall is out of plumb. It should be stabilized and/or
straightened and several stone caps need to be replaced. 3. The
deficient number of parking spaces and the parking spaces with
deficient width will require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
We also have in our file a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their
office has no objection to this site plan as submitted.
We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the
proposed supermarket exceeds height and area limitations for 2C
construction. It appears the supermarket cannot qualify for"unlimited
area" due to code requirements for such structures. Therefore, to meet
height and area limitations, an upgrade in construction needs to occur.
While this issue may be addressed at the plan review stage, it is felt that
addressing the issue now will facilitate design in its initial phase.
15455
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? I understand you have some new drawings for
us this evening.
Stuart Frankel, 3221 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy: They have been submitted to the
Planning Commission and City. I did not bring any with me to be
honest with you.
Mr. Shane: The change is the relocation of the bank.
Mr. McCann: Are we going to deal with the site plan as a whole tonight?
Mr. Frankel: No just the waiver use.
Mr. Shane: The waiver use and the site plan. The only thing you can't deal with is
the building elevation for the bank.
Mr. Frankel: (He presented the site plans) I am the owner and developer of
Newburgh Plaza, which I have owned and developed since 1971. At
the west end of the shopping center there previously was a shopping
center of approximately 26,000 sq. ft., which originally was a Great
Scott Supermarket, and then when they filed bankruptcy and vacated
the premises, it was leased to Food Emporium, whose lease expired
March 31, 1997. In today's competitive environment the supermarket
— industry has changed dramatically, and 26,000 sq. ft. supermarkets are
no longer viable in this competitive market. What happened, Food
Emporium sought a larger location, about 55,000 sq. ft., and have
reopened on Haggerty Road between Five and Six Mile Roads. In
addition to that, at the shopping center at the northwest corner of Six
Mile and Haggerty there is a new Farmer Jacks that is being built, and
will be opened shortly. That is about 65,000 sq. ft. In order to
maintain the competitiveness of this shopping center to provide an
anchor which is needed to stabilize this from a retail environment and
to act as a draw to bring customers to this retail development, it was
necessary for me to provide a supermarket, which is a major anchor
base to the shopping center and generates about 70% of the traffic
which comes to a shopping center. I was fortunate to negotiate a lease
with a supermarket for about 59,000 sq. ft. That cannot be located at
the west end of the property because of the configuration. It required
me to locate the proposed supermarket at the east end of the property.
In order to make that work we have to eliminate 15,000 sq. ft. of
existing retail space, and that space is presently occupied by Wing
Yee's Restaurant and the Caddy Shack and the Colberts Golf Store.
Wing Yee's Restaurant will be relocated at the easterly end of the mini
mall. There are four stores in the mini mall. They will all be vacated by
the end of the month and Wing Yee's will relocated to that facility.
15456
Caddy Shack is relocating to Eight Mile Road in some sort of a
relationship with Pro Golf I am not sure what exactly that is. So this
'141.. 14,500 sq. ft. facility will be removed and a 59,000 sq. ft. supermarket
will be built on this site. In order to accomplish that it is necessary to
provide a sea of parking for the supermarket to operate economically,
and what we were doing is relocating the financial institution which
presently exists here immediately adjacent west of the center entrance
drive. This facility is about 6800 sq. ft. This facility will be about 3800
sq. ft. The architect for the existing First Federal facility will be the
same architect for the shopping center and supermarket so there will be
architectural compatibility between both the existing shopping center,
the new addition and the proposed financial institution. I will share
with you the elevations. (He presented the elevation plans) It will be a
combination of brick, wood and dryvit. We will modify the existing
fascia of the rest of the shopping center. We will do the center clock
tower to redefine that so it makes it more compatible with the existing
retail development. The existing supermarket will be divided in half.
One store will occupy about 12,500 sq. ft. on the eastern side and Rite
Aid will occupy about 12,500 sq. ft. on the western side. Again, the
old Food Emporium will get the same elevation look as the existing
shopping center. I have met with the residents of the abutting
subdivision. We worked out a mutually satisfactory site plan, including
landscaping, lighting and deliveries, which I have submitted to the City
*saw Council as part of, I hope, approval when we receive site plan
approval.
Mr. McCann: You said you worked out delivery times?
Mr. Frankel: Access of the trucks and those kinds of things.
Mr. McCann: You have provided it to the staff?
Mr. Shane: We have a copy.
Mr. McCann: Has the staff had an opportunity to review it?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Are you satisfied with it?
Mr. Shane: Yes we are.
Mr. McCann: Before we go to the Commissioners I will give you an opportunity to
answer some questions regarding the deficiencies set forth regarding
the asphalt and protective wall.
15457
Mr. Frankel: First of all regarding the asphalt, we have come through a horrible
r.. winter. We have not done much to the parking lot yet because it is
going to be resurfaced in full as part of this development, and we are
going to be redoing the parking lot lighting, the lighting poles, the light
fixtures.
Mr. McCann: What height?
Mr. Frankel: Whatever the City requires.
Mr. Shane: Twenty feet.
Mr. Frankel: I was not aware of the deficiency as it relates to the wall but we will fix
that. I didn't know it was out of plumb. The comment about the
building relating to the size, that is a situation my architect will be
working out with the City. That will be dealt with when we pursue the
completion of the plans and submit them for approval.
Mr. Piercecchi: You said you worked out an agreement with a major supermarket. Can
you tell us their name?
Mr. Frankel: Busch's. It is a supermarket chain. They are principally in Washtenaw
rv. County. It is a family-owned supermarket chain run by three brothers,
who are second generation. They are the third largest supermarket
chain in Washtenaw County. They are moving into western Wayne
County. They are presently going to open a store in May or June at
Sheldon and Six Mile Road, the southwest corner. Various members
of the City Council have visited the stores in Ann Arbor. I know
people from Ann Arbor will speak very highly of it.
Mr. Piercecchi: You don't see any problems meeting these deficiencies that were
mentioned?
Mr. Frankel: Absolutely not. The parking, I know we have a problem. We are
scheduled June 3 before the Zoning Board of Appeals as far as parking.
We are well aware of that. That is a request for a variance in the
parking in order to accomplish this.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you plan on double stripping the parking that you put in?
Mr. Frankel: That was not shown on the plan to be honest with you. I am not sure it
is required by code but we will do what is necessary to comply with the
City ordinances.
15458
Mr. Piercecchi: It has been suggested by the Planning Commission that be part of the
code and it is in the Council Committee of the Whole. We do like the
�.. ten foot width, which, of course, you are going to try to comply with. I
believe you have 240 spaces at nine feet.
Mr. Frankel: We are going to try to create two types of parking, customer parking
and employee parking. The customer parking will be the ten foot and
employee parking will be on the perimeter of the shopping center. The
employee parking, again, will be the nine foot spaces.
Mr. Piercecchi: So basically your transient traffic will have the ten foot?
Mr. Frankel: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposal?
Mario Facione, 16769 Fitzgerald: I have one question. There is a little side street, forgive
me I forget the name of it, that will never be opened? That will stay
totally closed?
Mr. Frankel: There is a petition which has been filed by the City to have that
vacated. It is on the agenda tonight.
Mr. Facione: Other than that our neighborhood association has done a fine job. I am
sorry I haven't kept on top of this because I have been working so
much. The only thing I was concerned about is that street.
James Will, 37000 Six Mile: I am the owner of the Harry J. Will Funeral Home across the
street from the property. I have a qualified objection. The driveway
that exists next to the Big Boy Restaurant, which I presume will be the
main ingress and egress of the property, right now it is a traffic problem
because the easterly end of the boulevard terminates approximately 100
feet from that drive. I am concerned what the traffic will be like
coming in and out of the property as it relates to our property. People
that are approaching our entrance from the west, as they are coming
east on Six Mile, only have that short distance to get off Six Mile and
make that left hand turn onto our property, and knowing how traffic
operates, my concern is cars are going to come out of the shopping
center, occupy that center lane and give our cars that are trying to
approach our property no place to turn. We will have the same
problem exiting from our side. People who are attempting to exit our
property will have increased traffic. I like everything about it other
than that drive and the problem that exists. That driveway was there,
Mr. Frankel will remember we both built about the same time, it was
15459
part of the original site plan. There was no boulevard and it caused no
problem in 1970. When the boulevard went in it began to pose a
�.. problem. We have adapted to it and it is just an inconvenience. I think
now it is going to be a real problem.
Mr. McCann: I am not sure what we can do since the boulevard is part of a county
road.
Mr. Shane: One thing you might consider is turning movements out of Newburgh
Plaza Shopping Center. You might consider a"Right Turn Only" sign.
He is right the boulevard does end approximately 100 feet west of that
point and the pavements are such that a left turn out of both of those
operations are going to conflict. They do now. A"Right Turn Only"
sign might be the only answer.
Mr. Frankel: With a"Right Turn Only" sign how far would you have to go to make
a left turn?
Mr. Shane: Anybody wanting to go west would have to take another route out of
there. That is the only way to solve his problem.
Mr. McCann: I have run into both problems because I frequent both of your
establishments, and I do understand, but my understanding is you can't
l make a left turn out of there right now. Don't you have to go right and
Now, then left?
Mr. Shane: No because the street begins to narrow at that point down to a normal.
60 foot width. Just west of the Big Boy Restaurant that is where the
boulevard comes to a complete stop and then there are yellow markings
which seem to indicate that traffic is supposed to stay out of the area
but obviously when people take a left out of both of these operations, it
could cause a conflict. I don't know if there is a solution to it other
than a"Right Turn Only" sign. That may not be a practical solution, as
Mr. Frankel indicated, because there is no way to turn back around
again.
Mr. McCann: Well only 50% of the population follow the signs anyway.
Mr. Shane: That is true. It could be a problem. On the other hand I think people
tend to find another route if it becomes a difficult problem to the
shopping center.
Mr. McCann: Could we pass on this and send it on for a recommendation from the
Traffic Commission to send to the Council before they review it?
15460
Mr. Shane: You could certainly send a copy of the resolution to the Traffic
Commission and have them take a look at it. I don't think it is enough
to hold this project up.
Wendy Bernard, 38911 Lapham: I know when I have to go west I just go out the other
driveway because there is a turnaround in the boulevard. If there was
just a"Right Turn Only" out of the east driveway. The only thing I
have a comment on I couldn't see where they were going to put the
bank. That particular driveway does get very congested because you
have the stop sign on the north side and east/west are not stops, and it
does get very congested right in there. That would be my only
comment.
Mr. Shane: It is about a driveway and parking space west of the north/south
driveway.
Ms. Bernard: I just know it gets real congested at that particular corner because you
have people coming this way and going that way. I am talking about
inside the parking lot.
Gary Witt, 26795 Renwick: I am Vice Chairman of the Kingsbury Heights/Renwick Park
Civic Association. First of all I would like to say that we have worked
with Mr. Frankel trying to assure that the adjacent homeowners have
protection from the shining lights in the parking lot and we have
somewhat of a noise barrier. We have worked closely with him to
come up with a dense planting of trees and shrubbery so we think it will
make an acceptable solution to the situation. You asked the question
about the deliveries. Some of the things that were concerning the
residents were daily sweeping of the parking lot, weekly cleaning of the
greenbelt. They wanted to make sure the area was presentable and
clean. Mr. Frankel has agreed to that. Operational hours. We don't
want a 24 hour grocery store there. He has agreed to limit the hours.
Deliveries are limited to 8:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m., so there wouldn't be
real early morning deliveries or late evening deliveries. In addition, we
have concurred upon a site plan that shows specific plantings and also
indicates that the lights are facing in the northwesterly direction so
there will be no reflection back into the homeowners' windows. There
would be no lights on the building or floodlights on the easterly portion
of the building that would be glaring in the homeowners' windows. We
have reached and achieved an acceptable agreement with Mr. Frankel
and we appreciate the cooperation he has shown the homeowners. We
wanted to make sure that drawing that we have concurred on is the one
you have as a matter of record, and it would say on there that Mike
Tranquilla, has signed off, who was Chairman of our Landscaping
Committee, and that should be the one on record.
15461
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane have you reviewed that?
Mr. Shane: Yes we have and all the points of agreement are on the landscape plan.
Mr. Witt: Secondly, I believe this homeowners association would have some
concern with the recommendation that was made this evening about a
"Right Turn Only" if that forces additional traffic down Fitzgerald or
along the service drive. We would agree that you can exit the middle
exit and then go across the boulevard. That would be the logical way
most people would leave but there is a concern that we don't want to
increase the traffic through the residential area, through Fitzgerald. If it
became only a"Right Turn" area, we would have some concern that
might have people turning around on Fitzgerald or taking that service
drive and making a U-turn and going down to Levan. We would have
some concern about that and we want to make sure you consider it in
your review.
Mr. McCann: I don't think we will be dealing with that tonight but we will make a
recommendation that that should be studied.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard relative to this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-2-2-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-48-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 on Petition 97-2-2-4 by Stuart Frankel c/o Newburgh Plaza, requesting
waiver use approval to expand an existing shopping center located on the
south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-2-2-4 be approved subject to
the granting of a variance for a deficient number of parking spaces and
deficient parking space sizes by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the following
additional conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet P-1 W dated 3/28/97, as revised, prepared
by Siegal/Tuomaala Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet P2-W dated 3/5/97
prepared by Siegal/Tuomaala Associates, Architects, which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to;
15462
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1, L-2 and L-3 dated 11/9/95 and
revised 4/14/97, prepared by E. J. Kleckner& Associates, Landscape
Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and shall be installed
prior to final inspection and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition; and
4) That the agreement dated February 10, 1997 between the Kingsbury
Heights/Renwick Park Civic Association and Stuart Frankel regarding Petition
96-11-1-23 shall be fully implemented.
5) That the parking spaces shall be double striped.
6) That the building elevation and landscape plan for the bank shall come back
before the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval.
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 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 compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
4) That the proposed use will greatly assist in ensuring the continued viability
of the subject shopping center.
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. Walsh: Mr. Chairman I would just like to state that I will be voting in favor of
this. It has been a long struggle since I first saw this plan at the
Chamber over a year ago. I appreciate all your efforts and I do hope
we can work out the traffic. It is something we should look at closely
and we will see if the Traffic Commission can give us some thoughts.
This is a very fine addition to our City.
Mr. McCann: I want to compliment the neighbors too. They took an active
involvement in this project, working with the petitioner hoping to make
a better project. It took a lot of work away from us. This could have
been a long evening if you hadn't worked so hard for us. We
appreciate that.
r..
15463
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-3-2-5 by Pick-A-Bone, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C
License for a restaurant located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Ryan Road and Oporto Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. McCann: Before we get into this, I did have some discussions with the petitioner
on this regarding Class C Liquor Licenses, although he did not retain
my services. Do you have any objections sir to me sitting in on this?
Mr. Josifoski: No.
Mr. McCann: I was not retained by you and I just want to make sure there was no
misunderstanding.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal.
Nur
We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating the
extensive interior alterations to this facility has been on-going and as
yet remains unfinished. Detailed plans of the fire suppression system
required for the kitchen hood/duck system(s) has not been submitted
for review and approval. A life safety inspection cannot be performed
until construction/interior alteration work is completed. However,
subject to compliance with above items, this division has no objection
to this petition.
We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating
the following problems or deficiencies were found: 1. The approaches
on Six Mile Road need repair. 2. Interior and exterior renovations are
incomplete at this time.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step up and give us your name and address.
Dragisa Josifoski, 37630 Plymouth Road: Three years ago I was here applying for waiver
use for opening a restaurant and banquet hall. At that time we were
not aware of the size of the operation we were getting involved in. The
main thing is we thought we were going to open the place without the
liquor license, but by getting involved and working on the place, and by
15464
looking at the history of the place, you can see that place had a liquor
license since it was running as a restaurant. Even though they had a
liquor license, the owners did change many ownerships and they had a
hard time. By us coming over there and renovating the whole place
inside and outside, investing and putting a lot of personal work in, I got
wiser. I have been working on that place for three years, every day,
morning until night. I got wiser, smarter, older, and we figured we
have to have a liquor license. Talking with the people in the food
service business, because we have a 9500 sq. ft. building with a banquet
hall, we feel we need a liquor license because that is the only way that
place is going to be operating successfully. We did lots of work inside,
outside, heating, plumbing, electrical, foundation, basement. I have
some pictures I would like to show you. You probably ask what is
going on at that place for three years now. How come it is not done?
We are working on it. We are hard working people and we are going
to make this place work. The whole place is one level. We are trying
to make this place an upper scale family style restaurant. Thirty-five
percent of the seats are going to be tables for six. We are going to try
to bring families, people with kids and where the kids can have fun.
We are going to try to sponsor lots of sports teams in Livonia. After
the ball game they come and they can even watch the game on the TV
if they want. With the banquet hall we need a liquor license because
who is going to come to a banquet hall with a liquor license.
Mr. McCann: Do you have a liquor license sir?
Mr. Josifoski: We purchased a liquor license, a resort liquor license from out of town.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposal?
Joseph Pressotto, 30533 W. Six Mile Road: I have lived there for 35 years. I have seen
Vargo's go up. I have seen Vargo's burn. I have seen McGuire come
in. I have seen LaBordeaux and now this gentleman here. I have
watched him work for over two years on this building and he has
worked real hard both day and night. My son lives next door to me and
Mr. Davis on the other side and we all three agree that this man should
have a liquor license.
Sandra Murphy, 16955 Oporto: I am opposed to the Class C license requested by Pick-A-
Bone, Inc. I understand at one time the building did have a liquor
license. However, that was at least ten years ago or more, and in that
time the population has been encouraged to increase due to lot splits
and building on vacant property. According to the President of our
Homeowner's Association we are going to state there is a bar inside the
15465
restaurant and a banquet facility as stated. When the owner originally
requested permission to reopen the restaurant he stated it would be a
family-style restaurant. He did not indicate any desire at that time to
have a liquor license, no late hours, and like I said no liquor license.
The neighbors did not oppose it at that time because we realized that a
business would move in there, and we were agreeing on that restaurant
at that time. In my opinion, an establishment with a Class C liquor
license is not in keeping with a family oriented residential atmosphere
that exists in this area. I would also like to note there are five churches
on Six Mile between Middlebelt and Merriman. Along with my
opposition to the Class C liquor license I am also very concerned about
the barrier between the business and the property of the surrounding
homeowners. A waiver was granted to the owner in regard to a wall
along the easterly and southern side of the parking lot. The owner
assured the homeowner at that time that he would create a lovely tree
and shrub filled berm. There was a berm in existence but it is just a
grassy hill. there is nothing on top of it. He has planted six evergreens
which don't begin to do what they were intended to do, which is to
deter foot traffic up and over the berm into our yard. The property
directly south of the parking lot is to be developed with four or five
houses and there is absolutely no barrier other than this small berm.
Even the credit union to the west of the restaurant has a wall and that is
a very quiet business for us. They don't have any Saturday hours and
they are certainly not open late at night. I have a few photos here of
what was planted on top of the berm, and I also have a letter from
some of my other neighbors that were not able to attend tonight.
Mr. McCann: Does that letter reflect what you have read to us?
Ms. Murphy: It does and it says a few other things.
Mr. McCann: Would you like it read into the record or can you give us the additional
items that you think are pertinent. We can put it as part of the
permanent record in the file.
Ms. Murphy: As I stated, we were told there was absolutely no liquor license
requested or planned at the time he requested that the restaurant be re-
opened. We will eliminate the problem of the berm by planting a large
grouping of trees and shrubs and berm the area which will provide
security and enhance the view as opposed to the unsightliness of a brick
wall. The person that wrote this letter goes on to say it is preposterous
to think that the Planning Commission for the City of Livonia will
permit an establishment to serve alcoholic beverages and provide no
barrier to residential property, and I felt very strongly about that too. I
know that is not the issue tonight but we all feel very deceived.
15466
Mr. McCann: You understand before they can operate the restaurant they must go
back for their occupancy permit and they will review the berm and all
the other items they agreed on to make sure they comply with the
original site plan approved. As you are stating, that is not before us
this evening but we can refer it to the Inspection Department to take up
that matter so it can be addressed prior to them receiving an occupancy
permit.
Mr. Shane: There is a site plan which was approved in connection with the original
restaurant and it does show a berm with a fair amount of landscaping
on it. He will have to adhere to that original plan in order to get his
occupancy permit. He is not done yet.
Ms. Murphy: There is no planting of any kind other than these shrubs. I don't know
when the berm was approved, if it was when LaBordeaux was there. I
believe that the owner of LaBordeaux also at that time owned that
property directly to the south. So, of course, he wouldn't oppose the
berm because he owned most of the property adjoining the parking lot.
Mr. McCann: A separate gentleman owned the property south of there, isn't that
correct Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane: As I recall, yes.
Mr. McCann: However, we will look at that and we want to make sure that the berm
is up to, is it a three foot berm?
Mr. Shane: The only indication of a berm is that there is an existing landscape berm
which he was going to take advantage of. There are plantings in the
area, which takes advantage of that small berm you already mentioned.
There is no requirement on the site plan for any additional height on the
berm but there is a requirement for certainly more plant material.
Ms. Murphy: I would just like to reiterate that all the neighbors that signed the letter
feel we were deceived by the restaurant owner to begin with as to the
nature of the business.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Shane, has that berm been irrigated?
Mr. Shane: There is indication here that there is no underground sprinkling system
anticipated. There was none required. I take that back. There is a
note on here that says underground sprinkler system will be provided to
the landscaped area. It does require a sprinkler system.
15467
Mr. McCann: Mr. Josifoski I will allow you to make the last comment.
Mr. Josifoski: I would like to say the evergreen trees are not planted. We tried to
plant them last year and they died. We figured out we have to plant
them before we open. The sprinkler system is installed both on the east
side of the property and then inside the islands and in the front and on
the side of the building. On the south side of the building there is no
sprinkler system. I would like to mention that on the east side of the
property there used to be bushes and they were wild. They were out of
control so what we did, we cut them down and made them lower so
now they have more power in their roots so pretty soon they will start
getting green. In the front we will be planting trees.
Mr. McCann: You are going to have to comply with the landscape plan.
Mr. Josifoski: Right, we will comply.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-3-2-5 closed.
Mr. Hale: I believe in order for this site to have a chance it is going to need a
Class C Liquor License.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved,
it was
'�► #4-49-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-3-2-5 by Pick-A-Bone,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C License for a restaurant
located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Ryan Road and Oporto
Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-3-2-5 be approved
subject to adherence to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission
and City Council under Petition 94-4-2-10 for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use is in compliance 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.
15468
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, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-3-2-6 by Yvonne Khazouz requesting waiver use approval to expand the
seating for a limited service restaurant in an existing building located on the east
side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Van Court in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Inspection Department stating their office has
no objections to this proposal subject to the resolution of the items
listed in their letter dated June 24, 1996 (Petition 96-6-2-21). Also in
our file is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating their department has no
objection to this proposal.
N.. Mr. McCann: Would you explain why you need additional space?
Adnan Khazouz, 18251 Fremont: When the equipment was installed in the restaurant for
1200 sq. ft. it proved to be too much for a small restaurant. We should
operate a bigger seating area because we are capable of operating more
with the equipment we put in. The electrical, the plumbing, it is all
brand new and we are capable of serving more and they have property
available for us now. I would like to take it before someone else takes
it.
Mr. Piercecchi: I thought at first Mr. Chairman that inasmuch as this restaurant never
functioned, that it was strange they would come in for an expansion.
As you said, there was property that became available to you so you
could expand. Originally you were approved, I think it was in June of
1996, for 24 seats, and this particular package will have 70 if I read my
notes correctly.
Mr. Khazouz: That is correct.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-3-2-6 closed.
15469
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-50-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-3-2-6 by Yvonne
Khazouz requesting waiver use approval to expand the seating for a limited
service restaurant in an existing building located on the east side of Farmington
Road between Plymouth Road and Van Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
34, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Planning Commission that Petition 97-3-2-6 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than 70
seats; and
2) That the site deficiencies which are outlined in a letter dated June 24, 1996,
from the Inspection Department shall be taken care of prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
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
New
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. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-3-2-7 by Parkside Associates requesting waiver use approval to operate a child
day care center in an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between Six Mile Road and Pickford Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12.
15470
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received letters from the Engineering Department and Traffic
Bureau stating their offices have no objection to this proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating their office
has no objection to the site plan as submitted.
We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he has no
objection to this proposal. However, their division is not approving the
plan as submitted. Michigan Department of Social Services rules for
day care centers are more stringent than local codes. While the
proposed building is existing, establishing a new day care occupancy
falls under new construction rules. It will be required of the applicant
to submit a copy of State plan review to this office for review.
Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department
stating the following problems or deficiencies were found: 1. The
petitioner is proposing to utilize the existing bermed greenbelt on the
east property line as the outdoor play area. The Zoning Board of
Appeals Case#8709-158 substituted this greenbelt in lieu of the
required protective wall. The petitioner would be required to either
install the protective wall or re-apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for further relief 2. The bermed play area may prove to be difficult for
�.•- children to negotiate. 3. The petitioner needs written consent of 55%
of the residential property owners within a 400 ft. radius of the
property lines. (They have complied with that requirement) 4. The
parking area needs to be repaired, re-sealed and re-striped.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tom Orosz, 18330 Middlebelt Road: I represent Parkside Pavillion.
Mr. McCann: You represent the building owner?
Mr. Orosz: That is correct. With me is Jane Andrews, Small World Day Care
Center.
Jane Andrews: My address is 1941 Stockmeye Blvd., Westland, 48186.
Mr. McCann: Do you have a site plan with you this evening? Can you tell us a little
bit about what you plan to do.
Mr. Orosz: We intend to take three units within the first building, which is
approximately 3,000 feet and remodel that for day care. There is
15471
approximately 12,000 sq. ft. in the back of the property which right
now is a landscape berm, and we want to fulfill the 150 sq. ft. per child
requirement for play area by using the back lot. We have submitted
these plans to the state for review. They just haven't come back yet.
With regards to the barrier wall, we have submitted to the Building
Department for a waiver of use, and I believe that meeting will be April
29. I resubmitted a new set of plans to Mr. Woodcox. I did that
Thursday, and I think with regards to the interior space, I think we met
his requirements as far as fire, ease of ingress in case of fire. At this
time basically we are coming before you for approval of the idea of the
use and then we will come back April 29 and will discuss what we have
to do back there and whether it is a concrete barrier wall or what we
have to do to accommodate the City.
Mr. Piercecchi: I understand that the section of that building that you are going to use
is the one closest to Middlebelt Road.
Mr. Orosz: Right.
Mr. Piercecchi: You will have eight weeks to five year olds in there? Fifty-one of them
is what your capacity is?
Mr. Orosz: That is right. There is a sidewalk all the way along the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is the distance between where the children will be? They are
.�. babies just eight weeks old, that amazes me. What is going to be the
distance the children will have to walk? There is a lot of parking there.
What is the distance they will have to walk to that play area? It is very
far removed as far as I can see.
Mr. Orosz: At least 200 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think that is wise?
Mr. Orosz: It has a sidewalk all the way down along the side leading to the play
area.
Mr. Piercecchi: I realize that but kids are very rambunctious. Don't you think they
could run out in that parking lot, especially with it being on top of
Middlebelt Road? I think you have a very poor site personally.
Ms. Andrews: Can I say something. Right now I am located in downtown
Farmington, on Grand River between Farmington and Drake. We are
in the downtown business district and the same thing basically has
occurred as far as a play area because I have no play area attached to
15472
the facility. They allow us to use the City park, which is approximately
eight blocks, and they allow us to concentrate in the back of the
residential because it is not attached within walking distance and
because of that they did give me the waiver of use for that, and the
building itself. As far as young children, I do have the same age as I
have right now, which is eight weeks to five years old. That is what I
am looking to be licensed for. When they are outside they are
structured. There is a number of children per adult ratio, which the
state does require, so obviously they would not be out on their own.
They would be with an adult at all times. The play area would be
enclosed. They would be isolated at all times. When they are outside,
depending on the age of the child, say for instance if it were a three to
five year old, they would have a 1/6 ratio and the younger ones would
have a 1/4 ratio. Generally, weather permitting, the play area would be
used, I would say April through October. They don't go out in the
mid-winter months, and also the area would be used Monday through
Friday.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is interesting that you mention another community and the openness
which they allow you to go eight blocks away. I will be honest with
you. I do not let mistakes of other communities establish precedents
for my feelings on the safety of children. I think it is a bad site. I think
it is dangerous and I am going against it.
Mr. Hale: Why are you moving from Farmington Hills?
Ms. Andrews: Because the building was not handicap accessible and it was not relayed
to me when I first went into the contract.
Mr. Hale: Why have you decided on Livonia as being the new home for your
facility?
Ms. Andrews: It is not far from where I am currently located. Livonia is rated number
one for crime-free community and there are a lot of families here.
Mr. Hale: Have you taken a look at any other sites in Livonia at all?
Ms. Andrews: No, actually I was happy with that one.
Mr. Hale: Has the Department of Social Services been out to this site to take a
look at it?
Ms. Andrews: The actual consultant, no.
15473
Mr. Hale: They didn't have any problem with the proposed traffic problems
relative to the children?
Ms. Andrews: No.
Mr. Walsh: I would like to ask the owner of the property what thoughts the other
lessees in your property have to this proposal, if you have had a chance
to speak to them.
Mr. Orosz: It is a very quiet building. It is not like what you would call a general
office building that has a corridor down the center of the building with
public rest rooms. Everybody in there is kind of isolated. The way the
building was designed it was 1200 sq. ft. unit with their own
bathrooms, their own little kitchenettes and it doesn't have the same
interaction that a general type office building has. Everybody has their
own heating and cooling and parking right at their doors. The architect
that designed the building and drew these plans, this space is going to
be right next to him, and we made sure that we would insulate the
adjoining walls. Basically there has been no one that has voiced any
objection to what we are planning.
Mr. McCann: We will now go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to
speak for or against this proposal.
Nifty Doug Clinton, 18239 Grimm: That is directly to the east of the property. I would like to
go on record as being opposed to any use of that greenbelt for a
playground or any other use. When that property was originally
developed ten years ago it was agreed upon that I believe it is a
200'x63' berm and greenbelt area would be built as a buffer area
between the residential and the commercial development. I believe that
any alteration of that area will defeat the purpose that was designed for.
Darwin Zander, 18347 Grimm: My property also borders the proposed area. I signed this
lady's petition in favor of this without knowing anything was going to
happen on the greenbelt, and I am definitely opposed to that. The site
is a hillside for one thing. I don't know how they would put a
playground in. This has been an ongoing thing with the Parkside
people, and we have come to terms with getting the greenbelt and some
growth of the trees now where it is making progress. If they are going
to put a playground in, they are going to have to cut down some trees,
from what I can see, and that does defeat the purpose of it. My wife is
a teacher. She teaches second grade in the City of Detroit. She has 35
kids for nine months a year. There are three months when she is off
during the summer. She has a right to be in the backyard without
having to listen to kids.
15474
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared Petition 97-3-2-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-51-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-3-2-7 by Parkside
Associates requesting waiver use approval to operate a child day care center in
an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Six
Mile Road and Pickford Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
97-3-2-7 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 waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use of the greenbelt area located adjacent to the east
property line of the subject site for outdoor play area is in violation of a Zoning
Board of Appeals resolution under Appeal Case No. 8709-158 in which a
variance was granted establishing the said greenbelt for screening purposes in
lieu of a protective wall;
3) That the location of the proposed use is incompatible with and not in
harmony with the existing office uses in the subject office complex; and
4) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mr. Hale: I would like to say God love you for what you do in terms of your
work. I think it is a very important function of our community but I
just don't think it is the most appropriate place at this particular
building.
Mr. McCann: I am sympathetic to your cause and the need for day care in the
community. I introduced an ordinance in the City of Livonia, which
was adopted, liberalizing possible locations for child care. I myself
own a building, it is an historic home, that is being used for day care,
but I know what it is like having small children, my own four year old.
If you have six of them to one adult, trying to manage them, they can
15475
drop a ball, run out, go 200 feet down a parking lot where cars are
starting. They don't see the small children running behind them. I just
�.. don't believe that having to go through a parking lot to get to a play
area is appropriate, and I do feel for the neighbors. They requested and
received a greenbelt area for their quiet enjoyment to use their homes.
The building site plan was approved on that basis, and now to change
those conditions would be unfair to the neighbors. Therefore, I support
the denying resolution.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-3-
2-8 by Michael Cross requesting waiver use approval to allow for outdoor storage
of excavating equipment on property located on the west side of Merriman Road
between Plymouth Road and Glendale Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal. We have also received letters
from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal's office stating their offices
have no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter
from the Inspection Department stating the following problem was
found: 1. This proposal will require a variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals for the deficient front yard setback (required 100' -
provided 53') and deficient north side yard setback (required 20' -
provided 5').
We have also received the following letter from Lorna Schaffer of
11905 Merriman Road and Mary Garchow of 12055 Merriman Road:
We the undersigned, wish to file our objections to the above described
petition for waiver use approval for outdoor storage of excavating
equipment, drainage pipe, manhole structures, backhoes, trucks and
trailers. As you are advised, this property on the west side of
Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and Glendale Avenue. We
appreciate the fact that the property is presently zoned for industrial
purposes. You and the Livonia City Council have done an excellent job
in monitoring and approving zoning on Merriman Road. The existing
structures are compatible to the zoning and are really quite attractive.
The property is presently used as a residence and for outdoor storage
of recreational vehicles. The storage area has never been improved,
that is, it is not paved or properly graveled. The owner of the property
has not taken care of the property and it has become a resident of many
15476
small animals including moles, skunks, woodchucks, rabbits etc. The
undersigned have lived at the address as shown for a period in excess of
30 years. We do not object to the development of Merriman Road.
We understand that this is keeping with the zoning and at some point in
the far distant future, we would anticipate that all of Merriman Road
would be used for industrial purposes. We do however object to
outdoor storage in this area of drainage pipes, manholes structures,
dump trucks and trailers. It is obnoxious to the neighborhood. We
suggest that each of you view other areas where property is used for
this purpose and you will see how unsightly it is and a detriment to all
of the surrounding properties. The Carlesimo on the north side of
Eight Mile Road near Middlebelt Road is a good example. Let it be
noted that this proposal does not allow for sufficient side or front
yards. It is apparent that the petitioner must be granted variances from
the zoning board of appeals in order to complete his proposal. It is
obvious to the writers that there is no hardship on the petitioner. The
variances can only be granted in the event there is a hardship. I would
suggest that you consult with the Livonia City Attorney who has
knowledge of the fact that the City of Livonia has lost cases before the
Wayne County Circuit Court in incidents where there is not hardship
and variances have been granted. A good example is the case of the
Rosedale Gardens Civic Associations vs. Rosedale Gardens
Presbyterian Church. We know that you will give serious consideration
to the petitioner and our objections. We intend to appear before you
on the evening of April 15, 1997. We would ask each of you to vote
against this proposal.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Michael Cross, 33724 Bernadine, Farmington Hills: We are an excavating contractor. I
have been in business for 22 years. We are proposing to construct a
facility that would store equipment indoors, act as an office, and in the
rear yard area behind this structure, we currently have seven or eight
pieces of equipment, which are the smaller type excavating and grading
pieces of equipment, small dozers, baffle loaders, something you would
see in the municipal yard possibly of Livonia. We don't really stock
huge cranes and things of this nature. We are currently in Farmington
Hills with no problems. I built a building there several years ago. It is
just a small site and I am looking to get a little bit bigger site with a
little more outdoor space basically and put up a larger facility.
Mr. Hale: When Mr. Piercecchi and I were out to look at the site we noticed that
there was a"For Sale" sign on the property. Is that adjacent property
for sale?
15477
Mr. Cross: That is the property we are discussing.
',moww Mr. Hale: There are two houses there correct?
Mr. Cross: No, our property is approximately 110 feet wide. The other home
south serves as a, I may not be correct, but possibly an office
type/residential thing. That is not on this property.
Mr. Hale: The one house is going to be removed as part of your proposal?
Mr. Cross: That is correct.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-3-2-8 closed.
Mr. Hale: Under Section 19.06 this Commission is required to consider the height
and location of certain buildings in relation to the proposed use. My
feeling is this type of excavation equipment being stored at this location
is not consistent and is not compatible with the surrounding area.
Although one house as you said would be demolished as part of the
proposed plan, the other house would not be demolished. I don't see
how that all blends in together very well. Storage is going to be inside
as well as outside. I don't think this is consistent with the zoning
composition of that particular area.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-52-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-3-2-8 by Michael Cross
requesting waiver use approval to allow for outdoor storage of excavating
equipment on property located on the west side of Merriman Road between
Plymouth Road and Glendale Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 97-3-2-8 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as
set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the
adjacent residential uses in the area;
3) That the proposed use will tend to encourage similar type uses to be
proposed for other similar properties in the area; and
15478
4) That the subject use, as proposed, fails to comply with the building setback
Lirrequirements as set forth in Section 16.04 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
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: I would like to add a comment. I looked at that area. It is abutting
Merriman Road. It is M-1. This is a waiver use within the M-1. What
we are trying to do with the M-1 is try to make it something that
manufacturers can use, although it is the type of manufacturing we
would like to have along Merriman Road, that would be distracting and
there is residential in the near neighborhood. Therefore, I have to join
in the denying resolution.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission to vacate Whitcomb Street west of
Fitzgerald between Mallory and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 17.
Mawr
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
since there are sanitary sewer and water main facilities within the
current public right-of-way, appropriate 12 foot wide easements are
retained within the legal description noted herein. Further, it is not
clear as to who would be responsible for removing the existing
Whitcomb pavement, sidewalks, etc., and restoring the
Fitzgerald/Whitcomb intersection to a standard through street.
I should tell you that after receiving that letter we did discuss this
matter with the City's Law Department and their opinion is it would be
the responsibility of the owners of the property to remove the
pavement, curbs, sidewalks, etc. So the two property owners on either
side would have that responsibility.
Mr. McCann: Are the adjoining property owners here tonight? Did the staff contact
them?
Mr. Shane: No we did not. We presumed they would attend the public hearing.
15479
Mr. McCann: Sir do you have a comment to make?
Gary Witt: I am the Vice Chairman of the civic association where this would take
place. I don't think the homeowners were notified. We didn't receive
the typical notice that we received for example for the Frankel
presentation. I would hope you would give the homeowners that
opportunity. The civic association supports elimination of the street
but we have a concern about the cost of doing so and what does that
mean? Does somebody take the concrete out of there and what
actually happens? Who is responsible to maintain it? Does it go to the
adjacent homeowners and become grass? Who puts the grass in? All
those kinds of things.
Mr. McCann: The property would be split between the two adjacent property owners
and according to our law Department it would be their responsibility
for removal of the concrete, redoing the sewer system in that area and
putting it back to grass. They would have to cap the sewer drains. I
assume there are sewer drains at the end of Whitcomb there.
Mr. Shane: It depends on where the sewer lets out. If there is a manhole there, yes
but if not, they wouldn't have to deal with the sewer. What they would
have to do is remove the concrete, the sidewalk, the curbs and restore a
curb across the intersection along Fitzgerald Avenue. By the way, the
abutting property owners did receive notification but we don't notify a
whole neighborhood.
Mr. Piercecchi: Why does all that cement have to be removed? There has to be six
inches there. You could put some dirt and put a lawn in.
Mr. Shane: I think the Engineering Department was assuming someone would want
to remove it. We wanted to find out if it were removed, whose
responsibility it is. I think you would certainly want to remove the
curbs. You would have to put a new curb along Fitzgerald. A lot of
things would have to be done.
Mr. McCann: Where are the driveway accesses off of?
Mr. Shane: The driveway accesses are off Fitzgerald. The street is not utilized for
anything.
Mr. Walsh: H, were the abutting landowners notified that they would be
responsible for the removal of the cement?
Mr. Shane: No, they were notified of this public hearing.
15480
Mr. Walsh: I think we should inform them that they are responsible first of all.
Mr. McCann: What we can do is conclude the public hearing and then we can just put
it on a general meeting. We will let the staff get to these individuals
and find out what their intentions are. They can come back, of course,
if they wish. We can then determine what to do after that.
Mr. Witt: We would like to see the elimination of the street but we don't expect
to do that at the unreasonable expense of a couple of the residents.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-2-3-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-53-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-2-3-2 by the City
Planning Commission to vacate Whitcomb Street west of Fitzgerald between
Mallory and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 97-2-3-2 until
April 29, 1997.
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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#1056-96, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance so as to provide for site plan approval in manufacturing zones which
abut residential property.
Mr. McCann: This is a Planning Commission item. Mr. Shane you could possibly
give us a brief description of the intent.
Mr. Shane: This is a public hearing being held pursuant to a request of the City
Council to amend the zoning ordinance with respect to industrial
districts. What they have in mind is that the manufacturing zone would
be amended so as to require site plan approval for those properties to
be developed in industrial areas which abut residential property. There
15481
are a number of properties within the industrial belt that have
residential uses on them and their concern is when industrial is adjacent
.,. to them that there should be some additional control through the site
plan approval process.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-2-6-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved,
it was
#4-54-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15,
1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-2-6-1 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#1056-96, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to
provide for site plan approval in manufacturing zones which abut residential
property, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 97-2-6-1 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide the City with
additional control over the development of industrial property that is adjacent
to residential uses;
\... 2) That the proposed language amendment will insure that industrial
development is compatible with adjacent residential uses; 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 public hearing was given in
accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann: Item 10 has been removed from the agenda per the request of the
petitioner. We will move on to Item 11.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Motion by
the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or
not to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road between Victor
15482
Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from C-2 to
PO III.
Mr. McCann: This is to look at a piece of property in the I-275 Expressway near
Seven Mile Road to rezone it from a commercial use to an office use.
Is there anything additional that we need to know on this one Mr.
Shane?
Mr. Shane: Not at this point.
Mr. McCann: We need a motion to hold a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-55-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone property located north of Seven Mile
Road between Victor Parkway and I-275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from C-2 and C-4 III to PO III; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of
the minutes of the of the 740th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March
4, 1997.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale and seconded by Mr. Walsh, it was
#4-56-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 740th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held on March 4, 1997 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, Hale, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Alanskas
ABSTAIN: Blomberg
15483
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Item 13 has been taken off the agenda at the petitioner's request.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-3-8-7 by Merritt McCallum Cieslak, PC, on behalf of St. Timothy Presbyterian
Church, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the church
located at 16700 Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Miller: St. Timothy Presbyterian Church is located on the east side of
Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Munger Avenue. What
they are proposing to do is construct a 3,727 sq. ft. addition to the
northeast corner of the existing church. As you can see it is an L-
shaped addition and will extend the north elevation and the east
elevation of the existing church. The existing church is 8,805 sq. ft. so
once completed the entire church with the addition would be 12,532 sq.
ft. in size. The floor plan of the new addition will provide additional
classrooms, a kitchen area and some office space. Also, there will be
new partition walls in the classroom which can be folded down and this
would expand the fellowship hall. The existing parking on the side is
not affected by the new addition because it does not affect the assembly
area, which the parking is based on. The existing parking on the site is
128 parking spaces. The church is only required to have 84 so they
exceed the parking requirement of the church. (Mr. Miller presented
the building elevations) The new elevations will be constructed out of
brick, which the existing church is constructed out of. Once completed
it should look like it was constructed all at one time.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane is there anything additional since last time?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Ron Cieslak, 991 Grace, Northville: I represent St. Timothy Presbyterian Church. (He
presented samples of brick and elevation plans) The building exterior is
designed to be compatible with the existing building. We are planning
on matching the existing brick as close as we can to a building that is
30 years old. We are planning on reshingling the existing sanctuary.
Right now the only part of the building which is shingled is the
sanctuary. The new construction will continue the gable of the
sanctuary straight back and over the fellowship hall addition so by
15484
reshingling again it will just help tie that all together. The trim on the
building will match the character and color of what we have now. One
~� of the letters from the building department was that some restoration
needs to be done on the existing trim and we are planning on doing that
as a part of this project. Another comment was raised by the Fire
Marshal in terms of the size of the building and the need for a fire wall.
I have corresponded with him and we have worked that out. What we
are attempting to do here is to provide space for the church that they
have long needed, a fellowship hall, plus classroom space, some office
space where it is more easily accessible to the parking as people enter
the building. It will be tied into the original building in such a way that
it appears to be a part of the original concept and design of the facility.
With that I will be happy to answer any questions.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-57-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 97-3-8-7 by Merritt McCallum Cieslak, PC, on
behalf of St. Timothy Presbyterian Church, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the church located at 16700 Newburgh
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated March 17, 1997 prepared by
Merritt McCallum Cieslak, PC, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the two pages of Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Concept
D dated February 27, 1997 prepared by Merritt McCallum Cieslak, PC, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the building materials of the new addition shall match the building
materials of the existing church so that upon completion the entire structure
shall be homogenous in appearance;
4) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the addition and the wooden
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times;
5) That the petitioner shall meet to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following requirement outlined in the correspondence from the Sr. Building
Inspector dated April 1, 1997:
That the trim and overhang on the existing building shall be repainted.
15485
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Extension of
Petition 96-3-8-4 by Harley Ellington Design, on behalf of Botsford General
Hospital, requesting a one year extension of all plans in connection with the
construction of an Oncology Center on property located at 28425 Eight Mile Road
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Angling and Brentwood. Approximately a year ago they received site
plan approval to construct an oncology center on the site. There is
already an existing Botsford Kidney Center on site and to the south of
the property they were going to build the oncology center. They
received site plan approval and now they are just asking for an
extension of that approval.
If there are no comments or questions, a motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously
approved, it was
'glow #4-58-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the Extension of Petition 96-3-8-4 by Harley Ellington
Design, on behalf of Botsford General Hospital, requesting a one year
extension of all plans in connection with the construction of an Oncology
Center on property located at 28425 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 1 be approved subject to the following condition:
1) That the request for a one-year extension of Site Plan Approval by Harley
Ellington Design, on behalf of Botsford General Hospital, in a letter dated
February 25, 1997, is hereby approved and shall be subject to all conditions
and requirements set forth in the original resolution.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision to
Petition 79-4-2-11 by McCann Dumont and Associates, on behalf of Arthur
Treacher's Fish& Chips Restaurant, requesting approval to revise the plans that
were approved with this petition and approval of signage for the property located
at 29010 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1.
15486
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Middlebelt and Parkville Avenue. This is the former site of Seafood
1411/1, Bay Restaurant, and the petitioner is proposing to put an Arthur
Treacher's restaurant in this facility. Part of the plan is to paint the
building plus redo the parking lot and add a drive-thru window on the
site. What they are proposing to do is remove part of the sidewalk that
runs in front of the building to the public sidewalk and turn that into a
drive-thru type of facility. The drive-thru would be on the east
elevation of the site. The stacking area would be around the front of
the building. To allow the amount of parking they need for the
restaurant, the parking lot would be reconfigured where there is an
existing drive that would be blocked off and would be seeded with
grass. Parking for the restaurant, they are required to have 44 spaces,
and that is what the site plan shows. The landscaping on site, there is
very little landscaping on site. The petitioner is proposing to add
landscaping on four corners of the site and also around the menu board
of the drive-thru. It works out to be about 6% of the site. They are
required to have 15% so they are short. They are proposing signage
for this building, a ground sign. They are allowed one at 30 sq. ft.
That is what they are proposing and that will be located on the right
hand side of the drive into the site. It would be located in the landscape
area at the southeast corner of the site. (Mr. Miller presented a color
rendering of the elevation) Also, there will be an awning type of sign
between the two mansard roofs. They are allowed one wall sign at 58
sq. ft. They are proposing one at 50 sq. ft. so they meet the
requirements for the sign.
Mr. McCann: Would the petitioners please come down. Again,just for clarification,
McCann Dumont and Associates, I am not related to McCann. We
have no similar relations.
Steve Dumont, McCann Dumont and Associates, 22757 Woodward Ave., Ferndale: We
have made extensive efforts on this site to find as much landscaping as
physically possible and still maintain the required 44 spots. We have
added a new dumpster. The parking area will be patched, sealed and
restriped. The existing sign that is there now, it is an outdated, pretty
ugly looking sign. We wanted to get rid of that. We are complying
with that. We didn't like exiting out on Parkville into residential area.
We didn't feel it was a good situation so we wanted to block that up.
We provided the necessary handicap parking in the front and basically I
feel we have met all the requirements of the City.
Mr. Piercecchi: You say you had difficulty meeting the landscaping requirements
because of parking?
15487
Mr. Dumont: We are required to have 44 spots.
v.. Mr. Piercecchi: You say you met all of the requirements of the City but according to
Mr. Miller you only have 6% landscaping, and we like 15%. That is a
City requirement. Is there any reason why you can't meet that?
Mr. Dumont: If we add in the additional 6% landscape area, we would have to take
away parking to achieve that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would you accept the Planning Department's method of organizing so
you could get another 9% in there?
Mr. Shane: As he indicated he has probably 100% more landscaping then he had at
your study meeting. In order to achieve the amount of parking spaces
he has, there is really nothing left to be done to increase the amount.
This is one of those cases where you have an existing site, an existing
building, and it predated the 15% landscaping requirement. I think this
is a case where a variance in this case from the Planning Commission
would be reasonable. They have done just about all they can in that
regard.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is what I wanted to know. I figured perhaps you could figure out
a way to get another 9% in there. One other thing, Bob Alanskas isn't
here tonight. He called me up about six o'clock and he said find out
about those old sign pillars in the southwest corner of that site. There
are some old sign pillars sticking up there. He said they should be
removed.
Mr. Dumont: They will be removed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-59-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the Revision to Petition 79-4-2-11 by McCann Dumont
and Associates, on behalf of Arthur Treacher's Fish& Chips Restaurant,
requesting approval to revise the plans that were approved with this petition
and approval of signage for the property located at 29010 Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, be approved subject to the following
conditions, which includes items covered in the correspondence from the Sr.
Building Inspector:
1) That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet S-1 dated April 7, 1997
prepared by R. W. Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
r..
15488
2) 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;
3) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated January
31, 1997 prepared by R.W. Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
4) That the Sign Package submitted by McCann Dumont & Associates as
received by the Planning Commission on February 19, 1997, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the
restaurant closes;
6) That the petitioner shall meet to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following requirement outlined in the correspondence from the Sr. Building
Inspector dated April 2, 1997:
1. That the parking lot shall be repaired, sealed and restriped.
2. That all light standards shall have shields so as to keep the light
,ollw contained on site.
3. Back lighting of the awning sign shall be limited to and calculated as
sign area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
97-3-8-8 by Amson-Dembs Development Company, on behalf of Murray's
Discount Auto Stores, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial building on property located at 28281 Eight Mile Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between
Inkster and Angling. It is in front of the Weirton Plaza Shopping
Center and will become part of the shopping center. It was the old site
of the Michigan Bank which has been recently torn down. The
proposal is for a 10,277 sq. ft. commercial building which will be made
into a Murray's Discount Auto Store. Because this is part of the
shopping center, parking for the whole center had to be factored into
15489
this, and we can use the parking for the center. The center at this site is
required to have 753 parking spaces. They provide 753 spaces so it
meets the parking requirements. Landscaping on site, they are required
to have 15% and this center alone has 15% so they meet the
landscaping requirement. There is a trash dumpster located behind the
building. The new building will be constructed out of concrete scored
block with a synethic plaster fascia over the windows and entrance of
the building. All rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened and
the screening will be painted the same color as the building.
Mr. McCann: Will the petitioner please come forward and tell us a little bit about
your project.
Ryan Dembs, 27300 W. Eleven Mile, Southfield: It is on the south side of Eight Mile
Road. It is going to be constructed out of masonry block with a dryvit
front which wraps around the side. It is painted a pussy willow gray
with recessed bands that will go around the building, which will be
painted red. There will be two red stripes around the building. Any
questions I can answer?
Mr. Hale: Is it similar to the construction in Chicago? At the study session we
had brought to your attention the problems related to brick
construction. Has that been modified at all?
Mr. Dembs: We are still planning to make it out of block. I talked to Murray's a
little bit about making it out of brick. They didn't seem to be happy
about it. The one in Chicago that we thought was brick did turn out to
be block. They are constructing all their new stores out of the same
materials. They want them to look the same.
Mr. Hale: So there are no Murray stores that are made out of brick?
Mr. Dembs: No new stores. There are some stores that are in existing shopping
centers and the shopping centers are brick, but the new freestanding
stores are all going to be made out of the same material.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any reason why you won't put it all in brick?
Mr. Dembs: The only reason I could come up with is they want the same look for all
their stores, and they are planning on putting up a lot of new stores in
this state and other states, and they are going with a certain look, and
they just stressed that. That was really the only reason they had.
15490
Mr. Piercecchi: We hear that comment on more than one occasion, and we find out
they do make exceptions. That is a very, very, important area there. It
o, is Grand River, it is Inkster, it is Eight Mile Road. We sure don't want
a Plymouth Road Murray's. We have always insisted on brick and as a
rule everybody complies with it.
Mr. Dembs: At the last meeting I provided you some addresses of stores to go look
at. I don't know if anybody went to look at them but one of the things
they stress is to take care of their buildings, the outside and the inside.
They are kept up very nicely. I don't know if anybody drove by the
stores but if you drive by the new stores you can see that they make an
outstanding effort to keep them looking good. If it is the look, that is
going to look shabby, that wouldn't be the case with them because of
the fact they do take tremendous care of their buildings.
Mr. McCann: One of our concerns is, and we have seen it repeatedly, is that large
corporations may get in and out of a business or may get in and out of
an area. If they determine that this area is not proper, they will sell that
building and then we have a painted building that goes on to the next
tenant. What kind of care is he going to give it? When we get a brick
building, we know there is very little maintenance, and we are not
going to have to worry about that no matter who comes in there. This
is an entrance to the City of Livonia and we are trying to create a nice
entrance.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#4-60-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 97-3-8-8 by Amson-Dembs Development
Company, on behalf of Murray's Discount Auto Stores, requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with
a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 28281
Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated 3/18/97 prepared by PDA
Architects, PC, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, with the condition
that all four sides of the building shall be constructed out of brick;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS-1 dated 3/18/97 prepared by
PDA Architects, PC, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the
fact that all lawn areas shall be sodded;
15491
3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new 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;
4) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated 3/18/97
prepared by PDA Architects, PC, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except for the fact that the building shall be constructed out of brick on all four
sides;
5) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the building and the wooden
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 741st Regular Meeting&
Public Hearings held on April 15, 1996 was adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Daniel Piercecchi, Acting, Secretary
/ /7/7
ATTEST:'
James C. McCann, Chairman
i
jg