HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-05-13 15518
MINUTES OF THE 743RD REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 13, 1997 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
743rd 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 20 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale
Patricia Blomberg Robert Alanskas
Members absent: John Walsh
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV, and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present:
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council, otherwise the petition is terminated.
The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a
vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after
the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon
their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions.
The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the
hearing tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-4-1-4 by
Gordon Food Services, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Six Mile Road east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12
from AG to C-l.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Department of Public Works, Engineering
Division, dated April 15, 1997, which reads as follows: Pursuant to
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced zoning petition. The legal description attached to the
petition meets with the approval of this office. Should this rezoning
petition by approved, the site plan for the proposed commercial
rr..-
15519
development must be approved by the Department of Environmental
Quality with respect to the Tarabusi Creek adjacent to the site. The
Tarabusi Creek in this area is designated as a wetland (R20 WH) and it
is possible the above agency will not allow encroachment or a
proposed storm sewer outlet into the Tarabusi Creek. In regard to the
existing 100 year flood plain connected with the Tarabusi Creek, the
Engineering Division will require that provisions be shown on the
proposed plans to protect against inadvertent filling of the flood plain
during construction. We trust this will provide you with the
information requested. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact this office. That is signed by Richard A. Grodek, Civil
Engineer II.
Todd Pederson, 333 Fiftieth Street, Grand Rapids: I am the site manager for Gordon
Food Service. We have our corporate office in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. I have been with the company for 40 projects now at
different communities. We are petitioning for rezoning for the parcel
as shown. I do have a site plan with me this evening that we've
developed for that parcel. I know we won't be able to address the site
plan this evening, but it will give you some idea as to what we would
like to do.
Mr. McCann: While you are showing us the site plan, tell us something about
Gordon Food Service and the type of retail outfit it is.
Todd Pederson: Gordon Food Service is a 100 year old corporation, primarily in the
food distribution business, but in the last 8 years we have developed
over 60 retail stores in 4 states including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and
Indiana. We are on a pattern of growth right now with 14 units a year.
Our distribution is primarily of delivery of our own products with our
own labels to hospitals, schools, institutions, restaurants and party-
planning facilities. Our retail outlets, the Market Place Store, is
primarily an outlet for our existing customers in the market that we
have already established such as our Detroit market, Livonia being an
integral part of that. We have in stock 3,000 of 10,000 items, food
items and also utensil items such as silverware, paper plates, paper
towels and anything you can imagine a restaurant or a church or school
might need. Anything else that is not in stock will be available by next
day service. This is for our customers, as well as an opportunity for
the general public to come in to our facility at no charge. No
admission charge or no annual fee of any kind. Our primary
customers are our existing customers whether it be Sam's Restaurant,
for example, or St. Mary's Church or whatever. Some of these people
may be receiving our deliveries now and they are people who are used
to a certain quality of food that they are getting from our company at
15520
this time. If they run out of that before our regular scheduled delivery,
they can go into a store such as the Market Place facility and get that
product, the same product they are used to at the same discounted rate
they may have been getting, or at the retail rate we have on the shelf
each day. With that in mind, this is the triangular piece of property. I
know we are not here for site plan approval, but we have located the
building primarily in the middle. My understanding is we do meet the
parking requirements that are necessary. We are not asking for
variances of any kind. The building will be brick and the landscape
ordinance is not a problem for us to fulfill our obligation. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. McCann: You have a color rendering you would like to show us?
Mr. Pederson: (Displayed a color rendering). The building is a brick facade with
three different colors of brick. The bottom is a dark shade of red and I
do have the brick samples here if you wish to see those as well. We
have two shades of red brick, a lighter shade of red and a darker shade
of red. The body of the building primarily is in the darker shade of red
with a filler accent of the lighter shade of red. The bright red line is
ceramic tile which is added for a decorative touch. The canopy is
made of aleczon plastic and is very durable. It holds its shine and
color through the test of time. We have a guarantee from the people
who make it for us. Gordon Food Service is one of the few people
who have spent this kind of money to have this kind of canopy-type
awning. This is glass material on the store front and we have
automatic sliders, and all the glass is just regular tempered glass, silver
anodized frame to go with the rest of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: This is quite a bit different from the store on Ten Mile and Grand
River, isn't it?
Mr. Pederson: Yes, it is.
Mr. Hale: That was a nice presentation. Has Gordon Food Service considered
any other location in Livonia?
Mr. Pederson: We have looked in Livonia for four or five years. There have been
other opportunities for us, but those other opportunities have been in
an area that we felt would not service the needs of our customers, or
existing buildings that were too complicated to renovate and do
business out of. This site seems to suit our needs best based on what
we've found in the market.
15521
Mr. Alanskas: I know this is a rezoning, but I have one questions. What percentage
of your business is truck loading and unloading in all of your stores,
�... not just Livonia?
Mr. Pederson: We have a distribution center in Brighton, Michigan, and we can run
this entire store with two truck deliveries a week. Those deliveries
could come any time of the day that would be convenient for the
citizens of Livonia. We own the truck units and facilities and can send
them out any time.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Ray Tent, 18051 Deering, Livonia: This particular item happens to be in the area of the
Parkway Acres Civic Association and I am the president of that
Association, so we are really, really interested in this piece of property.
The Gordon Food Service company -there is nothing wrong with it;
it's a good operation and I am delighted they are trying to come into
Livonia and I think they will do a fine job. The thing that concerns me
most is the flood plain. That property has been vacant for 40 years.
Brookdale Cemetery owned it, had some problems, and that was
squared away, and then changed to Mt. Hope. During that interim we
had many developers that would have like to develop it, but the thing
that was bad about it was the Tarabusi Creek because it ran right
through that property. The property was very much affected in this
particular case by backing up in the flood plains and so forth. When a
developer tried to develop it in 1968, they put some drainage through
this particular piece of property and that was supposed to correct it.
We have been watching it religiously because if anything comes in
there then that will be taken into consideration. The Engineering letter
supports the feeling. If the flood plain problem could be corrected and
the drainage situation could be corrected, then there would be nothing
wrong. But if we are going to go in and rue the day like some other
developments in the City and come back and haunt us in three or four
years, then we've got bigger problems. So I would caution the
Council and the Planning Commission, when they entertain any
petition to approve this, let us have all the answers, and the biggest
question is the flood plain because it's monstrous once it gets going. I
realize this isn't a site plan but a zoning request, but sometimes it helps
to know what the developer is going to do. A particular concern is the
parking in the lots - 10'x20'? Great. The building facade has been
addressed; I didn't want a block building in that particular location.
Overnight parking of trucks, loading and unloading, I believe they will
be addressing that. Signage is another thing that I was concerned
about - we don't want it looking like Las Vegas. Landscaping - if they
15522
will attend to the landscaping and make it attractive, I think this will be
a nice addition to the City and we can live with it. Those are my
concerns and objections, and thank you for listening.
Barbara Cook: I serve as a volunteer chairman of the Adat Shalom synagogue which
is just east of this property and on the other side of the creek. I am
here representing all of the families that have people buried in the
cemetery and all future people who have already purchased plots. We
now have 7,000 burials in the cemetery with another 3,000 which have
been sold. We have a potential of another 9,000 plots at the cemetery.
The cemetery has been there for 50 years and recently we have made
improvements- the Tarabusi Creek flows into a pond that is right on
our property right before you reach Six Mile Road and then it flows
back. With the DNR and Livonia's approval, we just improved that at
a cost of$150,000 because the sides of the creek were deteriorating.
We are expressing grave concerns about runoff from this property once
we have asphalt and cement and whatever else it is going to be. All of
the money that we have now put in to trying to keep that property
looking nice and that creek flowing correctly could go down the drain
for us because it flows in and additionally we have great concerns
because if that creek floods, it floods into our cemetery. Yes, we are
not in the flood plain, but we are right beyond the flood plain. I notice
on the rendering that this building will be smack-dab against the flood
r... plain on the back, and that is of great concern because all the runoff
will go back there. There is no berm. We are going to see the back of
the building and for those people who will have their loved ones at the
cemetery, that is a great concern to a lot of people. If those trees come
down or die off that are in the flood plain, we are going to see the back
of the building. The other concern is noise during the day when we are
having a funeral. We do have funerals Monday through Friday, not on
Saturdays, and on Sunday. Our cemetery is closed at 5:00 and opens
in the morning and we try to keep it up, but it is of great concern, and
noise and odors that could come from the dumpster. All those things
that we have been able to tell our people that it's a wonderful cemetery
and we have been able to make sales are now of a concern to us that
may not be there in the future. Thank you and I hope you will take
these concerns very seriously.
Mr. McCann: I would like to ask the petitioner, do you run off to a sewer system, or
do you drain into the Tarabusi?
Mr. Pederson: At this point I am not sure what the engineering plan is other than we
know we have to comply with everything that's required. We certainly
plan to do that.
15523
Mr. McCann: You also have to go to the DNR for approval?
Mr. Pederson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas: This is for Mr. Tent. I would like to read from our notes. "Since all of
the subject property lies outside of the flood plain limits as shown on
the site plan submitted with this rezoning request, presumably the
entire land area would be buildable."
Ms. Cook: I understood it was outside the flood plain. It backs right up to it.
There's no berm. When that flow which normally goes through a
porous earth and goes into that creek slowly, it's going to hit that
creek. I talked to the Engineering Department today and they
explained to me that that flow will go in quickly now.
Mr. McCann: When it does come back for site plan, at that time you can make
arrangements with the Engineering Department and make sure your
concerns are expressed so that they can address them when this
particular site plan goes to Engineering.
Ms. Cook: We would not be in favor of having this rezoned to C-1 because it will
disturb that quiet atmosphere that we presently have at the cemetery.
Mr. McCann: You understand that the parcel next to it is already zoned commercial.
Ms. Cook: Yes, we do, but that is all the way on the corner, not abutting to our
property. There is a differential in our mind of being next to us and
not being all the way on the corner.
Mr. McCann: Have you filed an objection with the City Council?
Ms. Cook: No, I have not. I went to the Planning Department and they told me to
come tonight.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-4-1-4 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it
was
#5-75-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
May 13, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-4-1-4
by Gordon Food Services, Inc. requesting to rezone property located
on the north side of Six Mile Road east of Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 12 from AG to C-1, the Planning
15524
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
97-4-1-4 be approved subject to the following conditions:
r.. 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the use of
property which has been vacant for a long period of time;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide additional
commercial services to serve surrounding neighborhoods;
3) That it is unlikely that the subject land area will ever be used for
cemetery purposes, and
4) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the use of similar
situated properties 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. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-4-1-5 by
the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located north of
Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and the I-275 Expressway in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from C-2 and C4-III to PO-III.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated April 18, 1997
as follows: Pursuant to your request, the engineering Department has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The legal description
contained with the petition meets with the approval of this office. We
have no objections to the rezoning petition. We trust this will provide
you with the information requested. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact this office.
We also have a letter from J. Creig Anderson of the Tandy Corporation
to Mr. John Nagy and Mr. Al Nowak: "Gentlemen: In furtherance of
the conversations between representatives of Tandy and each of you,
Tandy urgently requests that the public hearing and request for
changes in zoning affecting the property be postponed until such time
as Tandy has had an opportunity to review and consider the effect of
the proposed change. As I informed Mr. Nowak today, Incredible
15525
Universe Land Acquisition Trust and Harris Trust and Savings Bank
are simply financing tools of Tandy Corporation. Although Harris
�.. Trust has in the past forwarded on to Tandy all planning and zoning
notices that they had received from the City of Livonia, Tandy never
received the notice relating to this proposed change in the zoning of
the property. On behalf of Tandy, I formally request that (i) you fax
me a copy of the Notice as soon as possible to the fax number shown
above; and (ii) advise me on Monday, May 12, 1997 whether you
expect this matter to be postponed, and/or whether you think someone
from Tandy should personally attend the May 13, 1997 meeting to
formally present such request."
There is also a letter from Chairman James C. McCann of the Planning
Commission which reads as follows: " Dear Mr. Anderson: This is to
advise you that the public hearing relative to the above referenced
rezoning petition will proceed as scheduled. That public hearing will
take place on May 13 at 7:30 p.m. in the auditorium within the City
Hall located at 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia. You or your
representative should be in attendance to respond to questions the
Planning Commission is likely to have for you. As you have
previously been made aware, notices of this public hearing have been
sent out along with a notice that has been published in our local
newspaper, Observer & Eccentric, that causes the Planning
Commission to hear public comment at the scheduled meeting. By
attending this meeting you can explain the circumstances surrounding
your difficulty in receiving your notice and can ask that this matter be
tabled by the Planning Commission following the public hearing to
provide you with the additional time you may need. The Planning
Commission may or may not grant you your request, however, they are
a recommending body and are directed by the City Council to hear
this matter and report back to the Council. The City Council in turn
will hold their own public hearing at which time you will be given
notice of the date and time of that hearing as well. The City Council
will make the final determination as to whether or not this property
should be rezoned.
Mr. McCann: We will go right to the audience and allow the owner of the property to
speak first.
Zora Johnson with the law firm, Dykma Gossett, 400 Renaissance Center, Detroit,
Michigan. I am appearing tonight on behalf of Tandy Corporation and
Incredible Universe who have the ownership interest in the property
that has been proposed for rezoning by the City. My client strongly
opposes the rezoning and they also object to any action by the
Planning Commission this evening and in fact take the position that
15526
such action would be unlawful because they were not given the
statutorily required notice. We would ask the Planning Commission
,41•aw that any action other than a recommendation of denial be tabled for at
least 30 days while my out-of-state clients are given the required
notice and an opportunity to be heard. As you are aware, the rezoning
mentioned was initiated by the City. My clients had absolutely no
knowledge whatsoever that this was being undertaken until last week.
The notice that they received was not the statutorily required notice, it
was by way of a phone call by Mr. Nagy to a Tandy Corporation
employee who would not have any role in evaluating a rezoning
proposal such as this. However, he communicated the information to
individuals at Tandy who were responsible and then contacted the
City. It is our understanding that if we request an adjournment of the
hearing this evening that that will be granted. By letter dated May 9,
Creig Anderson of Tandy Corporation, Real Estate Counsel and
Director of Lease Operations, sent a letter to John Nagy and Al Nowak
asking that the hearing this evening be adjourned because we hadn't
received notice and we did not have adequate opportunity to respond
or evaluate the rezoning request. We received a letter yesterday, May
12, from the Planning Commission Chairman indicating that the
Planning Commission intended to go ahead with action on this
rezoning request. The letter also invited us to attend the hearing and
explain our position with respect to the issue. As I said, we obviously
object to the rezoning and had no role in initiating it. As you know,
this is a valuable piece of property. It was rezoned only two years ago
in connection with my client's purchase of the property. It is our
position that a rezoning of such magnitude should be given, in addition
to the statutorily required notice we should be given ample opportunity
to evaluate it and respond to the issues in a reasonable fashion. We
have not had an opportunity to do so. My client's located out of state
and has not been able to make any inquiries having only learned about
this via an errant phone call a week ago. Therefore, we would reiterate
our request that any action other than a recommendation of denial be
tabled this evening and we be given at least 30 days to respond to a
Planning Commission recommendation on this issue.
Mr. Hale: I realize that your client is out of state. You are representing your
client at this Public Hearing. What are the objections your client has
to the proposed rezoning?
Ms. Johnson: The principal objection is that we didn't receive notice as required by
Michigan law and not having received notice neither my client nor I
have had an opportunity to evaluate what issues may be raised by the
rezoning, or to formulate any objections. That's why we are
requesting a delay in any decision this evening.
15527
Mr. Hale: There really are no substantive objections that you can share with us
this evening?
Ms. Johnson: I am not prepared to respond to substantive objections, however, I am
aware that there are some objections. Having been told last week that
this was proceeding, and having been told only yesterday that it was
proceeding despite our request for adjournment, there has simply not
been time to evaluate any sort of rezoning of the property.
Mr. Hale: You can't share with us what the substantive objections are?
Ms. Johnson: I think I've answered your question that there are substantive
objections, however, I am not in a position to respond at this time and
that is why we are asking for a tabling resolution.
Mr. Hale: OK, you have answered my question. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Could you tell me what happened and why the project did not go
through in the first place?
Ms. Johnson: I have to be frank with you here. I was not involved in the initial
project phase or in anything that has transpired since then. I do know
that it was not able to come to fruition as planned and the property is
now on the market for another purpose.
Mr. Alanskas: Is Tandy Corporation building Incredible Universe anywhere else in
the United States besides Michigan?
Ms. Johnson: My understanding is there are other Incredible Universes that have
been built.
Mr. Alanskas: Not have been, but are being built at the present time?
Ms. Johnson: I can't answer that.
Mr. McCann: I did contact Mr. Nagy regarding your request. However, we
advertised for the Public Hearing. The advertisement had come out
and it would be unfair to the citizens of the City of Livonia to adjourn
this without prior notification. I checked with him regarding notifying
your client of the change of zoning petition. He informed me that we
did follow proper procedures. He checked with the Assessor's office
and the owner of record was properly notified and in fact they admitted
it, they did not change the owner of record with the City of Livonia as
they were supposed to. The current situation Mr. Nagy informs me is
15528
that we did give proper notice and the citizens were given notification
to be here tonight. We cannot help internal problems within your
organization. Again, we are just a recommending body. We do not do
anything other than review it, have the public here give their
suggestions and then give a recommendation to the City Council.
Your clients will have an ample opportunity at the City Council to
review all aspects of this and raise all objections at that time. That's
why my letter to you said it was unfair to the citizens of Livonia to
adjourn without giving them fair time.
Ms. Johnson: If I could just respond. Our objection is not to the public hearing
tonight, it is just that our objection at this point is that given the fact
that we were not given notice, our objection is to an action being given
by the Planning Commission. I understand that the public hearing has
been given via the newspaper. But it is our position that we were not
properly notified individually as the property owners. We understand
the importance of the Planning Commission's recommendation to City
Council and we are concerned that I be able to answer questions such
as that posed by Mr. Hale which I am not able to do at this point.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. McCann just reiterated that proper notice was given. Why do you
continue to say that proper notice wasn't given when our Planning
Director and Chairman state that it was?
Ms. Johnson: All I can say is that we didn't receive notice.
Mr. Piercecchi: The owners of the property did receive adequate notice.
Ms. Johnson: I understand that's the City's position, however, we were not aware of
this and we were not notified.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this petition this
evening?
Ray Tent, 18051 Deering, Livonia, Michigan. This is a very happy day for me. A wrong
is soon to be corrected. As a former member of the Planning
Commission, I compliment the City for recognizing the error in
prostituting the Master Plan by rezoning the Victor property to C-2 to
allow the Incredible Universe to construct a 184,000 sq.ft. warehouse
complete with a McDonald's restaurant on our prime Victor Park
complex. Ignoring the objections of the neighbors and the tenants and
the project failed. There must have been something there to allow us
to take a second chance at something that was so devastating to the
City. Now we have that second chance. We have an opportunity to
correct a wrong and move on with our Master Plan. As far as the
15529
rezoning back to office, that's what it should be to begin with. Let the
former developer come forth and fill up that great big hole we have
there. It's an eyesore to the area. The City should have the Inspection
Department go out there and issue a notice that that should be filled up
because that's an injury. Contrary to that, the zoning that took place
there for this particular operation was totally wrong. The people felt
that way and now by correcting that error are going back on course to
the Master Plan. I maintain that there is a shortage of office space in
Livonia. I talked to two developers who would have liked space there.
Mr. Johnson, when he was before us, I made that comment to him - "If
you build it, they will come". He didn't want to build it. He was more
interested in going up north at the time to Petosky and getting rid of it.
I would say at this point it's a great day for the City and rezone it. The
other thing I would like to say is that the Observer is the paper that we
use to publish Public Hearings. The owners of the property can have
their legal staff look through and see what is happening in the City. If
they have property there, that is there problem. I would say that this
was properly advertised and notified and it should be honored. We
should build it the way it was intended and we won't have any
warehouses in there and items of that nature.
William LaPine, 33855 Carl Drive, Livonia. As you know, I was a former member of the
Planning Commission. I served when this issue came before us. I was
,,i,, probably the most outspoken person to the proposal. At that time I
argued this point. We had a Master Plan and we should not deviate
from it and allow that commercial property to go in because the
problem I had with it was two things: Number 1, I wasn't for the
Builder's Square and I think the Incredible Universe is too large. The
other thing that worried me was that once you rezone that property,
you don't rezone it back. At that time I talked about the possibility of
maybe rezoning it back at a future date and the only way you could do
that would be to have it instigated at the Council or by the Planning
Commission. The problem is that once you zone something to C-2 is
the fact that if now they should sell off that property to another
developer and he meets all the requirements of the zoning, setbacks,
parking requirements, we loose all the control of what goes in there.
The only thing we have control over is how the building is laid out, the
material and so forth. So at this time I am glad to see that somebody
in the City Council decided they would pass it on to the Planning
Commission to rezone the property back to its original zoning. I think
that's the way it should have stayed all along and I agree with my
fellow Commissioner who was on the Commission when I was on
there. There is now a need for high rise office space. I don't think
there would be a problem to find a developer to put in a high rise. I
realize Tandy Corporation put a lot of money in there, put in sewers
15530
and put in a lot of developments, but I don't think from the word go
the zoning should have taken place. Why the Council didn't agree
with our unanimous decision by the Planning Commission, I don't
know, but I am glad they are looking to rezoning this back, and I urge
you ladies and gentlemen to zone it back to its original zoning.
Richard Kovarik, 37814 Northland. I'm the end lot on the north side. I agree with both
of these gentlemen here - it should have remained office zoning. We
did not look forward to seeing this traffic down Victor Parkway; trucks
coming through delivering goods, the commercial enterprise. No
matter what happens, I did want to go on the record stating about the
common element that boarders Northland and St. Martins. The berm
was never properly developed and I have brought some photographs to
show what's going on with that property there. It's washing out
because it's eroding.
Mr. McCann: Sir, I appreciate your difficulty. We have to stick with the zoning
issue this evening. You can go and talk to the Inspection Department
tomorrow morning. They are in charge of seeing that the site plan is
complied with, both the Engineering and Building Departments.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing On Petition 97-4-1-5 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#5-76-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
May 13, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-4-1-5
by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property
located north of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and the I-
275 Expressway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from C-2 and C4-III
to PO-III, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 97-4-1-5 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for one uniform
zoning district for the subject property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
continuation of the development of the Victor Corporate Park.
b
15531
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. Hale: To the Counselor, as Mr. McCann has indicated, I don't believe your
objections necessarily fall on deaf ears. You will have ample
opportunity to voice those objections to City Council. Our job is to
look at substantive objections and I don't think any such objections
were indicated to us, and I will approve and support the motion.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-3-2-9 by
Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM license in
conjunction with an existing store located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Farmington Road and Norwich Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated March 14, 1997 from the Kmart Corporation as
follows: A SDM (beer& wine - package carry out) has been applied
for at the following: Kmart#4430, 33400 West 7 Mile Road, Livonia
MI 48152. As noted on the "Waiver Use" (item "A") this Kmart
maintained a SDM license from August, 1981 until we requested it to
be canceled in 1992. Under new management, it has been determined
that SDM license is a viable part of the Kmart operation. Therefore,
we are petitioning that the license be approved for reissuance. You
considerations and subsequent approval of this request will be
appreciated. That is signed J. B. Ronan, Assistant Controller.
We have a letter from Rockney L. Whitehead, Fire Marshal, dated
March 27, 1997 stating they have no objection to this proposal.
There is a letter from the Engineering Department dated April 4, 1997
stating they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. That's
signed by Gary D. Clark, Assistant City Engineer.
Lastly, there is a letter from Nicholas Ioannou of the Wine Castle
dated May 12, 1997 as follows: I wish to express my opposition to the
Kmart Corporation receiving an SDM license at the Seven Mile and
Farmington Road location. I am the owner of the Wine Castle, which
is located directly South of Kmart. We are a family owned store
15532
relying on beer and wine sales for our livelihood. Kmart, as you are
aware, is a huge national corporation. Within a few blocks of Kmart
there are the following SDM licenses: 1. Hellenic Bakery. 2. Wine
Castle. 3. Rite Aid. 4. Primo Pizza. 5. Livonia Italian Bakery. 6.
Winter Garden Bar. Rite Aid is located in the same center as the
Kmart. Will the citizens of Livonia be better served by having two
SDM licenses just doors apart? It is obvious that the corner of Seven
Mile and Farmington is not-in need of another SDM license. This area
is already totally saturated with SDM licenses. The trend in the United
States is away from the high concentration of the SDM and SDD
licenses in a particular area to highly restricting any new licenses. I
hope that the above illustration will convince the Planning
Commission to deny Kmart Corporation's waiver use approval to
utilize an SDM license.
George Stachowski, 16185 Ronnie Lane, Livonia and I am the general store manager of
the Kmart at Seven Mile and Farmington. I do understand that there
are a number of establishments that sell beer and wine, however there
are also a number of establishments that sell a number of the items we
sell at this given store. If you've been in that store within the last 60 to
90 days, you will have noticed that we have spent about half a million
dollars to refurbish, to revamp and make the shopping experience of
our customers a better experience. Traffic has gone up about 15% to
�... 20% since that refurbishment that the City allowed us to do. Part of
that refurbishment was the pantry concept that we put in. We've
added food stuffs and other hard-line and soft line skus. The people of
Livonia and surrounding areas have said yes, we want this. Customer
count is up substantially and sales are up substantially. We felt that
adding beer and wine to our already broadening assortment would
make it an even better shopping experience. These days people, with
their hurried lives, they want to shop in one place only. They want to
get in and get out and get everything they need in one location. That's
what we are tying to do for our customers.
Mr. Alanskas: From 1981 to 1992 when you had the license you say was a valuable
part of Kmart, what percent of sales would you estimate?
Mr. Stachowski: I wasn't there, I really couldn't tell you.
Mr. Alanskas: What percentage of the business you have now would you say would
be beer and wine?
Mr. Stachowski: I'm sorry, I don't have that information for you.
15533
Mr. Alanskas: How about your store on Plymouth Road? You must have other
branches that have beer and wine now.
Mr. Stachowski: Right now the only store in the metro area is at Telegraph and 12 Mile
and I don't have the information on that store.
Mr. Alanskas: Too bad you don't have it. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: What kind of improvement do you expect to obtain from putting in
beer and wine? We generally ask this question of restaurants who
want Class C licenses and expect 15-20% improvement.
Mr. Stachowski: I don't think that beer and wine in itself would give us 15-20%
improvement, but the entire change Kmart has made, and Livonia is
one of the first ones in the country to have this pantry concept, the beer
and wine license is nothing but a piece of that concept. If you've been
in our store, we carry dairy products now- milk, bread, that type of
thing - and it's been very well accepted. We are trying to make the
experience for our Livonia customers a one-stop shop. Get in, get out,
get your Coke, get your bread and everything you want in one place
and you can leave. We had our Grand Re-opening April 13 and the
Mayor was out for it has been outstanding. Everything we have done
so far the people of Livonia have accepted it well, and we are sure they
v..
would appreciate being able to buy packaged beer and wine that they
would normally be able to buy anyway at that one location.
Mr. Piercecchi: During the period Mr. Alanskas alluded to, I shopped at Kmart. I am
one of your better customers. I don't recall if you have a return bottle
area. Are you going to supply that this time around?
Mr. Stachowski: We already do have bottle and can returns for the soft drinks we carry.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing On Petition 97-3-2-9 closed.
Mr. Alanskas: I really don't think that if Kmart doesn't have this license they would
go out of business and I don't think it's needed because there are so
many in the surrounding area, so I am going to suggest a denying
resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, supported by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously adopted, it
was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on May 13, 1997 on Petition 97-3-2-9 by
15534
Kmart Corporation requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM
license in conjunction with an existing store located on the north side
of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Norwich Avenue
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-3-2-9 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance
standard set forth in Section 11.03(1) with respect to the requirement
that there be at least a 500 foot separation between SDM licensed
establishments;
3) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and
encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate
an area with similar type uses as is being proposed; and
4) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not 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.
Mrs. Blomberg: I would just like to mention that Livonia is one of the nicest
communities in which to live, and I don't think that we should be
thought of as one of the first places where Kmart has an SDM license.
I think that we like Kmart the way it is. I do like buying my milk
there.
Mr. McCann: The petition fails. You have ten days to appeal to City Council.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-2-3-1 by
Resources Supervisory Management Corp. requesting to vacate an existing 20
foot wide water main easement across the Livonia Plaza property located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge and Henry Ruff in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
15535
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Department as follows:
Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Department has reviewed the
above referenced petition. Attached is a copy of the original grant of
`" easement for the proposed easement to be vacated. We have no
objections to vacating the existing 20' water main easement, subject to
the commencement of the new easements described in the Department
of Law letter to Council dated March 13, 1997. We trust this will
provide you with the information requested. Should you have any
questions, please feel free to contact this office.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Anyone from Resources Supervisory Management Corp.?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing On Petition 97-2-3-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-77-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
May 13, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-2-3-1
by Resources Supervisory Management Corp., and pursuant to Council
Resolution 177-97, requesting to vacate an existing 20' wide water
main easement across the Livonia Plaza property located on the south
side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge and Henry Ruff in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-2-3-1 be
approved subject to the recording of substitute grants of easement, for
the following reasons:
1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect any public
utility;
2) That new easements to protect a relocated water main in the area
have been submitted for City Council acceptance.
3) That no City Department or public utility company have objected
to the vacating of the subject easement.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above 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
ti.�
adopted.
15536
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
Approval for Parkview Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Jarvis Avenue and Jug Handle Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 23.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have letters from the Parks and Recreation Department, the Traffic
Bureau of the Police Department and the Fire Marshal of the Division
of Fire, all stating that they have no objection to the site plan as
submitted.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here tonight?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: I am substituting for the petitioner,
Ron Parz, who had to leave town with his son who is engaged in the
Junior Olympics. We also have with us tonight Mr. Schron of Jarrett-
Mills-Schron, the engineers of the project, if there are any questions
for him. I understand from Mr. Parz that two of the lots are
insufficient. He has filed an appeal before the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Today we found out that it has not been put on the agenda,
and there was a meeting today between the Planning Department and
vr.i.
the Building Department why it should go on their agenda and when it
will go on. It will probably be another 2 or 3 weeks depending on the
schedule of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We thought the appeal
would have been heard before we came to you, unfortunately, it hasn't,
so we will have to wait for that.
Mr. McCann: According to our notes, we reviewed this last week and there are a
number of deficiencies. I assume these deficiencies were brought up
to Mr. Parz, however, according to Mr. Nagy, the engineer was going
to revise the plans to overcome a couple of these problems and they
were supposed to have them to our staff My understanding is that the
staff has not received the revised engineering plans. Are you aware of
that?
Mr. Tangora: Again, it was just related to me that the plans had been revised. I think
it was an easement from a retention pond to hook up to a sewer line.
Mr. McCann: Our staff has not had an opportunity to review them yet, have they Mr.
Miller?
Mr. Miller: No.
15537
Mr. McCann: Without that we really wouldn't be able to proceed tonight. I would
like to go ahead and have the public hearing.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval for Parkview
Subdivision closed.
Mr. Alanskas: I think that because Mr. Parz is not here, and because there are some
front and side yard setback problems, and until we get a chance to look
at this, I think we should table this.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it as
#5-78-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
May 13, 1997 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Parkview Subdivision
proposed to be located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Jarvis Avenue and Jug Handle Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the
Preliminary Plat Approval to date uncertain.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to
abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the
Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been
sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. These items
have been discussed at length in prior meetings and therefore there will only be limited
discussion tonight and participation will require unanimous consent from the
Commission.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Satellite Dish
Antenna Application by Leon Zagornik requesting approval for the installation of
a satellite dish antenna for property located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 17.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
15538
#5-79-97 RESOLVED that, the Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Leon
Zagornik requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish
antenna for property located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 17 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Zagornik, 36204 Whitcomb Drive, Livonia: I petitioned for this satellite dish
because (this is the second time) the first time I didn't have a print and
the exact figures on the height and length of the dish and the location.
Also, I have a 5' fence going around the perimeter of the area where
the dish is going to be installed. The dish has not been installed. It is
a take down from my other location. It is only going to be added 4' to
the existing pipes to support it in the ground. It is going to be mounted
to the house plus reinforced in the ground. I have trees to cover the
location of the dish. Also it is a perforated dish which means it is like
a screen that you can see right through.
Mr. Alanskas: You will now have a 16' high pole and you revised the height to be up
to 21'?
Slur
Mr. Zagornik: There was a mistake on the contractor's end of it. There is no change
on the pole itself. The total length of the pole is going to be 20'. That
will be 4' in the ground itself.
Mr. Alanskas: So you will still have 16' of height for that dish?
Mr. Zagornik: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: I was by there again and when you are on the corner of Whitcomb and
Westbrook, you don't see it. As you walk north on that side street, you
will see that antenna like crazy.
Mr. Zagornik: The antenna moves from south to the west end. So it will really be
hidden because it's going to be on an angle. Like I explained it to the
contractor, I didn't want it totally visible. We came up with a figure.
From the total end of the scope from one end to the other, from the
roof line itself, it will be anywhere from 1-1/2' to 2'.
Mr. Alanskas: As you are walking from Westbrook, if you have a 5' fence and you
have a pole 16' in the air, you are going to see that antenna. If you are
15539
on Whitcomb, you would never see it. The problem I have is that
walking on Six Mile, it is very visible. Would you agree with that?
''•► Mr. Zagornik: According to the gentleman, he indicated it wouldn't be that visible.
Mr. Piercecchi: From my observations of the property, it seems to me that there are 5
neighbors that would be off the service drive on Six Mile, and of
course the neighbor adjacent to you, who would have direct sight to
this installation. How many neighbors have given you consent?
Mr. Zagornik: Three neighbors, one across the street and two right next door to me.
Mr. Piercecchi: The one across the street on Westbrook?
Mr. Zagornik: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: He would't be concerned. So of the five I mentioned, you have two
people who have given you consent?
Mr. Zagornik: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: I guess some people want these dishes and some don't. I don't know
why you want to go beyond the 18". I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is
so important here to get the neighbors' consent. This is a large
saw installation. I figure there are five people who have to view this and he
said really only two adjacent to him gave consent.
Mr. Hale: This Commission at the last regular meeting addressed a satellite dish
that I believe was 8' in total height from the ground level and you need
something that is almost 16'.
Mr. Zagornik: You have to get it off the tree locations itself because of the beam
coming in off the satellites.
Mr. Hale: Did the contractor tell you it would not do you any good to have it
closer to the ground?
Mr. Zagornik: No. I can do it closer to the ground, but it would be at the end of my
lot in order to clear the trees. It would be more visible than what it is
now.
Mr. Hale: Why do you need such a big dish?
Mr. Zagornik: I already have this dish.
15540
Mr. Hale: Do you use it to view foreign stations?
Mr. Zagornik: Correct, and all your educational and other channels like learning
`'�► channels that come in there.
Mr. Alanskas: The satellite dish has to face southwest and because it is so close to the
house, he has to raise it to go over the roof line, and that's the concern
that I have. Mr. Chairman, I have been out to his house twice, and I
am not against the satellite dish if he gets the consent of the neighbors.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it as
#5-80-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny the
Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Leon Zagornik requesting
approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property
located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17
for the following reason:
1) That due to its size and location, this dish antenna would be
detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the neighborhood
by presenting a visual blight that could jeopardize the property
values in the area as set forth in the comprehensive plan of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Sir, you have 10 days in which to appeal to the City Council in
writing. This concludes our Regular Meeting an we will now begin
the miscellaneous site plans. Anyone wishing to speak for or against
the petition will be allowed to do so.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-4-8-10 by
Auto Zone Inc., 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 29100 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 25.
Mr. Miller: The property is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt and Haller Avenue. It is located next to Office Depot
Plaza. What they are proposing to do is construct a commercial
building which would be occupied by an Auto Zone Discount Auto
Parts store. This is the former site of a Goodyear Tire store. The
existing building on the site will be torn down. The proposed building
15541
would be 8,550 sq. ft. Access to the site would be either by Plymouth
Road or Haller Avenue. They are required to have 45 parking spaces
and that's what the site plan shows. They are required to have 15% for
landscaping and they have 30%. The building would be constructed
totally out of brick except for the dryvit over the entrance.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Department dated May 8, 1997
as follows: Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Department has
reviewed the above referenced site plan. Although the geometry of the
drive approach onto Haller Avenue is ideal for deliveries and trash
pick-up, due consideration should be given to the homeowner at 11600
Haller. The proposed drive approach should be located to the south,
out of the influence of the residential properties. The petitioner should
also be required to provide evidence that the Plymouth Road right-of-
way has been dedicated to a full 60' wide.
We also have letters from the Fire Marshal and the Traffic Bureau of
the Police Department stating they have no objections to the site plan
as submitted.
Lastly, we have a letter from David Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector,
dated May 12, 1997 as follows: Pursuant to your request of April 30,
1997, the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. 1. All lighting on the north property line is
required to be directed or shielded away from the abutting residential
property. 2. The site plan does not indicate if the landscaped areas
will be sod or hydroseed. 3. The signage as proposed will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for wall signs (excess area
and exposed neon) and ground sign (excess height and area).
Gary Gregory: I am the company architect for Auto Zone. We have our offices at 60
Madison Avenue , Memphis, Tennessee.
Mr. McCann: One of our concerns is for the neighbor at 11600 Haller. If the
approach drive should be located from the south, how would that
influence the residential properties?
Mr. Gregory: This is the first time that comment has come up. When we originally
sat down with the Planning staff, we eliminated the curb cut that was
more toward Plymouth Road. To my knowledge nothing was said
about the northern most curb cut. If the Planning Commission sees fit
to have us move it, we would have no problem with that. Our main
truck delivery would have to come from Plymouth Road. Haller Drive
is a little small for us to take the large trucks that we have. The
dumpster trucks also would come in off Plymouth Road. The other
15542
item, I understand that the Planning Commission does not have the
power to approve or deny the signage because it is in violation of both
`a. the area and the geometrics and the national makeup of the exposed
neon. Unfortunately, being a trademark sign for Auto Zone, we would
request the Planning Commission to approve, reject, or otherwise take
the application as sees fit because it is contingent upon the signage
going before the ZBA. We would like to be able to proceed with the
site plan review through the City Council while we are pursuing the
signage through the ZBA.
Mr. McCann: We will hold the site plan review. What we generally do with the
signage, you can come back at a later time. That way you can keep
going on your building.
Mr. Alanskas: Every corporation has said "This is the way we want our place to
look". They way you want it to look and the way the City of Livonia
wants it are two different issues. I think it's a very good looking
building. Number 1, it really makes me happy that that Firestone
building is going to be torn down, plus you have 30% of landscaping.
That's two big pluses. But that neon is a big minus. It comes to mind
that a year ago we had a restaurant that wanted to put neon on their
entire roof line. We said why don't you just try it without and see
what happens. He said, you know what? You were right, you don't
need that neon. You are so close to Plymouth Road, I don't think you
need it. As I said, it's a nice plan, nice landscaping and everything is a
go except for that neon.
Mr. Gregory: First I would like to apologize that the building is not already down. I
had a conversation with the Building Department. They called me and
said that there were vandals in the building and they wanted it boarded
up. I told them I had already paid the contractor to take it down, but
we were in the middle of an asbestos notification and I was not aware
that it was not down. I drove by there today and it is still not down,
but it will be down any time. On signage - unfortunately, it's a lot like
your children; my are lovely to me no matter how ugly they are to you.
Our company likes the Auto Zone neon. We can eliminate it on the
side, we can shorten it somewhat, but unfortunately they love that
Auto Zone neon. I can't tell you that there aren't stores all across the
country that don't use neon because there are communities like
yourself that are committed to eliminating neon and restricting signage
and we are dragged kicking and screaming into compliance, but
unfortunately the company I work for is going to want me to go before
the Zoning Board of Appeals and throw myself on their tender mercies
before we give in.
15543
Mr. Alanskas: You have a store on Eight Mile Road between Farmington and
Newburgh in Farmington Hills.
ftar
Mr. Gregory: Yes, it is under construction right now.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have neon on that building?
Mr. Gregory: Yes, we are.
Mr. Hale: When you say neon, are you referring to the yellow stripe on the top of
the building as well?
Mr. Gregory: May I approach the Commission with pictures?
Mr. McCann: Mr. Miller, while he is doing that, has the Planning Department looked
at the issue of moving the drive south?
Mr. Miller: No, we haven't.
Mr. McCann: Do you have a suggestion regarding that?
Mr. Miller: When we looked at this plan before, we didn't really think there was a
problem. When we first saw this plan, we didn't know about the
landscaping. We thought they were going to beef it up a little more. If
they don't want to move it, they could put more trees or something to
help screen it.
Mr. McCann: How wide is that greenbelt there between the neighbor's home?
Mr. Miller: There's over 30 feet. I believe there is a chain link fence.
Mr. McCann: So we either have to do something with the greenbelt or move the
drive.
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Gregory: If you look on the other side of this print, you will see we propose a 6'
all brick screen wall between ourselves and the neighbors. If it would
help matters, we can plant trees against that brick wall or replace that
wall with landscaping a dense hedge. We need that grass there for
retention pond in back of it. We can do a lot of screening. We don't
foresee any traffic going north on Haller. The access back there is
merely a convenience for our customers. Some people may choose to
go back there and queue out to Plymouth Road.
15544
Mr. McCann: Do you believe that with a 6' fence is sufficient?
Mr. Miller: Yes, I think that is plenty. He can do it like Westborn Market - put the
trees over it. The other thing, I believe the drive is existing, so we
didn't plan on the shifting of the drive.
Mr. Hale: Can you do away with the orange stripe? I know you said the neon is
something you have to have, but what about the orange stripe on top of
the building?
Mr. Gregory: I can't tell you we couldn't do without it. We couldn't change the
color. We could cut off some of it, we have in the past. We cannot
change the color. It is part of our logo. We would probably choose to
eliminate it. It is our standard prototype sign. This is what is going on
in Farmington Hills, this is what is already open in Roseville,
Eastpoint, we have about 30 sites across the metro Detroit area under
construction and about 60 sites from Ann Arbor on and we try to make
them all look like this.
Mr. Hale: I note that from the staff notes this matter was referred to the PRDA
consultant. As I understand it that was only for the purpose of
landscaping. Is there anything else that the PRDA needs to address?
Mr. Miller: We sent this plan to the consultant of the PRDA, but basically we
wanted to see how this landscaping here tied in with their scheme.
They really don't get involved with the appearance of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi: Did I understand you to say that you can eliminate that yellow stripe,
and you have eliminated it in other areas?
Mr. Gregory: Yes. In this case we obviously would like to go to the Zoning Board
of Appeals and discuss it with them. I understand we come back to
you after that prior to going to Council.
Mr. Miller: One of the conditions of approval is that you have to come back for
signage.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am talking about the yellow stripe.
Mr. Miller: If they backlight it, or neon it, or anything, that becomes signage. If he
just paints it on the building, that would be different.
Mr. Piercecchi: I thought he said they could eliminate it.
15545
Mr. Gregory: We consider it signage. If we are not going to light it, we would
probably eliminate it totally.
Mr. Piercecchi: So that yellow area normally is lit?
Mr. Gregory: We consider it orange, but yes.
Mr. McCann: If there is no one else wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-81-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-4-8-10 by Auto Zone
Inc. 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 29100 Plymouth Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked C1.0 prepared by Auto Zone Store
Development dated 3/21/97, as revised, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be doubled striped;
3. That the Landscape and Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked
CE1 prepared by Auto Zone Store Development dated 3/24/97, as
revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the
fact that all scored block material shown on the building elevations
shall be replaced with brick;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseed;
5. 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;
6. That the orange accent stripe as shown on the building elevations
and color rendering would be resubmitted along with the signage,
as discussed.
7. That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage or
exposed neon shown on the plans.
15546
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
�.. adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-2-8-5 by
Buick-Isuzu requesting approval to revise the building elevations and the
landscaping of the auto dealership located at 30500 Plymouth Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller: What they are proposing to do is to refurbish their existing facilities.
The showroom which faces Plymouth Road is constructed basically
out of brick. They would like to redo that whole elevation and replace
it with dryvit material. Also parts of the east and west elevation would
be covered with dryvit material to match the front. The rest of the
building will be painted including the rear elevation. Also, they would
like to put in some new landscaping along Plymouth Road in the front
of the building. In the front of the building, they would install five
brick paver pads that would be used to park and display vehicles. The
landscaped area would consist of flower arrangements, and a number
of trees.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Inspection Department, David M. Woodcox,
Sr. Building Inspector, dated May 9, 1997 as follows: Pursuant to
w.. your request of April 30, 1997, the site plan for the above subject
petition has been reviewed. Although no problems or deficiencies
were found to exist, some consideration should be given to installing
sod in lieu of hydroseed as indicated on the landscape plan.
We also have letters from the Fire Marshal, the Assistant City
Engineer and the Traffic Bureau all stating that they have no
objections to the site plan as submitted.
Steve Flynn, Executive Manager of the Livonia Buick-Isuzu store: This is part of the
Image 2000 of the Buick Division at General Motors. We are the 7th
store in the Detroit zone to undertake this project and we are meeting
or exceeding all of the requirements in this redesign. I think you will
see that when we have finished, we will have greatly improved the
visibility from the road, not only from the landscaping, but from the
face of the building which is approaching 30 years old. It's time to
bring it into the 21st Century and make it more pleasing to the eye. I
think you will find the colors much more attractive to the Plymouth
Road Development Authority. The colors selected are Buick's
traditional colors. We hope to get this started as soon as possible.
15547
Mr. Piercecchi: I just wanted to compliment you on this project. It is definitely an
asset to the City of Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: I just wanted to say that at our study meeting Mr. Piercecchi had a
concern about the dryvit going all the way down to the base of the
building. I stopped by Tennyson Chevrolet who had it done a year
ago. There is not one mark on that building.
There was no one wishing to speak on this petition and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared
a motion was in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-82-97 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-2-8-5 by Livonia
Buick-Isuzu requesting approval to revise the building elevations and
the landscaping of the auto dealership located at 30500 Plymouth Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked sheet 3 dated
3/21/97 prepared by Infrastructure Incorporated is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet CO1 dated 4/25/97
prepared by THA Architects Engineers, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3. That the Irrigation Plan marked Sheet 2 dated 1/22/97 prepared by
THA Architects Engineers, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
4. That all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. All disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseed;
6. All light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties
and shall not exceed 20 feet in height.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15548
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Patterson Construction, on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation,
requesting approval for signage for the gas station located at 29321 Eight Mile
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This gas station is located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt and
Eight Mile. They received site plan approval to construct a gas station
and convenience store on June 4, 1996. Part of the condition of
approval was that all signage be brought back before the Planning
Commission for their review and approval. One ground sign is
permitted not to exceed 40 sq. ft. in area and that is what they are
proposing. They are also proposing two wall signs totaling 77 sq. ft.
and they are permitted 100 sq. ft. of signage. The Commission had
some concerns with the color of the station and this color rendering is
what was agreed on during site plan approval.
Mr. McCann: They are conforming in all respects.
There was no one wishing to speak on this request and a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
`sr. #5-83-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Sign Permit Application by Patterson Construction, on behalf of Mobil
Oil Corporation, requesting approval for signage for the gas station
located at 29321 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Elevation Plan marked sheet SN-1 dated 4/18/97, as
revised, prepared by Building Design Associates, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Ground Sign Location Plan marked sheet CD-1 dated
4/16/97, as revised, prepared by Building Design Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That any additional signage for this station shall come back before
the Planning Commission for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: I wanted to make a comment. As everyone knows when they first
came before the Planning Commission, they had, in our estimation,
15549
very loud colors and so forth. This shows that when the petitioner and
the Commission work together, it can come out to a nice project like
this.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Acme Architectural, on behalf of the Dry Cleaning Station,
requesting approval for a wall sign for the building located at 19244 Newburgh
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Seven
Mile and St. Martins. It is just north of the Brose Electric shop. This
site is split zoned, the north half is OS, Office Services, and the south
half is C-1, Local Business. The part of the site where this dry
cleaning establishment is located is in the Commercial area. They are
allowed one wall sign on the building of 60 sq. ft., and they are
proposing one wall sign of 45 sq. ft., so it is a conforming sign
package.
Mr. McCann: This is a conforming sign request in all respects. In fact, they are
using only about 75% of allowable signage area.
There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard on this item.
`.. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-84-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Acme
Architectural, on behalf of the Dry Cleaning Station, requesting
approval for a wall sign for the building located at 19244 Newburgh
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Acme Architectural as
received by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1997 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the
dry cleaning business closes.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: I would like to compliment the petitioner on an excellent project. The
signage looks good and he didn't try to use excess signage.
15550
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-5-8-11 by
Seigfreid Edwards Associates, on behalf of Walgreens, requesting approval of all
4"' plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 17700
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Middlebelt.
They are proposing to construct a commercial building on the site to
be occupied by Walgreens Drug Store. The site has been split off from
the Mt. Hope Memorial Cemetery. The site was recently rezoned from
AG, General Agricultural, to C-1, Local Business. They are proposing
to construct a 13,905 sq. ft. building on the site. Access to the site
would be off Six Mile Road and off of Middlebelt Road. Also the site
shows three ingress and egress easements to future development, if
they should develop it, to the north and east. Parking required for the
site is 74 spaces and the new site plan shows 88 spaces, so they exceed
the parking requirements. The landscaping required is 15% and they
show 16%. A change from the Study Meeting shows landscaping near
the building on the south and west walls, and some of the drive islands
have been widened and 2 of the parking spaces have been taken out to
be used for additional landscaping. The building will be constructed
totally out of brick with only the overhang area over the entrance
�.. constructed out of a dryvit type system. The petitioner has now
revised the plans and it will be a combination dark and light brown
brick. The light brown brick will match the color of the dryvit.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Inspection Department dated May 9, 1997 as
follows: Pursuant to your request of May 1, 1997, the site plan for the
above subject petition has been reviewed. For your consideration, the
following is brought to your attention. The site is in the process of
being rezoned from AG to C-1. The site plan was reviewed under the
C-1 district regulations. The wall signs will require a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for the excess number of signs on the
west and south elevations. No other problems or deficiencies were
found. This was signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building
Inspector.
There is another letter from the Assistant City Engineer dated May 8,
1997 as follows: Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to
the site plan proposal. Please note however, the petitioner will be
required to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental
Quality for work encroaching the 100 year flood plain and the outlet of
15551
the 15% storm sewer into the Tarabusi Creek, an open natural water
course.
There are also letters from the Fire Marshal and the Traffic Bureau
stating they have no objections to this proposal.
James Seigfreid, Seigfreid Edwards Architects, 1740 Bell School Road, Cherry Valley,
Illinois. Pursuant to your request, I have brought samples of the brick
and dryvit. There will be a brownish-red brick up to 10' height.
Above the 10' height, we have a concrete color brick from the 10'
height, a horizontal band to define the two areas. The projecting
canopies would be of the dryvit material which would blend in with
the brick color. The whole intent is to make a very simple design, not
too many embellishments on it, with a very small Walgreen sign on it.
We did go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and we were denied a sign
variance, so we do comply with all of the sign requirements. We did
make some changes to the site plan to increase the landscape area as
requested. We felt that would help the project.
Mr. Piercecchi: My notes indicate that the signage would come back.
Mr. McCann: Since the staff has not had an opportunity to review it, it will have to
come back. One of my concerns was that you have 10' of greenbelt
ti.. along the rear portion of the building next to a flood plain where there
are two other petitioners. Is that right Mr. Miller? The other two
parcels will be at the corner? He will not go all the way back to the
flood plain?
Mr. Miller: Correct.
Mr. McCann: You have more greenbelt around the building. It's a great site and you
have great visibility and you are obviously putting a great deal of
money in it, but I don't want a stone monument out in the center of the
parking lot. You are talking about a 27' planter box; what type of
planter box are you intending to put in there? Are you talking about
something that is going to sit on the side of the building, or are you
talking about an area between the sidewalk and the building?
Mr. Seigfreid: It would be the area between the sidewalk and the building.
Mr. McCann: You will have underground sprinkling?
Mr. Seigfreid: Yes. Every green area has an underground sprinkler system.
15552
Mr. McCann: Can you tell me why you want only 27' across the building instead of
further?
'N`` Mr. Seigfreid: We don't want to go under the canopies. We could extend this further,
and if it is your desire, we will. We could extend the other one a little
bit because the canopy on the side is about half way. They are 4'
planter boxes.
Mr. McCann: So we will get a 4' planter box and you will carry it all the way to the
canopy?
Mr. Seigfreid: Yes, I will.
Ray Tent: I am pleased that Walgreens is coming into Livonia. I think it is a
splendid operation. I have several concerns. The first one is one that I
addressed previously, and that's the flood plain. If that could be
addressed and permits acquired to make certain the drainage will be
taken care of and the wetlands will be considered, then that will be a
great victory for us. I am hoping that the Walgreen drug store will
succeed. There was an article in the Observer Newspaper about all the
drug stores we have in the City of Livonia. No one can really get sick
here because you only have to step out the door and you will find a
drug store. Right down the road here you have a Rite Aid and
Howard's Drugs went out of business. I am just wondering what
Now
Walgreens will do to Rite Aid. I hate to see vacant buildings in the
City of Livonia. This is a good company, there is no question on that.
They are very successful. General Mills was a very successful
company too when they brought in the China Coast restaurant, and it
was only there for 3 months. I am hoping that Walgreens will have a
long commitment here and stay on that corner and do a great job. My
other concerns: The parking bays; are they all going to be 10'x20'?
Mr. McCann: They are all 10'x20' and are all going to be double striped.
Mr. Tent: The landscaping is 16%, 1% over. That's better than nothing. The
plants that are going to be put in there, not small guys, and they will be
taken care of, not like the Credit Union. They will be a mature type.
Now the hours of operation, will this be a 24 hour operation?
Mr. Seigfreid: It is not a 24 hour store. I estimate it will stay open until 9:00 or 10:00
at night.
Mr. Tent: Will there be drive-through services?
`r.
15553
Mr. Seigfreid: We have a prescription window and the only thing you can obtain
from the window are prescriptions, no food products, nothing else at
all.
Mr. Tent: The signage has already been addressed. They are going to comply.
How about a liquor license. Are you going to apply for a liquor
license?
Mr. Seigfreid: Walgreens is not primarily in the liquor business. Very, very few
stores have a liquor license. There's no consideration for a license
here.
Mr. Tent: I want to complement you on that. The lighting of the parking lot, is
that shown on the plans?
Mr. Seigfreid: Yes, it is. They are 20' downlighted.
Mr. Tent: Thank you. I want to say I think you will do a wonderful job in the
City, and it's a wonderful location that has been dormant for 40 years.
My biggest concern is that flood plain.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Tent, it is going to go into the Department of Environmental
Quality.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Alanskas said the other property for Gordon Food is not going to
be built on the flood plain, but the Clinton River is also next to the
property out there and when the water comes in, it goes to the property
that is strictly residential. I think we should take that into
consideration to make certain that everything is addressed. So with
that, good luck and welcome to the City.
Barbara Cook, 30348 Windingbrook, Farmington Hills, 48334: The concern we have,
and I think I expressed it last time, was the water and where it is going
to go. I heard that it was going to be addressed by Engineering, but I
understand that presently it is scheduled to be dumped right into that
drainage with no stop for it to slow down. That could be problematic
and I think that if we had some kind of retention that it would not
become problematic, and that was our main concern. My question is,
has there been any consideration made to have some type of retention?
Mr. McCann: No, not that I am aware of. That is a question that we will rely on our
engineers to review to make sure that the river, or wherever the water
is going to flow, can handle it. Again, if you have questions, you
might want to contact the Department of Environmental Quality just to
make sure your concerns are being made aware of.
15554
Mr. McCann: If there is no one else wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
`" Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to make a comment to the people watching on television
so that they understand that if something is zoned properly, and they
meet all the requirements of our ordinance, we do not have any
alternative. We have to pass it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and approved, it
was
#5-85-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-5-8-11 by Seigfreid
Edwards Associates, on behalf of Walgreens, 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 17700 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 12, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan dated 5/16/97 prepared by
Seigfreid, Edwards and Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
�.. 2. That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be 10'x20' and
shall be doubled striped;
3. 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;
4. That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent
properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height.
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan, as revised, prepared by
Seigfreid, Edwards & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
6. That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage
shown on the plans and that all signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
7. The petitioner is willing to extend the greenbelt up to the awnings.
r..
15555
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Blomberg, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann
`"`' NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: I have a few words to get on the record. Number 1, I have nothing
against Walgreens. I have shopped in their stores, and they are an
amazing chain. Livonia is a 36 mile area, and at the present time we
have 29 drug stores and I have passed a few of those in the past few
years, but the question is when is enough enough? Laura Toy, when
she was on the Council, said we must have the sickest City because of
all these drug stores. I think that a drug store every one and a quarter
miles - when are we going to say we have a saturation point? Is it
good planning to have more and more drugstores? I was opposed on
this C-2 zoning because there was only going to be a Walgreens. In
my mind, we have enough drug stores in the City, and if Walgreens or
any other chain comes before us for a drug store, I am going to oppose
it very heavily.
Mr. Piercecchi: I share that, but it is zoned properly, it meets all the ordinance
s`" requirements, and we don't have much choice. If we could have a
moratorium on this, or perhaps the Planning Department could have
the Legal Department look into this and we could limit and be legal.
To limit at this stage of the game would not be legal.
Mr. Seigfreid: Mr. Chairman, may I request a waiver of the 7 day waiting period?
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and approved, it
was
#5-86-97 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day
period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions
in connection with Petition 97-5-8-11 by Seigfreid Edwards
Associates, on behalf of Walgreens, 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
17700 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
r..
15556
AYES: Blomberg, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas
ABSENT: Walsh
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision to Petition
95-6-8-12 by Albert Abbo & Associates, on behalf of the Nicholas Plaza,
requesting approval to revise the site and landscape plans that were approved with
this petition for the property located at 31429 Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Schoolcraft and
Merriman Roads. They received site plan approval in July of 1995.
The landscaping for the shopping center has been completed
differently then what was approved. The reason for the changes is
because Wayne County required the petitioner to broaden his drive off
of Merriman Road. Because of the wide drive, the landscaped area
that was supposed to be along the south property line could not be
developed. Also, another change is that the trash enclosure has been
moved back to the southeast corner of the site. With the new revised
landscaped plan, the petitioner meets the required 15% landscaping.
The existing changes to the site has allowed the petitioner to increase
the center's parking from 30 parking spaces to 33 parking spaces.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here tonight?
There was no one present representing this petition.
Mr. McCann: It has come to our attention that the Petitioner has recently been before
the ZBA and was not granted a variance for a restaurant that has
approximately 64 seats which means that presently the parking
requirement does not meet standards. Is that correct, Mr. Miller, and
therefore the plan is not in compliance?
Mr. Miller: The restaurant only is approved for 44 seats. If it is doing business
with excessive seating, then that is something the Inspection
Department would have to tell us. The number of seats could be
confirmed by them.
Mr. McCann: Since the petitioner is not here, a motion would be in order to table
this.
15557
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-87-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
June 27, 1995 on Petition 95-6-8-12 by Albert Abbo & Associates, on
behalf of the Nicholas Plaza requesting approval to revise the site and
landscape plans that were approved with this petition for the property
located at 31429 Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the
Revision to Petition 95-6-8-12 to a date uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 743rd Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on May 13, 1997 was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
4-47 gsL1
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
ATTEST: Li cru r. C:
J./ es C. McCann, Chairman
r
/du \ ;�