HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-07-22 15620
MINUTES OF THE 747TH REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 22, 1997, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
747th Regular Meeting& Public Hearing in the Livonia City hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Vice, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi
John Walsh Michael Hale Elaine Koons
Members Absent: James C. McCann
Messrs. H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also
present.
Mr. Alanskas 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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-6-1-7 by
Mary Omar requesting to rezone property located on the north side of
Schoolcraft Road (I-96 Service Drive) between Newburgh Road and
Richfield Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF (Rural Urban
Farm-1/2 Acre Lot Min.)to OS (Office Services).
Mr. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a petition signed by 20 people on Richfield as follows: We the
undersigned strongly oppose the rezoning of Lot 26 located on Schoolcraft
Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to OS.
We also have a letter dated July 16, 1997 signed by JoAnne Turshnuik of
14000 Richfield as follows: Dear Members of the City Planning
15621
Commission: I will be unable to attend the Public Hearing regarding the
above-mentioned petition. I would like to state my opinion and go on
record as being in opposition to the rezoning of the property from Rural
`'�► Urban Farm to Office Services. My home is adjacent to and directly north
of the lot proposed to be rezoned. When the property at the corner of
Schoolcraft and Newburgh was rezoned for office services, the neighbors
were assured that the remainder of the neighborhood would remain
residential. If this property would be rezoned, there would be no assurance
that the other lots to the west of it would remain residential. I believe this
neighborhood should remain residential.
There is another letter dated July 22, 1997 from George and Louise Bielis
of 14051 Richfield as follows: Although we are unable to attend tonight's
meeting, we wish to go on record as opposing any rezoning changes to
Office Use/Services in that one of the most important negatives would be
that of the increased traffic on our road.
We have a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no
objections to the petition. That is signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer I.
That's the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Will the petitioner please come to the podium and state your name and
address and the reason for this rezoning request.
r.. Martin Skura, 922 Pauline Boulevard, Ann Arbor, Michigan: I am representing Mary
Omar. I have an option on the property to purchase it if we are successful
in this rezoning. This is for the purpose of building an office building. I am
a licensed real estate broker and a builder.
Mr. Hale: Do you intend to occupy it yourself as a real estate office?
Mr. Skura: Yes.
Mr. Hale: Ms. Omar, as I understand it, you are trying to sell this property and you
want to have it rezoned. Have you had any potential buyers aside from this
one? Was anyone interested in the residential zoning?
Mary Omar, 37701 Palmer Road, Westland: No, no one.
Mr. Hale: Have you offered it for residential?
Ms. Omar: Yes, I have had it signed up for whatever.
Mr. Piercecchi: As I understand it, you did try to sell this property because the ideal
set up here would be if you combined Lot 26 with 27 and 28, and with the
15622
splitting of 27 and 28 into 3 lots would then create 3 RUF lots, according
to my calculations, 120'x125'.
Ms. Omar: No one approached me to buy it.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think it would be well in your interest to look that option over. I
don't see how this gentleman could put a building there. Does he realize
he has to put a wall up that has to be roughly 375'? Are you aware of
that?
Mr. Skura: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't know how big your building is going to be, but 75' wide
doesn't leave much room for a building and cars.
Mr. Skura: About 6000 sq. ft., I estimate.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would certainly suggest, Mrs. Omar, you contact the people that
currently own lots 27 and 28 which is in City Council right now of being
split. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Omar: Yes, I am.
Mr. Piercecchi: With your new package you would have three RUF lots that would
remain residential and I think it would not displease the 22 people who had
signed the petition opposing.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Irene Nosakowski, 14003 Richfield: I oppose it. My reasons for opposing it are first, that
it does deviate from the Master Plan of the City. Second, the For Sale sign
was not up very long, not more than a month, and all of a sudden there was
a sign for rezoning. The property is vacant except for a block garage right
now. I live right there and it is rare that I have ever seen a sign up there
regarding that parcel. My next reason is that it is very narrow, 75' would
precipitate an unusual design and awkward placement of a commercial
structure. It would definitely eliminate the natural wall of trees we have
that protects us from seeing a very busy and noisy intersection of
Schoolcraft and Newburgh. Also,just this morning I counted For Lease
signs on the south side of Schoolcraft from Laurel Manor going east to
Stark Road, there were 10 sites for lease of different square footage, and I
don't think we need another office building there.
15623
Linda Stewart, 14100 Richfield: I too oppose the rezoning of Lot 26. I agree that it
should stay rural area. We do get a lot of traffic going down our street.
There's a lot of children in our neighborhood. It's been changing over the
years and a lot of young families, and I believe that going with an OS
zoning we would get more traffic going down our street.
Michelle Fetterman, 14085 Richfield: I just came from a meeting at JoAnne Turshnuik's
house on Sunday with the people who want to split the three lots. They
told us that they had made her an offer and she turned it down. We want
to keep them RUF because they want to build three homes on there, but
she turned them down because she would get more money for OS they
said.
Mr. Alanskas: If there is no one else wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved,
it was
#7-117-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July
22, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-6-1-7 by Mary
Omar requesting to rezone property located on the north side of
Schoolcraft Road (1-96 Service Drive) between Newburgh Road and
Richfield Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF (Rural Urban
Farm-1/2 Acre Lot Min.) to OS (Office Services), the City Planning
__ Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-
6-1-7 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning would provide for a further
encroachment of non-residential zoning and land uses into a predominately
residential area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning would provide for uses that are
not needed in this area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan which designates the subject area as low density residential; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage future
requests for non-residential zoning changes on adjacent property.
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.
15624
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-6-1-8
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to council Resolution#419-97,
and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Livonia, as amended, proposing to rezone property located
on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no
objections to this petition. That's the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: This petition was brought upon by the City Planning Commission. Mr.
Shane, would you give the viewing audience some information on this
petition?
Mr. Shane: These two lots were purchased by the City of Livonia some time ago in
order to obtain the right-of-way necessary to widen Newburgh Road.
When they purchased the property, there were two homes on the site and
they have now removed the homes and the property is vacant. The
property was put up for sale by the City and a party has purchased the lots
and part of the stipulation was that the City hold public hearings to rezone
this property RUF to R-1 to be more usable.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Alanskas,
Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-6-1-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved,
it was
#7-118-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July
22, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-6-1-8 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#419-97, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, as amended, proposing to
rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann
Arbor Trail, in the NW 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to
R-1 (One Family Residential-60'x120' Lot Min.), the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-
6-1-8 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will permit the development of
the subject area consistent with the developing character of the area;
r..
15625
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and uses in the area;
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future
Land Use Plan designation of the subject land as Medium Density
Residential land use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543
as amended.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-6-2-
15 by Rite Aid of Michigan, requesting waiver use approval to transfer
SDD (packaged liquor) and SDM (beer and wine) licenses to an existing
Rite Aid Drug Store located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and
Inkster Roads in the NE 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from our Engineering Department stating they have no
objections to this petition. That's signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer I.
That is the extent of our correspondence.
John Doyle, appearing on behalf of Rite Aid of Michigan, 427 S. Capitol Avenue, Lansing:
I am an attorney for Rite Aid. A representative from Rite Aid could not
make it today. Basically, our reasons for asking for this waiver are to
better serve the public in this area. Rite Aid is a full service pharmacy
operation. There is a drive-thru window in existence which would not be
used for any alcohol sales at all. Basically, we just want to better serve the
public and be a part of the community.
Mr. Hale: What percentage of sales are anticipated as a result of this proposal?
Mr. Doyle: My understanding is that it's a new store, only about a month old.
Anticipated sales from other stores of this kind, my understanding is about
25-30%. The other sales are for pharmacy items and other sundry items.
Mr. Hale: Do you know how that's broken down between the SDD and the SDM -
liquor vs. beer and wine?
15626
Mr. Doyle: I don't have that information right with me.
Mr. Hale: You are aware that there are other facilities in that immediate area that are
selling things that you are proposing? Why do you feel that this is a
necessary part of better serving the public?
Mr. Doyle: It's a nice new facility that they have there. They are going to have very
reasonable hours and are not going to be open very late at night. They will
be operating from Monday through Saturday, from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm,
and on Sunday from 10:00 to 6:00. They sell other items beside beer and
wine, and that would just be another convenience for them when they have
to go out and fill prescriptions and other items.
Mr. Piercecchi: You say 25% in increase in sales. I don't know how this would
translate to the two current stores that presently have a beer and wine
license. There are only so many dollars. It could do a lot of harm to those
two operations. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Doyle: I understand that. The figure I gave out was an estimate from our
operations. Rite Aid's experience in the past has been that with certain
customer loyalty that when they are adjacent to other locations that sell
similar products, some people tend to stay with the store they are used to
going to. I don't believe that Rite Aid is looking to undercut anybody or
steal away any business, but rather just to add an additional service.
'rr.
Mr. Piercecchi: 25% of your sales - that's a lot of beer and wine.
Mr. Doyle: I don't have an exact figure on that. That's an estimate from what I've
seen from other stores.
Mrs. Koons: I realize you are not directly a Rite Aid management person, but do you
know what type of training your clerks go through to sell beer and wine
and liquor?
Mr. Doyle: Yes, I work for a law firm that represents them on their issues with the
Michigan Liquor Control Commission. They do provide training not only
for the manager, but also to the clerks. I believe it is the TAM program,
the Training for Alcohol Management. They have constant employee
meetings where they reemphasize the importance of following all the laws,
checking IDs. They don't want to be a problem in the neighborhood. The
clerks are constantly reminded on what they have to do. The penalties if
they sell to a minor are rather harsh; they are terminated immediately.
Mr. Walsh: I know the store is only one month old and this may be hard to answer, but
what is the customer demand for this type of convenience?
r..
15627
Mr. Doyle: I am aware that certain customers have asked if we have a liquor license
yet, but I couldn't say how many people have done that.
Mr. Alanskas: How many Rite Aids to you have in the Metropolitan Detroit Area?
Mr. Doyle: I am unaware of that number. Certainly state-wide it's somewhere over
300.
Mr. Alanskas: Of the 300, do you have any store that does not have these two licenses?
Mr. Doyle: Yes, there are, but I couldn't tell you how many. Also, I want to point out
that we are talking about an existing license from the City of Livonia that is
in escrow currently, we are not adding one.
Mr. Alanskas: We understand that. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak
for or against this petition?
Terry Farida: I am the general manager of the supermarket across the street and I am
also an owner of the supermarket. As you know, Howard's Drugs had a
liquor license and a beer and wine license across the street, and we also
have a beer and wine license across the street. Howard's Drugs closed in
December of 1996 and we are in the process now of buying that license as
the landlord, and also in the process of selling that license to Trade Vine
Party Shop across the street. The license has already gone to Lansing, it's
back to the City, and the Liquor Control Commission and the City of
Livonia are investigating us right now. We have already signed up for a
waiver use to get this process done. If Rite Aid is successful in transferring
a license there, Trade Vine being only one building away from there, a
video store in between, will not be able to buy that license. We've been
open there for about a year and a half, we bought that property about two
and a half years ago and we put a lot of time in there. Trade Vine has been
there about 16 years. We are going to have a property interest in that
license. We are going to have to pay money for it. If Rite Aid is successful
in getting their license in that corner, we won't be able to sell the license
across the street and we are going to have to open another liquor store on
the corner, so instead of you having 2 there, you'll have Rite Aid with a
third one and you'll have us with a fourth one because we'll have no where
to go with it.
Mr. Alanskas: Or you could sell it.
Mr. Farida: We could, but it would be very hard. Also, there is precedent in the City of
Livonia. Yes, Rite Aid is not in the business of selling beer, wine and
liquor, it is in the business of being a drug store. On Five Mile and
15628
Merriman, you have a Rite Aid store that is right next to Showerman's and
right across the street from Merriman Drugs. That store does not have
beer, wine or liquor, does good business and is still there in the City. So I
am opposed to this and asking the Planning Commission to deny this
petition on those grounds, and again the license at Howard's is in the
process of being transferred to Trade Vine with the approval of the City.
Mr. Walsh: If the license is successfully transferred to Trade Vine, what is your intent
for the vacant property that was once Howard's Drugs?
Mr. Farida: Right now we have two or three people interested. In fact we have already
taken down the wall, but we put everything on hold to see what happens
here.
Mr. Walsh: You wouldn't be opening another drug store or something that would
compete against Rite Aid or Trade Vine?
Mr. Farida: No, we wouldn't. It would be non-competing businesses. But if we have
to have that license there, we would quite possibly have to open back up.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you have taken down a wall, is that between the drug store and
the grocery store?
Mr. Farida: No. Inside Howard's drugs, we are cleaning up. He left a lot of damage.
There are two walls there.
Mr. Alanskas: So it's in case you have another business coming in there?
Mr. Farida: Yes.
Jay: I am the owner of Trade Vine. I am trying to add to what Terry is saying
right now. We don't need another beer and wine and liquor on that corner.
There's already two there. If it is possible to get another one in there, why
did Howard's go out of business?
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Alanskas,
Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-6-2-15 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved,
it was
#7-119-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July
22, 1997 on Petition 97-6-2-15 by Rite Aid of Michigan, requesting waiver
use approval to transfer SDD and SDM licenses to an existing Rite Aid
Drug Store located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Inkster Roads
15629
in the NE 1/4 of Section 13, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-6-2-15 be denied for the
following reasons:
N..
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed uses are 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 fails to comply with Section 11.03(r)(1) of
the Zoning Ordinance which requires a 500 foot separation between SDM
licensed establishments;
3) That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD and SDM
licensed facilities in this area of the City; and
4) That the proposed uses are 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.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Near
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
Approval for Kenwood Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the west
side of Sunset Blvd. between Fargo Avenue and Morlock Street in the NW 1/4 of
Section 2.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objection to
the development of this subdivision, however, it is expected that a
hydrant(s) will be located along proposed Kenwood Court. That's signed
by Rockney L. Whitehead. There is another letter from Ron Reinke,
Superintendent of Parks and Recreation stating he has reviewed the
preliminary plat for the proposed Kenwood Estates Subdivision and at this
time find no discrepancies or problems with this project as submitted. John
Hill, Assistant City Engineer, states the Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposed preliminary plat.
15630
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What we plan is a 12 home subdivision. These homes will
consist of 3 and 4 bedrooms, both colonials and ranches. There are 2
homes on the property now and these homes will be demolished. The
homes will be priced at $180,000 or so with a full basement.
Mr. Piercecchi to Mr. Shane: Do you see any problems with the street having a 50' radius
instead of a 60' radius, and the cul-de-sac radius at 55' rather then 60'?
Mr. Shane: No. There have been times when those areas have been reduced because of
the narrowness of the property and the smallness of the subdivision. In
order to obtain the depth that they need in this zoning district, they have
proposed a little less width on the street, and a little less width on the cul-
de-sac. It has to be approved by City Council. It can be worked out with
Engineering for utilities, sidewalks and so forth.
Mr. Piercecchi: The dimensions are in compliance then?
Mr. Shane: They are in compliance provided it is approved by City Council. There is
precedent for it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Alanskas,
Vice Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for Kenwwod
Estates Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-120-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 22, 1997 on Preliminary Plat Approval
for Kenwood Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side
of Sunset Blvd. between Fargo Avenue and Morlock Street in the NW 1/4
of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Kenwood Estates Subdivision be
approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the waiving of the requirement for a
60 foot wide street right-of-way width and a cul-de-sac radius of 60 feet as
set forth in the Subdivision Control Ordinance by the City Council for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all of the
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations and Zoning Ordinance;
2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to the subject land area; and
15631
3) That no reporting City department has objected to the approval of
this Preliminary Plat.
Now
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof
of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to
the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police
Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Koons: Are you the owner and the builder?
Mr. Soave: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: Just a request regarding the tight spot you are in and aware of the
neighbors needs and not make a huge mess of their property. I know you
are going to have to do a lot in a tight spot.
Mr. Soave: I have a habit of cleaning up after myself. I am always there with a tractor
or a broom trying to make the place clean.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 745th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held on June 17, 1997.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously
approved, it was
#7-121-97 RESOLVED that, the 745th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held by
the City Planning Commission on June 17, 1997 are approved.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 746th Regular Meeting held on July 1, 1997.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved,
it was
15632
#7-122-97 RESOLVED that, the 746th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning
Commission on July 1, 1997 are approved.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Revision to
Petition 96-5-8-6 by Midwest Guaranty Bank requesting approval to revise
the building elevations that were approved in connection with the building
located at 37601 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Shane, is there any new correspondence on this matter?
Mr. Shane: None.
Mr. Miller: This bank branch is located in front of the Village shopping center on the
southwest corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Roads. Back in May 1996
the petitioner received site plan approval to construct an addition to the
existing building. As part of that approval, the addition was to look as the
present building does. What they are proposing to do is refurbish the entire
building including the addition. The building would receive a different style
mansard roof that would be asphalt shingled. The windows would be
replaced and have shingles and a new canopy over the bank's entrance
would be constructed.. The bank wants to have a colonial look which
NewMidwest Guaranty Bank has for all its branches.
Mr. Ball, Midwest Guaranty Bank: The request as its been explained was originally
intended to put an addition on and leave the rest of the building the same.
When we reviewed it with the directors, they said why don't we have this
building like the rest of the buildings which are all colonial style buildings.
It's taken that long to redo the plans and come back to you with the
revised plans. I have a picture of the building if you would like to see it.
Actually the original building was built in 1975, so the building is 22 years
old. I think the revision of the style will enhance the style of the shopping
center. If you have been by the building, the mansard roof was painted a
dark brown before we bought it and it doesn't look the best, so I think this
will make the entire building more presentable. The back of the building
goes very low and does not carry this look across. The mechanical
equipment is on the roof and particularly in the winter, it's been susceptible
to winter storms and we have had problems with the heat. Prior to our
purchasing it, the furnace went out and the pipes froze.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to add my comments to your good taste. I think shingles
always look better than a steel roof.
r..
15633
Mr. Alanskas: Would there be any interruption of service to your customers?
Mr. Ball: No.
Mr. Alanskas: How long will this take?
Mr. Ball: I really don't think it will take very long, my guess is a couple of months.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman,
declared a motion was in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved,
it was
#7-123-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Revision to Petition 96-5-8-6 by Midwest Guaranty Bank requesting
approval to revise the building elevations that were approved in connection
with the building located at 37601 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 19 for the following reason:
1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 dated
June 20, 1997 prepared by Daniels and Zermack Associates, Inc. is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE
YEAR ONLY from the date of approval and unless a building permit is
obtained and construction commenced within that period, or an extension
of time obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of
said period.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by T. Rogvoy Associates, on behalf of Champps Americana,
requesting approval for signage for the restaurant located at 19470 Haggerty Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This is the Champps Americana restaurant that is located on the east side
of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads. It is part of the
Pentagon Entertainment Center. What they are proposing is three wall
signs for the restaurant. They are only allowed to have one wall sign so
they had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance. The west
wall which faces Haggerty Road is where a 71 sq. ft. wall sign will be.
15634
They are allowed one at 130 sq. ft. and they have three at 71 sq. ft. each. I
have a color rendering showing the colors of the building and the sign.
,yaw Mr. Alanskas: Would the petitioner please come forward and state the reasons why you
are proposing this petition.
Jim Mall, T. Rogvoy Associates, Inc., 6735 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield MI: We are
requesting a favorable recommendation from this body to the City Council
for the sign package. The site is very unique and very different from
anything else that this type of restaurant has gone on in recent time. The
ordinance does allow only 130 sq, ft. of signage. The ordinance under
other situations might also allow a pylon sign or monument sign of another
30 sq. ft. for a total of 160. What we have proposed is not garish. The site
is unique because it is part of the entertainment complex and is accessible
from many different directions, not only off of Haggerty in three locations,
but also off the southeast area. The visibility to the building is really from
all sides as people enter the site or are already engaged in activity on site.
That's the primary purpose for three wall signs. The three signs combined
would be a little over 310 sq. ft., and the ordinance allows 130 sq. ft. and a
monument sign of another 30 sq. ft. so we add it all up in the terms of
actual signage. This is not that much greater than what the ordinance
might require. The site, besides the access in all directions, the floor line
because of the terrain will sit about 7 feet below Haggerty Road. In
addition to that, the master landscape plan for this site requires a hedgerow
`.. along Haggerty which would be another 3 or 4 feet above that. We are
looking at that sitting down in about 11 feet. Visibility will be very
restricted. Take a look at the photographs we gave you. The signage itself
is not garish, it is not bright. The Champps letters themselves are halo lit
so that the real illumination is on the wall behind the sign. The Americana
portion of the sign underneath the Champps is not illuminated at all.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any new correspondence on this Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane: No, there isn't.
Mr. Piercecchi: We are very happy you are coming into Livonia. The sign package
is coming to us so early. You haven't dug a spade of dirt yet. Alexander's
is practically finished and they haven't requested a sign yet.
Mr. Mall: The Champp's people have come to us and asked us to get our ducks in a
row.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think three signs is a little overkill and all those flood lights you
have at the top of the building. This is going to be an entertainment
section, but we don't want it to look like a carnival either. You being the
15635
first one in, and I think we have to be a little careful of how we treat these
things, I would like to get your opinion on all the flood lights. Is it
necessary to have that degree?
Mr. Mall: Certainly the building design is as much a part of the architecture as the
signage is. This is a very large investment that Champps is making to the
design of the building, and they want to be seen. This domed entryway is
very unique. It was designed specifically for the site, and they are very
proud of it.
Mr. Piercecchi: How high are those signs going to be from the road?
Mr. Mall: About 18' above grade.
Mr. Piercecchi: So that sign will be at least 10' to 15', as far as someone driving
down the street, in view.
Mr. Mall: The signs will be about eye level. There would be no problem seeing the
sign, the problem we are trying to solve is when you can see the sign.
That's the basis of the three signs. When you are on Haggerty Road, one
sign on the west side is visible from Haggerty and you might see both
signs, one on the west wall and the north wall. Coming out of the theatre,
you could see the sign on the east wall.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have no problem with the east and the west, I think the north is
redundant. I don't think there is a restaurant in the City of Livonia that has
three signs. As a matter of fact, one of the busiest restaurants in Livonia,
and who is going to be your neighbor, is the Macaroni Grill and they have
such a small sign, you can't even see it going west, and they have a small
monument sign on the corner.
Mr. Mall: I don't know if there are any restaurants in the community that are a part of
an entertainment complex. That's certainly a consideration that we want
you to be aware of.
Mr. Hale: Is the flag going to be illuminated as well? I know there is a flag that's
going to be a part of the sign.
Mr. Mall: The flag is part of the logo and might be illuminated as part of the sign with
a halo behind it.
Mr. Walsh: If you were left with two signs, east and west, would you use a monument
sign, if that were permitted altogether, and if so, where would you put it?
15636
Mr. Mall: My understanding is that the Master Plan for the complex would prohibit a
monument sign.
___ Mr. Walsh: You are correct. I really struggled with this. What you have shown us
here is tastefully done. It's very attractive. My concern is the slippery
slope in terms of what other companies will do. I look at that map and you
can see the signs east and west, and the north is overkill. When you are
with other competitors, I can see your desire, but I am nervous at this early
stage that without seeing what your building looks like on the ground and
eyeball the need, it puts me into the more negative category. If this came a
little bit later and I saw the building up, and I saw some of the other
businesses going up as this project continues, I would have a feel for it.
The pictures have helped tremendously, the map that you've drawn has
been very helpful, but my mind's eye says east and west is sufficient.
Mr. Mall: Another consideration, perhaps it's a little difficult to see from there this
scale, is patio dining that extends out in front of the west wall of the
building, and that to some extent will be obstructing the west wall sign
from the northern approach. I can understand your concern for perhaps
establishing a precedent, but I would have to remind you that this has gone
before the Zoning Board of Appeals and gained their approval.
Mrs. Koons: I am very much in favor of the east and west, particularly the sign that
faces the theatre. I would hate to leave the theatre and stumble my way
`... over to the restaurant, so I think that is very necessary. I am ambivalent
about the north side. I think it is very tasteful and classy. It is difficult for
me to envision the complex and the restaurant.
Mr. Walsh: What are the hours of operation for the restaurant and what would your
request be on signs?
Mr. Mall: I don't have the hours of operation.
Mr. Alanskas: This picture shows only lights on the bottom of the awning facing down, it
does not show any lights at all on the building itself facing towards the
roof. When I see this, I am very concerned. It's got that carnival look.
On the other picture, it does not have that. Would our building look like
this as far as lights on the face of the building?
Mr. Mall: I have not seen the final on the electrical. I don't know.
Mr. Alanskas: I really don't have any problem with the signage except for the north
elevation, I just have a problem with the signage looking like a Las Vegas-
type building. I am really opposed to all these lights. The signage itself as
far as Champps Americana, I have no problem with it. To have this entire
15637
thing lit up with colored red lights, I would have a problem with that. I
think we should clarify this evening exactly what they want to put on the
building.
Mr. Walsh: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I am warm to the three signs, particularly because
you just showed the blockage on the west elevation that will cause the
travelers from the north not to see the sign on the southwest portion of the
building. I have to agree with the chairman. I hope you understand our
caution on this. We need a better balanced picture of what all of the
lighting will look like and perhaps a tabling motion would be best until we
have that information before us.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#7-124-97 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table the Sign Permit Application by T. Rogvoy Associates, on behalf of
Champps Americana, until the Study Meeting of August 12, 1997.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 747th Regular meeting
and Public Hearings held on July 22, 1997 was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
,`°' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Vit. �)Lx LLL- \/ L -`t-ccal t-
C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: 61'7`4'
Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman
/du