HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-09-30 15693
MINUTES OF THE 751st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
Jaw
On Tuesday, September 30, 1997, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 751st Regular Meeting& Public Hearing in the Livonia City hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members Present: Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi James C. McCann
John Walsh* Michael Hale Elaine Koons*
Members Absent: None
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and
Scott Miller, Planner III, 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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-1-11 by
Elaine Beresh and Jack Shenkman requesting to rezone property located on
the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads in the NE 1/4 of
Section 7 from OS (Office Services) to C-2 (General Business).
Mr. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division stating that they have no
objection to the zoning petition. That's signed by David Lear, Civil
Engineer I. That's the extent of our correspondence.
Jeanne Hildebrandt, 34774 Bretton, Livonia. I am representing Elaine Beresh and Jack
Shenkman. The zoning request from C-2 to C-1 would satisfy the use of a
drug store and that way we could insure that nothing in the future could be
15694
built other than this drug store-type building. Gas stations, etc. would not
be allowed on that corner. Therefore the developer is requesting C-1. The
reason the original request was made for C-2 is that the architects at the
time did not realize with the wetlands they could still get this building in
and leave the wetlands as they are now.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize that out of 2.84 acres only 1.54 acres is usable?
Ms. Hildebrandt: Yes. I have brought renderings and would like to inform the
Planning Commission that the building would be built with the same brick,
as close as we can match it, to the medical center that is there at the current
time. We have set the driveways far enough back from Seven Mile and
also Newburgh so that it shouldn't interfere with the traffic. I might add
that Arbor Drug stores are well maintained and spotless. I have dealt with
one for many years in Livonia Mall, and I have never gone in there that that
drug store is not taken care of in a proper manner. The building fits very
nicely on the 1.5 acres and, as you see, we've set the drives, ingress and
egress, back off the corner so it shouldn't interfere with the traffic flow.
Mr. Alanskas: Has Mr. Shenkman tried to put an office building on that site?
Ms. Hildebrandt: Yes, he has and has been unsuccessful. He's been trying for a
couple of years.
Mr. Alanskas: I am sure you are aware of it, but we have 31 drug stores in Livonia at the
present time. I know we cannot predicate zoning on what type of business
is going in. We just opened a drug store on Eight Mile and Newburgh.
Believe me, if I thought it was feasible or a good use for a drug store I
would say yes, but I still think that with the OS zoning, you could put an
office building in there. I think we have to try a little harder.
Ms. Hildebrandt: He has tried diligently and with the two medical centers, and with
Oakwood going up and Providence there, we thought a drug store would
be most appropriate as long as it is built accordingly with the current
building.
Mr. Alanskas: Don't they also have small medical stores in those buildings?
Ms. Hildebrandt: Not with the products the drug store would have. They have
prescriptions, yes.
Mr. Hale: Is there any study that you know of by Arbor or by the developer in terms
of the need of a drug store on this particular parcel?
15695
Ms. Hildebrandt: I don't have any knowledge of that. I would like to make a
comment. We felt that a drug store with the medical centers would be very
appropriate for that corner.
Mr. Piercecchi: The Mission Health has a pharmacy, doesn't it?
Ms. Hildebrandt: They have a small pharmacy. They don't have near the products
that Arbor Drugs can satisfy a customer. Also, Arbor Drugs has food
products to pick up for seniors, etc. Arbor Drugs runs a first class drug
store.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-8-1-11 closed.
Mr. McCann: If there is no one else wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-152-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 30, 1997 by Elaine Beresh and Jack Shenkman requesting to
rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and
Newburgh Roads in the NE 1/4 of Section 7 from OS (Office Services) to
C-1 (Local Business), as amended, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-8-1-11 be denied
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use plan designation of Office;
2) That this general area in the vicinity of the Seven Mile Road and
Newburgh Road intersection is currently well served with a variety
of commercial uses;
3) There is no demonstrated need for additional commercial zoning in
this section of the City; and
4) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses that are not
needed in this 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.
15696
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Nifty
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-1-
12 by Guiseppe Mainella, Antonio Russo and Joseph Padula requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Wayne Road between Ann Arbor Trail and
Joy Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 33 from OS (Office Services) to C-2 (General
Business).
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: Our Engineering Department in their letter referencing the subject petition
indicates they have no objections to the rezoning. Signed by David Lear,
Civil Engineer.
We have a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Yarnevich of 8891 Laurel,
Livonia, as follows: "I'm writing you (since we are unable to attend the
meeting) in regards to Petition 97-8-1-12 on rezoning the property west
side of Wayne Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road on the SW 1/2
of Section 33 from OS (Office Services) to C-2 (General Business). On
either side of the property is a home on its north side and a funeral home
on its south side, therefore the property discussed should remain as OS for
the neighbor's sake since C-2, general services, is too general. We're also
concerned because if this property is rezoned, will the property across from
it be affected? The property across from it is behind our home. They've
tried a few times to rezone it. People buy their homes with an
understanding of who their neighbors will be.
We also have a petition signed by 74 people opposed to Petition 97-8-1-12
for the following objections: 1) Loss of property value; existing trees will
be removed, 24 lighting and 24 hour service will invade our privacy, noise
levels will disturb our peace; close proximity to residential area(backs
directly up to private homes); unwanted traffic in a residential area; and 2)
Repetition of services within a 2 mile area; Wayne Road and Cowen Road
coin operated car wash; Joy Rd. and Hix Rd. coin operated car wash; and
Joy Rd. and Newburgh Rd. car wash.
There is also a letter from Beverly and Sandy Cadaret, "We live in the
neighborhood directly behind where this car wash is proposed to be
located. We are against this rezoning. We feel it would be a detriment to
our neighborhood which is family oriented. We do not need our children
put in the way of people hanging around all hours of the day and night &
filtering into the neighborhood, the noise to the homes in the area and
lower property values. Also there's already too much traffic on Wayne
15697
Road and this would just cause more havoc. We no not need any of this."
That's the extent of our correspondence.
Joe Mainella: We have owned this property now for ten years and we have had it up for
sale with at least 3 different real estate companies for OS zoning. I came
here about 8 years ago and tried to get it rezoned to C-2 and they told me I
couldn't get C-2, but I could get C-1, but we never pursued it. The house
next door is not in compliance; it is OS. I don't necessarily have to have a
car wash. I don't mind a small retail store. It's the zoning that I am
concerned about. I don't have any plans for it right now. I am just going
for the rezoning. The car wash was just one idea; I didn't come here with
any drawings. The way I see it, if you put an office there, it is right next
door to a funeral home. Professional people sure don't want to see a dead
body come out of the house next door.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, you make it very difficult because the zoning before us was to have C-
2 zoning with a car wash and that's what we are working on this evening.
Joe Mainella: Right now I do not have any plans or any drawings for a car wash. I
thought that this was a good idea because of where it was located. I
owned the house next door and because I was loosing so much money, I
ended up splitting the house off so that we wouldn't have that much of a
loss on it. I came in here to try to get it zoned so that we could use that
parcel for something other than OS. I am sure that the people who live
over there have seen the real estate signs. We even offered it to the funeral
home next door.
Mr. Alanskas: Because of the funeral home next door, have you thought about a possible
florist? I think it would be a good fit.
Joe Mainella: The only difference I can see between a C-1 and a C-2 is that one you can
have a sit down restaurant and the other you can't.
Mr. Alanskas: Tonight we are working on a car wash. A car wash on a Friday, Saturday
and Sunday is when you have the most traffic on Wayne Road, and on a
Saturday that's when you have the most traffic at the car wash. A car
wash can put out a hundred cars an hour.
Joe Mainella: We thought we had a better chance instead of coming in with a C-2 and
you would say"What do you need a C-2 for?"We figured we would come
in and say let's put a car wash in. At least we have a purpose for that
property. I could have come in and said we want a retail store. We tried
before to get a C-2 zoning and never got it.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm not disputing that, but we are working tonight on a car wash.
15698
William Morgan: I own the house next door. There's a couple of things I don't like
about this situation. Until just a day or two ago, I don't know if it was
tried to slip through intentionally or unintentionally, but when the petition
first came to you it included my house.
Mr. McCann: I understand that. That was an accident.
Mr. Morgan: I don't know how that could have been an accident. We just bought that
house a couple of years ago. It should be fresh in their minds of that
property that should have been placed before you people. I don't see how
you can make that kind of mistake. Anyway, let's call it a mistake. I
bought the property knowing that it is zoned for office. I can live with
that. I can't live with commercial next door. We have something on the
other side, but there is no problem with that; everything is nice and quiet.
At 5:00 or 6:00 everything closes up. A car wash is going to be there all
night. I don't think it is good for the neighborhood. I think this is a bad
situation. I can understand the feelings of these people who are trying to
get this rezoning. I am a builder myself, and sometimes you make bad
decisions. You have to just change your way of thinking and do something
else. If they made a bad investment and they can't get it rezoned, that's a
problem they will have to live with like I have to as a builder if I make a
mistake. Anyway, I voice my opinion here against a car wash. Keep it
office. I don't care if they want to put an office next to me, but a car wash,
Nye.
forget it.
Vickie Kowalis, 34647 Dover: Where my house is situated, along with the neighbors
along Laurel, if a 24 hour car wash is situated there, we would get the
lights, hear the noise and it would be very disruptive. We have a nice,
family oriented subdivision over there, as well as the people who back up
to it. A 24 operation is not something that we want across the street where
the lights are going to come into the homes. I am opposed, and I am here
to support the people who live right behind it.
Pat Schoff, 8872 Roslyn: I am the person who lives right behind. This is not something I
look forward to doing, but it is important to us, it is important to my family
and neighbors. We are busy people. We try to raise a family in our
neighborhood, and we are here to oppose this petition. I've lived in
Livonia most of my life, and when I could finally afford to move here, I
brought my family back here. I feel Livonia is a city that is citizen oriented.
We have a good school system. We have parks and playgrounds and good
public services, and the decisions the City Council makes I think are what
the citizens want. That's what we want you to do now. We want you to
listen to us. We want you to make a decision that's positive to our
neighborhood. The land is directly in my backyard. It was zoned OS when
15699
we purchased the house. We felt we could deal with an office building.
That land has been vacant as long as I can remember. Obviously he wants
,410, to make a profit on it, but I don't want that profit to be made at my
expense, my family's expense and my neighbor's expense. We live in a
nice quiet neighborhood, we have a lot of kids. We all watch out for our
kids and each other. We use our yards and want to continue using our
yards. This rezoning will basically make me lose my backyard. With a 24
hour car wash, our neighborhood would be responsible for policing it. I
would also invade our privacy. We are going to have lights shining into my
house, it's is going to be open 24 hours a day, we are going to have sounds
from the car wash going off, the vacuum cleaners. This is the biggest
investment I've made in my life. This property is mine and my property
value will decrease if this is built in my backyard. Also, Wayne Road is one
of the biggest areas in Wayne County for drunk driving. The Wayne Road
strip has a lot of bars on it. I don't want a car wash to be a hangout for
kids after a night of partying. We don't want to be responsible for policing
the area. We work hard to keep our homes and we are a family safe
environment. Please listen to us and do the right thing and reject this
proposal.
Barton Foster, 8854 Roslyn: I am the other neighbor right behind adjoining their
property. I bought my home one year ago based upon office zoning. In
that year I have put in excess of$20,000 in my home to make it into a
good member of the community. I trusted the City enough to invest in the
largest investment in my life, and I trust the City will make some good
decisions. A couple of things if I may: First, I have been a neighbor there
for a year and I haven't seen any dead bodies walking around. Actually,
they don't party much and they are pretty quiet. Secondly, I used to sell
car washes. I've sold a lot of projects here in southeast Michigan and I
don't want to say anything that would counter the experts here or the
people who own the property. However, I will state that to put in a
reasonably good car wash and get a reasonable return on your investment,
it won't fit there unless you make major variances. That's a fact I can back
up. We are also looking at the overflow of the traffic and the other issues
that will come from that and the effect it may have on the neighborhood. I
want to say that the funeral people are outstanding neighbors. They are an
asset to this community; they contribute to the community. I could not
find a better neighbor. What's more important to me and the people here is
the zoning issue. We also believe that the car wash is what we would call a
red herring. We believe it's a ploy by the owners to get it rezoned. I
would also add that if they are indeed interested in selling the property, and
they would get reasonable on the price, I'll buy it and I would like to put
an office there. The other thing I would like to point out, and I'm sure it
was an oversight by the City, but there were people in the 500' area that
weren't notified. Our real issue is the zoning, and our real issue is what is
15700
the intention of the City. The property has already been rezoned recently.
(It was rezoned in 1983). It was the intention at that time to make it a
buffer zone from both the other zoning that was there. On top of that the
City has wisely made decisions to encourage other residential zoning and
construction in the area. C-2 zoning, which is rather heavy zoning, the
uses really aren't compatible when you look at traffic and the other issues
there. I push that we not have any rezoning there because it has already
been rezoned. What's important issues here are noise levels, lighting
levels, traffic levels, our property values and, by the way, this may be
incorrect, but I believe they used to own more than just that property there
and they split it off to make more money. Those are their decisions they
made and they are accountable for their decisions. We are concerned with
the neighborhood integrity, our family safety and health, our children and
the crime levels in our neighborhood. We do not want a place that will
encourage the hanging out of gangs. We don't want a negative business
there. I have the largest backyard in the community, and I put a lot of
money in that backyard. We want our privacy. Since there is garbage
blowing into our backyard, I put up a nice cedar wood fence. We want
responsible neighbors and we hope they will be. We want a buffer zone
and also I have a lot of wild animals in the back of my yard, grouse and
pheasants. We want something that will not hurt that. We believe that
Livonia wants to be family oriented and amiable to good businesses. There
are a lot of other places to put C-2 zoning. I believe that the C-2 zoning
would destroy my investment. We want more good neighbors like the
funeral home people. We want businesses that would be an asset to our
community. The church is a good neighbor. There is a party store in
Westland that already has gangs hanging out at. Do we as a City want to
spread that further, or do we want to stop that development.
* 8:05 p.m.: Mrs. Koons and Mr. Walsh arrived at this time.
We have already mentioned that Wayne Road is a problem Road now.
Basically, the City is faced with some choices and we ask you to make
decisions so that it is good for us. We are prepared to do whatever is
legally possible. We will go to the media or whatever it takes. We are
going to be responsible and we ask you to be responsible. The other area
that is zoned C-2 that is further down Wayne Road has a strip mall and
some other businesses. The gas station takes very good care of the area. I
am sure the owners are trying very hard. The turnover in that strip mall is
high. The types of people who come there are not desirable people. The
businesses are struggling to make it. The other area is we are faced with
the choice do we want to enhance the value of our community, or continue
with more problems there. Nobody knew that was going to happen. Let's
keep it to that section, and let's hope that those business people can come
back. This decision will take minutes for you. We are going to live with
15701
these decisions the rest of our lives. It affects us. We ask you to do your
job and be responsible. Keep the zoning exactly the way it is. We ask you
r. to do what is right. I want to encourage them to make a nice development
and to negotiate with any of us to sell it.
Nancy Ziomek, 35415 Richland: I own the funeral home with my husband. I would like
to keep the zoning as it is and not have it C-2 zoning in the middle of our
two pieces of property. I think the reasons have been very well stated and
keep it OS.
Joe Mainella: I just want to say that we don't have our mind set for a car wash. If they
are completely against it, that's fine. I would like to have even a C-1
zoning like Mr. Alanskas said for maybe a flower shop, which would
require that I couldn't put anything higher than a C-1 zoning there. If you
can look at that. If I have to run through a rezoning to put a C-1 in there,
that's fine. I would be more than happy to do that.
Mr. Piercecchi: We have in front of us here a rezoning for a C-2 that could possibly
get something even worse than a car wash. That's General Business. I
have to share these people's opinion to leave well enough alone.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-8-1-12 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it
was
#9-153-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 30, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-8-1-
12 by Guiseppe Mainella, Antonio Russo and Joseph Padula requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Wayne Road between Ann
Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 33 from OS (Office
Services) to C-2 (General Business) the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-8-1-12 be denied
for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning would promote strip commercial
development in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the existing
OS zoning district occurring on the lands both north and south of
the subject property;
3) That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and
not in harmony with the adjacent uses in the area;
15702
4) That this general area along Wayne Road is currently well served
with a variety of commercial uses; and
5) There is no demonstrated need for additional C-2 zoned land in this
section of the City.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh, Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-7-2-
16 by St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church requesting waiver use
approval to construct a new church sanctuary on property located on the
r.. east side of Merriman Road between Curtis and Seven Mile Roads in the
NW 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the Police Department has
no objection to the site plan as submitted. A letter from Rockney
Whitehead, Fire Marshal states: "Typically, as submitted for the planning
stage, the blueprints do not detail any division. However, should any area
o the first floor exceed 12,000 sq. ft., an automatic fire suppression system
shall be required or 2 hr. fire rated separation shall be provided such that
no fire area exceeds 12,000 sq. ft. If the choir loft is open to the floor
below, it shall be considered a portion of the floor below and shall be
included inn determining the fire area and subsequent suppression
requirements. There shall be an on-site hydrant provided within 100 ft. but
not closer than 50 ft. to the F.D.C. (Fire Department Connection). It
appears at this time that the east/west drive along the north side of the
building and the driveway area along the west side of the building will be
designated and posted "Fire Lane-No Parking".
15703
We also have a letter from the Inspection Department noting that 1) The
site plan does not show lighting for the parking areas, and 2) There is no
barrier free parking identified on the site plan. All barrier free parking must
Noir
conform to the Michigan Barrier Free Rules.
A letter from our Engineering Division states that Due to the fact that
much of the parcel is located within the influence of the Tarabusi Creek
flood plain, the developer will be required to secure permits with the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as well as take the
standard precautions for working next to a wetlands area. Other than that
issue, the Engineering Department has no objections to the proposed
construction. That's signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer I.
Lami Taweel: I represent the church.
Mr. McCann: Did you bring the plans with you?
Mr. Taweel: Yes. We have revised the site plan and I have copies of it that shows more
parking to the site in back and sides. We will have about 425 total parking
spaces. We also have a site plan that pushes the building back about 120'
feet from the centerline of Merriman Road and we added more parking in
the front with handicap parking as designated with 16 new spaces.
Mr. McCann: My original plans shows a 91' setback from the east right-of-way line.
Mr. Taweel: That will be 121'.
Mr. McCann: So you are going to move the whole project back 30'?
Mr. Taweel: Yes. We cannot move it back any further than that because there is a flood
plain and we are not going to disturb the flood plains. The tower moves
back with the entire building.
Mr. Piercecchi: So the tower will be approximately 105'?
Mr. Taweel: Something like that, yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is that the maximum? I was looking at that myself with our
Planning Director and we thought it could be moved back about 40-50'.
Mr. Taweel: It can't because there's a ravine in the back and it would destroy that.
What we are trying to do is create the parking in the back area and if we go
back any further, we will destroy the ravine and we will have to go back to
the DNR. We really want the ravine and wetlands to be natural, and we
don't want to touch them. We are raising the entire building, that's why it
15704
is so high. We have a basement and we are calling that Level 1. If we
drop that down to a 942 level, we would destroy the entire ravine. We
tib•• raised the whole building and have a ramp coming up to it.
Mr. Piercecchi: Well 120' is a lot more reasonable than 90', so I am glad you came
to those conclusions. I've talked to some people I showed the plans to,
and they think 80' is a little high for the tower. Can that come down a little
bit?
Mr. Taweel: What we are doing right now is trying to get a special use permit to do this
project. Our architect is waiting for us to tell him to proceed with
preliminary plans to come back here to show the dimensions of it, the
colors of it, the outside texture of it. We are looking right now to bring the
tower down and the structure down.
Mr. Piercecchi: There are two others that I've looked at in Livonia. One is the
Grand River church and they were about 50' and the one on Five Mile
Road is about 40', so your tower is much higher. Is this something that
must be pushed immediately because I am wondering inasmuch as you are
talking about changes, it might be more advisable if you would put together
a model.
Mr. Taweel: We need this special use permit because right now we are going to the
.. architect. Our parish doesn't want to spend that kind of money for the
se
architect and say go ahead with the plans and then come back with a
problem. We will come back with preliminary plans for your approval
within the next couple of months. The parish right now is discussing with
the architect to do a model.
Mr. Piercecchi: A model would help right from the onset because you could have
shown us that this whole package moving along. This 30' is a surprise and
I am happy with the surprise.
Mr. Taweel: That tower is not just a bell tower. In our faith, we use that tower for a
prayer room and other things. It is something sacred for us.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am not questioning that at all. It does seem extremely high. It
will be the tallest in the City of Livonia.
Mr. Taweel: We are trying to make a monument of it.
Mrs. Koons: Did you feel you were able to complete your presentation to us? We kind
of jumped in.
Mr. Taweel: I think it's OK.
15705
Mr. Alanskas: If you are going to move that building back 30', what are you going to do
�.. with the parking in front? Where are you going to pick up that 30'?
Mr. Taweel: That plan shows the 120' dimension and that is with the parking in the back
as it is.
Fr. George •I am the pastor of St. Mary's Antiochian Church for the last 26 years. We
have appeared before this Planning Commission on more than one occasion
as our church increased and most of our parishioners now live in Livonia.
For the concern of the height and the dome, one of our basic traditions to
worship as orthodox is with the designation of the dome that God is the
creator of heaven and earth. The bell tower stands outside as an
independent. It's not a building that anyone would climb, it has no use, it
is like a skylight. It will have no activity whatsoever except the bell tower
should be higher than the actual dome. Maybe it's stated 80' in the plan.
It can go down to 75'. The model also has been be ordered. The point is
if we are going to spend the money to make the model and spend the
money to make the plan to build and then we have something really
problematic for the neighbors, for the DNR and for the structure, we have
to change. The point tonight is that if we have the blessing of the City, we
can live with this with the addition of the changing of the parking lot, the
lowering of the tower, so at least we can move. We are already six months
�..• behind schedule. As you know, a year and a half ago our church was
completely destroyed by fire. We stayed there and it is so small. The
anticipation of all the families moving to Livonia, to the west side, it is
overwhelming. We recognize that we need to push back the building. We
do not want to loose the walkout because the walkout will serve for us as
an activity center and also as a Sunday school classroom, and leaving the
premises as natural as possible. Behind us is the Bainbridge Park that is
owned by the City and nobody uses. We really want to keep that
surrounding area, the Tarabusi drain, the trees, as natural as possible. I
would very much appreciate your approval to move ahead.
Mr. McCann: The waiver use of the church and the site plan is part of the approval
tonight. Normally on a commercial project you would come back for site
plan approval, but we are giving site plan approval, so we really need to go
through the plans. I think by moving it back 30', you responded to the
concerns we had when we first reviewed this, but I think it would be
helpful for the citizens to have us look at the plans. This is the only time
you are going to come to us. You are going to go on to Council from
here. We have the plans and your architect can explain them to us.
Mr. Taweel: (1) This is the site plan and the existing portion with the cultural center.
The ravine is very close. (2) This is the front from Merriman with the
15706
ramps going up. This is the dome we may be able to bring down here. (3)
This is the floor plan of the upper level. The upper level only has the choir
with the stairs and the elevator with some washrooms and change rooms.
It overlooks the entire church. (4) This is the south elevation. (5) This is a
section of the church taken from the alter. We also have a colonnade. (6)
This is another section of the church; the basement level and the choir roof
in back. (7) This is the roof plan showing the systems of the roof and
showing how the structure of the building and how it is going to be
supported by the structure steel of the towers. (8) This is the ceiling plan
of the upper level, which is the main level.
Mrs. Koons: You said that you raised the site because of the flood plain?
Mr. Taweel: We haven't raised the site, we actually left the topography the way it was.
We were able to raise the building upwards. We met with the DNR and
they told us we could keep the basement level. We have a two-level drain.
We have the lower level and we have the upper level. The lower level is at
942 and the upper level is at 943. The told us by flood plain requirements
we have to keep that 2' above the flood plain. We are putting the
basement level at about 952 so the entire building is up and that's why you
see it sitting so high. The reason for that is that if we keep it low we are
going to destroy this whole edge. We are going to go down into it.
Mrs. Koons: So last week when we talked about a 65' dome and an 80' bell tower, has
that risen higher?
Mr. Taweel: No, that is the height now. If you drop it down, the building will come
down. If you do that you will destroy it.
Mr. Walsh: If you did drop it down, how many feet would you be able to drop it
down?
Mr. Taweel: Safely, maybe 3' or 4'. If we drop it any more than that, we will get into a
bad situation and destroy the flood plains and the wet lands. I don't mind
getting into the flood plains, but I don't want to destroy the wetlands. It is
a beautiful, beautiful ravine.
Mr. Piercecchi: Just a comment. You have a beautiful facility here. People in
Livonia can be proud of it, and I think moving it back 30' is going to
enhance it because people will be able to see it in its entirety. You have
satisfied all my concerns here. We appreciate the effort, and the
explanation on the model is satisfactory.
Fr. George: I would just like to add that this will be dedicated in the year 2000 as we
celebrate 2000 years of Christianity. It will be a gift to the landscape of
15707
Livonia. It will be a monument that will be as ancient as the faith of the
church is, and as beautiful as the culture and diversity, and it will become a
landmark in Livonia. We want a spot in Livonia that people would like to
visit, and with all the trees, it will become a beautiful chapel. This will be
one of the first buildings in Livonia with a Spanish tile roof, and it is very
expensive and very difficult, but we want to keep the beauty, the joy, and
the color of that church. It will be stone and brick, and it will be all well
designed. It will reflect the ancient faith of the Antioch.
Mr. Alanskas: What is your membership now?
Fr. George: We have close to 500 families, a family made up of 5 to 6 people.
Mr. Alanskas: With your new addition, how many more do you hope to get?
Fr. George: We really do not know. We made a decision to expand what we have, so
the average Sunday maybe 550 people.
Mr. Alanskas: I have been to your church for various functions and I can't believe how
your church can put out such good food at such a price and such good
service.
Fr. George: Well I'd like to be known for more than just giving food. I think what
made our church so unique is the neighborhood, our relationship with the
City, our relationship with all denominations. I thank you.
I remember in 1973 I appeared before you when our church just bought the
3 acre lot. We bought more from the school to provide for the parking. I
think it is a sign of growth. I do not want to be too crowded. This is one
of the reasons to provide the parking lot so no one will park on the street.
We are also looking to the future. If you look on the side of the church it
has a beautiful colonnade, and colonnades have no seats, so that in ten
years from now if the church increases, we do not have to add another
building but we can put in pews and seat the people. We are very happy
here, we are an integral part of the City. Our neighbors think highly of us.
We enhance the neighborhood. I know you also want the best for us.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-7-2-16 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, supported by Mr. Hale and approved, it was
#9-154-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 30, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-7-2-
16 by St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church requesting waiver use
15708
approval to construct a new church sanctuary on property located on the
east side of Merriman Road between Curtis and Seven Mile Roads in the
NW 1/4 of Section 11 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan dated October 9, 1997, as revised, prepared by
Taweel Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevations marked Sheets A-110, A-111, A-112
and A-113 dated October 14, 1997 prepared by Angelos Demetriou
& Associates which are hereby approved shall be adhered to;
3) That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval within 30 days of the date of approval of
this petition by the City Council;
4) That handicapped parking be provided as required;
5) That new site lighting equipment shall be as specified in a letter
dated 9/11/97 from Taweel Associates;
6) That the bell tower shall be no higher than 75'.
For the following reasons:
�.. 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 4.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Piercecchi, Koons, Walsh, Hale
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
15709
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Koons: Fr. George, I just want to thank him publicly, and as an extension of his
church, about not only his parish, but all the families in Livonia. He and I
have been involved in several efforts for the families in Livonia. I know
you are only one man, but I hope those efforts will continue.
Mr. Alanskas: This is a very complex and huge building here, 31,720'. You say you are
six or seven months behind. I am sorry about that, but it is not the fault of
the Planning Commission. I think that with something this size, it needs
more than one week's study. I am for you doing this, but not on what I see
here tonight.
Mr. McCann: We reviewed this last week at some length and numerous plans were
provided to us. Two changes were made to those plans; one, to increase
the parking so that you meet all the parking requirements because we know
you have a lot of people attend on Sundays and you have a lot of parking
needs. Further, the closeness of the building was a great concern, and you
have been able to move it back 30', reduce the tower size 5' or maybe
more. I think it will be a nice setup. I think in the year 2000 all of the
people of Livonia will be proud to have that church in our City. It will be
beautiful and I wish you the best of luck.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-2-
18 by Derek and Elizabeth Patton requesting waiver use approval to utilize an
existing building located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Dover
Avenue and Grandon Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 35 for a day care nursery.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The City Engineer states the Engineering Department has no problems with
the proposal, although the proposed approach on Middlebelt Road and any
other construction in the Middlebelt right-of-way will need to be approved
by Wayne County. A letter from the Fire Marshal states they have no
objection to this proposal, however a copy of required Department of
Social Services plan review shall be submitted to this Department.
A letter from Officer John B. Gibes of the Traffic Bureau states: In regards
to the captioned petition, the Traffic Safety Bureau, after careful review
does not recommend the approval of the site plan. The concern by the
Traffic Safety Bureau is the close proximity of the play area to Middlebelt
Road. The barrier between the roadway and the play area is only a 6'
wooden fence and landscaping according to the site plan. The distance per
the site plan is only 28' - 29' from the west curb of Middlebelt Road to the
15710
nearest fence on the east side of the play area. This distance was a concern
for the reviewing officer (Officer Gibes). I (Officer Gibes)visited the site
location and measured the distance from the west curb of Middibelt Road
to the nearest edge of the side walk and found it to be approximately 30'3"
(not 12' - 13' per the site plans - scale of plans is 1":10'). The sidewalk is
6' and not 5' as illustrated on the site plans. The total distance was then
determined to be approximately 46'3", not 36' 3" as show n on the site
plans. This distance, in my opinion, isn't a sufficient safe distance from
Middlebelt Road for a children's play area. I wouldn't object to a play area
which is no closer to Middlebelt Road then the eastern most building edge.
While I am not aware of any standards for the set back of play areas for
child care facilities, it is my opinion based on experience of vehicles leaving
the roadway during crashes, that this distance isn't sufficient. There is
another letter from David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector stating that
the following problems or deficiencies were found: 1) Existing ground
sign is non-conforming and would require a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals to reestablish the use, 2) The existing parking lot needs
to be repaired, resealed and restriped, 3) The proposed play area
encroaches into the required front yard setback, and 4) All new lawn areas
should be sod. Another letter from Michael F. Kieltyka reads "Lot
numbers 78 and 79 is my residency which is directly behind the proposed
Day Care Center. Per the proposed plans of Derk and Elizabeth Patton,
the outside playground will be directly behind my back yard. According to
the plans a 6' cyclone fence will separate both properties. I have suggested
to Mr. Derek Patton that a wooden privacy fence be substituted for the 6'
cyclone fence to benefit both parties. Mainly for visual separation between
residential property and commercial property. But my biggest concern
would be: Who is responsible if my dog happens to nip the fingers of a
little tot through the proposed 6' cyclone fence" It's not my 6' cyclone
fence, but it would be my dog. I'm aware that we are encouraged to
attend the public hearing and present your views, but at this moment, I am
conducting a PTA meeting. I'm confident that the City Planning
Commission will take proper action for both parties.
That's the extent of our correspondence.
Derek and Elizabeth Patton, 28056 MacKenzie, Westland: Elizabeth has been conducting
the day care business out of our home for 8 years now. She has between
30-40 children on a waiting list for approximately 6 months now. Our kids
go to Livonia schools, I grew up in Livonia, and we know it would be a
nice place to open a business. The way the variance stated, I needed 5000
sq.ft. minimum for play area. In the plans, the architect drew a parallel line
to the front of the building. At that point, 4730 sq. ft. I believe, which is
less than the 5000 sq. ft. required, therefore the architect drew on the plan
to bring the building out further and play area up further to meet that code
requirement. The plan identifies both fences that we are proposing. One
r..
15711
would be approximately 700-800 sq. ft. which would be the setback from
the sidewalk. We are also looking at if the ZBA would approve the 4700
*kwsq. ft. play area, that way the parking area would be well in front of the
building which would give us 4700 sq.ft. of play area which then the play
area would be a good 60' from the sidewalk. Also, the driveway approach
off of Middlebelt would be a one way exit onto Middlebelt from the
building. Traffic would not be coming in from Middlebelt right into the
parking lot; they would be approaching off of Dover.
Mr. Alanskas: First of all, this is one of the complete packets I've ever received. In
regards to the play area beyond the asphalt parking lot, you say you would
put wood chips down?
Mr. Patton: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: How thick would that be for the safety of the children?
Mr. Patton: The first thing, we don't know how thick the asphalt is. Whatever is
required by the State Code, Department of Social Services. We have had
them out to look at it. She did have a concern with the children on the
blacktop. Whatever her recommendation is that needs to be developed. I
was told by one of the neighbors that that area that is broken up is a little
thicker than the rest of the parking lot because that was a driveway that
was used for the garbage haulers.
Mr. Alanskas: It is so easy for children to fall and hurt themselves, and if you have some
real thin base there, I don't think that would do the children any good.
Mr. Patton: We currently have about 4-1/2" in our backyard and I removed the sod
and we have 4-1/2" in our backyard, so it would be at least that thick and
maintained accordingly.
Mr. Alanskas: What about noise levels?
Mr. Patton: Of course the more kids you have, the more noise you will have. When we
drew up these plans with the architect, we were not looking to have the
building at capacity. Of course, with state guidelines, so many square feet
per child. We have a large office, we have a larger restroom We are
looking at 59 or 60 children. Our play area is going to consist of one
classroom at a time on the outside of the building. The largest classroom
will have approximately 29 children in it.
Mr. Alanskas: What are the ages of the children?
15712
Elizabeth Patton: Iinfants to 2-1/2 years old will consist of 11 to 12 children. The
largest classroom would have 29 children and that would be 4 years old
,.. and up, so I would be doing after school also. The oldest one I care for
now is 9 years.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there swing sets in the play area?
Mr. Patton: No. Our No. 1 concern is safety for the children.
Mr. Piercecchi: My recollection of the ordinance as to how much play area is required is
150 sq. ft. According to my data here, you estimate you will have 60
children, is that correct?
Mr. Patton: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: That would be 9000 sq. ft., correct?
Mr. Patton: Yes, but the whole school would not be in the play area at the same time.
Mr. Piercecchi: These rules are established on the number of children. You could
have 2 out there. I know if it's raining there would be none out there.
Mr. Patton: One of the issues if we go to the ZBA would be the waiving of the 150
sq.ft. per child. Since we will have only one classroom at a time out there,
r`' the most we will have out there at one time would be 29. That times 150
sq. ft. per child comes to 4350 and with the parking area blocked off the
front of the building,just using the back half, with the 4700 sq. ft. there,
we are over 360 sq. ft.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned that you can't find any other sites in Livonia that
would satisfy your needs. I find that hard to believe. Ripping off only a
part of the asphalt and putting chips on there -being so close to Middlebelt
Road. Just recently we had a similar one, I believe on Middlebelt Road,
and it was defeated because of the safety aspects of the children. I think
your building could very well fall into the same class, insufficient play area.
Have you looked at other sites in Livonia?
Mr. Patton: We've looked at other sites in Livonia and/or Westland. We live in
Westland.
Mr. Piercecchi: Have you checked with the Chamber of Commerce?
Mrs. Patton: We have checked with Realtors for potential site availability. I have had a
business in my home for 8-1/2 years and the need is there. The need for
15713
good quality care where you are not paying $175 for an infant to 2-1/2
years is absolutely ridiculous. I have a lot of people behind me.
Mr. Patton: This is a very expensive venture we are going into here. She has a waiting
list of 40 and typically the people who come to her are people from the
surrounding area. North of Seven Mile and Middlebelt, for example, we
would lose a good portion of that 40. We have to go into areas where the
day care is needed.
Mr. Piercecchi: The safety aspect is my major concern.
Mr. Patton: One of the issues that the architect mentioned when we picked up the
plans, because the fence is located close to the driveway, he recommended
that we sink some tie lines and a barrier on the inside the fence to reinforce
the fence in the event that a car would slide and hit the fence. I would have
no problem doing that. The neighbor who addressed the privacy fence
issue, I have no problem with that. We want to be good neighbors. As I
said we live in the area. The neighbor to the immediate north of us has also
requested a 6' wood fence along the front of his property, and I would
agree to that.
Mrs. Koons: I admire your knowledge and your obvious sincerity and your working
together as partners, and I see not only from the waiting list and from the
r.. letters that were sent to you saying Good Luck, we need this, that there is
a real need. As an educator I know there is a real need. I too am
concerned about the safety of the children. I have a question about your
seven staff member, your ratio of staff member to student, 1 to 4, and the
ratio for the older children, there are break points there too. With 60
children, it appears to me that you should have more than seven staff
members.
Mrs. Patton: That's depending on the age. I would have more staff members depending
on the enrollment. At this time I have a lot of school age children that are
on the waiting list.
Mrs. Koons: My concern is the safety issues of the children that has already been
brought up and the drop off and pickup within the same hour to hour-and-
half within the same span in the morning and in the evening, the traffic in
and out of Middlebelt. I think you are the kind of person we want
providing day care. I note the sincerity, but I am concerned about the site.
I will be voting against your proposal because of the safety issues. I
encourage you to continue. Someone with 40 people on the waiting list is
obviously providing wonderful care, and we need that.
15714
Jason McCaffrey, 9000 Fremont: I just bought this property about a month ago. Dover
goes right by my house and I just want to know about the increased traffic.
They said that their in point would be off of Dover. My living room door
is right off of Dover and very close to their property. Another issue is that
of any kind of dumpster they would be having. I wouldn't want the
dumpster being on the south section which is right behind my house. I
haven't heard anyone address hours of operation, how early in the
morning, how late in the evening, weekends. I would like to have those
three concerns addressed. I am not speaking for or against, but I would
like to have those issues addressed.
Mr. McCann: You show ten spaces on your parking lot. With 60 children, what is the
requirement? How many employees would you have to have to cover 60
children?
Mrs. Patton: It depends on the age. Infants to 2-1/2 years is one caregiver for four
children; 2-1/2 years to 3 is one caregiver for 10 children; 4 years and up,
one caregiver for 12 children.
Mr. McCann: So at minimum, you will have to have 5 employees there. Probably you
will have some toddlers there too and babies as well. So it would be fair to
say that you are going to have from 7 to 8 employees. If you have 13 spots
that leaves 6 spots for 60 vehicles to drop off children in the morning
between 7 and 9 when that is the time most people drop off their children.
Do you think that is sufficient to have 40 or 50 vehicles to come in in a two
hour period?
Mrs. Patton: As far as DSS guidelines, yes it is.
Mr. McCann: My other concern is the 10' in your 4700 sq.i. If you put your playground
just to the building line, you are including the 10' of grass area behind the
building. You are showing a large bush at the north end so the kids would
have to go around the building, and there are bushes around it, so they
would probably have about 7' or 8' to play?
Mrs. Patton: We did not include the bushes in the measuring.
Mr. McCann: I know, but they are there and it is taking up play area, so basically they are
only getting 7' or 8' of room.
Mr. Patton: I believe it's 10' from the sidewalk to the shrubbery, not to the fence.
_.� Mr. McCann: According to your drawing, it is showing 10'. You believe that to be
usable play space?
15715
Mr. Patton: Yes. There is a sufficient greenbelt there, and every neighbor along that
line, with the exception of the neighbor behind the building, will have a
privacy fence. It will be a sound buffer and a visual buffer.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-8-2-18 closed.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it
was
#9-155-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 30, 1997 on Petition 97-8-2-18
by Derek and Elizabeth Patton requesting waiver use approval to utilize an
existing building located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between
Dover Avenue and Grandon Avenue in the SE 1/4 of Section 35 for a child
day care nursery, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 97-8-2-18 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 9.03(j) which
specifies a minimum size area of outdoor play space;
3) That a letter dated September 10, 1997 from the Traffic Bureau
states that a safety hazard would result from the proximity of the play area
to Middlebelt Road;
4) That the proposed use fails to provide adequate parking for staff
members and patrons; and
5) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: The petition fails. You have 10 days in which to appeal the petition.
Mr. Hale: I would encourage you to keep at it in terms of trying to find a location if
this does not happen to pass. I have been out there to the location you are
proposing. It seems that you are just trying to put something somewhere
15716
where it is almost a stretch. It doesn't seem that it goes particularly well,
particularly with the traffic concerns. I certainly want to indicate to you that
,,w I greatly respect what you are doing in terms of day care. We need strong
providers like you in the City.
Mr. Walsh: As a father of a two year old, I am very much aware of how much we
need day care because my daughter is in a day care center and I am painfully
aware of how much shortage there is. I think you are on too small of a site.
If this doesn't pass tonight, I would like you to contact me through the staff.
I chair the Livonia Chamber of Commerce and I can perhaps bring some
resources to your assistance to help you find an adequate facility that would
fit your needs.
Mrs. Koons: I mentioned this before. I think you are the right kind of people we
want providing day care. Unfortunately, I think this is the wrong spot. I
hope that with this door closing we can open another window for you. I
appreciate your Livonia roots and wanting to stay in Livonia, but I cannot in
all good conscience approve this site and I don't know what resources I
could bring to you, but I would like to help you work with the Chamber. It
sounds like you know the guidelines pretty well and you don't need that help,
but please keep looking.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-2-
19 by Costco Companies, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a full
ti.r
service restaurant within a major retail facility proposed to occupy an existing
building located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile
Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence on this petition.
Jeffrey Howard, legal counsel for Costco Companies, 2000 Town Center, Suite 1500,
Southfield, Michigan: By way of background, Costco is a big box
membership club which sells a wide variety of high quality merchandise and
services with attractive prices. There range of goods and services include
large appliances, electronics, small appliances,jewelry, office supplies,
sporting goods, clothing, tire sales, food service, beer and wine and spirits,
health and beauty aids. Their services include pharmacy, optical and food
services which is one of the waiver uses we are requesting tonight. At the
Eight Mile and Haggerty site, I believe Mr. Miller mentioned that the
footprint is 127,700 sq. ft. The food court would use approximately 2400
sq. ft. with counter service with two employees. We expect to have
between 12 and 14 tables each serving 4 people. The reason we are
15717
requesting seating for 60 people is that typical shopping experience at
Costco involves a fair amount of time, purchasing experience involves a
fair amount of time. We need a place for our patrons to relax. We need a
place for children, as well as for the elderly to also relax. The counter
service involves sandwiches, pizza, hot dogs, yogurt, soft pretzels, soda.
Mr. Alanskas: How many Costcos are in the United States at the present time?
Mr. Howard: I believe world-wide there are 275 locations. The majority of those
locations are on the west coast. There is also significant concentration on
the east coast. There are a number of locations opening up in Asia.
Costco has just recently made the decision to move into the midwest.
Although this is not known in the midwest, it's most similar competitor
would be Sam's Club.
Mr. Alanskas: And how many years have you had this club going?
Mr. Howard: Costco is a publicly held company since 1983. I don't know the actual
date of its formation. The company actually started as a collective buying
unit for businesses to enhance purchasing power and has since expanded
into a much larger retail
Mr. Alanskas: How many employees would you have?
Mr. Howard: About 150 employees, full time and part time, split fairly even.
Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned Sam's Club is a very similar situation to yours.
What would be the major competition for the variety of things that you
handle.
Mr. Howard: I think Sam's. We like to think of ourselves as the Cadillac of the industry.
We have 275 units domestically which do about $23 billion a year. Sam's
has about 475 units which does about $23 billion a year. We are doing
almost twice as much sales per foot. We would like to think that's
happening because of the quality of our merchandise. It distinguishes us in
the industry and that's why we like to think that's why we are the chief
survivor. Our electronics for example are Sony. You may find that Sam's
typically carries Emerson.
Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't mean to say that Sam's is comparable to you. When you
sell something, you take away from somebody else. Who would you
basically be competing against, a Sears, a Montgomery Wards, or would
you be competing against just about everybody because you have such a
variety?
15718
Mr. Howard: We have a very narrow store inventory of SKUs. We have about 3700
SKUs. A typical food store these days has about 60,000.
Larry Harden, Costco Companies: Because we have such a broad product mix, and we
have such a narrow selection in each category, we really don't compete
with any retailer per se. For example. Home Improvement Center clearly
competes heavily with local hardware stores. We may nibble a couple of
percent and there. We don't offer complete services some of the retail
stores may offer.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are putting two of them in Livonia. Two big stores is quite a
bit. We welcome you with open arms, but I just wanted to know what
effect it would have on the other businesses.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the biggest part of your store that a member just picks up a cart,
goes up and down the aisles and puts things in a cart, or do you have a
salesman that would try and sell me the product?
Mr. Harden: It is totally self-service. You would have to know what you want.
Mr. Alanskas: So someone could not go to you and get information and say why is this
Sony better than another brand?
Mr. Harden: Not unless you got a knowledgeable salesperson on their own.
New
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-8-2-19.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#9-156-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 30, 1997 on Petition 97-8-2-19
by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full
service restaurant within a major retail facility proposed to occupy an
existing building located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven
and Eight Mile Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-
8-2-19 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of customer seats
of not to exceed a total of 60 for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
15719
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is a logical adjunct to the main use of the
subject building.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-2-
20 by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD
license (packaged liquor) and SDM license (packaged beer and wine) in
connection with a major retail facility proposed to occupy an existing building
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in
the NW 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from our Engineering Division stating they have no
objection to this petition.
Mr, McCann: For the audience, an SDM license is for packaged beer and wine and an
SDD license is for packaged liquor.
Jeffrey Howard: We are requesting both SDD and SDM licenses. The sale of beer
and wine, as well as liquor is in virtually every Costco location except
those states where liquor can only be sold by state controlled stores. It is
an important part of our retail matrix. Costco operates on high volume,
slim margins. Beer and wine is an important part of the profitability of the
store. It is important to keep them competitive in the marketplace.
Mr. Alanskas: You say it is important. What percentage of sales would you say you have
with your stores for beer and wine?
Mr. Howard: It's probably close to 5%.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the liquor, in Michigan you can't have sales or discounts on
liquor. Am I correct?
Mr. Howard: That's right.
Mr. Alanskas: What percent do you have in liquor sales?
15720
Mr. Howard: I do not have a percentage on liquor sales.
Mr. Alanskas: I can understand why you might possibly use an SDM license, but I don't
know why you would have an SDD license.
Owner of Wine Palace on Middlebelt & I-96: I am a proud property owner here in
Livonia, and I just feel that if I don't come up and say anything, then I am
not a good provider for my family. I am an admirer of Costco. They are a
great company and I have been following them on the market. As he said,
they have great sales according to the number of stores they have in
comparison to Sam's. My objection is obviously the liquor. I am a second
generation retailer and I keep my property up. I have a next door lease and
I kept it empty for almost a year and half which cost me about $35,000. I
could have leased it the first day to a pager place, a coney island or fast
food, but that could bring down the view of my property. I am aware that
there is a stigma of liquor. I do my best to keep the appearance upscale. I
waited a year and half and rented it out to a computer place. I keep it in
good shape and I just don't like to look across the road and see another
liquor license. To them it's probably 2% of their business, to me it's my
livelihood. I close at a decent hour. I don't carry any of the low end stuff
like cheap wine. Everything has to be in an upscale kind of way. I think
there's too many liquor licenses in Livonia as it is. As long as I have been
here,the liquor business has been going down. I employ Livonia residents,
all my kids are Livonia residents, and I just think it is not for the
Niter
betterment. They have a whole line of other stuff they sell, and I don't sell
anything of theirs. The spirit end of it they should leave to the retail. They
cannot give it at a cheaper price than me anyway. And the beer, we are at
$1.00 a case above cost.
Mr. Alanskas: How long have you been at your location?
Wine Palace: Ten years.
Mr. Howard: I would like to point out that our hours of operation are Monday through
Friday, 11:00 to 8:00, Saturday from 9:30 to 6:00, and Sunday 10:00 to
5:00. I would like to point out that those are hours of sales that should
have minimal impact with abuse in regard to retail sales. I would also like
to point out that with regard to sales of our beer and wine,just as with our
other inventory items, we take pride in the fact that we sell very high
quality. We are the largest seller of Dom Perignon champagne in the
world. I have to emphasize that for us to operate here in Livonia, the beer
and wine aspect of our sales is a very important part. We are certainly
willing to have the Commission consider our application to split to SDD
and SDM.
15721
There was no one else present wishing to speak on this petition and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-8-2-20 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously adopted, it was
#9-157-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 30, 1997 on Petition 97-8-2-20
by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an
SDD license and SDM license in connection with a major retail facility
proposed to occupy an existing building located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the NW 1/4 of
Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 97-8-2-20 be approved for an SDM license only for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3. That the utilization of an SDM license is a part of the normal
operation of the subject business.
`w
Further, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial with
respect to the use of an SDD license for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use of an SDD license is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD licensed
facilities in this area of the City; and
3) 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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15722
Mr. McCann: As I indicated to you, we do try to keep the sale of liquor to the smaller
4141P, establishments. There's more control there. We feel that it is more
appropriate because we have numerous liquor license locations at this
point, and that it is not appropriate in our grocery stores or in our large
box stores, and at this time there is no further need. You have ten days in
which to appeal the SDD license to the City Council.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-2-
22 by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a full
service restaurant within a major retail facility proposed to occupy an existing
building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and
Plymouth Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Jeffrey Howard, 2000 Town Center, Ste. 1500, Southfield MI 48075, General Counsel to
Costco: We make the waiver use request for the Middlebelt and
Schoolcraft site for the same reasons as stated at Eight Mile and Haggerty.
Mr. McCann: There is nothing additional or different about this location with regard to
the restaurant from the other location?
Mr. Howard: No, the significant difference is that the footprint of this building is just a
fraction larger. This is approximately 34,000 sq. ft., but otherwise the
nature of the food facilities as well as the SDM sales are identical.
Mr. Alanskas: If a person is having a set of tires installed in your tire centers, could they
go through that part of the building to this restaurant if they wanted to
have a bite to eat?
Mr. Howard: I believe the answer is yes.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this petition and Mr. McCann, Chairman,
declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-8-2-22 closed.
On a motion made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it
was
#9-158-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 30, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-8-2-
22 by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a
full service restaurant within a major retail facility proposed to occupy an
existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 25, the City
15723
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 97-8-2-22 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of
customer seats of not to exceed a total of 60 for the following reasons:
1) That the subject use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the proposed use is a logical adjunct to the main use of the
subject building.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-2-
21 by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD
license (packaged liquor) and SDM license (packaged beer and wine) in
't"" connection with a major retail facility proposed to occupy an existing building
located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth
Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Nagy: There is no additional correspondence on this petition.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Howard we have your appearance on the record. Is there anything
different about the SDD and the SDM licenses at this location than the
other location that you would like to tell us about?
Mr. Howard: No, our request for this location is identical to the Haggerty Road location,
and I request that the Planning Commission consider this in the same
manner.
Mark W. Bublitz, 14200 Henry Ruff: I am in the subdivision which is on the northwest
side of the Middlebelt/Jeffries Freeway exchange. Being a resident here for
3-1/2 years and raising a family, my only concern is the profusion of
packaged liquor establishments. We just had one go in at Middlebelt and
Jeffries. One of the reasons my wife and I moved to Livonia was because
of the family type community that it was with the parks and the schools and
so forth. That place went up there and it has bullet proof glass. When you
15724
get off the freeway toward our subdivision, the first thing you see is a
liquor store. I and my friends are thinking that the neighborhood is
,„` changing, and we don't like it. You have Mid-Five Party, Middlebelt
south of Five Mile, Arbor Drugs selling beer, wine and liquor. The
gentleman who was up here a little bit ago, he runs one of the finest,
cleanest stores I've ever seen. I've seen literally thousands of those stores
in my previous career as a liquor salesman, and he doesn't sell to the wrong
element. I know a lot of those stores I've seen in the past will sell little
plastic cups of ice so that people can go and drink their liquor right out in
the parking lot. He does not do that, he keeps his lot clean. That's more
of the type of establishment that I want in my community verses a bullet
proof glass or someone who is going to sell large quantities to people in
other communities. It's the community aspect that I am concerned with. I
don't know how many more stores you need that are going to sell beer and
wine. There's plenty in the area already. I do welcome the fact that they
are going to be there. I'm highly disappointed that Home Quarters has
moved out. Since I have bought the house, my wife and I have put about
$65,000 into the house from HQ and Home Depot and Handy Andy's
before they went out as well. The type of store that they have, and I do
understand in my present position, I am a financial consultant with Merrill-
Lynch, they do run a great operation. From a company standpoint, I have
a lot of respect for them. Most of the stores of their ilk have not done well
in southeastern Michigan. Meijer's Thrifty Acres came in and failed
r... miserably in a few short years. Kmart had Pace that failed. Sam's Club has
been able to stay in the area for awhile, but their stores are not all over and
they are typically not in the upscale communities. I do welcome them from
that standpoint and wish them luck, but I do think they do not need to sell
beer and wine and liquor to stay in business.
Mr. Howard: I would like to say that we are very much concerned about the community.
We sell very high quality goods including beer and wine. Beer and wine is
a key aspect of the matrix which makes us profitable and being profitable
allows us to serve the community. We would also like to point out that we
understand the community's concerns about exposure of packaged liquor
to minors. We are very concerned that people are properly identified and
security is maintained. We wish only to uphold the standards of the
community.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-8-2-21 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#9-159-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 30, 1997 on Petition 97-8-2-21
15725
by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize an
SDD license and SDM license in connection with a major retail facility
proposed to occupy an existing building located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft and Plymouth Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-8-2-21 be approved as to
the use of an SDM license only for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
3) That the utilization of an SDM license is a part of the normal
operation of the subject business.
Further, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial with
respect to the use of an SDD license for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use of an SDD license is in compliance with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
New
Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That there is no demonstrated need for additional SDD licensed
facilities in this area of the City; and
3) 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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You have ten days in which to appeal the SDD license.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-2-
23 by The Salvation Army requesting waiver use approval to operate a second
hand store within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Sears Avenue and Merriman Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
15726
Mr. Nagy: The Sr. Building Inspector in his letter of September 12, 1997 states that
the subject petition has been reviewed and the following problems or
vow deficiencies are noted:
1) The Exterior paint needs to be touch up or repainted.
2) Protection post on northeast corner needs to be replaced.
3) Dumpster area is not enclosed.
4) Repair, reseal and restripe parking area in conformance with
Section 18.37 of Ordinance 543.
5) There is no landscaping at this site.
6) Barrier free parking is not identified.
The Engineering Department in their letter of September 9 indicates
they have no objections to this proposal. Also, the Traffic Bureau has no
objection to the site plan as submitted. A letter from Rockney Whitehead,
Fire Marshal, reads as follows: The building of proposed reoccupancy is
an approximately 22,500 sq. ft. building. It is of 2C construction and I
presently undivided an unsprinklered. The previous use was furniture
showroom and furniture storage. The proposed use would be mercantile.
The archives of this Division lacks any definitive information to verify what
was accepted regarding the issue of separation. However, existing
masonry walls tight to the deck created by interior alterations and a high
bay addition to the rear of the building is evidence that at some point in
�.. time separation requirements did exist. Therefore, we r requesting that
before any reoccupancy be approved, all openings in existing separation
walls be properly protected according to present codes. It is
acknowledged that with properly protected existing separation walls there
remains an oversized area of 15,720 sq. ft. However, it is conceded that
1960 codes may have allowed such areas. Presently there exists one (front)
operational exit for the entire building. The travel distance from the most
remote point is approximately 300 ft. Other existing exits have been
boarded up or made inoperative. Therefore, it is requested that exits be
provided/reestablished according to current codes. Should the above
requests be denied or if occupancy is allowed prior to upgrading such
deficiencies, Livonia Fire and Rescue will be reluctant to commit any
firefighters to an interior attack or rescue should a fire emergency occur.
The building and/or contents may be committed to a total loss.
Letters from the Engineering Division and the Traffic Bureau indicate that
they have no objection to the site plan as submitted.
Bill Hutchins, 5931 Middlebelt Road, Romulus, MI: We are currently
r—�
located down the street 1-1/2 miles west of this location. We have been
there five years and have a good marriage with the City of Livonia. We
`' 1 merely need to expand and move to a different location. This particular
15727
place came up and it's ideal for our conditions. We sell all types; we do
about 20% in furniture, we sell clothing and appliances. What we would
like to do is make that transition from where we are at to this location.
The items on our agenda - exterior paint, northeast corner replacement,
will be taken care of by the landlord. Our trash is handled on a daily basis,
we have no outdoor trash site. We will reseal the parking lot and the
landscaping will be addressed. The barrier free parking is there, it is just
marked on the ground and we will put up a sign on the building or on a
post. As far as the Fire Marshal and that goes, I did notice an exit on the
east side of the building in the general area, we would meet any
requirements required by the Fire Marshal. We are just asking to move to
a larger facility from our present location.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you buying the property you are moving to?
Mr. Hutchins: We are leasing at the present time with the option to buy. It's a 5 year
lease with a 5 year option.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you don't have any rubbish or trash. When people bring clothing
and things in cardboard boxes, how do you dispose of all this?
Mr. Hutchins: We take it back to our center. We have trucks that pick up all our stuff on
a regular basis, 2 or 3 times a day if necessary, and take it back to our main
warehouse.
Mr. Alanskas: I have been there 2 or 3 times and I have found mattresses just laying out in
the back of your lot.
Mr. Hutchins: It happens on occasion that it's after store hours.
Mr. Alanskas: I went there 2 or 3 days later and it's still there.
Mr. Hutchins: I beg to differ with you.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you get those from Art Van?
Mr. Hutchins: We don't receive anything like that. People drop off donations, and we
pick up every day so you will not see anything out there for 2 or 3 days, I
can assure you of that.
Mr. Alanskas: I will check again. I would like to see the back end clean at all times.
Mr. Hutchins: We have never had a citation for any problems.
Mr. Piercecchi: What about all these fire concerns?
15728
Mr. Hutchins: The fire issues would have to be addressed by the landlord.
or..
Craig Singer, 1533 N. Woodward, Bloomfield Hills: I am here representing the three
owners of the building who are three widows of the original furniture
owners of this building. In terms of the Fire Marshal's request, the biggest
issue is the fire separation issue between the warehouse area and the
showroom area which we accept and we will certainly take care of any
issues prior to occupancy. With respect to the operational exits, the exits
exist. The existing tenant of that building who is currently in bankruptcy
has boarded off or locked and placed structures in the way of these
operational exits without our approval, and obviously without the City's
approval because they are only operating very limited hours and only using
the front doors as their only means of ingress and egress. We immediately
faxed them this letter when we received it and told them they should open
all exist doors for safety purposes, and I hope that they comply. The good
news is that when we have a new tenant in that location, they will comply.
Mr. Piercecchi: It's pretty serious business if the Fire Department won't send trucks
out there.
Mr. Singer: I agree, and as I said we immediately notified the tenants of this problem.
'gam. Mr. Piercecchi: You will meet all these concerns?
Mr. Singer: Absolutely.
Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed at your other site, you have a drop-off site. Are you
going to have that same thing here?
Mr. Hutchins: Yes, there is always a drop off site. We try and get them to drop off during
store hours. We will probably have a drop-off site in the back of this area.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have much of a problem where people just want to get rid of things
that you would not even have accepted and they just want to get rid of and
they just dump it in your location?
Mr. Hutchins: Sometimes, but we pick it up anyway. That's just part of doing business.
If we take things that aren't desirable, we don't like it, but we do take it.
We spend a tremendous amount of money in trash removal every year, but
it's just part of doing business.
Mr. Alanskas: If you take things that are not sanitary, do you sanitize them before you
would sell these things, for example mattresses?
15729
Mr. Hutchins: No, if it is stained or torn or anything like that, we destroy it.
Mr. McCann: The Building Inspector had some concerns with regard to the exterior
paint, the closure on the dumpster, parking lot repairs, handicap parking
and the landscaping. I went by the building and took a close look. Who is
going to be responsible for the improvements before you move in? I
assume you don't want to move in with the parking lot and the landscaping
incomplete.
Mr. Hutchins: The landlord will take care of all this.
Mr. McCann to Mr. Singer: Have you done any type of plans to improve it? To put any
type of irrigation system in the right-of-way? To bring it up to the 90s?
Mr. Singer: About 7 years ago we did reconfigure the parking at the City's request and
eliminated double stacked parking in front of the building to a single stack
parking and created that median area which used to be parking right up to
the sidewalk. We did have irrigation and it was supposed to be watered by
the tenant. We put trees in, but it was not maintained. Our goal would be
to use either a low-maintenance kind of a landscape that would require
sprinkling. We are all aware of the reputation of the Salvation Army and
they have expressed an interest in having their store personnel attend to
proper watering to get the grass growing as well. We did create an island
of landscaping at the City's request. In terms of the other items on this list,
the building is maybe a 1950s building. Although it is what it is, I hope
that with an inspection you would find that it has been pretty well
maintained. We have painted that building on a continual basis, we have
replaced the awnings on a continual basis. The whole building was
reroofed 4 or 5 years ago. We did make improvements to the parking lot
and redid the front of the parking lot 4 years ago, and now there is need for
more work on the side of the building. In terms of all the items listed on
Mr. Woodcox's letter, the landlord will be responsible for correcting all the
issues.
Mr. Hutchins: For maintaining the property as far as the landscaping , we would be glad
to do that. We just recently received an accommodation from the City of
Wayne for the best floral display. We will maintain it up to your standards.
Mr. McCann closed the public hearing on this item and passed the gavel to Mr.
Alanskas,Vice Chairman, in order to make a motion.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make a tabling resolution on this. What you want to do
there is good. We have what we call the Plymouth Road Development
Authority and this might be something for them to look at. For us to
approve a waiver use, I think the Salvation Army going in there would be
15730
an improvement, but I think that this is the time to look at it. When I
looked at that building the other day, I could see a need for a lot of
... improvement. I don't think we have a grasp at this time of what can be
done. We have some vague promises of putting together this, or doing
some cleaning there, I don't think it's enough. I would like some time.
Mr. Nagy, could you refer this to the Plymouth Road Development
Authority rather quickly? They could get together with the landlord and
the petitioner to give them some idea of what they can look at to improve
that location.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#9-160-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 30, 1997 on Petition 97-8-2-23 by The Salvation Army
requesting waiver use approval to operate a second hand store within an
existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Sears Avenue and Merriman Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 26, the
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this petition to
October 28, 1997.
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.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-9-2-
24 by Alan Tanski requesting waiver use approval for the display and sales of used
cars on property located on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Laurel
Avenue in the NW 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Fire Marshal in his letter of September 15 states that he has reviewed
the site plan and has no objection to the proposal. The City Engineer has
no objections to the proposal, although the new approach layout for
Plymouth Road must be approved by the Michigan Department of
Transportation since Plymouth Road falls under their jurisdiction. Officer
John Gibes of the Traffic Bureau in his letter of September 10 states: In
response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection
to the site plan as submitted. The Traffic Bureau does request
consideration of a concern with respect to demonstration test drives by
15731
New Car Alternative's customers. Due to the close proximity of the
dealership to the residential streets (i.e., Laurel, Stark, Pinetree, Parkdale,
Orangelawn and Richland). The Traffic Bureau believes that test drives
may enter into residential areas. With this as a concern, the Traffic Bureau
is requesting that the Planning Commission request the Petitioner's
cooperation in informing New Car Alternatives staff(sales personnel)to
have test drives performed on main roads only (Plymouth Road). While I
haven't experienced any over zealous driving by New Car Alternative's
customers or staff, it is a concern due to the larger volume it may be
dealing in due to its expansion. I have previously stopped customers test
driving cars from other dealerships and they often have a tendency to drive
a little too fast on the residential streets during the excitement of testing
out a new car. Any cooperation with this request would be appreciated by
the Traffic Bureau and the residents of the adjoining residential areas.
We also have a letter addressed to the Planning Commission as follows:
With reference to the above-captioned property, we have been advised that
a hearing will be held on September 30 to review a petition, no. 97-9-2-24
filed by Alan Tanski requesting waiver use approval for display and sales of
used cars on property located at the southeast corner of Plymouth Road
and Laurel Avenue. Please accept this letter as your advice that the owner
of the above-captioned property objects to said petition. We do not
believe that the display and sale of used cars is beneficial to the overall
Newretail quality of the area and believe that another use would be far
preferable. To the extent that the proposed use requires a waiver of
applicable statutory provisions, we request that such waiver not be granted.
That's signed by Howard E. Heller of Kin Properties, Inc., 77 Tarrytown
Road, Ste. 100, White Plains, New York.
(The property that they own at 34800 Plymouth Road is on the north side
of Plymouth Road between the strip center and Kinko's. The site that
currently has a video store in it)
Brian Amon: I am here on behalf of Alan Tanski, the petitioner. It is probably fresh in
your memory from the site plan approval, which I think was just in your
last meeting. As to the issues that were raised from your staff, certainly it
will be the policy of the staff, as it has been, to discourage any test drive
down the residential roads. In fact, they are finding that customers
typically want to test cars on more challenging road other than Plymouth
Road and certainly they will continue with that policy of discouraging any
kind of test driving down a residential road. The reason for the waiver is
quite frankly an oversight. It should have been applied for back when
everything else was done. This was property you may recall was in the
process of being purchased from the City for this use, and so it was pretty
much anticipated that this is what would occur all along the way. If you
15732
review and look at the site that New Car Alternatives now sits on in
comparison of what used to be there, you will see a dramatic improvement.
I think you will see the same improvement across the road. In particular
for the fellow from White Plains New York who was particularly
concerned about this, I think you will see that people who do business
there every day and try to make a living, it's really in their interest to try to
make this site as good and as attractive as possible.
Mr. Alanskas: Would you please explain in detail what the detail service center would be
doing.
Al Tanski, 7440 Brookfield Rd., Plymouth, Michigan: Detail service area is basically a car
cleaning center, no painting or spraying.
Mr. Alanskas: No bumping or painting?
Mr. Tanski: No, absolutely not.
Mr. Alanskas: How about oil changing?
Mr. Tanski: No, no oil changing.
Mr. Alanskas: So it will be just polishing cars and washing and painting?
Mr. Tanski: Yes, and interiors.
Mr. Alanskas: On the south property line, there is a chain link fence. That does not
belong to your, correct?
Mr. Tanski: Right. That belongs to Mazda. I have tried to speak to Mazda and made
several attempts (I should say my secretary has). I think we'll come to an
agreement. We have had some dealings in the past couple of weeks that
have been pleasant. I've mentioned to them your concern about the chain
link fence, and we do need some separation between what is his and what
is mine. I would surely hate to spend the money I plan to spend there and
have him display cars for sale on the other side of the fence so that people
can come by. I would like to do something decorative. I don't have plan
for it yet because I haven't been able to get him to say that he would accept
that.
Mr. Alanskas to Mr. Nagy: John, if that fence does not belong to Mr. Tanski - there's
barbed wire on that fence - could the Inspection Department take a look at
that? Now the building in the back that you are going to paint. What color
are you going to paint that?
15733
Mr. Tanski: The building is going to match my building that's across the street that's an
off white with aluminum steel.
Mr. Alanskas: As a resident I want to say thank you for finally getting that spot that's
such an eyesore on Plymouth Road. This will be a nice addition.
Mr. Tanski: About the traffic - I have posted signs and I have terminated an employee,
one of the guys who worked out back insisted on driving down off the
parkway, up Stark. I've been guilty of the same situation. It's peaceful
with the trees and all. I am trying very hard. I do understand the people's
concerns. I have three children. I don't need my kids playing out in the
street. I have had different conversations where someone has come down
and blamed me for something that I happened to watch and it wasn't me.
So anything that does happen negative on that corner, because I am the
new person on the block, I have taken responsibility for it even if it hasn't
been my responsibility because I am a property owner there and because I
want to make sure things are safe too. For the neighbors who may be
watching or listening, I invite them to come down and if they have a
problem, tell me about it. I can't fix something if you don't say anything
about it. If I don't fix it after I've heard you complaint, then you can be
mad at me, but you can't be made at me if you don't tell me the problem. I
know it's hard to get people to deter things. There's a party store next
door and a lot of people get their goods and go down to the park. What I
�... try to do as a plan, I put years on all of my cars, so if a car goes down the
street with 1995 on it, it's a good chance it came from me. But if a car
goes down with nothing on it and it's speeding, it's a very good chance it's
not mine. I tell the neighbors they can identify my cars because I put the
years on all the corners. No one has come to complain. I will try to help if
they do complain.
Mr. Hale: I know the front building closest to Plymouth Road is going, do you have
plans to refurbish that blacktop there at all?
Mr. Tanski: In my site plan approval, I am going to remove all the blacktop and put
a drainage in and a curb. I am going to change the whole elevation to look
exactly like mine across the street.
Jim Dupuie, 11196 Laurel: Mr. Tanski and his group have done a real nice job of
improving the area. The landscaping is beautiful. The building is very,
very nice. I was out of town when the original proposal was made in 1996.
I did submit a letter with some concerns. I spoke with the architect on the
job and I suggested that they have a radius curve, basically discouraging
people from using Laurel to exit to Plymouth Road. I would suggest that
the same consideration be made with this new lot. I obviously haven't seen
a site plan or any of the new proposals for it.
15734
Mr. McCann: For the record, the site plan has gone through two weeks ago. Tonight is
just rather or not if he can display cars on that site.
Mr. Dupuie: I am not here in opposition to that, he has certainly made improvements.
I've lived there 4 years and I did pay close attention because he is the new
guy on the block, and I did watch this. In all honesty, our traffic has
probably doubled Now whether that is all his or not, I can't say and I am
not going to point a finger. About 3 weeks ago, on a Saturday or Sunday,
we get lot of people who drive down on street very slowly and they need a
place to turn around. I counted 50 cars in four hours who turned around in
my driveway. I realize that is not something he can probably address, but I
am sure you folks, if people were turning around in your driveway all day,
you might have a problem with that too. Obviously if he isn't there, he
can't address it, but it's a concern of mine. At one time the excessive
speed was a bad situation. We have a lot of young children on the street.
There's no sidewalks and some of the kids are out too close. I would like
to see some plans on what can be done to discourage traffic from using
Laurel.
Mrs. Dupuie: I appreciate the improvements Mr. Tanski has made on the corner. But
there has been an excessive amount of traffic and it is test driving. They
are revving the engine. One gentleman turned around on our lawn.
Employees were ridiculous speeding up and down at 55 miles an hour.
Mr. McCann: Have you seen some correction recently?
Mrs. Dupuie: Yes, particularly the employee he was speaking of. We have people day
and night, and I am talking midnight, turning around in our driveway
coming to look at these cars. Another thing that happened was on Easter
Sunday 2:30 in the morning they were unloading cars. This same incident
happened about two weeks ago and that went until 3:30 in the morning,
very loud, and we live kitty-corner from their property. I am sure there's
an ordinance violation there.
Mr. McCann: Did you call the police?
Mrs. Dupuie: No, I did not.
Mr. McCann: There's two automobile dealerships. Are you sure it wasn't the other one?
Mrs. Dupuie: Yes. The other one, this weekend we had a car alarm go off Friday at
11:30 in the evening until Sunday morning at 2:30. I called the police and
they could find neither a phone number for the owner or an address.
15735
Mr. Tanski: If that is true on Easter Sunday, I didn't know I had anyone working. I
would have to check the logs. I assure you, as a Christian person, I
wouldn't work on Sunday nor encourage my people to work on any
Sunday. I will try and find out about it. I do own two car haulers. I try
and make my deliveries during business hours so that I can secure the cars
in my lot. For the cars turning around, I could back my blockers up so that
they can't get into my aprons of my driveways. Right now I am blocking
closer to the street because I was trying to deter anyone from getting into
the lot. Sometimes for security reasons, we try to tighten things up as
much as we can.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are going to park a car in your entrance?
Mr. Tanski: I do that now to block the entrance.
Mr. Piercecchi: Wouldn't it be better if you would just put a chain or things of that
nature?
Mr. Tanski: A car is more effective than a chain because of the thickness of the chain.
Mr. Piercecchi: It's taking away a lot of the beauty of some of those cars though.
Mr. Tanski: We actually use it as a display.
Mr. Amon: What he is saying he is actually going to move the parked car a little closer
so there's is no room to turn around and go down the road if people want
to do that.
Mrs. Koons: When Brian said Mr. Tanski was going to try and discourage test drivers, I
wrote that down because I felt that wasn't strong enough, but when you
came up I felt more of a strength behind that. You said you had signs
posted? I thought you said you had signs posted about test drives.
Mr. Tanski: No, I don't have a sign there, but I could do that, a sign saying Left Turn
Only.
Mrs. Koons to Mr. Nagy: Also, I am wondering how do residents apply for signs that
say"Children Play Here".
Mr. Nagy: They can petition our Traffic Commission for such signs.
Mrs. Koons: Is there a cost to the neighborhood?
Mr. Nagy: If the Traffic Commission accepts the recommendation, they can order a
sign from the Sign Department.
r..
15736
Mr. Tanski: We would be glad to pick up the cost of that sign, if there is one. It is the
,,— appropriate thing to do.
Mrs. Koons: It sounds like you are working on a very good relationship with the
neighbors and I'm wondering if it would make sense to you to ask them if
they might want a sign posted at their driveway saying"No left turn for test
driving" or something like that. I also live on a street with no sidewalks,
and there is more potential danger for young children.
Mr. Tanski: We can do that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-9-2-24 closed.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#9-161-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on September 30, 1997 on Petition 97-9-2-24
by Alan Tanski requesting waiver use approval for the display and sales of
used cars on property located on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road
and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-
9-2-24 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated 9/4/97 prepared by
Allen& Laux, Inc. which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-1 dated 9/4/97
prepared by Allen& Laux, Inc. which are hereby approved, shall be
adhered to;
3) That the Landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be
installed prior to final inspection and shall thereafter be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
4) That proposed new grass areas both on-site and between the site
and the roadways in the Plymouth and Laurel Avenue right-of-way shall be
sodded;
5) That all landscaped areas shall be irrigated by means of an
underground sprinkler system.
For the following reasons:
15737
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and
,yaw. 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
4) That the proposed use will provide for the removal of existing
vacant structures that are non-conforming and in disrepair.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi: That ends the public hearing items and we can go on to the pending
items.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
Approval for Lakeside Estates Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located on the
north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Nagy: The Final Plat has been drawn with full compliance to the previously
approved Preliminary Plat. We have received a letter from the Engineering
Department recommending approval of the Final Plat as they have provided
all the easements and the necessary improvements. Similarly, we have a
letter from the City Clerk indicating that all financial obligations proposed
upon the proprietor of the subdivision have been satisfied.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Soave, is this your petition?
Mr. Leo Soave: Yes, it is.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you need to say?
Mr. Soave: No.
Mr. McCann: If there are no questions from the Commissioners, a motion is in order.
15738
Mr. Alanskas: On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously
r
approved, it was
#9-162-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Lakeside Estates Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located
on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat is drawn in compliance with the Preliminary Plat;
2) That no reporting City Department has objected to approval of the
Final Plat; and
3) That all financial assurances required for the referenced subdivision
have been deposited with the City Clerk.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
minutes of the 750th Regular Meeting held on September 16, 1997,
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#9-163-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 750th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held on September 16, 19987 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plan items of the agenda.
Members of the audience may speak for or against these items.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Landscape and
Elevation Plans in connection with Petition 97-2-2-4 for the bank which received
site plan approval during waiver use approval to expand the Newburgh Plaza
Shopping Center located at 37001 Six Mile Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Miller: This bank will be located on the southeast corner of Six Mile and
Newburgh in the Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center. The bank branch
location was approved during the Waiver Use approval to expand this
shopping center and they have approval with the condition that the
landscape plans and elevations plans be brought back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval. The
landscape plan shows a 4' wide planting area along the west and south
property lines, as well as planter boxes along the north elevation of the
15739
building and the east elevation of the building. Also, there is landscaping
within the parking lot areas. Included, they show landscaping outside their
property line. This would be in the same style as standard scheme of the
landscaping. The elevation plan shows that the building would be
constructed on all four sides of brick. It would have an 8' high dryvit band
running along the top of the building along all four sides. Also a brick
archway design over the windows and entrances of the bank. The
architecture and materials of this bank would be similar to the renovated
shopping center.
Mr. Nagy: We have no new correspondence on this petition.
Lonny Zimmerman, Siegal-Tuomaala Associates, Architects, Farmington Hills: I am here
tonight with Donald Eagle, the Vice President of First Federal of Michigan.
We brought along a board with sample materials. As was explained, the
materials are exactly the same as are on the Newburgh Plaza Shopping
Center. The only difference is there is a blue trim which matches the First
Federal colors. For the shopping center we use a green trim, but the brick
is identical and the dryvit is identical. I've also brought along the elevation
of the shopping center and it has the identical forms in the brick element as
the bank. In appearance and design, it is very compatible to the existing
shopping center.
Mr. Piercecchi: You were talking about the landscaping, the areas that were
ti.. running vertical, is that just grass? Those 5 trees in front on Six Mile
Road, those trees are there now?
Mr. Zimmerman: Yes, they are part of the shopping center.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is there anything in there besides grass?
Mr. Miller: It says it will be landscaped by the owner, so I don't know what the
landscaping will be.
Mr. Zimmerman: It will be landscaped with some type of low planting material. It
will be more than grass.
Mr. Piercecchi: The general layout of the shopping center, that's dryvit on the top?
You have such a pretty building, I can't understand why you put 8' of
dryvit there.
Mr. Zimmerman: It will compliment the shopping center there. We want the
buildings to look like they are a part of a cohesive development, and we
felt that matching materials as best we could would be the best approach to
it. It's used on the shopping center because of signage, and at the bank we
15740
felt that using the two materials, both the dryvit and the brick as well as the
tinted glass, we thought would look good.
Mr. Alanskas: When you do get these approvals from us and the Council, what is the
time span to get this building constructed?
Mr. Zimmerman: We will have the bank drawings completed probably within the next
30 days. I would say the bank will be out for bids less than 45 days. It will
probably be six months before the bank will be constructed.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#9-164-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Landscape and Elevation Plans in connection
with Petition 97-2-2-4 for the bank which received site plan approval
during waiver use approval to expand the Newburgh Plaza Shopping
Center located at 37001 Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 8/28/97, as
revised, prepared by E. J. Kleckner& Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded area and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
4) That the Exterior Elevation Plan marked Sheet P1 dated 8/28/97
prepared by Siegal/Tuomaala Associates is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
Mr. McCann, 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 92-10-2-42 by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting approval for signage
and to revise the site and elevation plans that were approved in connection with
the building of a commercial building located at 13700 Middlebelt Road in the NW
1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southwest corner of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt.
The existing building is currently occupied by a Home Quarters home
15741
improvement store. They are proposing to construct a 26,650 sq. ft. addition to
the rear of the existing building and convert the existing greenhouse to a tire
center. The existing building is 104,450 sq. ft. in size and once the additions are
"w constructed, the new Costco facility would be 133,772 sq. ft. in size. Because of
the additions, the petitioner would be required to have 1014 parking spaces and
they are providing 894 spaces, so they are deficient 120 spaces and had to go to
the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. They were granted the variance, so
by virtue of this variance they are conforming. The existing entrance of the
building is in the middle of this elevation. They plan to move that to the corner of
the store. Over the entrance they have a dryvit type of canopy and the existing
doors along the front elevation would have a dryvit type of system with a metal
canopy over each door. This building is allowed one wall sign at 452 sq. ft., and
they are proposing 4 wall signs for a total of 640 sq. ft. Therefore, they had to go
to the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive signage, and they did receive a
variance for their signage.
Jeffrey Howard, Counsel appearing on behalf of Costco. My address is 2000 Town
Center, Suite 1500, Southfield MI 48075: The existing HQ at this location has a
footprint of about 104,000 sq. ft. with a garden center of 29,000 sq. ft. We are
going to remove that garden center, have no outside storage, and will wind up
with a total footprint of 134,000 vs. an existing use of about 133,000 sq. ft. which
includes the garden center.
Mr. Alanskas: Is this a rendering of the actual store you will be putting here, or is this
another store, because I see all these big, tall trees and was wondering if we are
going to get all those nice tall trees shown there?
Mr. Howard: This is the actual site.
Sonny Vinberg, Mulvanny Partnership Architects: That's a rendering trick; we do plan to
landscape it. The existing building is an earthtone color. We are proposing to add
the new tire center to match it, the CMU color as well. The existing banding
around it now is currently white and green. We will remove the green and paint it
red. New pilasters at the egress doors from the building with a painted metal
canopy over them to accentuate the building and break down the mass a little bit
and put in our stucco-like material. The signage will be on the two corners and the
tire installation center, tire sales sign and the exit and entrance signs. There will be
no receiving sign for the receiving areas. As Mr. Howard said, we are removing
the existing garden shop area, as well as the greenhouse to accommodate the new
parking area. On the canopy we are adding some accent tile as an architectural
feature.
Mr. Alanskas: With regard to your receiving doors, is that open all hours of the evening
when you receive merchandise?
15742
Larry Harder, Costco: Generally, receiving hours are in the morning before we open for
business Monday through Friday, somewhere between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00
a.m. with limited deliveries on Saturdays and no deliveries on Sunday. In
unusual circumstances in the winter months we bring in produce and
perishables that may have been delayed by the tractor trailers. No
overnight deliveries whatsoever.
Mr. Alanskas: On your tire center, is that open 7 days a week for service? I'm involved in
that and I know how noisy it is when you are pulling off tires with air guns.
Mr. Harder: It has the same hours as our retail facility.
Mrs. Koons: I know we have already talked about signs and signage, and I know that
you are over your square foot allowance and I know there is a waiver, but I am
wondering if tire installation and tire sales becomes redundant..
Mr. Harder: They are two separate structures and two separate points of entrance. You
cannot access both at the same point so that is why we need the two signs.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#9-165-97 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
'ow to the City Council that Revision to Petition 92-10-2-42 by Costco
Companies, Inc. requesting approval for signage and to revise the site and
elevation plans that were approved in connection with the building of a
commercial building located at 13700 Middlebelt Road on the NW 1/4 of
Section 25, The City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Revision to Petition 92-10-2-42 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Drawing SP-1 dated 6/17/97 prepared by
Professional Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Drawing L-1 dated 6/27/97
prepared by Professional Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
15743
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked DD3.1 and
DD3.2 both dated 8/29/97, as revised, prepared by Mulvanny Partnership,
are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6) That the signage shown on the approved Elevation Plans, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7) There shall be no outside storage of merchandise or materials.
Mr. McCann, 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 92-11-2-48 by Costco Companies, Inc. requesting approval for signage
and to revise the site and elevation plans that were approved in connection with
the building of a commercial building located at 20000 Haggerty Road in the NW
1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile
and Eight Mile. The building they would like to occupy is currently
occupied by Home Quarters. They are proposing to convert the existing
`` greenhouse into a tire center. The garden center walls would be removed
and this area would be incorporated into the parking scheme of the entire
complex. The building would basically remain the same architectural
design. It would be painted with the Costco colors. They are allowed one
wall sign, 440 sq. ft. in size, and they are proposing 4 wall signs at a total
of 640 sq.ft. They are over in signage and have gone to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for a variance and they have received that variance.
Jeffery Howard, on behalf of Costco Companies, 2000 Town Center, Suite 1500,
Southfield: In summary, there is an existing Home Quarters structure that
is 123,000 sq. ft. together with a garden center that is 4700 sq. ft. We
propose to remove the garden center and wind up with a new structure
enclosed of 127,700 sq.ft. Once again, I would ask that Mr. Vinberg give
us a summary of the architectural details.
Mr. McCann: Do your stores have one common scheme identifiable with the same
materials?
Mr. Vinberg: Definitely. Costco, when it does a new store from the ground up, they
have a standard that they like to use, yes. This one is a little departure
from the standard. We are tearing down the garden center and the chain
15744
link fencing and the overhead canopy on the side of the building. We are
planning to reutilize the greenhouse which was formerly an auto center
when it was Source Club. We will basically bring it up to Costco's
'v"" standards for their tire centers. Basically, we are just refurbishing the
exterior, touch it up and fix some cracking problems that we noticed on the
building. Also, repaint the canopy to a red color.
Mr. McCann: Are the colors going to eventually match your rendering?
Mr. Vinberg: Yes. Because it is a water color basically, it will be the Costco red.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there a date when HQ will be vacating this building?
Mr. Howard: I would expect HQ to vacate the building before the end of the year.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you buying or leasing these buildings?
Mr. Howard: We are buying all of the properties with the exception of this particular site
which is the subject of a 20 year ground lease, and we would be acquiring
the tenant's right in the ground lease.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann,
Chairman, called for a motion.
`•• On a motion by Mrs. Koons, supported by Mr. Walsh and unanimously adopted, it was
#9-166-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Revision to Petition 92-11-2-48 by Costco
Companies, Inc. requesting approval for signage and to revise the site and
elevation plans that were approved in connection with the building of a
commercial building located at 20000 Haggerty Road in the NW 1/4 of
Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Revision to Petition 92-11-2-48 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Drawing SP-1 dated 6/30/97 prepared by
Professional Engineering Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked DD3.1 dated
8/29/97, as revised, prepared by Milvanny Partnership, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3) That the signage shown on the approved Elevation Plan is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
r..
15745
Mr. McCann, 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 J. Alexander's requesting approval for signage for the restaurant
located at 19200 Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This restaurant is located on the east side of Haggerty Road. It is part of
the Pentagon Center entertainment complex. They are requesting 3 wall
signs, but are allowed 1 wall sign, therefore they had to go before the
Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. He was scheduled before the
Board today. They are allowed 1 wall sign at 106 sq. ft. They are
proposing 3 wall signs at a total of 126 sq. ft. One would be on the north
elevation which is the entrance, which would also face the office building
off to the north. One would be on the east elevation facing the theatre, and
one on the west elevation facing Haggerty Road. The plan also shows 240
lineal ft. of neon tubing on the building. Because the tubing illuminates the
building, it is considered signage, so that would also have to be approved
by the Zoning Board.
John Carlin: I am happy to report that the Zoning Board of Appeals did approve the
variance as submitted which means that they gave us the three signs and the
neon all around the four sides of the building. Since we were before you at
r.. the Study session, we have had an opportunity to look at the property. It
was the general consensus of opinion that in addition to the lighting and the
identification, the neon around the building also provided a certain security
level because the parking lighting that was in the parking lot focusing
down, didn't do too much to light the building in the front, the back and
the side. To the rear of the property, the south side has a considerable
amount of vegetation from the wetlands. There is nothing we can do with
any of that property back there. It shields us from the Macaroni Grill. To
the north of our property is the property that the Pentagon people were
unable to purchase and that is heavily wooded. That shields us from a lot
of light. The neon lighting that we are proposing, and we are willing to
change the color of that to white, it is very soft lighting to be used as
lighting identification and security. The three signs for identification, one is
facing on the east side to identify us to those coming into the area from
different directions, from the north as you come in and from the Haggerty
Road side. It's obvious that if you are traveling on Haggerty Road, you
can't tell what that is if you are looking at the north side, so we felt it
would be better with all three signs.
Mr. Alanskas: I am sure you are aware that behind you there's a hotel going in. I know
it's away from you, but it would still give that area some lighting.
15746
Mr. Carlin: Not that much. We brought out the site plan and we are down here
(showing the site plan). You can see the vegetation from the Macaroni
Grill and there's quite a bit of difference between here and the hotel.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand and I do not have a problem with the signage itself, but I do
have a problem with the neon. Everyone says they have a hardship. But
you are not even there, how do you know? My answer always is, if you
are not successful getting the neon or something else that you do need, you
can always wait until a year down the road and then if there is a need, you
can always reapply for it. I just think that will stick out like a sore thumb.
Mr. Piercecchi: I share Bob's opinion on that. I'm always amazed how people can
go for hardship when they haven't even put the building up. Hopefully
they will have a change of attitude on it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and approved, it was
#9-167-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by J. Alexander's
Restaurant requesting approval for signage for the restaurant located at
19200 Haggerty Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to
'N.w the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by J. Alexander's Restaurant as
received by the Planning Commission on September 16, 1997 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that no neon shall be
allowed on the building;
2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the
restaurant closes.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, Piercecchi, Alanskas, Walsh, Koons
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Hale
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15747
Mr. McCann: As I stated earlier, I might be open to reviewing this in a year when the
other restaurants are open, when the parking lots are completed, when the
theaters are up. I think then we can get a clear indication. Right now I don't
ler believe it will fit into the general area, that if we went into neon around your
building that we would almost set an example for the whole area. I don't
think it fits into that complex. I think we are trying to create a look in there
that if we start out in the first building putting neon all around that at this
point it would be a mistake. I would consider it with the other Planning
Commissioners a year from now, but it will go on to City Council with the
recommendation against the neon.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Danilo Josifoski, on behalf of the Pick-A-Bone Family Tavern&
Banquet Hall, requesting approval for signage for the restaurant located at 30325
Six Mile Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This restaurant is on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman
and Oporto. The petitioner received waiver use approval to remodel an
existing building in connection with operating a full service restaurant and
banquet hall. As a condition of that approval, any signage had to be
submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. This
site is allowed one wall sign at 132 sq. ft. The petitioner is proposing two
wall signs at 130 sq. ft., one on the east elevation and one on the west
elevation. Because the signage is over what they are allowed, they had to
go to the Zoning Board prior to being presented to the Planning
Commission. They do have a variance for excessive signage and what you
have before you is what was approved by the Zoning Board.
Mr. McCann: We did tell the petitioner that we would not require his presence tonight if
after reviewing it we had no concerns. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#9-168-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Danilo Josifoski, on
behalf of the Pick-A-Bone Family Tavern&Banquet Hall, requesting
approval for signage for the restaurant located at 30325 Six Mile Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Danilo Josifoski, on behalf of
the Pick-A-Bone restaurant as received by the Planning Commission on
September 18, 1997, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
15748
2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after the
restaurant closes.
`— Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 751st Regular meeting
and Public Hearings held on September 30, 1997 was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
1 C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
(j
ATTEST: _. ( .. /
JaIyes C. n4,4/
C nn, Chairman
, /
ti..
/du j ;'