HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-10-05 17147
MINUTES OF THE 793rd REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 5, 1999,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
793rd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Michael Hale Dan Piercecchi
Elaine Koons William LaPine H. G. Shane
Members absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II and
Bill Poppenger, Planner I were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request,this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn,
will hold its own public hearing, and will make the final determination as to whether a petition
is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City
Planning Commission becomes effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption. The
Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon
their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-8-23 by Canvasser
Brothers, on behalf of the Buckingham Plaza, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal
to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the shopping center
located at 27462 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster. The
petitioners are requesting to renovate a section of the Buckingham Plaza
Shopping Center. It has been explained to staff that the petitioners own part of
the center and are proposing to remodel only the portion of the center they own.
Different people own different sections of Buckingham Plaza, ranging from one
unit to a collection of units. The Canvasser Brothers are proposing to renovate
their portion of the center which is defined as the area between the old AAA
Claims Office, which is the easterly most unit of the center, and the unit
occupied by the Livonia Danish Bakery (see Key Plan on Site Plan). A 5 ft.
band of dryvit material would be installed along the top of the building and the
17148
storefronts underneath would be painted. Presently a panel of corrugated metal
runs along the top of the building and an assortment of colors adorn the various
�.. storefronts. When questioned about the existing parking lot,the petitioners
stated they believe it is in good shape and is not part of the proposal. Presently
there is no landscaping on the site.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: We have three items of correspondence. The first item is a letter dated
September 23, 1999 from the Livonia fire and Rescue which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
renovate a portion of the exterior building elevations of the shopping center
located on the property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal, as long as existing egress within the tenant spaces is
not diminished." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
second item of correspondence is a letter dated September 29, 1999 from the
Inspection Department which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
September 22, 1999,the site plan for the above subject petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted for the entire center. (1) The site plan does
not depict the building materials to be used for this project. (2) The service
drive behind the building (north side) is in need of repair. (3) Several curbs and
approaches need repair. (4) All unused parking blocks in front of the AAA
space should be removed. (5) All right-of-way landscaping is weed infested
and the parking block in right-of-way needs to be removed. (6) The rear (north
`"" side) of the building is in need of painting. (7) Portions of the protective wall
that were previously painted need to be repainted. I trust this has provided the
requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. The third item is a letter from the Engineering Division,
dated September 30, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. We trust
that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed
by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert and Byron Canvasser. We are the managing partners of the entire shopping center
however we own this portion exclusively. The other portions there are multiple
partners on and our intention is to upgrade the center somewhat and it is going
to be in dryvit. I thought that was on the plan. I see the building inspector says
it wasn't but I was certain it was but it was perhaps with an oversight on our
part. We would appreciate the consideration of this board in allowing us to
proceed.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: How long has that center been there?
Robert Canvasser: Probably older than that lady sitting over there.
17149
o.. Mr. LaPine: About 30 years?
Robert. Canvasser: Oh no, it is older than that. Probably closer to 40 years.
Mr. LaPine: In those 40 years have you done any upgrading on the center?
R. Canvasser: Oh yes.
Mr. LaPine: When was the last time?
R. Canvasser: Probably 10 to 15 years ago.
Mr. LaPine: At one time did you own the parcel that Frank's is on and the parcel that AAA
was on?
R. Canvasser: We still have a partnership interest in both of those properties.
Mr. LaPine: So you have some rapport with those two partners?
R. Canvasser: Yes we do.
Mr. LaPine: I guess where I am coming from, I am in favor of doing an upgrade of that
center.
R. Canvasser: So are we.
Mr. LaPine: But to do it in the piecemeal way we are going to do it here now, I think we are
doing a disservice to you,to us and to the City. Is there any way you can get
together with the people that owns Frank's and AAA and come up with a
comprehensive upgrading of all the buildings, the whole center. In my opinion,
when I am done you can answer these questions. In the back of the building,
the road that goes behind the building is in terrible shape, west behind the
building all the way down to the west wall, those panels are cracked right
through. There is a lot of work that has to be done to those buildings out there.
The signage is just hodge-podge out there. There is nothing that is coherent. If
we are going to do it, let's do in such a way that we are really going to upgrade
that center. The way we are doing it right now is the wrong way. Frank's may
come along and want to do something else and then that is not compatible with
what you are doing. Whoever takes over the AAA building may want to do
something that isn't going to be compatible with Frank's or what you are going
to do. It's got to be done on a comprehensive way that it looks like a nice brand
new center, basically. If you can answer some of those questions, I would
appreciate it.
R. Canvasser: I would be pleased to, Mr. LaPine. First I have talked tot he owners, our
partners on the automobile club building. The building has been empty for over
three years. They have made every effort in the world to lease that. We've
given it to every brokerage company. There is a big sign up there as you see.
17150
We've offered brokers commission and a half if they could get us a tenant but
the partners over there are paying taxes. They are paying for insurance. They
are paying for lighting the parking lot. They are paying for snow removal. It is
costing them a great deal of money. It has stood empty for four years and quite
frankly I can't get them to put in three cents into the building. They are heating
it during the winter and they are paying all these expenses. They are saying,
"let's get it leased then we can talk about it". But right now the building has
been empty for over three years, made every in the world to lease it and they
just don't want to spend any money. The fact that they don't want to spend any
money doesn't stop my brother and myself from wanting to spend money to
upgrade the balance of the center but we can't get them to put their hand in their
pocket. As far as the Frank's Nursery at the other end of the center,their lease
is expiring in about one year and they haven't made up their mind if they are
going to remain or whether they are not going to remain. We have a partnership
with the owner of that property likewise. But we don't have complete control
over there. We do have total control over on this that we are offering to
upgrade. That answers your first question hopefully. As far as the alley, I don't
disagree with you at all on the shape of the alley. My brother and I just drove
through it again. We check these centers, we have a number of centers, we
check every one of our centers a minimum of two to three times a week. We
know the condition of that alley and we have every intention of certainly paving
the wall, trimming the trees over there and cleaning it up the best we can. WE
have every intention of doing that. As far as the plan doesn't show the signage,
the signage, and I did speak to Scott Miller concerning the signs, our intention is
`4110' that all the signs should be individual letters on runners and that the dryvit that
we are putting on there that was designed by Rogvoy and Associates would be
the back part,the background of the signs. Right now we have no intention of
going back up there with box signs. There are two signs up there presently that
are in individual letters on runners. Any new signs must be on individual letters
and on runners. I believe that answers your questions.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you, I appreciate that.
Mr. Piercecchi: I may mention of the things that Bill came across but I have a few prepared
remarks here that I would like to give. To begin with, sir, I sincerely that all
members of this Planning Commission and the City Council and anybody that
works for the City gratefully acknowledge each and every improvement made
within our beautiful City. Improvements are an asset, not only to the property
owner but to the City as well and they insure longevity on both the centers and
to the well being of the City. However, in studying your plan, via three visits to
the site, I question whether your proposed upgrade is in effect an improvement
really worthy of your expenditures. My evaluation indicates that the changes
amount to only painting the bricks at the base of those shops with bricks at their
base and exchanging the upper metal panels with dryvit. Assuming your intent
was to attract upscale clients and customers, I feel that this attempt will not add
a new dimension to your property or improve its personality. For example, a
.., covered walkway between stores via as cantilevered wooden structure or a
dignified awning could prove much more effective. I am sure there are many
avenues that you could follow to upgrade that facility. How about the panels at
17151
the end of the south section of your buildings there which is perpendicular to 96.
They are a major distraction. They are painted different colors. They are
recessed. They are totally out of style with the remainder of the facility. And
sir, I too am puzzled as Commissioner LaPine stated about a piecemeal
approach towards an improvements. You explained a little about why the
entire center is not being considered, however, I am told by our Assessor's
Office that only Frank's and the old AAA building are not completely under
your control. I think it would be more prudent if you would go back, study your
facility and come up with a more comprehensive plan. I think it would be in the
best interest of you and your money would be spent. Dryvit for paneling and
painting the bottom of the brick is not going to do the job. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
R. Canvasser: May I respond?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
R. Canvasser: I appreciate your comments. I truly do. Your Assessor is correct. We are the
managing partners of the entire center. We do not own the Frank's Nursery as I
explained earlier. We have a partial interest in it and we do not own the
automobile club building but we have a portion interest in it but we are the
managing partners for the center. As I explained to Mr. LaPine, with a one year
lease going, the other partners aren't prepared to put any money in there until
they know that that property is going to remain a Frank's Nursery. That
property might conceivably be torn down and a different type of building built
there. That is item, number one. Item number two, we gave a great deal of
thought to how much money we could spend. Down the street as you know
where the race track was they are doing quite a beautiful set up down there as I
understand. I have seen some pictures of it. It is the same architect did that
that has done our work over here. They are getting in excess of$25.00 a square
foot. WE are getting roughly $6.00 a square foot. That is a brand new project.
We don't have the funds to spend that they can spend down there. We are in the
process right now of doing a total roof renovation that will run close to
$200,000. We are $6.00 square feet people. They are $25.00 square foot
people. The economics to put an overhang out there and to spend that kind of
money, this is a 40 year old center, 35 year old center. We cannot compete
down the street.
Mr. Piercecchi: I acknowledge sir that you are only getting $6.00 a square foot. I had heard that
number a while back but sometimes you have to make an investment. If you
upscale it, perhaps you can demand more and other clients will fight to get into
that center. Right now I can see why you have problems raising your rent on
your square footage. I can see it, because when I was there three times, I saw
very few cars there. Frank's was probably the only one that was really doing
anything.
Mrs. Koons: Do you have a list of the deficiencies the Inspection Department found?
R. Canvasser: Yes, I was faxed that letter by Mr. Miller.
17152
Mrs. Koons: Eight items, I see.
R. Canvasser: Seven items on my list.
Mrs. Koons: If you were granted approval here tonight to do the renovation you wanted to
do, what is your opinion on those seven items?
R. Canvasser: I told Mr. Miller first of all, I have every intention of painting the wall in the
rear. I mean it doesn't show on the plan because it had nothing to do with the
plan. Certainly if we are going to put a new roof on the building, we are going
to put a new face on the building. We are going to put new signs on the
building and we are certainly going to paint the back of the building. We
certainly are going to paint the wall over there which I told to Mr. Miller. We
certainly have intention of once we start going in there to do the work, the
parking blocks, when the auto club moved out they left the blocks and the
blocks have been there. Certainly if we ever found a tenant the blocks would
have been moved a long time ago. No tenant has come so they have stayed
there. If you want them moved, I will be happy to move them. That certainly is
not a problem. We are happy to remove them.
Mrs. Koons: So these seven items are....
R. Canvasser: The service drive behind the building is in need of repair. Yes we have
intentions of repairing that. To replace that drive, you are talking about another
couple hundred thousand drive. That is a concrete drive, pickup, remove and
replace. It's got to be done, no question. I agree 100%with this letter and my
brothers and I have talked about it. We are talking about some big bucks when
we are putting $200,000 about putting a new face on the building. When we are
putting new signs up there and when we are doing all these things. We have
every intention of doing it. Whether we will be able to do it in one year, or
whether I can promise to this Board that I'll do it at the same time as this, I
wouldn't do that. Undoubtedly it will have to be something that will phase.
Maybe we will do 100 feet at a time. Because you are talking about big, big
bucks. You are talking about pick up the concrete. Tear it up, haul it away and
repave it. Yes, we have every intention of doing it. I can't make you a promise
nor would I make you promise at this time that it will be done at the same time
as the project. Will it be done? Yes, it will be done but it will probably be
phased over a period of perhaps four years.
Mrs. Koons: I have one more question for you.
R. Canvasser: Certainly.
Mrs. Koons: The portion of the building that you own exclusively, how many tenants are in
that part of the building?
B. Canvasser: Sixteen.
17153
Mrs. Koons: And all units are occupied?
R. Canvasser: Everything is occupied. We have no vacancies on the property at the present
time. When I say $6.00, I don't want to mislead anyone. We are getting from
$6.00 up, slightly. Six, seven and perhaps as high as eight dollars. But we are
not getting anywhere near $25.00 a square foot. I don't want you to go away
thinking these poor guys are only getting $6.00 a square foot. That isn't true.
We are getting somewhat more than that.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can I comment on that $6.00?
R. Canvasser: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, a used car cost a lot less than a new car. Perhaps that is the reason.
Mr. Shane: Mr. Canvasser, how many centers do you own?
R. Canvasser: Eight at the present time.
Mr. Shane: Are any of those centers located anywhere near Livonia? Could you furnish us
with a list of those locations of those centers?
R. Canvasser: Certainly.
Mr. Shane: How many of those centers are you currently engaged in upgrading?
R. Canvasser: We have a center we upgraded on the corner of 12 and Dequindre in Madison
Heights on the north west corner which we upgraded about three years ago
which we did very similarly to this incidentally. It has all individual letter signs
on it. It has dryvit on it. The bottom part was all painted and I think it is quite
attractive. We have a center on 10 Mile and Ryan in the city of Warren which
we upgraded about eight years ago. I haven't got the exact dates of these
upgrades. You caught me off guard. We have one out in Howell that we just
upgraded two years ago. We have one in Waterford on Airport Road and M59,
kitty corner across the street from the airport which we did a portion of that five
years ago. We have one down in Florida but I don't think you want to go down
and take a look at it. It is a beautiful center. It is in Boca Raton.
Mr. Shane: I'll go look at it. O.K. Thank you.
R. Canvasser: We have one in Clinton Township also. But that is a K-Mart and they have total
control.
.,k
Mr. Hale: Sir, do you expect to raise your rates at all per square foot with the new
improvements?
17154
R. Canvasser: Well, everyone is under leases right now. As leases run out we certainly hope
to raise rates.
B. Canvasser: We have been able to keep these properties occupied by underselling the market
literally. Is it better to have a $25.00 sq. ft. rent and empty space or is it better
to have to have a $6.00 or $7.00 sq. ft. tenant and have your space occupied?
That is what we are faced with.
R. Canvasser: As you look at our center, our tenants are what you call "mom and papa"
tenants. They are all mama and papa tenants. We have the party store there.
Perhaps you have walked into it. This guy there, if you raised him two bucks,
he is gone. I mean these are all mama/papa stores. We have the fruit market
there that goes from a year to year lease. We have one national tenant there and
that is Minnesota Fabrics that recently changed their name there. They are the
only national tenant, Hancock.
Mr. Hale: These are pretty much one year leases that you have?
R. Canvasser: No,they are all longer than one year leases all except Jack's Fruit Market. He
goes strictly year to year.
Mr. Hale: As part of this site plan, all of the awnings are coming down right? There are
some awnings out there that are falling down anyway.
R. Canvasser: Just one.
Mr. Hale: The one with the bakery?
R. Canvasser: No. We're not doing the bakery.
Mr. Hale: Oh that is right, the bakery is not included.
R. Canvasser: There is only one awning on the part that we are doing and that is on Jack's
Fruit Market.
Mr. Hale: The bakery, is that under your control?
R. Canvasser: Everything there is under our control. We don't own everything.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Is the bakery under your ownership?
R. Canvasser: We are partial owners.
Mr. Hale: But why isn't that included in the site plan? I'm sorry if I missed that.
R. Canvasser: What we are proposing to renovate, my brother and I have sole total control.
The other property we have partners and so own.
17155
Mr. Hale: How much money are you going to put into this renovation project? Can you
give us an estimate?
B. Canvasser: Thirteen thousand dollars.
R. Canvasser: Not counting the signs and the signs will be every bit that much again.
Mr. Hale: The tenants don't pay for those signs?
B. Canvasser: You can't go to our tenants with these expenses.
R. Canvasser: Individual letter signs are not cheap. There are sign people here that will
probably contact us after the meeting and I hope they will be happy to. But they
can tell you the price for individual letter signs on runners are. The box signs
are very inexpensive signs. Two of our tenants do have individual letter signs
presently and we intend that the balance of the center will have them. I can't go
to these people and say you've got to spend $4,000. They haven't got the
money.
Mr. Hale: Your budget is pretty much limited to $50,000 for this project?
R. Canvasser: No, we are spending a lot more than that. We are going to spend close to
$200,000 on roofing that has nothing to do with this. We are going to spend
$50,000 on this plus the signs.
New
Mr. Hale: O.K. thank you.
Mr. McCann: I have a few questions myself. Most of these leases triple net. You are talking
$6.00 to $8.00 but they are triple net leases, aren't they?
R. Canvasser: Most of them are.
Mr. McCann: Why is it in such disrepair? I have been leasing property for a long time.
When they come out and they have to seal coat the parking lot and they have to
do the annual maintenance that is all part of our bill at the end of the year. Why
do you let it get so bad?
R. Canvasser: I am glad you said that because you know what common area maintenance on
the shopping center generally runs, probably in excess of$3.00 a square foot. If
we charge these people $3.00 a square foot, we are empty. These are mama,
papas. These are small people.
Mr. McCann: But you gentlemen are business owners and you are taking the position that we
are going to let it run down until people won't want to drive into your parking
lot because the roads are so bad they will damage their cars and until the last
minute we'll let it go until it is just so bad that we have to put some money in.
How much owner ship do you have in the bakery? What is your percentage,
you and your brother?
17156
R. Canvasser: A sixteenth.
Mr. McCann: What about the pool hall?
R. Canvasser: The same, a sixteenth?
Mr. McCann: Do you have any management agreement in your leases with them that says
they have to maintain ....
R. Canvasser: Yes
Mr. McCann: But all your leasees have to maintain their property and it is like when I go to
remodel the kitchen on my home, I take a second mortgage out, an equity loan.
Because like I said it is going to improve the value of my home and it is
something you need to do every 15 or 20 years. My wife is going to kill me if
we don't do it very soon but that is just a fact of life and the fact of ownership is
that you have to take an equity loan out. You've got an asset there worth multi-
million dollars and if it requires to take a loan out to get this s tuff done it does.
B. Canvasser: Nobody is questioning that sir. You brought up the paving. We repaved that lot
five years ago. There isn't a chuck hole in that lot from one end to the other.
Mr. McCann: The alley.
B. Canvasser: Oh, the alley. I was talking about the front parking area.
Mr. McCann: But there are neighbors that live by that. That is a concern too and with the kids
that are around there. I am just concerned. I would like to see that you've come
back and I like to see that you are doing this, don't get me wrong, I am just
getting the attitude that it is, "we are going to keep the rents low and only put a
little bit of money in it". I don't understand because in Livonia, I talk to
business people all the time and it is a great place to be a landlord.
R. Canvasser: Believe me, we would love to raise the rent and as you say the tenants do pay
for the common area maintenance. So if we raise the rent,that is our money.
They pay their taxes, insurance and common area maintenance. We would love
to be able to raise the common area maintenance to $2.50 to $3.50 a square foot.
We have maintained it because of the fact of the type of tenants we've got.
Perhaps we've got the wrong type of tenants but the property has totally been
occupied ,100% occupied for years and years. With this renovation, hopefully
perhaps we'll get a better class of tenant in there. As my brother Byron said,
there is not a chuck hole in that entire parking lot. The alley, you are right and I
believe I answered the question. We have every intention of repairing the alley.
B. Canvasser: Part of our problem in the alley is that we have had an on-going problem with
water main breaks. We've had, in the past six years, three major water main
breaks back there. Unfortunately, 30 or 40 years ago there were some bad bolts
that were produced and this is common, if you check with your water
17157
department they will tell you that when that water main was installed it was
fairly prevalent across the country. Now these bolts started to corrode and to
�.. fail. Of course, every time we have a water main break we have these huge
excavation problem, repairs and so on. That is part of the problem we have had.
Mr. McCann: With regard to the AAA building, every corner in Livonia, drug store
companies have been coming by and wanting to buy up, I can't believe they
haven't bought that corner for a drug store.
B. Canvasser: Neither can I. But let me tell you, there are two things that all the drug stores
we have contacted, every major as well as every independent drug store. Here
is the consideration. Number one, because of the expressway being depressed.
Two, drug stores have a rule generally do not locate on the expressways.
Mr. McCann: I am just really surprised because we see them on every corner.
R. Canvasser: We've been to every one of them.
Mr. McCann: O.K.
Mrs. Koons: Just one more thought for your AAA building. I know many universities are
looking for property close to expressways for learning centers.
R. Canvasser: We can answer that question real easy but I'll let Byron answer that one.
B. Canvasser: We worked originally with Wayne County, as a matter of fact, a year after the
building closed with emotionally handicapped children. They wanted to use it
as a center but unfortunately because of the funding situation with the County
they couldn't enter into a relatively long term lease and we couldn't do the
improvements based on a relatively short-term lease and that just didn't come
about. We have talked to several charity schools, as a matter of fact. And again
it is a matter of funding for them and those were situations that just never came
to fruition.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, are there any last questions
from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: Do you think that if we table this thing that you could get back with Frank's and
the owners of the AAA building and tell them what the situation is and if they
can do anything. I can understand Frank's. If they are not going to renew their
lease, then there is a good possibility, unfortunately that center has always been
a bad place to park. It seems to be hard to get into the parking spaces and get
out of the building. It is just not organized correctly. They, probably, might
move out of that center. It is a possibility. If that happens, you may demolish
that building and build a new building. If that is going to be the case, from my
r,,, perspective, I would rather wait on this for a year and then maybe we could get
something done on the whole center at the same shot. That is the kind of things
I would like to know. I don't want to do this piecemeal. I want you people, and
17158
I think if you do a good job here, I really believe this here, if you really do a
good job here, with the new center going in down the street,the Millennium
Park, maybe there is going to be some overflow. Maybe there is going to be
some smaller tenants who want to be close to that because there is going to be a
lot of traffic going there. You might pick up some additional tenants here
because the building looks nice. I think you've got to take all of that into
consideration. Doing it piece meal, the way you are doing it here, you may be
hurting yourself in the long run. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: The thought just occurred to me. Do you suppose that Frank's would entertain
the idea of moving to where the AAA building is. I only say that because that
is the largest end of the shopping center that has the most parking. It might
possibly solve two problems. If you look at the center, that is the biggest
portion that is not being used.
R. Canvasser: I don't know if they have made up their mind whether they are remaining or
whether they are signing a lease with us or not. So, I can't answer that because I
don't think they know yet. We can certainly postpone it. We are still going to
do the roof work. I am still going to paint the wall in the back. I am still going
to do something on the alley if you wish to postpone the project. But I would
like, very personally and my brother, Byron, we very much would like to do this
project. We would like to see all those signs down. We would like to see new
signs up and we think the center will certainly look better than it does now.
Once you start postponing these things, I don't know, if Frank's does move, until
"�- the building gets torn down, until a new tenant is found, who knows how much
time we are talking about. I can't guess.
Mr. McCann: I guess before we table it, I have some concerns. One of them is, I would like to
see you do some work. Sitting around and waiting for Frank's, if you have
another empty vacant building, are you going to have the inclination to put
money back into a mall when you don't know when you are going to have a new
tenant. I don't want to see two large empty buildings. Number two, I think that
if we re-do the mall and make it look nice, it will make it easier to rent out the
AAA building and easier for Frank's to say "yes, let's stick around,the mall is
improving". So I am concerned about just let's say hey, let's put this off for
another year and let's let things get worse. Right now we've got some work to
do. It does concern me that we don't see the bakery or the Snooker's or the
building at the end being involved in this. Did you talk to the landlord? Did
you talk to Ray Abrams and how he felt about matching his and carrying the
theme around?
B. Canvasser: You know Ray is constantly re-doing inside or outside his property.
Mr. McCann: Yes, he has always kept a fine establishment. It is more his theme. Even if it is
just changing the letters so that it carries around and makes it look decent. I just
wanted to put my two cents out before a motion is made. A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should hold up anything for a year but I believe
that we can do better and number one, we should obtain a definite a schedule
17159
that satisfies the deficiencies in that building right away and hopefully the
gentlemen can submit a more comprehensive improvement plan and I'll table
this for a month Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: It will be either the October 19 meeting or the November 9, 1999 meeting.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like for it to be a month. Which would be the month?
Mr. McCann: November 9th would be four weeks. Is that all right with you Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: Fine with me.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was
#10-166-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 99-9-8-23 by Canvasser Brothers, on behalf of the
Buckingham Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of
the exterior building elevation of the shopping center located at 27462
Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24 be tabled to November 9,
1999.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Shane, Piercecchi, LaPine, Hale
NAYS: Koons, McCann
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. LaPine: I am not opposed to your project. I guess I can take the position that anything is
better than nothing. All I am saying is that for this month's time, I want you to
get together with Frank's and the owners of the AAA and see if you can come
up with some ideas that maybe they may participate in something that may help
you upgrade the center. That is all I am asking.
R. Canvasser: I thought I made it clear, the owners of the AAA building, we have talked to
them.
Mr. LaPine: I understand. You can go back to them now and say that you have talked to the
Planning Commission and this is our problem. Because they have to look at it
from this perspective, maybe they could remodel that building ahead of time.
You have to spend money up front to get money down the line somewhere.
Maybe if there was more traffic they could maybe rent it tomorrow.
R. Canvasser: They have made it clear to me that until we find a tenant, they are writing a
check right now every month, they are paying the taxes and the insurance. O.K.
precisely could you tell me what you are looking for?
Mr. Piercecchi: What I said in my motion sir. I am hopeful that you will come up with a more
comprehensive plan. Number two, we have to have a schedule on all of those
17160
improvements behind the buildings, the paintings and all those things. We have
to have a schedule for those. Painting is strictly an improvement. Changing the
drywall may be an improvement. It is just a modification. That may or may not
be an upgrade, changing the paneling for dryvit. I don't think it is personally
but it is your money. We want a schedule on all those alleys and the parking
lots and get that squared away. Otherwise you've got a zoo there with all those
blocks in the middle of that parking lot.
Mr. McCann: Maybe some of that could be cleaned up.
Mr. Piercecchi: We've got to upgrade it. We've got to give it more of a nice personality.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
November 9, 1999, is the date you'll be back before the Commission.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-8-24 by J. Howard
Nudell Architects, Inc.,on behalf of the Farmer Jacks, requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 19.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with
a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the
building located at 29659 Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between
Middlebelt and Melvin. The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the
exterior elevations of the commercial building that was most recently a
Builders Square Store. This building is located across the street from the
Livonia Mall, between the Mid-7 Shopping Center and an Art Van Furniture
Store. Farmer Jack is planning on occupying 63,120 sq. ft. of the 109,800 sq.
ft. building. The remainder of the building (46,680 sq. ft.) is shown on the site
plan as "Future tenant". The petitioner is proposing to remove the Garden
Shop and Lumber Staging area that is located on the west side of the building
and expand the parking lot. Parking is summarized as follows:
• existing parking - 553 spaces
• proposed parking - 602 spaces
• required parking - 703 spaces (based on 1 spaces for each 125 sq.ft.of floor space)
• parking deficiency - 101 spaces
The Zoning Board of Appeals did grant a parking variance (case#9411-141) for
the Builders Square Store. Since the use does not change (commercial) and the
parking deficiency is not increased, and in fact decreased, the parking variance is
still good for Farmer Jack.
Farmer Jack is proposing to locate their main entrance near the northwest corner
of the building. Glass windows and doors would be installed along the now solid
block wall. A structural canopy would be constructed over the entrance and
continue to the existing canopy that once provide cover for the main entrance of
.` the Builder Square Store. The proposed canopy would be constructed out of
materials that would match that of the existing canopy. The entire canopy would
be painted earth tones with green striping. A decorative peak parapet, with a
17161
metal seam roof, would be constructed over, and help identify, the grocery store's
entrance area. The roof of the new peak, as well as the roof of the existing peak,
would be painted green. The colors of the walls underneath the canopy would
not be touched and remain as is. A new truck well and compactor area would be
constructed on the west elevation. This area would be partially screened from
the front by a 10 ft. high wall.
Farmer Jack would maintain the existing landscaping on the site. New
landscaping would be installed in the proposed islands of the expanded parking
lot. Four new trees would be planted along the south or rear property line to help
screen the back of the building from the abutting residential district. Required
landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site. Proposed landscaping is 8% of
the total site. Farmer Jack is also proposing signage at this time. The signage
shown on the Building Elevation Plan is inaccurate. At this time, only the main
logo sign over the entrance and the "Pharmacy" wall signs are proposed. The
"Bank" wall sign is not part of this proposal.
Signage is summarized as follows:
Signage Permitted for this site under Section 18.50 H:
One wall sign, not to exceed 240 sq. ft. in sign area. One ground sign,
not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area, not to exceed 6 ft. in height.
Signage Proposed:
Two wall signs totaling 198 sq. ft. in sign area
- north elevation- "Farmer Jack" - 168 sq. ft.
- north elevation - "Pharmacy" - 30 sq. ft.
One ground sign
59 sq. ft. in sign area
- 6 ft. 8 in. in height
Excess Signage:
One wall sign
- 29 sq. ft. in ground sign area
8 in. in ground sign height
Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, the
petitioner must be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA is
scheduled to hear this signage request at their October 12, 1999 meeting.
Mr. McCann: Mark, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Livonia Fire &Rescue, dated September 25, 1999, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
17162
renovate a portion of the exterior building elevations if the existing building
located on property at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
'*"` this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
second item is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated September 29,
1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 22, 1999,
the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is
being noted. (1) Parking areas should be resealed and double striped. Barrier
free parking spaces are required to be located the shortest possible route from the
parking area to the building entrance. (2) All existing landscaping is in need of
maintenance and possible replacement. (3) The existing protective wall is
deficient in height on the commercial property on the south property line. (4)
Signage was not reviewed as part of this proposal. I trust this has provided the
requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. The third item is a letter from the Engineering Division,
dated September 30, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The
Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. We trust that
this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact
this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E.,
Civil. The last item of correspondence from the Division of Police, dated
September 30, 1999, reads as follows: "There are no objections to the overall
site plans submitted for this petition. There are only a couple minor
considerations that should be addressed. The handicap spaces are not located
nearest the entrance. There are general parking spaces, which are far closer to
the entrance than the handicap spaces. The existing handicap spaces should
either be moved closer to the Farmer Jack entrance or additional handicap spaces
should be added nearest the entrance. The parking lot needs to be restriped
completely. The striping is almost completely faded. This should include
directional arrows where appropriate. The petitioner should consider
replacement of the driveway approach at the signal during this renovation. It
currently is cracked in numerous places and will most likely develop "pot holes"
in the next year or two. The driveway approach east of the signal is in excellent
condition." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau.
Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tom Litzler, Vice President of Development for Farmer Jack, P. O. Box 33446, Detroit, MI
48232, I also have with me Al Walgenbach, Director of Construction&
Engineering, and Greg Wright who is our outside architect on the firm handling
the plan for us. Just a few remarks. A year ago I was here for another project
that was very controversial. It was suggested by our constituents and our
potential customers at the time that we take a look at using this Builder's
Square. We have gone back and evaluated and believe we can make it work
within our marketing merchandising plan for the area. We have what we hope
are some very minor site plan issues before you tonight. We can comply with
all the recommendations that have been made. We are prepared to move
forward very quickly with this project and would hope with your blessing and
approval to be open in early 2000. As was outlined here, we will use about
17163
2/3rds of the building. We will renovate the exterior of this building so that it
looks more or less like our building at Six Mile and Haggerty with a sister
tenant to be determined underneath the other doorway there. A lot of the
concerns that were raised about the site are our concerns as well. If and when
we get fmished with this project, it will look like a brand new shopping center.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I am delighted that you are moving into that Builder's Square operation. I
recall vividly where you wanted to move and it was suggested that you do take
that site. I am glad you heeded the advice of those people that opposed you
going into the Ward property area. I just have one question. The 46,680 sq. ft.
that is not going to be occupied by Farmer Jack, you keep saying a future tenant.
Could it be tenants or are you going to insist on one tenant there?
Mr. Litzler: That is a good question. It could be tenants. We are subleasing the property
from Builder's Square and K-Mart. They would only make a deal with us if we
took the entire building off their hands. Our preference would obviously be to
control just what we needed to control, meaning our 60,000 sq. ft. store. Given
the alternative that we couldn't do that, we took the whole property. We have it
in our best interest to have a tenant there, or tenants, that would cohabitant well
with us. That is to say a desirable retail use. If it is two tenants, it is going to
cost us more because we will end up having to divide it and split utilities. It
could be two tenants. It could be an Office Max and a JoAnn Fabrics. We don't
know yet. That is to be determined and it is really premature for us because we
haven't seriously marketed the property yet because we don't have it to market.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is the frontage of that 46,000 sq. ft. area, parallel to Seven Mile Road?
Mr. Litzler: A hundred feet, approximately. We've done work on other K-Marts and
Builders Squares. Usually when we get finished using what we consume of the
property, there is usually about 110 to 120 feet. ABC Warehouse at Michigan
and Greenfield, that is a K-Mart that we renovated. It will be like this. It is one
tenant. It is like an ABC Warehouse actually.
Mr. Piercecchi: It will scale about 150 feet. That could handle more than one. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. LaPine: About the wall at the rear, you heard the planner say it was low. It seems to me
your property is a lot higher than the apartments behind you. When I went by
there and checked it out this week, that doesn't bother me, I don't think the wall
needs to be raised because there is not much action back there. I think you'll
fmd that there isn't going to be anybody parked back there unless you insist that
your employees park back there. I have a concern about the truck well.
Number 1, we know that you have refrigerator trucks come in there and that was
one of the battles we had on the Ward's church. What time of the night will
those trucks come in there? We've got the apartments directly behind there.
The second question I have about the truck well, if you notice on the Builder's
17164
Square, their truck well was at the east end of the building and it was depressed.
Can that be done here?
Mr. Litzler: Our truck well will be depressed on the west end but we determined upon
evaluating the site that we can't use the east end of the site because the majority
of the parking is at the west end of the site so we need to establish this separate
loading area. We will have it recessed and we will have a screen wall there if
Al or Greg wants to show a section of it. You will not be able to see our semis
as they recess down into the well.
Mr. LaPine: The problem we have, and we looked at this at our study session, is that if they
are coming in the middle of the night and the refrigeration is running it may be a
distraction to the tenants of the apartments and what we want try to scale that
back as much as we can. So you say that is no problem?
Mr. Litzler: We will be sensitive to that. It doesn't take all night to unload those trucks.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Miller mentioned that there were going to be two signs; the Farmer Jack
sign and the Pharmacy sign. I understand you are hoping to have a bank so
there may be three signs. Is that correct?
Mr. Litzler: We don't want to confuse what we are looking for tonight. I guess we are
looking for Planning Commission approval tonight on the site plan. We
probably will come back to the Zoning Board at a later date, if and when we get
'ua. a bank. We don't know who the bank is so we couldn't identify it.
Mr. LaPine: I understand. Basically, when I was out there the site was in pretty good shape
because it is not that old. The landscaping, as you will agree, is in bad shape.
They've got underground sprinklers in there but I don't think they ever turned
them on. The parking lot does need striping. I didn't find the parking lot
needed any repairs. It is in excellent shape. I didn't check the approaches as the
Inspection Department did, but quite frankly, I am very happy with it. I was
hoping that somebody was going to take the building, we didn't want it to sit
there forever like the last tenant we had in there before they tore it down. I am
happy to see that we got you back into town. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane: I have the same comment that Bill did about the protective wall. I think what is
more important there is the additional plant material along that wall to the extent
that we almost have a solid wall of plant material because that is going to go
higher than the wall ever would. It is going to help the sound situation to the
extent there is one from the truck wells. I would like to see you beef up the
landscaping along there particularly with evergreens and other type of things
that will give you foliage farther up.
Mr. Litzler: We have room for that.
;`, Mr. Walgenbach: We agree and plan on complying with all of the requests made.
17165
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
‘INEIP" petition? Seeing no one, are there any last comments?
Mr. Litzler: No. We are available for further comments or questions.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mrs. Koons: I would like to make a motion to approve but before I do we never got a chance
to thank Mr. Litzler for being the epitome of grace under pressure the last time
you were here.
Mr. Litzler: Thank you.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-167-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 99-9-8-24 by J. Howard Nudell
Architects, Inc., on behalf of Farmer Jack, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 19.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection within a
proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior building elevation of the
building located at 29659 Seven Mile road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
11 be approved subject to the following conditions:
`` 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by J. Howard
Nudell Architect, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission
on September 22, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
Elevations prepared by J. Howard Nudell Architect, Inc., as
received by the Planning Commission on September 22, 1999,
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated September 29, 1999:
- that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double
striped
that all landscaped areas shall be restored and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition
- that additional landscaping will be added to the south side of the
property to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
- that the required accessible parking spaces shall be installed
according to the current Boca Codes
- that the Planning &Inspection Departments shall review the
protective screen wall at the rear of the property to determine
what improvements are needed by either providing additional
17166
plant material, extending the height of the wall and/or some other
form that would suffice
4) That only the 168 sq. ft. "Farmer Jack" wall sign and the 30 sq. ft.
"Pharmacy" wall sign, as shown on the approved Elevation Plans,
are hereby approved;
5) That the ground sign shall not be larger than 40 sq. ft. in sign area
and shall not exceed a height of 6 ft.;
6) That the approval of the signage is subject to the applicant being
granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals and any
conditions related thereto;
7) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I've just got one question. They talked about the conforming protective wall. I
think the protective wall back there is conforming. It is because of the droppage
in the two parcels that the wall doesn't look like it is six feet high on their side of
the property. Is that a problem?
oa. Mr. Litzler: There are portions of the wall that technically do not conform to the ordinance.
They conform on the residential side of the property but not on the commercial
side. Would therefore have to be raised in height.
Mr. LaPine: Let me ask the question, if that is the case, and I'm not trying to start an argument
here, why wasn't that caught when Builder's Square got an approval on the wall?
Mr. Litzler: That I can't answer.
Mr. McCann: But we can approve it without that condition then.
Mr. Shane: I think my memory is not failing me on this one but that the regulations on the
Zoning Ordinance with respect to protective walls, used to require that the wall
take its height from the commercial side regardless of the elevation. That may
be why the situation is what it is. I don't know. What I really want to say though
is that I would be happy to support the motion but I would like to suggest that the
comment on landscaping, that rather than just say that we want to beef it up, I
would like to have something in there that says there would be additional
landscaping along the south side to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, or
something like that.
Mr. McCann: Is that o.k. with you, Mrs. Koons?
Mrs. Koons? Yes
17167
Mr. Miller: Just to explain about the wall. It is conforming from the highest grade. Even
though the grade drops off in the residential, you have to comply from this side.
Even though it might be 5 feet on the residential side, it is only 3 feet on the
commercial side. Farmer Jack would have to heighten the existing wall or
construct a conforming wall behind the existing wall, if that is what you want.
Either that or approve a greenbelt.
Mr. McCann: Or we could put in there as a condition that he has to do that or go to ZBA?
Mr. Miller: I would think that would work.
Mr. McCann: He doesn't really have much of a choice.
Mr. Miller: I think with the Inspection Department they are just stating the wall is deficient
in height. Would you rather have landscaping?
Mr. McCann: We want the landscaping no matter what. If they need the wall too,that is fine.
We'll leave that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Just a couple of meetings ago, a situation came up where an existing condition
was used to keep the situation exactly what it was. I can't remember all the
details associated with that but because it was an existing condition it didn't have
to be changed. I think it was parking.
‘... Mrs. Koons: Parking is deficient in this case.
Mr. McCann: But they had a variance for the parking. They don't have a variance for deficient
wall.
Mr. Piercecchi: But we don't know that. We don't know whether the ZBA ever did respond on
that.
Mr. Taormina: If the wall is lawfully nonconforming and unless it is a condition of the
approving motion tonight that it be made to conform, then the Planning
Commission could allow for its continued existence. Just to let you know, in our
initial meetings with Farmer Jack, they in fact did show additional landscaping
along the south property line to help screen that area better. We also had
discussions with the Inspection Department. Their concern is that it may not be
that easy just to build on the height of the existing wall, structurally speaking.
They are not sure whether it can be pinned and built up because of the height on
the residential side. For that reason, what we would like to do is consider
alternatives; whether it be some other form of screening. If we feel it is
necessary to build the height of the wall up and maybe an alternate material
could be used or additional landscaping , if you feel it is subject to Zoning Board
approval given the extent of change to the site plan this evening.
Mr. McCann: My concern was that it was not properly built by the prior owner, therefore the
question is, will they issue a certificate of occupancy if we withdraw that
particular condition from our recommendation to the Council.
17168
Mr. Taormina: I would say so.
Mr. McCann: They would be able to occupy?
Mr. Taormina: I would say so.
Mr. McCann: It is up to the maker of the motion. Do you want to withdraw that condition?
Mrs. Koons: I would like to withdraw that condition but shall we add something that the
petitioner work with the Planning Department on...
Mr. McCann: To find a suitable substitute, either in plant material and/or other form that would
suffice. Because we do have the 5 foot behind in the neighbor's yard, correct?
Mr. Litzer: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Is that all right with you Bill?
Mr. LaPine: That is fine with me. I just want to ask the petitioner. Sir, we are willing to do
this but after a meeting with the Planning Department and we find that we may
need that wall and certain areas raised, you would us to this that we waive the
wall or would you work with us on this?
�► Mr. Litzer: I'll work with you, of course.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item is Petition 99-9-GB-6 by George Weingarden, on
behalf of the Parkside Pavilion Office Complex, requesting approval to substitute
a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning
ordinance for property located at 18290 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebelt between Six Mile Road and
Pickford. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of
the protective wall that is required between an office zoned property and a
residentially zoned property. According to the City Law Department, when a
protective wall is required a property owner has one of two choices. To either
install the wall or have the wall permanently waived by the substitution of a
greenbelt. Such substitution shall be subject to approval by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council. The process of going before the Zoning Board
of Appeals for a temporary variance is no longer an option. If this application is
denied, the applicant would be required to install the wall. The subject property is
bordered by residentially zoned property on three (3) sides and, is therefore,
required to have a masonry screen wall along each of those property lines. To the
north of this property is the TheraMatrix Physical Therapy Clinic, which sets
upon RUF zoned property. The clinic is separated from the office complex by a
17169
combination masonry wall, wood privacy fence and landscaping. To the east or
rear of the subject property is a residential subdivision that is zoned RUF. Along
this property line is a nicely landscaped 46 ft. wide greenbelt. The office complex
and subdivision is separated by a 4 ft. high cyclone fence. To the south of the
subject property is the Woodridge Apartments, which are zoned R-7, Multiple
Family Residential. Separating the apartments from this site is a 6 ft. high
cyclone fence. The greenbelt area along this property line is landscaped with
sporadic trees.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Miller a question?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: You went out and looked at this property. On the north property line there is
wood fence that goes on their side. I went on the other side and that wall looks
like it goes all the way down the full length there. Is that correct? Was I right in
looking at it that way?
Mr. Miller: When I went on the other side, I think the wall goes for the physical therapists
property.
Mr. LaPine: All the way to the end.
Mr. Miller: All the way to the end but the rear subdivision property line, there is a lot that is
on an angle that meets this property.
Mr. LaPine: But the wood fence on this side of the property they must have just put that up
themselves.
Mr. Miller: I don't know who put it up, it was probably the residents.
Mr. LaPine: But there is a wall behind there, that is what I am trying to say.
Mr. Miller: I didn't know that. A masonry wall back there?
Mr. LaPine: When I went on the other side where the nursery used to be in there and I walked
that area and the wall goes all the way down to the end.
Mr. Miller: I was not aware of that.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any items of correspondence, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: No,there are no items of correspondence. I just would like to point out that
pursuant to the Planning Commission's request, the homeowners adjacent to this
property on the north side were notified of the petition.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
17170
George Weingarden, P. O. Box 731, Southfield.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your request.
Mr. Weingarden: Since we have owned the building, about 10 years, we've come in for a
variance of the code and we have been granted five year variances. The
last correspondence we had, which was January 5, 1999, contains a
paragraph that states: "if you believe you have 10 feet available for
greenbelt separating your property from adjoining residential property you
may propose a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall pursuant to Section
18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal should be presented to the
Planning Department for their review and approval. This would eliminate
the recurring expense and appearances before the Zoning Board in order to
renew your variances, and it may be necessary if your site plan requires
construction of a wall." So we are requesting the variance and element the
necessity of a wall.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: Am I right that that wall goes all the way back on the north side?
Mr. Weingarden: On the north side. I don't believe so.
NOW' Mr. LaPine: It sure looked like it when I went back there.
Mr. Weingarden: I don't believe so. You've got me stumped.
Mr. LaPine: Well, maybe my eye sight has gotten bad because it sure looked like it
went all the way back to the residential property.
Mr. Weingarden: It might, I don't really know.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, if that wall does not go all the way back to the east boundary line, can
you continue it?
Mr. Weingarden: The wall?
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. There is a question on whether there is a wall behind that fence,
right? If there is no wall there, can that wall be continued to the east
property line?
Mr. Weingarden: I can't answer that because I am not aware of the wall being there.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is a wall on all the north. It starts about 50 feet from the main road
and then extends all the way along that north property line and then there
is a wooden fence. I don't know how many feet it is, maybe 20 feet.
17171
Mr. Weingarden: You have me stumped. I drive around that property almost daily and I
don't recall that. I don't recall seeing a wooden fence. I will have to go
and look at it.
Mr. Piercecchi: We are going to ask that anyway that that be continued if that is not the
case. I really have no problem with the substituting of the greenbelt but I
was wondering,just for continuity sake, do you have any objection about
adding some landscaping on the south greenbelt. There seems to be some
substantial gaps in that greenbelt next to the cyclone fence. Do you have
objections to augmenting that?
Mr. Weingarden: No, not at all.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: One question, Mark, the property to the north of the wall, that is not
residential property there, is it?
Mr. Taormina: The property is zoned RUF. It is used as an office partially and then as
you extend further to the east along that north property line, the concrete
wall does in fact terminate and there is a wood fence that carries probably,
I am going to guess, a 100 feet or so from the northeast corner of the
property. In order to construct a masonry wall along the remaining
portion of that north property line, it is our opinion that you would have to
�.. remove at least if the wall was going to continue in a straight line.
Mr. LaPine: The only thing I would say was when I went and looked at this property,
and I think Mr. Shane brought this up in our study session, to the south I
don't think you need it. You've got the carports behind there. You could
use a little more landscaping there and in the back portion which would be
the east part of it, it is pretty well landscaped. There should be a little bit
more landscaping back there but beyond that. I am in favor of a wall but
in this particular case I still think we should waive that wall on the north
until we know exactly what is going to go to the property to the north.
Otherwise I think it is fine.
Mr. Shane: I would agree with that statement, and particularly where the wooden
fence is because I think the plan shows the wooden fence is 56 feet long
and therefore it is within the site of the large greenbelt at the rear anyway.
So if the wall stops where it is and the greenbelt takes over, I wouldn't
have any objection to that.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody tonight wishing to speak on this petition?
Whalen, 18321 Grimm, which is directly to the east of the pavilion. I don't have any objections
to what he has said so far. I just would like to ask that the landscaping be
improved just a little bit there. There are some gaps in the fence there and
also a little bit better maintenance especially in the spring time. There is
garbage that collects along that fence there and I would like to see a little
17172
bit better maintenance. I don't know if that could included as a part of this
or not.
Mr. Weingarden: We have a maintenance lawn service that comes out there every 10 days or
so to take care of the lawn. We have a sprinkling system that is automatic.
If the wind blows papers out there, we do our best to clean it up.
Mr. Whalen: Regular items between your landscaper coming in are understandable but
there are some things back there between the pines and the fence for a long
time. In fact we cleaned some of it up ourselves. I would just like to see a
better eye kept on it.
Mr. McCann: I think that can be cleaned up between you and the landlord. Do you know
who lives directly to the north, the north neighbor maybe. You know the
wooden fence we are talking about?
Mr. Whalen: He is in the audience.
Darwin Zander,18734 Grimm, Livonia. On the map that you have on lot 5.
Mr. McCann: So that is your wooden fence in the backyard.
Mr. Zander: The wooden fence is actually of the Parkside Pavilion and that stockade
fence runs a large portion of my backyard. It is a very important fence to
�.. me. I was looking at a parking lot before that was put up. We were willing
to buy off on the wall and say that the stockade fence could be added and I
still do feel that way. It is fine. There is no stone wall or brick wall behind
that. The stockade fence is fine but it is a wood stockade fence and from
time to time is going to need some maintenance here. There might be
portions in the future that might need replacing. I just want to make sure
that gets addressed. If it is maintained in a proper fashion then I am o.k.
with it.
Mr. McCann: O.K. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience?
Douglas Clinton, 18339 Grimm, directly to the east of the property. A comment voiced by
another resident there about keeping the area cleaned up. I notice every
spring I have go out there and pick up all the papers and they say they have
sprinklers back there, they haven't used them in about six or seven years
but they do have them back there. I have no problem with the greenbelt. I
think it would be a lot better than having a wall. I would like to see some
more landscaping in there and as long as it is maintained and replaced as
needed, if any of the trees or bushes die out, as long as they replace them,
that is fine with me. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there is nothing further, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
17173
#10-168-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
99-9-GB-6 requesting to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined
in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 18290 Middlebelt
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the landscaped greenbelts along the east and south property lines, as
shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on September 1,
1999, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45
of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That these areas shall remain in their present state and any changes to
these areas shall require Planning Commission and City Council review
and approval;
3) That the landscape greenbelt area between the existing wall and the west
property line shall be substituted for the protective wall;
4) That additional landscaping similar to those existing on the south
boundary shall be augmented per the Planning Department staff;
5) That the 56 foot wooden fence shall be substituted for the masonry wall
along the north property line and maintained in a proper fashion.
Mr. McCann: Any discussion.
Mrs. Koons: I just want to thank the residents who came out. It was upon our request that you
were invited and we really couldn't make a decision without your input. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: Dan, let me get yours correct. You want to maintain the existing
Mr. Piercecchi: They are allowed to use that wooden fence right now to substitute normally for
the masonry wall, however, I want to stipulate that it should be maintained in a
proper fashion. Which is a concern of some of the citizens.
Mr. McCann: It is part of the site plan. It has to be maintained. We are actually making it a
part of the site plan, therefore it would have to be maintained pursuant to the
inspection. If there is no further discussion, the above motion is carried and the
foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-SN-9 by Huron
Sign Company, on behalf of Seven Mile Crossing, requesting approval for
signage for the office complex located at 38701 Seven Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between 1-275/96 and
Haggerty Road. This applicant is requesting approval for three conforming
group identification ground signs for the Seven Mile Crossing Complex. These
17174
signs are permitted by the Sign Ordinance and are before the Planning
Commission because this site is located in a "Control Zone". One sign would
be located next to the north entrance of each building and would identify the
various tenants of that building. All three signs would be similar in appearance
and would be illuminated by a ground light. Signage permitted for this site
under Section 18.50G: 1 group identification sign for each principal building
(1) not to exceed 2 sq. ft. for each tenant, or(2) not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in area,
and (3) if freestanding, shall be within 20 ft. of the building perimeter. Signage
proposed: 1 group identification sign for each principal building (1) Building
"A" - 4 tenant panels - 28 sq. ft. (2) Building "B" 4 tenant panels - 28 sq. ft. (3)
Building "C" - 4 tenant panels - 28 sq. ft. Each sign would be within 20 feet of
the building perimeter.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is a letter from the Inspection
Department dated September 27, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of September 22, 1999,the sign package for the above subject
petition has been reviewed and no deficiencies were found. This Department
would have no objection to the above proposal." The letter is signed by David
M. Woodcox, Senior Inspector. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
`.• Tracy MeLaurd, Property Manager for Seven Mile Crossings.
Mr. McCann: Anything additional?
Ms. MeLaurd: No, nothing additional.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: These signs are illuminated from the inside?
Ms. MeLaurd: No,they will be spotted from the outside.
Mr. McCann: Anyone else wishing to speak. Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-169-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
99-9-SN-9 by Huron Sign Company, on behalf of Seven Mile Crossing,
requesting approval for signage for the office complex located at 38701 Seven
Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Huron Sign Company requesting
three group identification signs at 30 sq. ft. each, as received by the
Planning Commission on September 21, 1999, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
17175
2) That these signs shall not be illuminated beyond midnight;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann: Any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've got only one question. The only thing that I don't see
how we can really control it, we say that the illumination will has to go off after
one hour after the last business closes. A big office building like that, how do
you know when the last person is leaving the building. I don't think we really
need that in there.
Mr. Shane: I think it sends the message that we don't want them on all night.
Mr. LaPine: I would rather say in there that they shall go off at midnight or something like
that.
Mr. Shane: I don't have any problem with that. Midnight is fine.
Mr. McCann We'll amend it to midnight. Is that O.K. with you?
Mr. Shane: That is fine with me.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-9-SN-10 by Huron
Sign Company, on behalf of Nextlink, requesting approval for signage for the
office building located at 38701 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
7.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between I-275/96 and
Haggerty. The applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign for the middle 4-
sotry office building (Building "B") located in the Seven Mile Crossing office
complex. This sign is permitted by the Sign Ordinance and is before the
Planning Commission because this site is located in a "Control Zone". The
proposed sign would be located along the top of the north elevation and would
face out toward Seven Mile Road. This sign would be internally illuminated. As
the Planning Commission will recall, a 95 sq. ft. wall sign was recently approved
for the east elevation of Building "C" (Unigraphics Solutions) in this same
complex. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50: 1 wall sign not
to exceed 100 sq. ft. Signage proposed: 1 wall sign - north elevation
"NEXTLINK" - 100 SQ. FT.
`, Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
17176
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is a letter from the Inspection
Department, dated September 27, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request on September 22, 1999, the sign package for the above subject
petition has been reviewed and no deficiencies were found. This Department
would have o objection to the above proposal." The letter is signed by David
M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tracy MeLaurd, Property Manager for Seven Mile Crossings.
Mr. McCann: Do you have anything additional to tell us?
Mr. MeLaurd: Nothing at all. I have not seen the specs on this particular sign so I can't speak
to this issue.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine , seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-170-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
99-9-SN-10 by Huron Sign Company, on behalf of Nextlink, requesting approval
_.. for signage fort he office building located at 38701 Seven Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 7 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Huron Sign Company requesting one
wall sign at 100 sq. ft., as received by the Planning Commission on
September 27, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That this sign shall not be illuminated beyond midnight;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the
Miscellaneous Sign Plan portion of our agenda. We will now begin the Pending
Item portion of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior
meetings and therefore there will only be limited discussion tonight and
participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-1-7 by Kenneth M.
Hunt on behalf of Hunt's Ace Hardware proposing to rezone property located on
the west side of Myron Avenue south of Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 9 from R-3 to P.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there anything new?
17177
Mr. Taormina: Yes, there are two items of correspondence. The first is a letter dated
September 20, 1999, from Kenneth Hunt and it reads as follows: "Dear
Members, Since my first petition was tabled, I have had time to review and
improve it. I am submitting this revised plan to you today. The new plan
requests that only lot 381 be rezoned. This lot would be divided as follows: the
north 32' would be zoned parking and the South 18' would remain R3 and be
attached to lot 382. The end result would give a 68' residential lot between Mr.
Michels our southern neighbor on Myron and the proposed parking lot. At this
time we are hoping to move the house presently on lot 380 to lot 382. Also in
the new plan we have removed three parking spaces so that the exit from our
parking lot would not encroach on the residential lot across the street. We are
also proposing to put in a berm on the east side of our parking lot and landscape
it with shrubs and evergreens to cut down on the visibility of the parking lot.
We have canvassed the neighbors on Myron and Stamford and most of them
have signed off approving of our new plan. The ones that have signed "NO"
were worried about the increased traffic. We are working on getting the last of
the signatures so we may turn them in to you hopefully within a week.
Submitted with this letter is a copy of the new plan and a copy of the signed
petitions." The second item is a letter dated September 21, 1999 from
Kimberly &Bryan Michels, 19019 Myron, Livonia, which reads as follows:
"My husband and I reside at 19019 Myron(Lots 383-384), which is located
directly south of Hunt's Ace Hardware and the lots proposed for rezoning. Mr.
and Mrs. Hunt have been kind and respectful neighbors to my husband and I
.■. and we are frequent patrons of their family owned hardware as well as are the
majority of our neighbors. My husband and I are not opposed to an expansion
of the hardware onto lot 380 (presently owned by Mr. Hunt and already zoned
commercial), but we are opposed to the rezoning of lots 381 and or 382from
residential to parking. Lots 381 and 382 should remain residential as they have
always been. Lot 380 (approx. 50 ft. X 130 Ft.), along with the 10 ft. alley and
10 ft. easement behind the store, should provide m ore than enough space for
the proposed 3000 sq. ft. store expansion as well as the additional parking
required for a hardware of this size. For your information, my husband and I
went to the Home Depot located at the corner of 7 Mile and Haggerty in
Northville and counted the number of parking spaces (375) provided for this
105,000 sq. ft. building, as verified by the store manager. According to these
figures there is a parking space for every 280 sq. ft. of building.
Proportionately, a 10,000 sq. ft. hardware would require 36 parking spaces. We
feel this is still a large number of parking spaces for this hardware because it is
not a "Home Depot", although the proposed plans call for 43 parking spaces.
As you probably already know,the Livonia city ordinance of 1965 requires one
parking space per every 500 sq. ft. of building after deducting the overall size of
the facility by 20%, thus a hardware of this size would require 16 parking
spaces to be in accordance with the current ordinance. The residents of Myron
do not want to be subjected to more traffic, trash, or kids playing street hockey,
as they already do in the parking are adjacent to this, that this parking lot would
invite. When we purchased our home five years ago and added a pool into our
yard we knew that we were living next to residential lots, never suspecting that
they would be rezoned and used as a parking lot. My husband, I and our
17178
neighbors on Myron Street (see attached petition) have viewed the proposed
plans submitted by Hunt's Ace Hardware and feel that this expansion is too
we. much of an infringement into our quiet residential neighborhood. The
utilization of lot 380, we feel, is a fair compromise to this dilemma. Thank you
for your time, consideration and understanding." Again, that is signed by
Kimberly and Bryan Michels and attached to it is a petition which reads:
"Residents of Myron/Stamford object to Kenneth Hunt's Petition 99-6-1-7 to
rezone lots 381 and 382 from R-3 to P and that petition is signed by 12
residents. Thank you.
Kenneth Hunt, 1906 Stamford, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us a little about your new design?
Mr. Hunt: O.K. After our last meeting here, I went home a little beat up and said well, do
these people have legitimate problems with it. We sat down and looked at the
whole thing and of course the people who have the most problems are the
people who adjoin right around. So we abandoned the idea of running the
parking lot all the way down through lot 382. So what I am proposing is that
we take lot 381 which is the first lot off of the commercial property and in order
to get the parking that I feel I need and take 32 feet of that and put it with the
parking and put 18 feet of it with lot 382 to create a residential lot of 68 feet.
Mr. Michels is the southern neighbor there so I feel I have gone from right up to
his property now created a 68 foot buffer for him plus a home being moved
down there that is currently sitting in lot 380. The people across the street,the
two main residents across the street,the one person who has been there the
longest, he will be looking at the same house he has been looking at for 20 some
odd years except that it will move down closer to his home. The gentleman at
the northeast lot line, in order to be a little bit sensitive to him, we've put a berm
on there with pine trees so that what goes on in our parking lot isn't visible to
him. In order to accommodate all this, in order for me to get some parking and
the residents to get what they want,then we took out the greenbelt and put in a
wall because there was no way I could get the parking and give the property to
the southern most lot to accomplish that. I have tried to be sensitive to the
residents as best I could and so that I would get something out of the deal also.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: A lot of time has been spent on your particular petition and by our staff
especially. They studied the site and they developed a plan which creates an R-
3 lot which is 80 feet and renders 42 parking spaces for your business. Forth-
two parking spaces is 26 more than is required by the City ordinance. If you are
going to increase your building site to 10,000 sq. ft.,the ordinance specifies 16
spaces and you are getting 42. That is over two times the amount of space you
need. The only difference between you plan and this plan is that your plan
wants 32 feet. The staff comes up with an excellent plan that allows 20 feet.
Mr. Hunt: I think the 42 was my plan. With their plan it was less parking spaces.
17179
Mr. Piercecchi: Twenty feet is what they are allowing in the lot 381 to be rezoned as parking.
Twenty feet which gives you 42 parking spaces when you only require 16.
r..
Mr. Hunt: I don't know how the ordinance was derived as far as my hardware is
concerned. We are trying in improve our business. We want to go with the
year 2000. We want to improve our building. I want my son to have a business
there. He will be the third generation in that location and if he can keep going, I
won't have to worry about him. I don't want him to come back and say "Dad, I
can't make there, I've got to move." We have spent a lot of years taking our
lumps while other business came and went. We stayed with it and developed
our business. I kind of felt that maybe the neighbors themselves never asked for
variances because when they bought their homes, that is the way it was. But
across the street there, the one person has a 50 foot lot. I think most of the other
ones are 71 feet or 72 feet. I am asking for 68 feet and that is within 4 feet of
what they have.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is true that there are some lots that are smaller than the 80 feet requirement.
But many of those homes are built on two lots.
Mr. Hunts: Yes. Mr. Michels has two lots.
Mr. Piercecchi: They are probably in excess of the R-3 requirement.
Mr. Hunt: That is just one person there.
`r.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think there is more than one on Myron but I won't argue the point. The point
is that you have two and a half times the parking spaces that are required.
Mr. McCann: Did you look over the plans that he is talking about that the staff provided to
you. In essence what it does is it takes away the abutting parking, the seven
spots south of your proposed addition,just below the outside garden area.
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
Mr. McCann: The reason the staff recommended that and the reason the Planning Commission
liked it was two reasons: (1) It only required taking 20 feet of lot 381,that is
the first part. It gives you more room as far as a greenbelt area as opposed to a
wall if you wanted to go that route. (2) It would also provide direct access off
the side street. Your proposed drawing, you pull into the center then you have
to make an immediate left, then an immediate right to try and go around. It
doesn't provide for good traffic flow.
Mr. Hunt: I agree with you on that. I was trying to make something happen for Mr.
Walker's place right across the street so that we would not have our traffic going
out at his house.
Mr. McCann: That is exactly it. I agree with you. But by going with the staffs plan, you do
lose 7 spaces but you maintain about 35 spaces. First and second, it gives you a
17180
normal flow through your parking lot and as you say you have 34, 35 spaces
which is double what the requirement is.
Mr. Hunt: I guess the zoning does not tie into your volume. In other words,the volume of
your business and us trying to upgrade our business and keep it moving forward
so that we are with the year 2000 and beyond, I don't know how many parking
spaces I need. That is why I asked to go all the way down to lot 382 to
maximize the amount of spaces I could possibly get because I don't know what
20 years down the road our business will be like. That is what is hard to project.
Mr. McCann: I know it is but you also are in a residential area. Don't you agree that maybe if
you can't survive on 35 spaces then maybe you have outgrown that particular
spot. You've got to understand that you can't keep expanding it because the
business is growing. Wonderful, I want you to expand. I go to your business all
the time. I find it very friendly and convenient. You have a surprising amount
of things in that little store but you are in a residential area. We do want to help
you out,. You are a good citizen in Livonia. All the neighbors enjoy having
you there but we are trying to do something that will work with the
neighborhood. Number one, that will have good traffic flow and good future
planning. The staff looks at it and says this plan isn't quite right and it is going
to be a problem. There is going to be congestion for people getting in and out.
It doesn't take access correctly. Here is a suggestion to straighten it out. That is
where they are coming from. I think you really need to look at it. Do you really
need that 7 extra spaces that you are going to lose by your 12 feet of lot 381?
Mr. Hunt: Basically, I think that is what we are talking is the 12 feet.
Mr. McCann: That is 7 spaces. That is what is works out to. That 12 feet gains you 7 spaces.
Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to Mr. Hunt that we are trying to do what
we think is in the best interest for you and the residents. We don't want to hurt
you. You've been there for a long time and you've been active in the
community in the hockey league and we appreciate all that. But we are in the
middle here. We don't like to see commercial businesses go into residential
neighborhoods as much as you are asking to. We think this is a good
compromise. You might not think so but we do. I believe what the staff came
up with, and I told you the first time I saw it, you are going to have a rough time
getting this through because you are going into a residential neighborhood. It is
tough. People buy homes thinking they are buying homes in a residential
neighborhood. Probably half the people don't even know that house is going to
be moved was on a commercial piece of land. I didn't know it until it came up
when we heard the case. I think that you can live with this. You might not
think so today but down the line you will say it was a good compromise and I
think that is what we are trying to do here, trying to compromise.
Mr. Hunt: I think I am so dogged about this is because once I say yes, that's it. I am just
hoping that I did compromise based on my first drawing and yes it is a little
17181
awkward for the parking because I took three parking spaces out to do that for
Mr. Walker.
Mr. LaPine: Believe me there was opposition on here to not give you any rezoning on 381
and 382. I think some of the members have given in and compromised on this
and have gone half way on this. I think that is where it is and I think this is the
plan that we think is in the best interest for you and in the best interests of the
residents of the area. The residents may not be happy with us either but we
think it is a compromise that we all can live with. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience if there is no objection from the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to make a comment to Mr. Hunt. Our concern here is that we form
a real legitimate R-3 lot. If we approved a 68 ft. lot and call it a R-3 lot we
would be violating our ordinances.
Mr. Hunt: But the people, not the residents, but the fact that they bought those homes,the
builders all got variances for their lots. He didn't maintain 80 feet either.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, could I request that the minutes be changed. I misread my notes
here. It is 35 spaces, rather than 42.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there any objections from the Planning
r.. Commissioners to people wishing to speak on this? None? O.K. Is there
anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Allen Davidson, 19007 Irving, which is east of where he is talking about. I apologize I wasn't
able to get here at the first when you sent out notices because I was out of town.
I three objections to this. First I want to say I like going to the store and I
appreciate that it is there. I am concerned with him wanting to expand into a
residential area as my property values, I live next door to a house that is right
next door to Primo's Pizza, and the lady who lived there passed away and the
house was sold earlier this year. From talking to realtors and the people that
had that house been elsewhere it would have sold easily for $20,000 more than
what it did because it is right next door to a pizza place. I am concerned with
my property values and my second objection relates to the first. If you allow
this, it sets a president. Down the road somebody buys the house next to me,
the Primo's Pizza owner or whoever owns that mall and wants to expand there
then I am right next to a pizza and my property values goes down. The third
objection is the traffic. I have a dog that I take out walking and people fly up
and down those streets now. I am not sure how much more that would increase
but it is fairly busy now and there are a number of young families there with
children and it is a concern. Thank you for your time.
Bryan Michels, 19019 Myron. The letter that this gentleman read was submitted by my wife
and I and that pretty much states our feelings on this. We still believe the home
that sits on lot 380 could be moved and that is ample sufficient room for
expansion. Also, I did not realize until tonight that there was a plan that sounds
17182
like that if he agreed to it would be accepted by the Council when nothing was
ever submitted to us as residents of the area, this 20 foot that is now being
proposed and it sounds to me that if he accepted it that would be accepted by
you. I am just surprised that we weren't submitted with that plan.
Mr. McCann: Basically, what we have done is, we took a look at his plan and just stated that if
he took out this parking here and moved this up and additional 12 feet he would
create a large greenbelt here, the drive would stay north of your house and he
would accomplish the same thing. He just loses the seven spots and this would
provide a greenbelt for himself, and a greenbelt between you and his building
and accomplishes everything you were concerned about in your letter and it
accomplishes what we are concerned about as far as intruding into the
subdivision. There is a slight ..., you go in approximately 20 feet, I believe Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: 20 feet of lot 381 but it provides for an extremely large lot to put the home that
is in lot 380 now down there and give some greenbelt area to it.
Mr. Michels: I guess just the way it sounded to me was that a plan was devised and if he
accepted it, it would be accepted and that we were never submitted with that.
Mr. McCann: No. After hearing what you said, and after hearing what he said, we are trying
�.• to come up with a reasonable solution to the plan. He is a good businessman.
Mr. Michels: My letter did state my wife and I did state that we did not want to see 381 and
382 rezoned at all and this still accounts for 20 feet of that and while there is
approximately 70 feet from the back of his building that is already commercial
so I was just concerned why we didn't receive that. It sounds to me like that
has been accepted without us being heard from. I guess lastly we do not want to
see those lots rezoned at all.
Brian Walker, 19042 Myron. You say you want to put 20 feet into the front of my home. I am
concerned that you have taken a lot of concern with all the other people and it
seems like my house has been shoved off to the side. If anybody would want 20
feet of their home having parking lots put in front of their house, they would
probably be pretty upset here. It seems like the compromise is making everyone
else happy except for my home. I am going to have a child soon and there is a
lot of traffic. There are no sidewalks in our neighborhood so there is no way
you can be out in front of your home if you have a parking lot in front of your
home. We have parking lots at the side of our house that are noisy as it is now
and this is my first home. I am concerned about selling it. Who is going to
want to buy a house that is going to have a parking lot in front of it and on the
side of it. I did speak with several people from the department and talked to
them after work. I am concerned. I think a lot of people have come out there
and have taken a look at this. Twenty feet, that is a residential area. When I
bought that home I was assuming that that would stay residential and that was
why I bought my home there, not because of the commercial. I do appreciate
17183
the hardware store there myself. I do enjoy it. But I do live there. This is
where I live. Moving to Livonia, I don't think that is a very wise decision for
people buying home in the area. I don't think they would be too happy if they
knew that. That homes could be rezoned like that. We were just arguing half
an hour ago about color of signs, colors of buildings and now we are talking
about putting a parking lot in front of my home. It is going to go right through.
I just want to make sure that everyone knows that. I am pretty concerned about
because that is my house unless the city would like to purchase my home I
would be happy to sell to them and they could sell afterwards because no one is
going to buy that.
Mr. McCann: Sir, I am going to make a comment. What is your address first.
Mr. Walker: 19042 Myron. It is the house directly across the street from the site.
Mr. McCann: I'll check with the staff just to make sure but lot 380 is already zoned
commercial, correct?
Mr. Walker: Yes, but 381 is not.
Mr. McCann: I understand that. What we look at when we do this is right now is that lot 380
is the lot that is directly across from you. That he can come today, all he has to
do is bring in a site plan that is conforming, and he can build on it. He can build
a building there, put a parking lot in front. He can do a lot of different things.
... Sometimes we will change zoning like this if we see that it would improve the
area as a whole. One of the things that we are considering doing by the
drawings is taking part of that and turning into a greenbelt so that instead of
looking at a parking lot, by taking a little bit more of this property we can push
the parking back, put a large greenbelt between the road there and this parking
lot. It gives you a little more room to do things like that. If we just say, "no,
you have to use 380", then you are probably going to be looking directly at the
building and that is what we look to try and do and see if there are alternatives.
We do want your opinion. We do want to hear from. We haven't decided
anything. That is what these meetings are for, is to look at other solutions.
Mr. Walker: This greenbelt, what is considered a greenbelt? How big are these trees? I
could plant five foot pine trees. I put ten foot pine trees along my wall I have
right now. Are you going to put 12 foot pines so I don't see the parking lot or
are you going to put 3 foot pine trees so in 10 years when I am dead I will see
them.
Mr. McCann: Generally, what we do is put a four foot berm with pine trees on it and that is
one of the things that we look to our professional staff, is that when they come
in with a greenbelt design they have to show us what trees will go in there.
What type of bushes. We make them tell us what the diameter of the base of the
tree is so that we don't get little shrubs this big. If it's got 2-1/2 inch diameter at
�..- the base, we know it is going to be five to six feet tall when it is planted. Those
are all the things that we look at before we approve the plan.
17184
Mr. Walker: And lighting?
Mr. McCann: Absolutely, we look at lighting.
Mr. Taormina: If it is o.k., you can put that plan up on the board so that residents would have
something to reference to.
Mr. McCann: Scott, do you want to show us what is proposed?
Mr. Miller: This is Mr. Hunt's plan here and this is the staffs plans here. As you see, Mr.
Hunt would like to go down to this area here and you would only have 68 feet
for the lot,to build a house on and this will be the parking. Right now at this
red line shows where the zoning line exists now but what he would like to do is
32 feet from that and that is where the zoning line will be. What staff has come
up with is here is the existing zoning line to do 20 feet and you would have a
conforming lot here to build a house on and this would be a greenbelt and this
would be the parking. This is what we came up with.
Mr. McCann: As you can see, the staffs plan brings the greenbelt, admittedly only about four
or five feet farther north but it does add to what he is doing because he can go
right to that red line now with parking if he so desires. So that was just an
alternative we were trying to come up but to try and work with all parties.
Mr. Walker: Thank you.
Gerald Thomas, 19030 Myron, Livonia. One thing with your plan, as far as the red line, we are
still going to have the entrance at that point?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
Mr. Thomas: Whether it goes south of that or not? You are still going to see parking lot. You
are still going to see the entrance off of Myron when we look out our houses
and look in that direction. As far as putting up a four foot pine tree, it doesn't
block anything. Maybe in 20 years it will, but if it grows too big it will get cut
because it will move into the parking area.
Mr. McCann: That is generally why we do a four foot berm along the road there.
Mr. Thomas: If you are only talking four feet wide, how high can you go? You can't go that
far. You've got your sidewalk, you've got your parking area.
Mr. McCann: It is a ten foot berm.
Mr. Thomas: Ten foot wide berm?
Mr. McCann: It is a ten foot berm and four foot high. The four foot is so we cover the
headlights of the cars coming in at night then we put the plantings on top of that.
17185
Mr. Thomas: Which would be after the proposed sidewalk area would be another ten feet
additional to that?
Not.
Mr. McCann: That is correct. That is how the plan shows it.
Mr. Thomas: One other request. If it is passed, that we would like to see is a no right turn out
of the exit of the parking lot which would keep the traffic from coming down
our side street. Make them turn left and go out to Seven Mile and keep the
traffic flow from coming down in the residential area. As far as deliveries and
that of the trucks, if they could have that on the west side of the building
towards the other commercial buildings rather than towards the residential area,
would help us also. Thank you.
Thomas Michael Hunt, I am 27 years old and a life time resident of Livonia. I now live at
32300 Hees in Livonia. I have worked in the store since I was 12 years old and
I have been a manager there since I graduated from Michigan State back in
1994. I am in the process of buying this business from my father and my
mother which comes to the reason why we are here today which is the parking.
The proposal, the 500 sq. ft. that the City of Livonia uses which would allow for
the 16 parking spaces to comment on those lines. Right now in our actual
parking lot, we have 21 parking spaces and during our peak times almost all of
the parking lot will be full. Customers will be parking in our alley. We will
have three or four customers out on Seven Mile Road trying to turn in, so part
of the plan is trying to alleviate that. During some of the peak times, which are
�... between November and December and April through July on the weekends, we
can have up to 100 customers per hour, which again causes more of the back log
on the parking where just 16 parking lot, we already 21 and we are already
filling those up. Right now we have three full time employees who walk to
work, being my parents and one of our other workers who lives in the house
beneath the store there. They will be retiring in 3 to 5 years. With the
expansion and these retirements we will have to add 4 to 6 more employees
who will be more than likely driving to work and need a parking spot to park at.
The last comment I have to make is that several years Ace Hardware
Corporation began ranking dealers according to sales performance and the
stores that performed the best had several similar characteristics. One of them
being ample parking space. One of the guidelines they have is that it have one
parking space for every 150 to 200 sq. ft., which that would call for us to have
between 40 to 53 parking spaces. Our plan came up with 42 parking spaces
which would meet that standard. That is the reason why we came up with the
numbers we were shooting for, parking space wise. We are a convenient store
and when you become inconvenient to park at, customers will drive by and you
lose sales. I believe our plan had made many accommodations for our
neighbors while still providing for the growth that we need to succeed. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody wishing to speak? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved
17186
#10-171-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August10,
1999 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-7 by Kenneth M.
`"' Hunt on behalf of Hunt's Ace Hardware proposing to rezone property located on
the west side of Myron south of Seven Mile Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 9
from R-3 to P,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 99-6-1-7 amended request be approved only with respect
to the north 20 feet of lot 381 for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional off-street
parking for the commercial use to the north;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a step-down or
transition with respect to the southerly extent of commercial uses relative
to the other properties on the south side of Seven Mile Road east and
west of the subject property;
3) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension of
non-residential zoning into a residential area;
4) That the balance of the undeveloped land to the south would constitute a
conforming lot under the R-3 district regulations; and
5) That the proposed rezoning will allow for nearly double the number of
parking spaces available on the site.
Ntaw
Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? I understand Mr. Hunt, your son made some points. I
am sure that studying marketing in college, which sounds like what he was
doing, those are good examples. Things that you've got to do. But you've also
got to understand that you are neighborhood business. That you have to get
along with your neighbors. You have to make concessions and the neighbors
are mad at us and asking what are we talking about going into residential with a
commercial building. Don't we listen to our neighbors? We have to but we also
have to listen to our businesses. It is a combination of both that makes the City
so good to live in and work in. The convenience of your store to many of the
neighbors is part of the reason. To come there you see the same people day in
and day out. They are very helpful. They know what they are talking about.
Those things also make a big difference as to why your sales are good. Parking
is one issue but you have to look at some other things. If it was just parking,
you could say it doesn't matter where the building is, we'll move across the
street into the K-Mart shopping area because location doesn't mean anything,
parking does. You've got a lot going for you. I think it is a reasonable solution
for the neighbors, for you. I agree that you need expansion but we just can't
say, we understand you've got to have 42 spots. If parking is that important,
you can look to eliminating some of the outdoor storage area.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Shane, Hale, McCann
NAYS: Koons
17187
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted but
only with respect to the north 20 feet of Lot 381.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Discussion of Petition 99-8-6-3
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution#498-99 and
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D and
Section 18.50K of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political signs and
changes to the face of any valid nonconforming sign.
Mr. McCann: This only to have a public hearing to look at the particular language in the sign
ordinance. Is there a motion?
On a motion Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-172-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#498-99, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a)of Ordinance #543 of the
City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D and
Section 18.50K of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance pertaining to political signs and
changes to the face of any valid nonconforming sign.
�... FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as provided
in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Discussion of Petition 99-9-6-4
by the Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution 608-99 and Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine wither or not to amend the Livonia Zoning Ordinance so
as to provide a specific definition of"major thoroughfare" in connection with
signs on building at corner locations.
Mr. McCann: Again, this is to hold a public hearing. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-173-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#608-99 and Section 23.01 (a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order
that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.03
of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to provide a specific definition of"major
thoroughfare".
17188
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as provided
in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
`"' Livonia, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Discussion of Council
Resolution#608-99 which, among other things, refers the issue of signs on
multiple story commercial buildings to the Planning Commission for its report
and recommendation.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion. Is that the staff recommendation that there be no further
action be taken for the following reasons?
Mr. LaPine: Is that one we don't have to hold a public hearing on?
Mr. McCann: This is one we said we decided we believed that no further be taken.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-174-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission having considered the issue of
signs on multiple stories of commercial buildings, pursuant to Council
Resolution#608-99, does hereby recommend to the City Council that no further
action be taken for the following reasons:
(1) That the existing sign regulations and standards as set forth in Section
18.50 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance are adequate to sufficiently control
tenant signage for multiple story commercial buildings;
(2) That tenant signage for multiple story business centers is allowed only as
provided for in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance and is subject to
all other restrictions contained in this ordinance pertaining to sign permit
applications and site plan approval; and
(3) That tenant signage for multiple story business centers is a very rare issue
that does not warrant an amendment to the sign regulations contained in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 793rd Regular Meeting held on
October 5 , 1999, was adjourned at 9:36 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/./-/7"/"/-.7;4%//:-Ii/ = Michael S. Hale, Secretary
ATTEST: / G
J.m's C. McCann, Chairman
/rw (